Re: Swann's Inflation monster stalking
Don H
news:53dc49b8-826a-43aa...@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> http://business.smh.com.au/inflation-monster-stalking/20080513-2duf.html
>
> If it's true that political leaders fall into two broad categories -
> pleasers and doers - then Kevin Rudd's first budget reveals him to be
> veering towards the "pleaser" category.
>
> For the first budget of the first term of a new government, the time
> when a government should be at its most ambitious, it displays an
> unseasonably strong desire to be popular.
>
> A former chief of staff to Paul Keating, the economist Don Russell,
> said recently that pleasers "subscribe to the notion that if you are
> nice to the electorate, the electorate will be nice to you".
>
> Doers, on the other hand, "believe that the electorate is much more
> impatient and believe that unless you are being useful, the electorate
> will inevitably tire of you and replace you".
>
> There is some doing in the budget, but its overall character is to try
> to please.
>
> The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, talks tough. He trumpets it as a budget to
> "fight inflation first", yet it is a budget that actually squibs the
> fight.
>
> How? The Government will proceed with tax cuts. It will honour $8.3
> billion in tax cuts pledged by the Howard government, plus it will
> enact $7.1 billion in the first year's Rudd tax cuts that were
> promised before the election.
>
> Together, this will tip over $15 billion into taxpayers' incomes in
> 2008-09. Plus, this budget will increase overall federal spending,
> after adjusting for inflation, by 1.1 per cent. Whereas the last
> Howard budget spent $275 billion, this one is set to spend $288
> billion.
>
> These are both measures that will stimulate demand and add to
> inflation.
>
> Swan declared yesterday that the budget delivered a "mild tightening".
> But, in truth, the budget is stimulatory. It will add to inflation,
> not fight it. That leaves the Reserve Bank to do the tightening
> instead.
>
> It's true the Rudd Government has not spent as wantonly as the Howard
> government in its final term. A former director of budget analysis in
> the Department of Finance, Stephen Anthony, described recent Howard
> budgets as "Christmas night at the pirate's cave".
>
> The Howard government's final budget increased real spending by 5.2
> per cent, according to the budget papers, and by 2.5 per cent in its
> penultimate budget.
>
> But this is a mismatched comparison. Howard's was an aged government
> approaching an election; Rudd's is shiny and new, in the full flush of
> a decisive victory.
>
> A better comparison is with the first terms of the Hawke and Howard
> governments - these administrations cut real spending by more than 2
> per cent in their inaugural budgets, while Rudd is adding to real
> spending.
>
> And, despite the Robin Hood rhetoric of taking from the rich to give
> to Rudd's "working families", in truth, the rich emerge from this
> budget unscathed and, on some measures, better off.
>
> The budget does give generously to the "working families" previously
> known as Howard's battlers.
>
> The "typical working family" illustrated in Government budget
> pamphlets has a primary breadwinner, Patrick, earning $60,000, and
> Susie, earning $27,000, and two young kids. The family will receive
> total new benefits worth $4160.
>
> This comprises tax cuts worth $1050, an education tax refund of $375,
> plus an increase in the child-care rebate worth $1255, and benefits
> through the first home saver account of $1480.
>
> All together, that's an increase in Patrick's and Susie's disposable
> income of 4.8 per cent a year.
>
> In his 2005 book Postcode, Swan described families like this as the
> "splintering middle" of the Australian electorate. This group was
> "feeling left behind in the race for prosperity, they feel pressured.
> These are the people who increasingly determine the outcome of our
> elections."
>
> His first budget is plainly designed to stop the splintering - to stop
> families from splintering financially, and politically, to prevent
> them from splintering away from Labor, to bind them with largesse to
> the Rudd Government which is governing so ostentatiously in their
> interests.
>
> But this budget does not give to them at the expense of the winners
>
> Proud to be mean, the cut-lunch assassin
> How strange it is to see a Treasurer trying to convince us of his
> brutality. Wayne Swan, bringing down his first budget, spent the first
> 20 minutes of his press conference talking up the nasty bits of the
> thing and barely mentioning the nice bits.
