Senexx
Junior Member
Posts: 81 
|
Post by Senexx on Jul 20, 2016 23:48:35 GMT
Chairman of the Fed in the US Beardsley Ruml said Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete and many other things compatible with the AEP Economic framework
I'm confident (a vague recollection) that at the same time Herbert Cole "Nugget" Coombs was saying something similar in Australia. He was a director of the Commonwealth Bank Board, our equivalent of a Reserve Bank at the time.
However I have never found a paper written by him, just an interview with a journalist that makes him out to be a nice guy. So if anyone has access to economic material written by Nugget Coombs, please share.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Jul 24, 2016 2:08:24 GMT
Looks like there are 2 books that might have the answer: Coombs, H. C. (1981), Trial Balance, MacMillan Rowse, Tim (2002), Nugget Coombs: a Reforming Life, Cambridge University Press Neither of these is available through the Gosford Public Library system unfortunately, but A Reforming Life is (mostly) available in Google Books -- interestingly Coombs promotes a very Job Guarantee-like programme at the start of page 306 (I can't figure out how to link to 306 directly but you can navigate to that page easily with the menu in the top right): books.google.com.au/books?id=UT1sM6_KoS8C&pg=PA111&lpg=PA111&dq=%22nugget+Coombs%22+%22government+spending%22&source=bl&ots=QtH6aULISf&sig=cx8Ds6o0nv1Nj_PN2XbGjAZiYUQ&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwih2anL9YrOAhXCl5QKHUd_AQIQ6AEIGzAA#v=onepage&q&f=falseI couldn't find anything that sounded similar to Ruml's comments in that book. I think if you can find a library with Trial Balance it'd be worth a read as that was actually written by Coombs and is most likely to have any of those sorts of claims in it (rather than other works interpreted by people who may have varying economic leanings and may not have been on the lookout for such a statement). However Coombs contributed to the White Paper on Full Employment: www.billmitchell.org/White_Paper_1945/index.htmlsays: "PUBLIC FINANCE It has been established that, since public expenditure on current services is relatively stable except for long-term changes, it is public capital expenditure which must be varied where necessary to maintain full employment. In order to maintain the appropriate level of expenditure, governments must obtain the necessary finance. The chief possible sources are taxation, and borrowing either from the public or the central bank. Taxation should be the main source of revenue. It can be levied so as to secure a more equitable distribution of incomes, and does not create a problem of interest-bearing debt. The objections to it are not serious provided that the rates are not too high. It is also important that the public should understand the purposes for which taxation is imposed, that it should not be irritated by more frequent changes in taxation policy than are inevitable, and that it should be satisfied that taxation affects individuals with reasonable equity. However, there are limitations on the extent to which taxation can be used; but these will still permit it to be at such a level that the yield from incomes when the economy is fully employed covers at least all public expenditure on current items, including the maintenance of existing assets. It should also make some contribution towards public capital expenditure. Taxes will be designed to have the least possible restrictive effect, both on the readiness to undertake private capital expenditure, and on the efficiency with which production is undertaken. Levels of taxation and existing methods of levying direct taxation are being closely examined, and consideration will be given to such changes as may seem necessary. Borrowing from the public is on a voluntary basis and avoids some of the disadvantages of taxation, but leaves a debt on which interest has to be paid. Financing by the Commonwealth Bank can be used to advantage up to the limit of available men and resources, but if carried beyond this point it would gravely threaten the real incomes of workers and low income groups and would result in conditions so unstable that full employment could not be maintained." The bit that's most important is the bit about "Financing by the Commonwealth Bank" which is basically just direct money creation by the government. Basically he's saying the government can create money to sustain a deficit but it has to be done carefully so as to avoid inflation. |
|
|
|
Post by jonathan on Jul 28, 2016 6:32:30 GMT
The bit that's most important is the bit about "Financing by the Commonwealth Bank" which is basically just direct money creation by the government.
Basically he's saying the government can create money to sustain a deficit but it has to be done carefully so as to avoid inflation. I remember seeing a video interview of Jim Cairns in which he said much the same regarding the war effort.
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Jul 28, 2016 11:27:44 GMT
The bit that's most important is the bit about "Financing by the Commonwealth Bank" which is basically just direct money creation by the government.
Basically he's saying the government can create money to sustain a deficit but it has to be done carefully so as to avoid inflation. I remember seeing a video interview of Jim Cairns in which he said much the same regarding the war effort.
