Surplus unlikely says Swan.

[Neferti]

What's a neo-liberal?

[IQS.RLOW]

Ditching the ALP for lying about a surplus is just one in a litany of lies and waste they have been responsible for- so it won't be the only factor.

You might consider it the final nail in thir coffin but with 8 months to go, I wouldn't be surprised if they manage to create chains and padlocks for themselves and a special plaque on top saying "Never to be released"

[IQS.RLOW]

It's a shame you never addressed the most important and high growth area of the chart that impact the biggest on the bottom line...I wonder why you would do that?

Bump for lefty...

[Neferti]

It's a shame you never addressed the most important and high growth area of the chart that impact the biggest on the bottom line...I wonder why you would do that?

Bump for lefty...

I'd imagine that Lefty is discussing cooking, aprons, garlic various other Herbs and beer over at that other place, where wimmin are rare and dogs hide under chairs.

[IQS.RLOW]

Some compulsory reading for lefty...if his mind is open enough to consider both sides of an equation, rather than that which conforms to his simplistic views

http://www.fee.org/files/doclib/2012111 ... Lesson.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

http://mises.org/books/failureofneweconomics.pdf" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[IQS.RLOW]

Yeah, that's pretty obvious by his clumsy and thick reply - posts a chart that he thinks shows that Labor have received unprecedented massive growth in revenue since Rudd, with the implication that they have squandered it all - doesn't notice that the chart he has posted actually shows tax revenue collected by government slowing significantly and that the upward spike he's looking at is government securities on issue.

Fuck, what a doofus!

Seeing that lefty is playing post and scamper with his tail between his legs then claim victory at a small and nondescript closed forum, I figured I will post this here and ask him again to respond to why...

A. you never addressed the most important and high growth area of the chart that impact the biggest on the bottom line...I wonder why you would do that? (Psst...check the expense column )

B. I'm glad you raised the issue of securities. Do you think these are borrowings that have no cost or need to be paid back? What is your explanation of the unprecedented growth, even from 2010?

Try to answer here instead of running off to your 'panic room'

[Leftwinger]

A. you never addressed the most important and high growth area of the chart that impact the biggest on the bottom line...I wonder why you would do that? (Psst...check the expense column )

IQ, the whole point of the discussion here since I entered it is that the Australian government made a mistake in attempting to deliver a surplus. You understand that means that they have been paring back discretionary spending in order to try to make the books balance, not increasing it?

It's a relative thing - as revenue falls, expenditure rises. They are committed to funding the things that keep everything ticking over and can't simply slash such spending to the bone just because incoming revenue has fallen. If you were to take a pay cut, you wouldn't stop eating or putting petrol in the car or stop using water and electricity.

We cannot conclude that the government are of an expansionary spending mindset just because expenses have increased - if they need to shell out more than is coming in through tax revenue in order to keep making their contributions to health, education, general public services etc then that is what they must do. Governments do not typically choose to continue spending on such things rather than shutting down schools, hospitals etc as revenue falls, the process is automatic - hence the term automatic stabalisers.

B. I'm glad you raised the issue of securities. Do you think these are borrowings that have no cost or need to be paid back? What is your explanation of the unprecedented growth, even from 2010?

Actually it was you who raised the issue of securities by mistaking them for an avalanche of revenue but whatever. It looks clear that issuance took off with the onset of the GFC. Depending on the terms, I wouldn't expect that to just coming crashing back down overnight. Look at housing - prices have been falling for the better part of two years (a slow, downward drift in real prices has recently resumed after some stabalisation a while back). Yet mortgage debt has not simply crashed through the floor because the loans are not six-month interest free loans from Harvey Norman - they are long term and will be "on issue" for many years before being finally paid back. Same would go for bond issuance, depending on maturities. The revenue slowdown has no doubt had some impact here as well. Looking at your own chart, you will see that securities on issue also rose strongly on two previous occasions - both in the wake of recessions. Had they spent the money sooner rather than later on those occasions, Australia might have avoided both recessions, as we avoided the global recession a couple of years ago.

[Rorschach]

You can see here how after a long deterioration that began with the dawn of the neo-liberal economic period (and actually going negative at one point during Howard/Costello), the household saving ratio has jumped back to something resembling it's long run average....

The obvious conclusion is that people saw less need to save under the Howard government, costs of living were less, they had confidence in the government and the economy and more disposable income where saving wasn't necessary for most discretionary spending.

How things have changed.

It's a relative thing - as revenue falls, expenditure rises.

Nah... not unless government increases expenditure. Mind you the gap widens and what they can afford "decreases". You're not Wayne Swan are you? You parrot a good talk...
Not to mention cherry picking.

[IQS.RLOW]

IQ, the whole point of the discussion here since I entered it is that the Australian government made a mistake in attempting to deliver a surplus. You understand that means that they have been paring back discretionary spending in order to try to make the books balance, not increasing it?

You understand that they haven't really pared back anything? They have been column hopping the accounts payable and changed the business taxpayer credit terms from 90 days to 30 for accounts receivable

It's a relative thing - as revenue falls, expenditure rises. They are committed to funding the things that keep everything ticking over and can't simply slash such spending to the bone just because incoming revenue has fallen. If you were to take a pay cut, you wouldn't stop eating or putting petrol in the car or stop using water and electricity.

Actually, compared to when they started the job, they got a bonus of around 40% last year and 10% this year.
So if you were to get a bonus would you start eating out at expensive restauraunts?
Keep driving the car you have or would you take out that long term lease for the V12 Jaguar with all the fruit?
Decide that you only drink Perrier and keep that shiny new 80" plasma that you bought on tick burning 24/7?

Actually it was you who raised the issue of securities by mistaking them for an avalanche of revenue but whatever. It looks clear that issuance took off with the onset of the GFC. Depending on the terms, I wouldn't expect that to just coming crashing back down overnight.

Thank god for the GFC eh? When did that happen again? it looks clear that the GFC might be the reson the govt borrowing went up 150% in 2 years but it doesn't explain how a further 80% increase on top of that 150% over the last 3...

[Rorschach]

Labor have long been the party of welfare and government jobs... increase dependence on both and you increase your vote.

Mind you under Howard, the Libs started to get in on the act too.