Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The Budget Yawn.
1 view
Skip to first unread message
Peter Jason
May 14, 2013, 5:38:44 PM5/14/13
to
The BIG problem is the reduction in tax receipts
and the Chinese interests in Mongolia which soon
will make the Oz dirt er... uncompetitive.
Want more taxes? Tax imports, ie all that
consumer junk flooding in from China, where the
denizens are rolling on the ground laughing at the
dumb Ozzites.
At least the baby bonus has gone; the last thing
the world needs is more babies!
and the Chinese interests in Mongolia which soon
will make the Oz dirt er... uncompetitive.
Want more taxes? Tax imports, ie all that
consumer junk flooding in from China, where the
denizens are rolling on the ground laughing at the
dumb Ozzites.
At least the baby bonus has gone; the last thing
the world needs is more babies!
Pelican
May 14, 2013, 7:20:35 PM5/14/13
to
"Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote in message
news:neb5p8d8sepoa8ru9...@4ax.com...
> The BIG problem is the reduction in tax receipts
> and the Chinese interests in Mongolia which soon
> will make the Oz dirt er... uncompetitive.
>
> Want more taxes? Tax imports, ie all that
> consumer junk flooding in from China, where the
> denizens are rolling on the ground laughing at the
> dumb Ozzites.
All that "consumer junk" being produced in China to sell to the world is
> and the Chinese interests in Mongolia which soon
> will make the Oz dirt er... uncompetitive.
>
> Want more taxes? Tax imports, ie all that
> consumer junk flooding in from China, where the
> denizens are rolling on the ground laughing at the
> dumb Ozzites.
what has turned China into the world's factory. Apart from anything else,
it resulted in the mining boom in Australia. Taxing imports is not a
rational approach.
> At least the baby bonus has gone; the last thing
> the world needs is more babies!
You prefer people from outside Australia, or the home-grown variety?
(Rhetorical question only.)
Be careful what you wish for.
Peter Jason
May 14, 2013, 8:28:52 PM5/14/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 09:20:35 +1000, "Pelican"
<water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>
>
>"Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote in message
>news:neb5p8d8sepoa8ru9...@4ax.com...
>> The BIG problem is the reduction in tax receipts
>> and the Chinese interests in Mongolia which soon
>> will make the Oz dirt er... uncompetitive.
>>
>> Want more taxes? Tax imports, ie all that
>> consumer junk flooding in from China, where the
>> denizens are rolling on the ground laughing at the
>> dumb Ozzites.
>
>All that "consumer junk" being produced in China to sell to the world is
>what has turned China into the world's factory. Apart from anything else,
>it resulted in the mining boom in Australia. Taxing imports is not a
>rational approach.
Yes it is. You may know that almost everything
<water...@sea.somewhere.org.ir> wrote:
>
>
>"Peter Jason" <p...@jostle.com> wrote in message
>news:neb5p8d8sepoa8ru9...@4ax.com...
>> The BIG problem is the reduction in tax receipts
>> and the Chinese interests in Mongolia which soon
>> will make the Oz dirt er... uncompetitive.
>>
>> Want more taxes? Tax imports, ie all that
>> consumer junk flooding in from China, where the
>> denizens are rolling on the ground laughing at the
>> dumb Ozzites.
>
>All that "consumer junk" being produced in China to sell to the world is
>what has turned China into the world's factory. Apart from anything else,
>it resulted in the mining boom in Australia. Taxing imports is not a
>rational approach.
is deregulated here except wages. In the past we
had work choices that may have evened out the wage
differences between Asia and here. But no more.
Where is the regulatory mechanism, ie clawback, to
prevent the final scenario where monster ships
dump almost everything on to our shores including
foodstuffs, dairy, fruit etc, and even services
such as call centers and soon lawyers?
It's a question of degree and of the rate of
change. There has to be some ideal adjusting
mechanism.
The floating taxation of imports is the regulating
mechanism. The latter-day Keynesians can tug
levers of a different sort and adjust import taxes
to create a level playing field.
And the definition of "unemployment" is a bit
fuzzy.
>
>> At least the baby bonus has gone; the last thing
>> the world needs is more babies!
>
>Really? Australia's population would be in decline but for immigration.
>You prefer people from outside Australia, or the home-grown variety?
>(Rhetorical question only.)
ideologues is bringing in a disabilities pension
in one fell swoop. Christ! These monkeys still
haven't learned from the Whitlam Free Education
disaster of the 70s, and the single mothers
pension (that saw a leap in the number of single
mothers), the Insulation debacle, and more
besides. The insurance industry knows well how
to grade 'disability' and apportion payments
appropriately. Now we will have a funding Black
Hole and a quantum leap in the number of
'disabled' not to mentioned another seething horde
of beaurocrats!
Yes Virginia, fools are more dangerous than
rogues.
And babies? Sooner or later the world will
embrace stasis, to lower prices, save orangutans,
and forestall expansionist wars.
But then we are cursed to be led by yesterday's
men; especially J M Keynes!
Pelican
May 14, 2013, 8:53:29 PM5/14/13
to
news:hgk5p8h6vrs7uddsk...@4ax.com...
