Keynes also latter in his life retracted alot of what he wrote/said correct? and also was not ment to be applied when your already in to much debt correct?
I understand what you mean, debt is ok, if you can pay it off, you are responsible, most govenments are simply not and you neven know what tomorrow brings, a another Katrina, a another BP oil spill, a earthquake, a sub-prime mortgage disaster from another part of the world ask the uk government how many options they have, or Greece, the USA, Spain etc... ask the 4 to 6 hundrend thouand people the UK government is thinking about sacking, what they think about the options the UK government has ask the 10 million people in the USA or the other 18 million in the USA who have given up looking for work what the the options are for the USA who are going cut welfare they don't have as many options as if these govenments had dollars in the bank ask the 73 million baby boomer's in the USA who are about to retire and have paid in to the US Medicaid health care system for health care in there old age, which the USA really cannot afford to pay for what they think about these options ask someone who has a mortage, car payments, kids in school and are in debt up to the eyeballs, what there options are when the interest rates go up 50 points and there kids tooth gets knocked out playing football and the gearbox in the family car blows and electricity bill goes up 25%, the ciggarettes go up 25%, they have more options because they are in debt up to there eyeballs already? or do what europe and the USA are doing and just borrow more? Ask AIG what there options were of course debt matters, and of course more debt = less options if you can avoid debt, you do have more options open, if you can get rid of debt you do have more options open more debt does mean less options, there are many many case of this today as we speak europe is a classic case, get in trouble, already have debt issue, what do they do, borrow more, now they are stuffed, now they are looking down the barrel of a decade or more of pain and no real growth, people are under an illusion if they think the "GFC" is over, it's just began, the debt is not gone, it's just been moved from big business onto the people, now the people have to pay the bill over the next 50 years So was it better to bail out all these large compaines or let them fail and pay the price of there actions, let the people who "Gambled" on there shares pay the price for there actions I say let them fail, let business who do what ever task the big company was doing badly come in and fill the void, this is ecconomic evolution, you let the people who do the task well, take the place of the people who do the task badly On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 3:40 PM, Ken Schaefer <[email protected]> wrote: > Hi, > > > > As mentioned – debt itself isn’t the problem. It’s what you do with the > money that determines whether you are making sounds decisions or not. Many > individuals and corporations (and governments) make rational decisions to > borrow money and put that money to purposes that they believe are in their > best interests – whether it’s expanding a business, buying a house or > building a new road. > > > > I have no idea why you think that more debt automatically means less > options. It can in some circumstances, but in other cases it gives you more > options (it’s pretty much impossible for most people to buy a house in this > country without taking on debt, so the debt gives you more options in terms > of what you can buy). I don’t see any direct correlation between debt and > lack of options. > > > > Lastly, what Maynard Keynes wrote decades ago still holds true today. When > there is a deficiency of demand, governments should step in to prevent > greater loss of income generation. When the economy is running at full > capacity, then the government should provide a break on the economy (by > running surpluses). Over the course of the economic cycle, this should all > balance out. The alternative is the type of decision making (cutting > spending to balance budgets, leading to even less demand) that lead into the > Great Depression – it was self-reinforcing economic suicide. > > > > As for spending money for voters – I’m not sure what you think the > government is there for. It’s there to meet the needs of the country (and > that includes voters). That’s what democracy is all about… > > > > Cheers > > Ken > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *.net noobie > *Sent:* Saturday, 10 July 2010 1:04 PM > > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: [OT] Friday - Conway (or.. Labor govt) once > againdelaysInternet Filter > > > > "Debt itself isn’t a problem", this is garbage > > > debt does matter, it matters alot > > more debt = less options > massive debt = no options > > and spending money for the sake of votes is also garbage > > > i needed to make the correction also > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Tony Wright <[email protected]> wrote: > > Ah, naive, and so transparently biased. Labor do have a stack of policies, > it’s just that they’re mostly failures. > > > > As opposed to Liberals who actually don’t stand for anything other than > telling us one thing and then implementing the complete opposite. > > > > A neighbour of mine used to say they were blue and bluer – the Liberal > party representing the rich and sucking in a whole lot of aspirational > voters into thinking that meant them as well, while Labor is the try-hard > party, trying to get the rich to like them as well, while still having > problems with the unions. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *.net noobie > *Sent:* Saturday, 10 July 2010 1:24 PM > *To:* ozDotNet > *Subject:* Re: [OT] Friday - Conway (or.. Labor govt) once > againdelaysInternet Filter > > > > "Liberals actually have 2 whole policies now I believe." > > > > Well that would be 2 more than Labor, lets face it, they just have a long > line of disasters/failures/wasted many many billions and debt your great > great grand children will still be paying off ;) > > > > But if I think you follow politics a bit more closely they have a few more > positions/policies than 2 > > On Sat, Jul 10, 2010 at 12:21 PM, Ian Thomas <[email protected]> > wrote: > > 'Tweedledum and Tweedledee 1,2,3,3' - The Albert Langer Story > > http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/CIB/1995-96/96cib14.htm > > > ------------------------------ > > Ian Thomas > Victoria Park, Western Australia > ------------------------------ > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Ian Thomas > *Sent:* Friday, 9 July 2010 5:08 PM > > > *To:* 'ozDotNet' > *Subject:* RE: [OT] Friday - Conway (or.. Labor govt) once > againdelaysInternet Filter > > > > Greg > > I'm not sure if you remember Albert Langer (decades ago, in Victoria), but > he was gaoled for a short time for infringing the electoral act by forming a > political party called Tweedle Dum & Tweedle Dee which encouraged people not > to vote. > > > > ________________________________ > > Ian Thomas > > Victoria Park, Western Australia > > > > >