>
> Sure, there are tens of billions of dollars in tax cuts and lovely new
> Medicare for thousands of people previously dragooned into taking out
> private health insurance, but all the Treasurer wanted to talk about
> was the slashing and burning. The Slaughter of the Innocents, in which
> thousands of babies lose their automatic $5000 lucky door prize!
>
> The brutal Cut Lunch Tax Assault, in which office workers can no
> longer escape fringe benefits tax on their sandwiches from the caf!
# Any government is obliged, if it is honest, to fulfil its election
promises, and, if this involves tax cuts, and spending, then so be it - even
if more/less than what the Coalition promised.
That there is a pruning of commonwealth expenditure, in other directions,
while it might be needed due to previous govt's extravagance, can also smack
of a forelock-tugging labour reaction to the boss, or of a Dr.Death doing
what comes naturally. However, better to get the nasty bits over well prior
to the next election.
No social democratic party is going to overthrow capitalism, but it will
try to humanise it.
Nor can any govt, elected by geographic democracy, do much more than try
to appeal to all of its heterogeneous constituents.
Capitalist economics tells us there is an Upper Class, a Middle Class,
and a Working Class, and, while the term Upper Class is rarely mentioned,
the other two are played off against each other, to good effect.
No aspirational family likes to think of itself as other than Middle
Class, 'cos who wants to sink into the nether regions, and live on the
Western side of Melbourne, for example - unless it becomes trendy to do so.
As Geographic Democracy has electorates which vote predominately either
Liberal or Labor (in the suburbs), it is the "marginal" electorates (those
aspirationalists) who are pandered to by both sides of politics - as they
can decide elections.
Who are the Workers? Most of us. After all, if you have no alternative
but to derive the majority of your income from "sale of your labour power",
then you are a damn worker, like it or not - and this includes "independent"
contractors.
Yeah, the whole set-up is rather farcical, and only an upgrade to
Industrial Democracy will really make much difference.
As to Inflation, that current bogeyman of economics, you control it by
controlling Prices, one way or another - and cuts to govt spending, while
assuaging the Top-Enders, are no guarantee Inflation won't still continue an
upward trend.
If Wages are controlled, then so, too, should be Prices - or at least
require justification, in both cases.
Rod Speed
> Any government is obliged, if it is honest, to fulfil its election
> promises, and, if this involves tax cuts, and spending, then
> so be it - even if more/less than what the Coalition promised.
Wota silly little wanker.
> That there is a pruning of commonwealth expenditure, in other
> directions, while it might be needed due to previous govt's extravagance,
Or just different prioritys.
> can also smack of a forelock-tugging labour reaction to the boss,
Only with fools like you.
> or of a Dr.Death doing what comes naturally.
In spades with that mindlessly silly shit.
> However, better to get the nasty bits over well prior to the next election.
> No social democratic party is going to overthrow capitalism, but it will try to humanise it.
Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.
> Nor can any govt, elected by geographic democracy, do much
> more than try to appeal to all of its heterogeneous constituents.
No govt is ever stupid enough to try that, its completely impossible.
> Capitalist economics tells us there is an Upper
> Class, a Middle Class, and a Working Class,
And only fools like you buy that sort of mindlessly superficial crap.
Welfare bludgers arent in any of those, fool.
> and, while the term Upper Class is rarely mentioned,
Because they have long ceased to matter a damn.
> the other two are played off against each other, to good effect.
Only in your pathetic little pig ignorant drug crazed fantasyland.
> No aspirational family
Whatever the fuck thats supposed to be.
> likes to think of itself as other than Middle Class,
Wrong, as always.
> 'cos who wants to sink into the nether regions, and live on the Western
> side of Melbourne, for example - unless it becomes trendy to do so.
Thats not what aspirational means, stupid.
