4 ms·

I live in Australia and I know our government isn't in that much debt compared to all the other countries. But I saw how the government spent billions of dollar

by meric 15y ago

I live in Australia and I know our government isn't in that much debt compared to all the other countries. But I saw how the government spent billions of dollars inefficiently (Basically a lot of fraud, involving subsidies to people upgrading insulation in their house). During the boom we saved $20 billion dollars but after the financial crisis the government is now at -$80 billion dollars. Really? The best Keynesians in the world managed to save 20 billion during good times and needed to spend 100 billion to prop up the economy when times are bad? Oh and the government estimates we will spend another $200 billion before we start saving again. I doubt they will be able to save $320 billion to get back to where we started, before the next recession. How is that sustainable? We'll be fine for the next 10 years. But seriously... "Don't blame Keynesian economics for the failings of the politicians" is like saying "Don't blame Communism for the failings of the people". I'm not blaming the system. Just need to vote for the party that is going to keep the budget balanced. The system works fine, I just voted for the wrong party last election. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_national_debt http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Australian_national_debt

nl 15y ago
I'm from Australia. If you read the wikipedia article you'll note that net debt is only $80 billion, not $320 billion. It's sustainable because when the economy grows the debt becomes a lower proportion of the total budget which makes it simpler to pay off. I don't think either Australian party is proposing a balanced budget. The (current, left wing) Labor party is getting criticized for trying to bring the budget back to surplus next year. It's unclear exactly what the oppositions proposed budget position would be, but it is likely they would follow similar policies.
- meric 15y ago
  "If you read the wikipedia article you'll note that net debt is only $80 billion, not $320 billion." If you read my comment more thoroughly you'll note I said net debt is -$80 billion and that $300 billion is an estimate from 2009 (which wikipedia agrees). "It's sustainable because when the economy grows the debt becomes a lower proportion of the total budget which makes it simpler to pay off." No it's not. Yes it's a lower proportion, by what, one percentage point a year, or maybe even negative one depending on the interest on the bonds (growth - interest). I'll bet next recession they'll be at something like -$10 billion, the next one after that -$35 billion and it just rolls downhill from there. "I don't think either Australian party is proposing a balanced budget." You're right, maybe I'm too optimistic. The system is no good at all. I would really hope some day I will be able to participate in a direct democracy government. "The (current, left wing) Labor party is getting criticised" The government is getting criticised for everything it does. And? Reply to earlier comment: "The US, OTOH had expanding deficits. It is time people stopped blaming "the system", and assigned the blame where it should lay. It is the fault of one administration, and one administration only that the US economy is in the state that it is." Okay it's Bush's fault, what now?

by meric 15y ago

nl 15y ago

I'm from Australia. If you read the wikipedia article you'll note that net debt is only $80 billion, not $320 billion. It's sustainable because when the economy grows the debt becomes a lower proportion of the total budget which makes it simpler to pay off. I don't think either Australian party is proposing a balanced budget. The (current, left wing) Labor party is getting criticized for trying to bring the budget back to surplus next year. It's unclear exactly what the oppositions proposed budget position would be, but it is likely they would follow similar policies.

meric 15y ago
"If you read the wikipedia article you'll note that net debt is only $80 billion, not $320 billion." If you read my comment more thoroughly you'll note I said net debt is -$80 billion and that $300 billion is an estimate from 2009 (which wikipedia agrees). "It's sustainable because when the economy grows the debt becomes a lower proportion of the total budget which makes it simpler to pay off." No it's not. Yes it's a lower proportion, by what, one percentage point a year, or maybe even negative one depending on the interest on the bonds (growth - interest). I'll bet next recession they'll be at something like -$10 billion, the next one after that -$35 billion and it just rolls downhill from there. "I don't think either Australian party is proposing a balanced budget." You're right, maybe I'm too optimistic. The system is no good at all. I would really hope some day I will be able to participate in a direct democracy government. "The (current, left wing) Labor party is getting criticised" The government is getting criticised for everything it does. And? Reply to earlier comment: "The US, OTOH had expanding deficits. It is time people stopped blaming "the system", and assigned the blame where it should lay. It is the fault of one administration, and one administration only that the US economy is in the state that it is." Okay it's Bush's fault, what now?