Unemployment figures for many countries

[Jovial Monk]

http://stats.oecd.org/wbos/Index.aspx?Q ... ew&Lang=en

[JW Frogen]

A little elaberation here!

Work with it, say something nice or mean or in between.

[Jovial Monk]

Just putting it up for whoever to refer to.

Australia having the highest unemployment etc can be checked and rebutted, etc.

[JW Frogen]

Just putting it up for whoever to refer to.

Australia having the highest unemployment etc can be checked and rebutted, etc.

What do you think it means?

And DO NOT turn this into a recepie for BBQ flan pizza!

[Jubial Priest]

Monk is just trying to pre-empt excuses for the insipid performance of the govt.

How many jobs was the cash splash supposed to 'create' according the first missive from that fucking idiot Swan?

[mantra.]

Much as it irks me to say this - Australia was left with an excellent reputation for having a good economy as a result of the coalition's management. Although it was obvious we would eventually come tumbling down because of our massive debt - we were still in better shape than any other developed country. But Rudd has played on this and is splashing money around as though it grows on trees. He is not being careful and cautious, but far too impulsive. More thought should be going into his policies. The govt. needs to think about where we'll be in another decade - not just where we are at this moment. Rudd & Swan look as though they're panicking but trying to show a tough & confident fascade by pretending they know what they're doing.

Higher unemployment is going to happen - it will just take us a little longer to get there.

[Leftofcentresalterego]

I don't think the coalition had any outstanding economic management credentials Mantra. China boomed, requiring enormous quantities of iron ore, metalurgical coal, thermal coal and aluminium. We just happened to have some of the worlds biggest reserves of those commodities. They needed it, we had it - the coalition were just in the right place at the right time to claim the credit for something that would have happened anyway, regardless of who was running the show.

I would not be too concerned about Rudd's spending. While I would prefer that they used more of it to directly create jobs, if the government were not to spend during a downturn, things would be worse. And as far as a federal government goes, money really does grow on trees and the danger of it ever running out or accruing a massive, unpayable debt (indebted to whom we might ask) is zero.

[mantra.]

We just happened to have some of the worlds biggest reserves of those commodities. They needed it, we had it - the coalition were just in the right place at the right time to claim the credit for something that would have happened anyway, regardless of who was running the show.

Yes that is true, but regardless of the reasons - the coalition will always be able to claim being responsible for good economic times. Most of us saw this coming - I just believe Rudd isn't being cautious and he is also catering to the whims of the IMF and the 4 big banks. Maybe it's necessary in these uncertain times - but the World Bank and IMF are also responsible for allowing the gambling of the last few years to escalate out of control. They are now getting more cash off Australia to prop up the market because our economy has been good. Rudd seems to be acquiescing to their requests too easily. They're talking about regulations - but they want the cash up front first and this is solely to protect the interests of the multinationals, but we'll have to pay for it in the long term. We shouldn't be getting ourselves further into debt. The market needs to settle and people need to learn the value of a dollar even if unemployment does go higher. We can't keep artificially inflating the market and people's pockets.

[Leftofcentresalterego]

Hi Mantra.

Yeah, I’m not a fan of the IMF either, or the big 4 for that matter.

There isn’t really any need for the federal government’s spending to put us into debt as such. The scare-mongering the coalition are engaging in is partly a desperate move to lift their dismal popularity and partly a series of exaggerations, half-truths and outright misrepresentations of how the economy actually functions, inspired by neo-liberal ideological nonsense.

I am not an economist but after many conversations with a professor of macroeconomics and public policy who runs an economic research facility, I have concluded that the rather startling assertions he makes as to how a modern monetary economy such as our own actually functions, are correct. In fact, much of it is so obvious that we just don’t see it.

After all, isn’t it perfectly logical to assume that the federal budget works much like our own household budgets, only larger? That in order to spend money, the fed must accrue revenue through taxation or borrow it from someone else, so that a deficit must automatically equal a need to further levy taxes in order to pay for it. It is a logical assumption, but that isn’t how it works. The truth is far more interesting.

The federal government is the sovereign. It is the currency monopolist. It alone is empowered to create and extinguish currency (in Australian dollars) and it does this on a daily basis whenever it spends or taxes. The fed has no need whatsoever to earn or borrow Australian dollars before it can spend them. Why would you need to earn or borrow something that you can simply create and issue in any quantity at any time you see fit? The reality is that terms such as “savings” and “debt” – so very important to you and I – are largely irrelivent to the federal government.

The deficit we are going into is partly an automatic process that occurs with or without government doing anything at all. Incoming tax “revenue” (the term is somewhat incorrect in the context of the federal government, but anyhow) is automatically shrinking as companies lay off workers and/or go broke. Bankrupt businesses and unemployed workers no longer pay tax to the fed, so that “income stream” shrinks. At the same time, the unemployed cannot be simply left to starve – the government must shell out to keep them fed, clothed and sheltered. So in a downturn, at the same time as incoming dollars are drying up, outgoing expenses are rising – a double whammy! This would push us into deficit even if the fed did not spend an extra cent.

Dinner and movie time – continued later.

[TomB]

The fed has no need whatsoever to earn or borrow Australian dollars before it can spend them. Why would you need to earn or borrow something that you can simply create and issue in any quantity at any time you see fit?

The govt cannot create or destroy currency willy nilly as it sees fit. Look at Zimbabwe as an example of what happens to a currency under those circumstances.

Taxation is not 'creation of currency' in any way, shape or form it is the way in which our society pays for itself.