Why Do You Think We Need A Govt??

[altezzaclub]

This is an essay about economics and why the current Govt setup is doomed to failure, time and time again in a boom-bust cycle. It starts off- ""Imagine you are in command of the state................Predictably, you will use your position to enrich yourself at other people's expense."" and explains how raising taxes endlessly will run you into resistance from the productive sector, and then borrowing from banks to cover your expenses makes it worse as you have to pay them interest. So it suggests you get into bankng yourself, set up a central bank and print your own money. Even better, create credit out of thin air and loan THAT to commercial banks, so now THEY pay YOU interest. Finally it expains how only the first (rich) people who get their hands on this newly-created money get any benefit from it, and it is at the expense of everyone else as it causes the inevitable boom and bust. We have billions of dollars in Aussie to get rid of, money that was borowed from thin air with no real backing from the last bust in the 1980s until now. (America has trillions to delete) I'm afraid you youngsters are expected to pay for it all, earning money that then becomes worthless as you hold it in your hand... Economics is a boring dry subject in theory, but vital in understanding how Govts rort you! http://mises.org/daily/5749/Why-the-State-Demands-Control-of-Money

This boom-bust feature is the logical — and physically necessary — consequence of credit created out of thin air, of credit unbacked by savings, of fiduciary credit (or however else you may call it) and of the fact that every investment takes time and only shows later on, at some time in the future, whether it is successful or not.

The reason for the business cycle is as elementary as it is fundamental. Robinson Crusoe can give a loan of fish (which he has not consumed) to Friday. Friday can convert these savings into a fishing net (he can eat the fish while constructing the net), and with the help of the net, then, Friday, in principle, is capable of repaying his loan to Robinson, plus interest, and still earn a profit of additional fish for himself. But this is physically impossible if Robinson's loan is only a paper note, denominated in fish, but unbacked by real-fish savings, i.e., if Robinson has no fish because he has consumed them all.

 

Then, and necessarily so, Friday must fail in his investment endeavor. In a simple barter economy, of course, this becomes immediately apparent. Friday will not accept Robinson's paper credit in the first place (but only real, commodity credit), and because of this, the boom-bust cycle will not get started. But in a complex monetary economy, the fact that credit was created out of thin air is not noticeable: every credit note looks like any other, and because of this the notes are accepted by the takers of credit.

 

This does not change the fundamental fact of reality that nothing can be produced out of nothing and that investment projects undertaken without any real funding whatsoever (by savings) must fail, but it explains why a boom — an increased level of investment accompanied by the expectation of higher future income and wealth — can get started (Friday does accept the note instead of immediately refusing it). And it explains why it then takes a while until the physical reality reasserts itself and reveals such expectations as illusory.

 

[altezzaclub]

This is a Govt acting precisely to Keyne's ideas. Hew said the Govt should pay workmen to bury jars of money and let other people dig them up. That would make the economy work. Now the French Govt is paying people to build warships that they will give away to a country that doesn't need them... its like you being flat broke, on welfare, and being given another car. You don't need it and it will cost you money you don't have to register it...

 

From "Money Morning"

 

"A huge arms deal is threatening to put French-German relations under strain. According to information obtained by SPIEGEL, France wants to deliver two to four new frigates to the Greek navy and to allow the highly indebted nation to postpone payment of the €300 million purchase price per ship for the next five years.

 

"Under the deal, Greece will have the option of paying up after five years, with a significant discount of €100 million, or returning them to the French navy"

 

The saying "You couldn't make this stuff up", is true.

 

In effect, France is subsidising its defence industry by allowing it to give away goods for free. But you can guarantee the manufacturer will still get paid, the workers will get paid and the suppliers will get paid... even though the buyer (Greece) will probably never pay for the ships.

 

So who will pay if the customer doesn't? Germany... and perversely, the French!

 

Not surprisingly, the Germans aren't keen on the idea. Because the only way the Greeks can pay for the weapons of destruction is if it gets a European Union bailout. And which nation will bankroll the bailout the most? That's right, Germany.

 

But France is tipping cash into the bailout fund too. So not only will the Germans cough up for French warships being sold to Greece... but the French taxpayer will pay for French warships being sold to Greece.

 

 

[altezzaclub]

..and if you want to see "The War on Terror" working, just consider "The War on Poverty". Its been going a lot longer and costs more!

 

23 percent of NZ babies born in 2010 were reliant on a benefit by the end of that year. In April this year, NZ children reliant on the DPB numbered 180,845--75% of them, around 135,600, living below the poverty line. “The underclass is still growing,” admits the PM.

