Fuck Rudd is a dickhead (3 Viewers)

[moll.]

What you would have done to, more or less, save Australia from recession during the GFC? I'm not asking this in a 10 year old tone of "THEN U DO BETTA" either. Just saw the degree you are doing in your sig and figured you'd have a more enlightened view than I do.

Alright, prepare for an essay.

Firstly, there seems to be this negetive stigma about recessions that everyone has. It's like a recession is now equated to an apocalypse in the media these days. But recessions are good for the economy. It only takes an average business to easily survive during a boom, but it takes a good one to survive a bust and an absolutely excellent one to grow during the recession. Simply put, an ocassional recessions help to clear out all the garbage in the economy.

But putting that aside and accepting the populist Keynesian outlook, Rudd's 50 billion total in stimulus was poorly thought out. The first 10 billion was understandably panicked, and because it wasn't overly large, it can be forgiven.

The second round, however, was an utter fiasco. For starters there was only a four month period between the two stimulus plans. This is nowhere near the time needed to collect, collate and interpret the economic data for the GFC fallout and the effects of the first stimulus.

Secondly, the cash payments were a terrible idea. Spending 20 billion of taxpayers money to keep the retail and consumer industries afloat for a single quarter is just a waste of money. A better idea would have been to make monthly payments of a much smaller amount (say $150) at irregular intervals to random recipients. This could have been continued indefinately, increased if the recession worsened or halted if it was obvious that we were recovering.

An even better idea would have been to just lower corporate taxes for a year through offering tax rebates when they file their returns. Terrible businesses would have still gone bankrupt, but it would have saved those marginal performers.

The other 20 billion was also wasted. I can understand the attraction of building school halls; there is at least one school in every town of over 500 people, which means construction, engineering and planning industries across the country would benefit, as opposed to the stimulus being concentrated in the capitals. But upgrading schools should be the last thing on their list of priorities.

Instead, they should have spent the money on renovating and upgarding hospitals, building high-speed rail networks between the cities and regional centres, and building nuclear, solar and wind power stations; all of which would have helped out regional as well as city Australia, although probably in less places than did the school halls. Now, some of these options would require a good deal of planning before implementation, which is probably why they didn't do it. It was quicker and easier to just throw money at the schools, rather than plan appropriately.

As for the insulation scheme, it was a good idea in theory, but it too was rushed out, without proper regulation. It should have been modelled along the lines of the solar panel rebates, with similar regulation of the industry.

End.

 

[Teclis]

Instead, they should have spent the money on renovating and upgarding hospitals, building high-speed rail networks between the cities and regional centres, and building nuclear, solar and wind power stations; all of which would have helped out regional as well as city Australia, although probably in less places than did the school halls. Now, some of these options would require a good deal of planning before implementation, which is probably why they didn't do it. It was quicker and easier to just throw money at the schools, rather than plan appropriately.

I'll agree with everything you said but this...

The problem with hospitals is more the distribution of resources by beureacratic morons rather than medico's who understand what their hospitals need... More money would help... but getting rid of the idiots would help more (particularly the dipshits who rezoned hospital management into larger areas)

The High speed rail network is a nice idea, but in Australia with such large distances between major cities and freeways already in place, and the high cost of railways I would have thought there would be better ways spending money.

And Nuclear power, whereever it is used, is heavily subsidised by the government to make it cost effective... and despite what they say, it isn't completely safe... there's a reason the American's stopped building Nuclear power plants.

But the building of infrastruce was a better idea than cash handouts to a lot of people who did things like put it towards mortgages, in savings, paying off debts etc (and a LOT of people went to the pokies)

 

[Garygaz]

Alright, prepare for an essay.

Firstly, there seems to be this negetive stigma about recessions that everyone has. It's like a recession is now equated to an apocalypse in the media these days. But recessions are good for the economy. It only takes an average business to easily survive during a boom, but it takes a good one to survive a bust and an absolutely excellent one to grow during the recession. Simply put, an ocassional recessions help to clear out all the garbage in the economy.

But putting that aside and accepting the populist Keynesian outlook, Rudd's 50 billion total in stimulus was poorly thought out. The first 10 billion was understandably panicked, and because it wasn't overly large, it can be forgiven.

The second round, however, was an utter fiasco. For starters there was only a four month period between the two stimulus plans. This is nowhere near the time needed to collect, collate and interpret the economic data for the GFC fallout and the effects of the first stimulus.

