Australian Economics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Australian Economics

Why is it nonsense? I thought the author was just illustrating ”cause and effect”?
It is nonsense, because wealth isn't a function of things becoming more expensive, it is a function of things becoming cheaper. The author is making a normative claim that low prices are a bad thing because he thinks consumption results in wealth when it is savings and prudent investment that results in wealth.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It is nonsense, because wealth isn't a function of things becoming more expensive, it is a function of things becoming cheaper. The author is making a normative claim that low prices are a bad thing because he thinks consumption results in wealth when it is savings and prudent investment that results in wealth.

I guess there's wealth - savings and investments - as distinct from standard of living - spending some of that dough to enjoy yourself. Low petrol prices would indicate we have a better standard of living right now in that the money I save on petrol, I can spend elsewhere. Or save, to become wealthier.
 
It's all a hypothetical debate. Libertarians would have all died due to the pandemic with no government health and medical system in place.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
It's all a hypothetical debate. Libertarians would have all died due to the pandemic with no government health and medical system in place.

America is the evidence for this being a *smiley* way to run a country. Republicans hate big government, hate healthcare for everyone and have made cuts accordingly. Today the news is US deaths will rise to 3,000 a day by 1 June. The modelling used by the White House now predicts 134,000 deaths all up. The 9/11 attacks caused 2,996 deaths. So that's a 9/11 a day. How much did the US spend on retaliating against terrorists because of 9/11? How much will the US spend on healthcare because of COVID-19?

Glad Australia has the healthcare system we do, and this virus should be a lesson on health spending going forwards.
 
80 cents! Given the world appears to have passed peak oil, and given we will be rebuilding our economy over the coming years/decades, I agree with the Australian businesses calling for the government to properly encourage renewable energy and future proof jobs in Australia, not try to climb back onto oil and gas. There's never been a better time for Scotty to purge his party of the flat-earthers on climate and get Australia leading the world in solar and wind technology and energy generation.

 
80 cents! Given the world appears to have passed peak oil, and given we will be rebuilding our economy over the coming years/decades, I agree with the Australian businesses calling for the government to properly encourage renewable energy and future proof jobs in Australia, not try to climb back onto oil and gas. There's never been a better time for Scotty to purge his party of the flat-earthers on climate and get Australia leading the world in solar and wind technology and energy generation.

Even better, how about the government stop picking winners and we let consumers decide which technologies they want?
 
Even better, how about the government stop picking winners and we let consumers decide which technologies they want?

What, hold a referendum on it?

Given the LNP had to conduct a $122 million dollar postal poll to grow the nuts to convince its own right-wing faction that same sex marriage was acceptable to the clear (61%) majority of society, we may yet have to have something similar (ie. another $122 million postal poll) to convince the right wing LNP faction about renewables being the cheapest and most beneficial source of energy for Australia moving forwards.
 
What, hold a referendum on it?

Given the LNP had to conduct a $122 million dollar postal poll to grow the nuts to convince its own right-wing faction that same sex marriage was acceptable to the clear (61%) majority of society, we may yet have to have something similar (ie. another $122 million postal poll) to convince the right wing LNP faction about renewables being the cheapest and most beneficial source of energy for Australia moving forwards.
No, through consumer purchasing decisions. The prices will tell the market what technologies to develop.
 
Even better, how about the government stop picking winners and we let consumers decide which technologies they want?

Consumers decide on which technologies exactly?

You mean technologies like the internet (developed by the US Military), graphical user interface in operating systems (invented by Xerox with massive government subsidies, along with the mouse), wifi (major patents come from CSIRO) etc.

Let's face it, if left to the private sector we would still be trying to invent the wheel.

DS
 
Let's face it, if left to the private sector we would still be trying to invent the wheel.

Nah, it would have been invented, but we'd be paying royalties every time we used one
 
  • Haha
Reactions: 1 users
Uptake of solar panels is already sending a clear message on this issue then.
Sort of, a large portion of the uptake was driven by the government picking winners through subsidisation. You won’t see many more new solar projects being developed, the price for generating electricity for most of the year is in the pits when the sun is shining.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Sort of, a large portion of the uptake was driven by the government picking winners through subsidisation. You won’t see many more new solar projects being developed, the price for generating electricity for most of the year is in the pits when the sun is shining.
you dont think new, clean technologies should be given gov assistance to compete with old, dirty options that were built with gov assistance?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 users
Sort of, a large portion of the uptake was driven by the government picking winners through subsidisation. You won’t see many more new solar projects being developed, the price for generating electricity for most of the year is in the pits when the sun is shining.

I can understand you have a problem with governments picking winners.

But private companies do it all the time and when they fail, they just socialise the losses.

At least when government makes a wrong pick they have to take responsibility for the mistake. If a private company does the same, they just declare bankruptcy and none of the owners are liable for the losses because of limited liability.

Great system, do what you like with no responsibility. Another farce.

DS
 
Nah, it would have been invented, but we'd be paying royalties every time we used one
Also the brand 'Wheel " along with ancillairy brands like Wheelie, Wheal, Wheeler and others would be owned by a blind trust based in an office in a tin hut in Sint Maarten in the Netherland Antilles with the trustee being a clerk in the offices of Mossack Fonseca in Panama.
 
you dont think new, clean technologies should be given gov assistance to compete with old, dirty options that were built with gov assistance?
You don't cut your nose off to spite your face. What capital was sunk into the existing infrastructure was pretty much all government directed capital. However what is done is done and we're best off to use that capital to the best of its ability while directing new capital to where the prices say it should go. That is the best way to reflect consumer preferences. If it says solar, then it should go to solar. If it says wind, then it should go to wind. If it says coal then it should go to coal.
 
I can understand you have a problem with governments picking winners.

But private companies do it all the time and when they fail, they just socialise the losses.

At least when government makes a wrong pick they have to take responsibility for the mistake. If a private company does the same, they just declare bankruptcy and none of the owners are liable for the losses because of limited liability.

Great system, do what you like with no responsibility. Another farce.

DS
Of course the owners are liable! What they aren't liable for are losses beyond their capital outlay. If a company goes bankrupt and you are a shareholder, you will lose all the money invested into buying the shares. They are now worthless. If you are a bondholder you will likely suffer a big hit to your investment, possibly the whole thing. The directors of the business are liable if they continue to trade while insolvent.

What responsibility does the government take? They have the power of the tax payer to prop them up, they don't even need to make money like private companies do. Government's are trading insolvent as we speak, yet they can just refuse to pay their creditors and what personal liability do they suffer?
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 user
Consumers decide on which technologies exactly?

You mean technologies like the internet (developed by the US Military), graphical user interface in operating systems (invented by Xerox with massive government subsidies, along with the mouse), wifi (major patents come from CSIRO) etc.

Let's face it, if left to the private sector we would still be trying to invent the wheel.

DS
Hahaha what government invented the wheel pray tell? Any government invention was at the expense of consumers, because the government can only steal and re-direct resources. So any time their agents invent something, the government first had to take resources from where consumers wanted it most and directed it to something else. In spite of that, comparing the innovations from the market to innovations of the government is like comparing RIchmond's 2019 side to University's 1914 side.