It’s said “The poor will always be with us.” Why?

It’s not like there hasn’t been plenty of money, yours and mine, thrown at the problem. Welfare, including Super, accounts for one third of government expenditure.

 

If all of the expenditure that relates to working age welfare is totalled the sum last year was $9.379 billion

. Divide that by the number of working age beneficiaries at June 2010, 300,000, to get an average sum of $28,165… Now I know I am labouring a point here but an average income of $519 per week does not describe abject poverty.

 

We have more people on benefits now that at any time in the country's history, more than 330,000 of them. The welfare state, which was going to solve poverty, is bigger than it has ever been before. It has been spending like there’s no tomorrow now for decades, and it obviously hasn't solved poverty at all.

 

What's to be done? Beats the hell out of Paula Bennett, who massages new figures and re-announces old policies while judging her success by the extent her department keeps out of the headlines.

 

Beats the hell out of Labour spokesthings who, under their previous watch, increased both the numbers on welfare and numbers under the “poverty line.”

 

It beats the hell out of the Child Poverty Action Group themselves, who tell us every year (against everything history and research should tell them) that all we need to do to beat poverty is to raise benefits.

 

It beats the hell out of alleged economist Susan St John, who (with a straight face) continues to blames the problem on policies that "promote paid work as a way out of poverty" which are, she says, "a major reason for the widening gap between rich and poor"; and it sure beats the hell out of the rest of the poverty industry who've been fighting this “War On Poverty” since Methusaleh was born, yet after all that time they still find the scoreboard against them.

 

Seventy years of just giving people more money has not made things better, it's made them worse. In the last ten years alone around $180 billion has been taken from taxpayers and spent in a war on poverty.

 

Enough to have given every beneficiary in the country a massive half-million dollars each each to start their own war on poverty, and it still hasn't worked. And it won't. It never will. To paraphrase PJ O'Rourke,

 

the spending of this truly vast amount of money -- an amount more than half again the nation's entire

gross national product in 2001

-- has left everybody just sitting around slack-jawed and dumbstruck, staring into the maw of that most extraordinary paradox:

You can't get rid of poverty by giving people money

.

When do we realise that government welfare doesn't work, least of all for those who it is supposed to help.

 

 

 

[carbonboy]

That French/German/Greek deal is just messed up! Sounds like a plan to get Greece into even more debt (if that's possible).

 

I can think of of a circumstance where the Government 'giving' people money can help relieve (maybe not remove totally) the poverty situation. I was over 25yrs old, living independently & as a 1st year apprentice was earning $328 per week after tax. Hardly poverty, granted, but considering the current costs of living my favourite cookbook was '101 ways to make rice taste good'. Our ol' mate the Government chipped in an income supplement payment that came through every three months that worked out to be about $130 per week after tax. This taught me a thing or six about budgets & priorities, so things have become a lot easier with just that small 2nd year increase.

 

Of course, by doing this the Government expects that I'll become qualified (which I will) & theoretically earn a higher than previous income (bloody hope so!) & therefore pay more tax (:() ending up in a return on their initial investment. Without it, I wouldn't be able to do what I'm doing, which is getting out of the unskilled labour force! :)

[ke70dave]

the word "povety" should NEVER be used to describe Australia.

[altezzaclub]

Well, how about Govt in an emergency...

 

 

Surely that's what a Govt is for, using taxes extorted from everyone to help people in disasters. They are the people who will rebuild the country.. surely?? hang on.. watch this-

 

 

http://libertarianz....msg_share_video

 

...and pray the Govt never comes to help you!!!

 

-------------------------------------------------------------------

 

& how sick is your Govt to do this to you..??

 

At Wolcott High School one morning this week, an urgent announcement crackled over the intercom: a threatening intruder was in the building and students were told to immediately take refuge in classrooms.Doors were locked and police, with dogs, moved in. Students stayed huddled in classrooms where they were told to stay away from the windows.

 

But what sounded like a frightening situation was just a search for narcotics. Drug-sniffing dogs combed the school while students stayed in locked classrooms, believing that an attacker was roaming the halls.

 

Drug-free schools are an admirable goal but I wonder when we reached the point where the war on drugs justifies police searches under the ruse of a Virginia Tech-style attack.

 

School officials told me it was a routine lockdown drill, the kind that schools are required to do.

 

"We wanted to practice,'' said Superintendent of Schools Joseph McCary. "We said there was a lockdown with an intruder inside. Doors are locked, shades are drawn and the lights are turned off and students are told to move to a corner of the room."