Secondly, the cash payments were a terrible idea. Spending 20 billion of taxpayers money to keep the retail and consumer industries afloat for a single quarter is just a waste of money. A better idea would have been to make monthly payments of a much smaller amount (say $150) at irregular intervals to random recipients. This could have been continued indefinately, increased if the recession worsened or halted if it was obvious that we were recovering.

An even better idea would have been to just lower corporate taxes for a year through offering tax rebates when they file their returns. Terrible businesses would have still gone bankrupt, but it would have saved those marginal performers.

The other 20 billion was also wasted. I can understand the attraction of building school halls; there is at least one school in every town of over 500 people, which means construction, engineering and planning industries across the country would benefit, as opposed to the stimulus being concentrated in the capitals. But upgrading schools should be the last thing on their list of priorities.

Instead, they should have spent the money on renovating and upgarding hospitals, building high-speed rail networks between the cities and regional centres, and building nuclear, solar and wind power stations; all of which would have helped out regional as well as city Australia, although probably in less places than did the school halls. Now, some of these options would require a good deal of planning before implementation, which is probably why they didn't do it. It was quicker and easier to just throw money at the schools, rather than plan appropriately.

As for the insulation scheme, it was a good idea in theory, but it too was rushed out, without proper regulation. It should have been modelled along the lines of the solar panel rebates, with similar regulation of the industry.

End.

Worst idea was the first home buyers scheme.

'HEY GUYS, EXCELLENT IDEA, LETS GIVE ALL FIRST TIME BUYERS (50% of the market) FREE MONEY TO BUY HOUSES SO THEY CAN AFFORD IT, I'M SURE IT WON'T INFLATE PRICES FURTHER AND MAKE THEM MORE UNAFFORDABLE OOLOLOLOL'

awwshit simple stuff

 

[0bs3n3]

Firstly, there seems to be this negetive stigma about recessions that everyone has. It's like a recession is now equated to an apocalypse in the media these days. But recessions are good for the economy. It only takes an average business to easily survive during a boom, but it takes a good one to survive a bust and an absolutely excellent one to grow during the recession. Simply put, an ocassional recessions help to clear out all the garbage in the economy.

Don't all those bail out schemes and such in America run contrary to this though? Those banks/car makers that would have otherwise gone under are still afloat, albeit artificially.

 

[nevery]

Honestly, screw all the polititions. Where's all the intelligent debate/discussion gone? Now in parliament it's just slamming down the other side and making election promises to get votes.

Rudd promised a lot and delivered not much. Abbott promises what he'll give but who the heck wants what he gives?

There's not much choice here. I'm thinking there'll be a lot of informal votes or independent votes at this election.

Looks like politics has gone down the toilet.

 

[moll.]

Don't all those bail out schemes and such in America run contrary to this though? Those banks/car makers that would have otherwise gone under are still afloat, albeit artificially.

Yeah, they do. They haven't even fixed the underlying cause of the GFC, just put a few of the players under government administration, leaving the rest to 'business as usual'.

 

[axlenatore]

Secondly, the cash payments were a terrible idea. Spending 20 billion of taxpayers money to keep the retail and consumer industries afloat for a single quarter is just a waste of money. A better idea would have been to make monthly payments of a much smaller amount (say $150) at irregular intervals to random recipients. This could have been continued indefinately, increased if the recession worsened or halted if it was obvious that we were recovering.

How would you do random recipients, youd either have to do a specific group, everyone or no one

 

[pman]

randomly would lose the votes of those that didn't recieve it, no one minds a bit of cash in their pocket so he figured he'd win votes with it, thats all it was, vote grabbing

 

[moll.]

I'll agree with everything you said but this...

The problem with hospitals is more the distribution of resources by beureacratic morons rather than medico's who understand what their hospitals need... More money would help... but getting rid of the idiots would help more (particularly the dipshits who rezoned hospital management into larger areas)

The same thing happened with the schools anyway. Department 'crats were telling principals what they could and could not buy with the money, when the principals had made their own (cheaper) plans because they knew what the school needed better. The scheme wasn't designed to provide quality infrastructure to our schools. It was designed to throw large amounts of cash at local communities, regardless of incredible wastage and useless construction.
So yes, there would have been the same incredible wastage, but at least some of it would have filtered through the bureaucracy and helped out. The fundemental problem of wastage, bureaucracy and local administration is a seperate issue to the stimulus.

The High speed rail network is a nice idea, but in Australia with such large distances between major cities and freeways already in place, and the high cost of railways I would have thought there would be better ways spending money.