It's called a free and open market. A crude mechanism, maybe, but far
better that anything else. Taxing imports is quite inconsistent with the
market approach.
> The floating taxation of imports is the regulating
> mechanism.
Utter nonsense!
> The latter-day Keynesians can tug
> levers of a different sort and adjust import taxes
> to create a level playing field.
>
> And the definition of "unemployment" is a bit
> fuzzy.
>
>>
>>> At least the baby bonus has gone; the last thing
>>> the world needs is more babies!
>>
>>Really? Australia's population would be in decline but for immigration.
>>You prefer people from outside Australia, or the home-grown variety?
>>(Rhetorical question only.)
>
> And again the labor govt, as ever led by
> ideologues is bringing in a disabilities pension
> in one fell swoop. Christ! These monkeys still
> haven't learned from the Whitlam Free Education
> disaster of the 70s, and the single mothers
> pension (that saw a leap in the number of single
> mothers), the Insulation debacle, and more
> besides.
Again, utter nonsense!
> The insurance industry knows well how
> to grade 'disability' and apportion payments
> appropriately. Now we will have a funding Black
> Hole and a quantum leap in the number of
> 'disabled' not to mentioned another seething horde
> of beaurocrats!
>
> Yes Virginia, fools are more dangerous than
> rogues.
>
> And babies? Sooner or later the world will
> embrace stasis, to lower prices, save orangutans,
> and forestall expansionist wars.
>
> But then we are cursed to be led by yesterday's
> men; especially J M Keynes!
You need to read a bit wider. Try F A Hayek, or Milton Freedman.
better that anything else. Taxing imports is quite inconsistent with the
market approach.
> The floating taxation of imports is the regulating
> mechanism.
> The latter-day Keynesians can tug
> levers of a different sort and adjust import taxes
> to create a level playing field.
>
> And the definition of "unemployment" is a bit
> fuzzy.
>
>>
>>> At least the baby bonus has gone; the last thing
>>> the world needs is more babies!
>>
>>Really? Australia's population would be in decline but for immigration.
>>You prefer people from outside Australia, or the home-grown variety?
>>(Rhetorical question only.)
>
> And again the labor govt, as ever led by
> ideologues is bringing in a disabilities pension
> in one fell swoop. Christ! These monkeys still
> haven't learned from the Whitlam Free Education
> disaster of the 70s, and the single mothers
> pension (that saw a leap in the number of single
> mothers), the Insulation debacle, and more
> besides.
> The insurance industry knows well how
> to grade 'disability' and apportion payments
> appropriately. Now we will have a funding Black
> Hole and a quantum leap in the number of
> 'disabled' not to mentioned another seething horde
> of beaurocrats!
>
> Yes Virginia, fools are more dangerous than
> rogues.
>
> And babies? Sooner or later the world will
> embrace stasis, to lower prices, save orangutans,
> and forestall expansionist wars.
>
> But then we are cursed to be led by yesterday's
> men; especially J M Keynes!
Peter Jason
May 14, 2013, 9:26:38 PM5/14/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 10:53:29 +1000, "Pelican"
You mean all the now-failed theories? Why all
the busts of the past, especially the 2008 one?
Where were the economists then to warn us?
Physicians Heal Thyself!
http://michaelklonsky.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/preckwinkle-rahm-emperor-has-no-clothes.html
the busts of the past, especially the 2008 one?
Where were the economists then to warn us?
Physicians Heal Thyself!
http://michaelklonsky.blogspot.com.au/2012/12/preckwinkle-rahm-emperor-has-no-clothes.html
Pelican
May 14, 2013, 9:38:23 PM5/14/13
to
news:ero5p815hbtrihs65...@4ax.com...
I mean that trying to impose human controls over the market, such as import
taxes, typically cause a worse situation.
>>>>Be careful what you wish for.
That's the result of incorrect "solutions".
taxes, typically cause a worse situation.
>>>>Be careful what you wish for.
Peter Jason
May 15, 2013, 7:39:13 PM5/15/13
to
On Wed, 15 May 2013 11:38:23 +1000, "Pelican"
Surely the controls abandoned during the Clinton
years in the USA produced the housing bubble
leading to the 2008 crash and ongoing debt crises.
Controls is exactly what markets need. Like a
Baroque parterre, clipping is constantly required.
years in the USA produced the housing bubble
leading to the 2008 crash and ongoing debt crises.
Controls is exactly what markets need. Like a
Baroque parterre, clipping is constantly required.
Pelican
May 15, 2013, 8:13:34 PM5/15/13
to
news:j078p8pun6qedamtm...@4ax.com...
Nonsense!
There are controls and controls. My objection is to the form of control
that is fundamentally inconsistent with the outcomes of free and open
markets, such as the import controls
you advocate. Controls aimed at things that damage free and open markets
are less objectionable. For example, legislation forbidding
anti-competitive behaviour.
There are controls and controls. My objection is to the form of control
that is fundamentally inconsistent with the outcomes of free and open
markets, such as the import controls
you advocate. Controls aimed at things that damage free and open markets
are less objectionable. For example, legislation forbidding
anti-competitive behaviour.
0 new messages