Any idea when that video was from jonathan? I'd love to get a hold of it. Did you see it on YouTube? |
|
Senexx
Junior Member
Posts: 81
|
Post by Senexx on Aug 6, 2016 2:33:25 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Aug 6, 2016 2:52:57 GMT
brilliant thanks Senexx I've put that on my watch list |
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Aug 6, 2016 13:47:43 GMT
Watching these now  |
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Aug 6, 2016 14:49:38 GMT
This is great. vimeo.com/177814295Edwin you'll enjoy watching these videos to see what it takes to get Aussies rioting in the streets. About 30% unemployment apparently! |
|
Edwin
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by Edwin on Aug 7, 2016 2:11:19 GMT
Iain Dooley, according to Roy Morgan the unemployment rate was 11% as of April the 7th 2016. It's unfortunate that it will take an unemployment rate of 30% to force a political revolution in Australia. There are far too many ignorant and apathetic people in Australia, I have said previously that there aren't enough poor people in Australia to demand a better country. This is typical of humanity, we have to be brought to the brink of collapse before we do anything about it rather then make the changes needed in order to prevent that collapse. It seems that the minority parties of hate are getting the most votes. The Australian Liberty Alliance received 102,982 votes across Australia for the senate. Fortunately they didn't win any seats however, Pauline Hanson's One Nation received 593,013 votes and won 4 seats. According to this website: www.donkeyvotie.org/ here is a list of all the left-wing minority parties that were on the senate ballot paper for the 2016 Australian federal election: Science Party/Cyclists Party who received a combined total of 29,934 votes in New South Wales and Victoria. Voluntary Euthanasia Party who received 23,252 votes. Socialist Alliance who received 9,968 votes. Pirate Party Australia who received a combined total of 21,760 votes in New South Wales and Queensland. Secular Party of Australia who received 11,077 votes. Socialist Equality Party who received 7,865 votes. Animal Justice Party who received 162,378 votes. The Arts Party who received 37,702 votes. Australian Sex Party/Marijuana(HEMP)Party who received 200,516 votes. Australian Progressives who received 6,251 votes. Drug Law Reform who received 61,327 votes. Renewable Energy Party who received 29,983 votes. A combined total of 602,013 people voted for left-wing minority parties. This total excludes people who voted for the Greens and the Australian Labor Party. As I previously mentioned Pauline Hanson's One Nation received 593,013 votes and won 4 seats. So I would assume the tactic would be, to address all the issues that resulted in her party winning 4 seats as well as discrediting her. Here is the link for the senate voting results: www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/results/senate/
|
|
Edwin
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by Edwin on Aug 7, 2016 4:00:42 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Aug 7, 2016 9:45:19 GMT
Great thanks Edwin I was just manually going between each vid but I'll add that playlist to the AEP channel now |
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Aug 7, 2016 9:56:19 GMT
Iain Dooley, according to Roy Morgan the unemployment rate was 11% as of April the 7th 2016. It's unfortunate that it will take an unemployment rate of 30% to force a political revolution in Australia. There are far too many ignorant and apathetic people in Australia, I have said previously that there aren't enough poor people in Australia to demand a better country. This is typical of humanity, we have to be brought to the brink of collapse before we do anything about it rather then make the changes needed in order to prevent that collapse. It seems that the minority parties of hate are getting the most votes. The Australian Liberty Alliance received 102,982 votes across Australia for the senate. Fortunately they didn't win any seats however, Pauline Hanson's One Nation received 593,013 votes and won 4 seats. According to this website: www.donkeyvotie.org/ here is a list of all the left-wing minority parties that were on the senate ballot paper for the 2016 Australian federal election: Science Party/Cyclists Party who received a combined total of 29,934 votes in New South Wales and Victoria. Voluntary Euthanasia Party who received 23,252 votes. Socialist Alliance who received 9,968 votes. Pirate Party Australia who received a combined total of 21,760 votes in New South Wales and Queensland. Secular Party of Australia who received 11,077 votes. Socialist Equality Party who received 7,865 votes. Animal Justice Party who received 162,378 votes. The Arts Party who received 37,702 votes. Australian Sex Party/Marijuana(HEMP)Party who received 200,516 votes. Australian Progressives who received 6,251 votes. Drug Law Reform who received 61,327 votes. Renewable Energy Party who received 29,983 votes. A combined total of 602,013 people voted for left-wing minority parties. This total excludes people who voted for the Greens and the Australian Labor Party. As I previously mentioned Pauline Hanson's One Nation received 593,013 votes and won 4 seats. So I would assume the tactic would be, to address all the issues that resulted in her party winning 4 seats as well as discrediting her. Here is the link for the senate voting results: www.abc.net.au/news/federal-election-2016/results/senate/ I think you touch on an interesting point here Edwin and that's that the vote for left wing minor parties exceeded that of One Nation. This is why I have included the suggestion that we analyse other minor party policies and invite them to discuss here with us. There would be a lot of alignment between these left wing parties and if we could present a sensible way of unifying these policies we'd be able to get some pretty significant representation. The other interesting thing is how much more press the insane right get than the sensible left. How many people do you think have heard of the science party? |