The primary attraction of this was that train travel is vastly more environmentally friendly than plan travel. If a high-speed rail network were built from Brisbnae to Melbourne, via Sydney and Canberra, The travel time would still probably be about four times as long as plane travel, but there would be massive savings in carbon output and if it were government controlled they could charge an amount less than a comparative plane ticket, which would also make it economical.
Of course the exact figures for construction are unknown to either of us, so it could end up being a fantastic idea or a great big black hole for taxpayer dollars.

And Nuclear power, whereever it is used, is heavily subsidised by the government to make it cost effective... and despite what they say, it isn't completely safe... there's a reason the American's stopped building Nuclear power plants.

I'm mostly talking about the small-scale nuclear reactors, designed for medium-sized towns. Most of them are buried underground, and designed for safety. They could be placed in the desert many kilometers away from the population using the power. A 10-megawatt reactor would provide enough power to light 8,000 homes.
Not only that, but they're relatively inexpenisve. Traditionally, the only way to get good economies of scale on nuclear power plants was to build massive above-ground reactors, such as exist in America and Russia. But mass-producing mini-nukes would save money too. Also, with rising prices for coal and gas, as well as the likely introduction of a carbon tax equivalent in most countries soon, nuclear plants will only become more attractive.
Micro nuclear reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Pebble bed reactor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Economics of new nuclear power plants - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

But the building of infrastruce was a better idea than cash handouts to a lot of people who did things like put it towards mortgages, in savings, paying off debts etc (and a LOT of people went to the pokies)

Agreed, although in the long-term all this extra savings and debt-reduction is good for us. It's all quite convoluted, really. Every scheme has it's pros and cons. Even the infrastructure building has it's cons, as most of the building takes a few months before beginning, by which time the economy could already be fucked.

 

[moll.]

How would you do random recipients, youd either have to do a specific group, everyone or no one

No, what I meant was that it should have been given to randomly-selected groups of people at irregular intervals, but all of them still within the same demagraphic that was promised the payments. Like, over the course of a month, everyone gets the payment, but it's given at irregular intervals to different randomly-selected sub-groups. That way it would spread out the payments across the entire country in a constant stream of cash, keeping the nation afloat for a longer period, rather than a once off, all-or nothing payment which blows up the economy for a few weeks then crashes it in a sugar-hit.
Hopefully this makes more sense now. Sorry, I worded it poorly.

 

[axlenatore]

No, what I meant was that it should have been given to randomly-selected groups of people at irregular intervals, but all of them still within the same demagraphic that was promised the payments. Like, over the course of a month, everyone gets the payment, but it's given at irregular intervals to different randomly-selected sub-groups. That way it would spread out the payments across the entire country in a constant stream of cash, keeping the nation afloat for a longer period, rather than a once off, all-or nothing payment which blows up the economy for a few weeks then crashes it in a sugar-hit.
Hopefully this makes more sense now. Sorry, I worded it poorly.

haha, thats what i assumed you meant. I doubt anyone would suggest the other alternative of a lottery like distribution

 

[dydx]

OK, next issue fuckface: Rudd wants to emulate China and censor the internet.

he will then be shot.

 

[funkshen]

he will then be reelected for saving the kids.

.

 

[Riet]

they should have built two iron ore smelters, one on the east coast and one on the west, with frieght rail lines connecting them to the mines and ports, built/upgraded ports (there is a massive bottleneck on exports), etc.

 

[JoeRossiofRPDat]

Rudd is a complete bastard

 

[Garygaz]

Rudd is a complete bastard

nice first post, you'll fit in just fine, son

 

[xMaNx]

Rudd is a fucker, he should be shot asap.

 

[Existential]

funny thing is, rudd's sure to win this coming election.

 

[FlipX]

Greens voters preference below the line more than any other party. The Greens will also will have full control of the Senate next election. I'm sure Rudd (or Abbott) will adore that.

Greens one of the best votes you can make because it means the batshit policies of any one party will not get through (to get policy through you'd need support from Labour/Greens, Labour/Liberals, or Liberals/Greens).

THIS.

Fucked up Rudd policy number 3) He's against nuclear power, even though it is cleaner and safer than coal.

Not necessarily true. The fall-out from mismanagement and accidents could be more devastating than all the pollution generated by coal. I'm all for more sustainable sources of energy, but we've got to be careful in assessing our options.

Alright, prepare for an essay...

moll. for PM? Honestly, you'd think someone up there would have the sense (and political balls?) to take the advice of the trained economists in the public service...

 

[Rothbard]

Not necessarily true. The fall-out from mismanagement and accidents could be more devastating than all the pollution generated by coal. I'm all for more sustainable sources of energy, but we've got to be careful in assessing our options.

hahahaha are you fucking serious, coal ash is more radioactive than nuclear piles.