 

"After 10 minutes we say this is a drill and at that point we started a search for drugs,'' McCary said. "We are providing a safe and secure nurturing environment."

 

No drugs turned up in the search. An email from the high school to parents explained the event, without mentioning the intruder story. It was described as a "lockdown intervention drill" where "two police dogs swept the hallway lockers, locker rooms and the student parking lot.''

 

http://www.courant.c...,4150328.column

 

 

 

..and last week I bought a little '92 Nssan Pulsar SSS for my son. It got a new RWC on Thursday. ($35!) He flew up from Melb, we sorted it over the weekend and he bought a temp rego to drive it back to Melb. Then I get an email from him...

 

Jesus christ.

 

$641 for rego

$31 for plate

$120 for stamp duty

$40 for appointment

$80-200 for ANOTHER road worthy cert.

$40.60 for a 1 day registration to go to the mechanic to get road worthy.

 

I should have just shipped a f@$king car from NZ . . it seems no harder.

 

..bend over and drop your trou, the parasites are here!

 

 

 

hmmm... the govt is about to hijack your super funds to make sure they get "invested" in the right place!

 

Wednesday's press release from federal assistant treasurer, Bill Shorten. It's titled: "More Money in Retirement - An Historic Boost to Superannuation". The key part states:

 

"The increase in the SG [superannuation Guarantee] will boost the superannuation savings of Australian workers by around $500 billion by 2035. A proportion of these savings will be channelled back into the Australian economy to fund jobs and nation-building infrastructure."

 

Now, we won't go off on a rant, explaining the immorality of government-enforced savings schemes. But rather we'll point out this is more proof of the retirement theft we've warned you about since 2009.

 

The key part of the statement is the bit we underlined.

 

Our simple question is: how can any government possibly know that funds will invest in "nation-building infrastructure"?

 

It can't. Unless it plans on forcing super funds to invest in "nation-building infrastructure".

 

In other words, the government is annoyed that there's well over $1 trillion of personal savings it can't get its hands on. So one way of grabbing it back is to force super funds to build things the government would like to build.

 

 

 

 

Edited November 4, 2011 by altezzaclub

[altezzaclub]

In case you hadn't realised that Govts are more addicted to debt that addicts to heroin, this is from my 'Money Morning' newsletter this morning.

 

Obvously tightening our belts, spending less and paying off debt is for fools in the private sector, not Govts.

 

"Governments of the world's leading economies have more than $7.6 trillion of debt maturing this year, with most facing a rise in borrowing costs."

According to the report, that's $200 billion more than the amount financed in 2011. Bloomberg printed the following table. It shows the G-7 nations plus the BRICs:

 

The middle column shows how much debt each nation needs to repay or refinance this year. Out of interest, if Australia was included in the table it would be between India and Russia, with about $26 billion worth of bonds due to mature this year.

 

A quick back-of-the-envelope stab at the numbers puts the interest repayments above $10 billion... more than Russia, less than India... and not far behind Canada.

 

And if recent history is anything to go by, Aussie government debt is set to go up. In December the government repaid $3 billion of debt... but issued new bonds to the value of $7.3 billion. In other words, for every dollar the government repaid, it went further into debt by $2.40. That tells you the government is using new debt to pay off the old debt.

 

Because the government is still spending beyond its means, it has to borrow or tax (or both) even more.

Edited January 26, 2012 by altezzaclub

[philbey]

Money morning *facepalm*

 

I came. I read. I composted.

 

Sorry A. Too much hyperbole for my taste.

[altezzaclub]

They usually do have a blown-up view, they are selling their invesment service of course.

 

However, when it comes to economic philosophy they are outright Libertarians and use the figures to expose some nasty trends that main-stream media ignores.

 

It appears Govts are not paying down the debt that caused the depression across the world, they are just continuing to borrow & kick the can down to road while they hope it won't blow up when they're in power. I'd say the best we can hope for it to have a resonably level standard of living for a generation, so there won't be the massive steps ahead my generation has seen.

 

Although Aussie looks like escaping the worst of it, Canberra's debt has doubled since 2009 & Victoria's has gone from $3billion to $15Billion. That's a lot higher than wages have gone up!

[altezzaclub]

The water is getting hotter, but the frogs don't notice..

 

Everyvun MUST be a criminal! This is the creeping tyranny, from a trial of sign-posted speed cameras that ticketed the top 15% of speeding subjects, to hidden cameras that fine everyone over the limit. ..and now the limit is coming down! My speedo has an 8% error, the norm is about 5%. The tolerance has been 10kph since I got my licence in 1965.