> As Geographic Democracy
No such animal, wanker.
> has electorates which vote predominately either Liberal or Labor (in the suburbs),
Its actually the non suburbs that mostly do that now.
> it is the "marginal" electorates (those aspirationalists)
Wrong again.
> who are pandered to by both sides of politics - as they can decide elections.
The real ones that can are the ones who are prepared to change who they vote for, stupid.
> Who are the Workers? Most of us. After all, if you have no
> alternative but to derive the majority of your income from "sale
> of your labour power", then you are a damn worker, like it or
> not - and this includes "independent" contractors.
But doesnt include people like othopedic surgeons who still derive
the majority of their income from the sale of their labor, stupid.
And then there are the hordes that work for themselves, the self employed.
> Yeah, the whole set-up is rather farcical,
Just your mindlessly superficial categorisation.
> and only an upgrade to Industrial Democracy will really make much difference.
That wont make any difference at all, because its pure fantasy, just like your 'workers' are.
> As to Inflation, that current bogeyman of economics,
> you control it by controlling Prices, one way or another
Again, mindlessly superficial and not even possible.
> - and cuts to govt spending, while assuaging the Top-Enders,
> are no guarantee Inflation won't still continue an upward trend.
Specially when the bulk of the current inflation is actually due to fuel prices and interest rates.
> If Wages are controlled, then so, too, should be Prices
Not even possible. Try controlling the price of crude oil sometime.
> - or at least require justification, in both cases.
More mindlessly silly superficial crap that fools like you and your ilk mindlessly spew.
TomTom
Rod Speed <rod.sp...@gmail.com> typed:
Minslessly superficial diagnosis, fuckwit.
fasgnadh
> http://business.smh.com.au/inflation-monster-stalking/20080513-2duf.html
>
> If it's true that political leaders fall into two broad categories -
> pleasers and doers -
What a trivial tub of twaddle! B^D
This is the sort of psycho-babble you get from new-age tossers
who have nothing concrete to say!
It's not true that political leaders fall into 2 categories,
and the bullshit never recovers from that low point!
Falsis in uno, falsis in omnibus!
---------
Mission Accomplished
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/11/27/OP_wideweb__470x399,2.jpg
Howard's Legacy:
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/09/13/svOPED_wideweb__470x330,0.jpg
---------
"They will beat their swords into plowshares and their spears
into pruning hooks. Nation will not take up sword against nation,
nor will they train for war anymore." — Isaiah 2:4 & Micah 4:3
---------
"Where there is no vision, the people perish." - Proverbs 29:18
---------
The Official [Est. June 2000] aus.culture.true-blue FAQ ;
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/faq.html
The true-blue Homestead;
http://geocities.com/fairdinkum_trueblue/
The true-blue Hall Of Fame;
http://www.geocities.com/trueblue_hall_of_fame/index.html
The Tuckerbox;
http://www.geocities.com/true_blue_tucker_box/index.html
-----------
Sir John Howard
fasgnadh
> Don H wrote:
>> # Any government is obliged, if it is honest, to fulfil its election
>> promises,
>
> I knew there was a good reason why I ignore you completely.
>
Yes, he reminds you of your broken "Non-Core" promises, and lies,
which is why you tory tossers are thrashing about hating the ALP
delivering on IT's promises to the Aussie voters!
suck it up, LOSERS! B^D
---------
Mission Accomplished
http://www.theage.com.au/ffximage/2007/11/27/OP_wideweb__470x399,2.jpg
http://www.geocities.com/wmds_r_us/king_john_il
------------
Phred
quoted about 220 lines of text just to add this succinct comment:
>
>Minslessly superficial diagnosis, fuckwit.
>
Cheers, Phred.
--
ppnerk...@THISyahoo.com.INVALID
Michael
"Don H" <donlhu...@bigpond.com> wrote in message
news:D1nWj.772$IK1...@news-server.bigpond.net.au...