-
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.
Talking Politics
- Thread starter Legends of 2017
- Start date
Well I guess my point is that when you say a fair go, that is a question that entirely depends on the person answering it. Why do you feel qualified to answer it?MB78 said:
Basically what you are claiming is that weakening the dollar to $0.80 will increase our wealth. The way the central bank does this is to increase the money supply, I.e. Printing money. So apparently printing money increases our wealth! Call me nuts, but to counter that argument seems unnecessary. The blatant nonsense of it should be enough to convince most people (central bankers and mainstream economists excluded).
Giardiasis said:
I'm no more qualified than anyone else who gives an opinion on this thread.
But I think this bloke is:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-11-22/glenn-stevens-jawboning-moves-currency-markets/5111212
I know you don't.
I want to support jobs in rural Australia as that's where I live and having a lower $ will assist the export industries and manufacturing no doubt. If there is sound employment prospects that is giving most people a fair go.
Correct. He is pretty much the first man I'd sack, and whose job I would make redundant if circumstances allowed it.MB78 said:
Because he is head of the organisation that has caused and continues to cause massive distortions of the allocation of capital in our economy. The RBAs monopoly of printing money and control of monetary policy makes it very difficult for entrepreneurs to perform the economic calculation of where savings need to be invested in order to meet the demands of the individuals within the economy. Hence this is one of the primary causes of the huge booms and busts our economy experiences.tigertim said:
Differently perhaps, but they would still fail to do any good. Artificially determining the time preference of money is impossible. The only way the economic calculation of interest rates can be performed is under a free market. All price controls distort the market.willo said:
Giardiasis said:
You speak of the market as though it is natural phenomena that has a natural state. The whole thing is a game. Curious Gia how would you change things to correct for what you see as distortions?
Wow, shortest honeymoon ever for the new Liberal government with Labor already ahead on the 2 party-prefered in the latest Neilsen poll. A new record for a federal opposition, no wonder Livers is nowhere to be seen.
http://www.news.com.au/national/coalitions-shock-as-labor-pulls-ahead-in-nielson-poll/story-fncynjr2-1226767573354
This confirms the theory that the electorate dumped Labor rather than electing the Coalition... Labor suffered a 4% swing away during the election but about half of this went to small parties and independents rather than to the Libs. It looks like the electorate is willing to forgive and forget the ALP's sins given they have a new leader and while the Libs lurch from one stuff-up to the next.
http://www.news.com.au/national/coalitions-shock-as-labor-pulls-ahead-in-nielson-poll/story-fncynjr2-1226767573354
This confirms the theory that the electorate dumped Labor rather than electing the Coalition... Labor suffered a 4% swing away during the election but about half of this went to small parties and independents rather than to the Libs. It looks like the electorate is willing to forgive and forget the ALP's sins given they have a new leader and while the Libs lurch from one stuff-up to the next.
tigertim said:
not to particularly reference the two current leaders, but the current PM usually leads the preferred PM question.