 

 

New Zealand news-

By: Alexia Russell | Latest National News | Thursday February 2 2012 11:35 Police have expanded this holiday weekend's lower speed tolerance to the whole of February.

 

They'll ticket anyone they catch going more than four kilometres an hour more than the posted limit.

 

Acting Superintendent Rob Morgan says they've identified February as high risk in terms of road safety and the road toll.

 

Analysts say it's the month with the third highest proportion of crashes in which speed is a contributing factor.

 

The lowered tolerance was introduced at Queen's Birthday 2010, after a disastrous Easter when 12 people died on the roads - it's now been expanded to catch all holiday periods.

 

[altezzaclub]

Shamelessly lifted from lewrockwell.com

You know that “check engine” light on your dashboard? What if instead of just telling you that the car’s computer has detected some fault with the emissions control system, it told the government – via roadside readers and satellite uplinks?

 

It’s called OBD III – and it’s right around the corner.

 

All new cars built since the mid-1990s have OBD II – or On Board Diagnostics II. This system standardized diagnostics by specifying that every new car come equipped with an OBD port (usually located somewhere near the driver’s side kick panel, on the underside of the dashboard) into which a technician (and your state’s emissions test station) can plug a scanner that downloads stored “trouble codes.” It is these trouble codes that also trigger the yellow “check engine” malfunction indicator light on your dash.

 

Mostly, these codes involve problems with the emissions control system rather than the engine itself. They’re often intermittent and minor. This is why it’s possible to continue driving the car with the “check engine” light on and everything still seems ok.

 

And it’s why the Powers That Be want OBD III.

 

In the words of the Specialty Equipment Manufacturer’s Association (SEMA), the vast umbrella organization representing automotive industry parts and equipment suppliers, OBD III is “A program to minimize the delay between detection of an emissions malfunction by the OBD-II system and repair of the vehicle.”

 

And how will that be accomplished? Rather than merely store trouble codes, OBDII will immediately transmit those trouble codes to The Man – who will then proceed to first warn you (via letter or e-mail) to have the car repaired, stepping up to more aggressive enforcement if you fail to do so in the form of “citations… court and/or DMV penalty at next registration.”

 

It would also be possible to send the info directly to any nearby cop, who would then pull you over immediately – saving the government some time while making some more money off motorists.

 

This is not sci-fi. It’s impending reality. All the technical issues have been solved. Most new cars already come with GPS systems capable of receiving and sending data. It would be a simple matter to salt the roads with scanners capable of ID’ing every car that passes by, automatically establishing a communications link with your car’s computer. This would occur continuously and constantly, too – not just every once-in-a-while. OBD III as envisioned would literally make it possible to constantly monitor and record every vehicle so equipped, from the moment it left the driveway to the moment it returned at night.

 

Here it is, straight from the horse’s mouth – the California Air Resources Board (CARB) which sets the trend for what inevitably becomes national when it comes to emissions rigmarole:

 

“If the inspection process could be automated through the use of transponder-assisted on-board diagnostic systems (in what could become an OBD-III requirement or program), the process could be made less costly and time-consuming.. ” (Italics added.)

 

If it comes to pass, OBD III will be the keystone that assures the end of any expectation of privacy behind the wheel (in addition to everywhere else) and it will also obviate the quaint notion that it’s your car – and hence, private property. Hence, hands off. SEMA’s fact sheet about OBD III notes this directly, stating that OBD III would impose what amounts to “sanctions based on ‘suspicionless mass surveillance’ of private property” and would also be “random,” with the actual monitoring taking place before the computer throws any codes – and so, bereft of probable cause and thus a pretty clear violation of the Fourth Amendment.

 

But, the Fourth Amendment is already a dead letter. It has been trumped – trampled – numerous times, on the basis of generalized, potential “threats” – everything from potential drunks (which now means anyone who happens to be behind the wheel on a public road) to potential polluters, whose cars might be emitting more than the allowable maximum amount of fumes (or even just CO2).

 

That’s how it will shake out, rest assured.

 

And it gets better, too.

 

If it becomes The Law that all new cars must be equipped with scannable OBD III, then what about older cars without OBD at all?

 

Here is the backdoor that will be used to effectively outlaw older cars, including antique cars – but also just older late-model cars. They won’t be prohibited outright, probably. Rather, they will be prohibited from being used for everyday transportation. You’ll be allowed to keep your pre-OBD III car. You just won't be allowed to drive it – except, perhaps, to the occasional old car show.