|
Edwin
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by Edwin on Aug 7, 2016 11:01:13 GMT
I think you touch on an interesting point here Edwin and that's that the vote for left wing minor parties exceeded that of One Nation. This is why I have included the suggestion that we analyse other minor party policies and invite them to discuss here with us. There would be a lot of alignment between these left wing parties and if we could present a sensible way of unifying these policies we'd be able to get some pretty significant representation. The other interesting thing is how much more press the insane right get than the sensible left. How many people do you think have heard of the science party? "How many people do you think have heard of the science party?" based on the results I would say 29,934 people have heard about them, well maybe not but they voted for them non the less. 29,934 votes from a population of 24 million isn't significant. Some of the parties have joined together and share the ballot paper, not that I really understand how that works. I guess since it's the senate ballot, under the joined group there are candidates from both parties e.g. Science Party/Cyclists Party and Australian Sex Party/Marijuana(HEMP)Party. I am too impatient to wait for a revolution so as far as I am concerned it's 2019 or bust. Would it be possible to contact all of these parties and propose that they join the AEP or is there a way that everyone could share the ballot paper? although when voting above the line the party name would be extremely long [Australian Employment Party/Science Party/Cyclists Party/Voluntary Euthanasia Party/Socialist Alliance/Pirate Party Australia/Secular Party of Australia/Socialist Equality Party/Animal Justice Party/The Arts Party/Australian Sex Party/Marijuana(HEMP)Party/Australian Progressives/Drug Law Reform/Renewable Energy Party] But if you can get all of these parties to join the AEP, it will solve the candidates issue, you need 150 candidates for the House of Representatives. I realise that the senate is cheaper to run for but all the senate can do is block and pass legislation, as far as I was away it's the House of Representatives that drafts the legislation. Here is a screenshot of the results for the House of Representatives taken from the wikipedia page:  I was unable to find a better source for the results, so I am unaware of who the "others" are that received a combined total of 1,055,311 votes. Based on the results it would seem that in order to win one seat in the HoR, you would need to get 72,879 of the first preference votes. But having said that, Nick Xenophon Team received more than three times the votes than Katter's Australia Party received so you would think that NXT would have won 3 seats. Iain Dooley, are you confident enough to say that you are Australia's Bernie Sanders? are you able to replicate his campaign over the next three years? I would like to see votes taken away from the ALP and the Greens. I guess in order to get more media attention you have to emulate the tactics of the right but with coherent and factually accurate based statements, a zealot for the left if you will. You have to get angry. |
|
|
|
Post by Iain Dooley on Aug 7, 2016 11:05:39 GMT
I have every intention of saying I'm Australia's Bernie Sanders in fact the title I have in mind for the first press release is "Australia's answer to Bernie Sanders sets sights on full employment" but I don't know if the timing is right, if I should push for that PR prior to registration, prior to having a more fully formed national executive etc.
I definitely am not thinking 2019 or bust though, and neither is Tim.
Bernie was a Senator for 9 years before he ran for President.
So I think I can replicate what he did in 12 years but not 3.
A senate seat in 2019 would be a stellar result in my opinion.
|
|
Edwin
Junior Member
Posts: 54
|
Post by Edwin on Aug 7, 2016 11:57:29 GMT
Although Pauline Hanson achieved a seat in less time when she won her seat in 1996. Even though (according to wikipedia) she had joined the liberal party and was endorsed as the Liberal candidate for the House of Representatives electorate of Oxley. So, she got lucky. Certainly Ricky Muir won a seat in less time but with the help of an alliance of independents before the senate changes. Andrew Wilkie hasn't had a long political career. It seems that the fast track to being elected is to run as a candidate for another party and once elected then leave the party and ran as an independent. I am sure this isn't a tactic you are interested it, I am just citing examples of candidates who have been elected with less time as a politician.
|
|