 

Or they may just require that all pre-OBD III cars be “retired” after a certain period – and then rendered inoperable by having their engines filled with silica or some such, a la Cash for Clunkers.

 

In this way, everyone will be forced into the system of mass control/mass surveillance. It has been a source of frustration in certain quarters that it’s still possible for the average citizen to drive a car built before catalytic converters and computers (and air bags and all the rest of it) became mandatory or de facto mandatory. There are dangerous asocial types out there who prefer such cars, which are paid-for, simpler and can often be kept running for years for next to nothing. That annoys both the TPTB – and probably also the car industry, which wants you in a new car, not a paid-for older car. The big combines will be among the most ardent proponents not merely of OBD III – but that cars without OBD III be “retired.”

 

The same arguments used to justify all the other gang bangs of the Fourth Amendment will be trotted out: We must protect the “safety” of the public – a public that increasingly becomes supine and moist at the mere mention of the Pavlovian cue word, safety.

 

And it will be impossible to argue against, because the essential argument has already been conceded. We have no individual rights worth discussing – and hence, no rights to either privacy or property that may not be set aside at any moment by some broadly asserted collective interest – as defined by the small minority that operates the collective.

 

When I was kid in the ’70s I liked the rock band, Rush. One song in particular, titled Red Barchetta – in honor of one of the first Ferrari street cars. The song was about a bleak future time, after a Motor Law banning private cars had been passed.

 

That future is just about here, unfortunately.

 

Reprinted with permission from EricPetersAutos.com.

 

 

 

[altezzaclub]

... and while we are protecting the poor public, the terrible terrorism that has seen thousands of innocents killed in Aussie and NZ means that we must X-ray everyone who flies between these two countries. No opt-out to be groped by some queer faggot, it's "get irradiated or don't fly".

 

I'm sure you all feel so much safer now...

 

So get on your knees bitches, The Man has told you to!

 

 

 

Australia continues trying to outdo America's march toward authoritarian control over its population. The two countries seem to be trading salvos to see which can eradicate the rights of their citizens faster.

 

Australia appears to have taken the lead with their latest proposal to ban travelers who refuse being subjected to the full body microwave radiation scans that have proven to be a horrible invasion of privacy, as well as a legitimate threat to one's health.

 

The list of assurances from the Australian government via its Orwellian-named Privacy Commission echo similar false guarantees issued by America's TSA: passengers will not appear nude, and the images will be discarded. However, there is no mention of the cumulative negative health effects (particularly to children) of receiving a mandatory mega does of radiation each time one exercises their right to travel by plane.

 

Australia's transport minister, Anthony Albanese, cites the unsubstantiated claim that,

...the public understands that we live in a world where there are threats to our security and experience shows they want the peace of mind that comes with knowing government is doing all it can.

Adding for good measure that,

For this technology to work effectively, obviously there can't be an option to refuse screening.

Obviously.

NZ x-rays start in a couple of months.

 

(Sorry Irokin, our freedoms are being eradicated so fast I'll fill this topic up by the end of the year! )

[ke11restorer]

So, you seem to have all these opinions, and hatred towards the government.

 

But I ask you, what is it that you are actually doing besides posting on an internet forum to better the situation? :hmm:

[altezzaclub]

Ah- I've been harassing radio stations & newpapers for years with the same opinions!

 

..and actually I was one of the founder group that started the NZ Libertarianz party, so we have been watching the Govts extend their powers for quite some years.

 

Anarcho-capitalists tend to be older, so we don't run around protesting and screaming like Socialists/Anachists, they are the ones rioting all over the place wanting more handouts. Its the old problem that Govts are torn down by young people with nothing to lose, who then let an identical Govt back in!

 

Sadly, you have to be old to have a long enough vision of how things use to be and what direction they are going in, then by that time you're too old to do anything to stop it!

 

Maybe some youngsters will tie the different stories together and see what Govt is really about, then they can tackle it! Govts are certainly making it as hard as possible to unseat them, and their technology, money, and manpower are widening the power gap between rulers and theri subjects. The constant fear-mongering and bribery they use limits the number of people who realise we can do without them. The middle-class are too scared to consider looking after themselves and the poor would never give up the handouts.

[irokin]

I'm curious as to where you see religion in all of this? The religious right in America seems to be allied at varying degrees to what you're proposing. Why wouldn't we just end up with a theocracy instead?