97 thoughts on “Weekend reflections

  1. PM – Ill read your link but could you just answer my questions at 73 ie very specifically with common sense? Without the jargon?

    First?

  2. Paul Walter #70 we have another one of them here…that thinks deregulating the world and removing all government by removing all taxes is a solution to the economy….right…is there a tablet they can take?.

  3. Alice, unless you followed up the material and found that there, you’re making things up on the back of labelling. By all means cite something that supports your assertion, preferebly showing you have read the material, and in particular supporting the direction of cause and effect you made up in “deregulating the world and removing all government by removing all taxes is a solution to the economy” (I wouldn’t dispute that if we had some marvellous pie in the sky result, there would be no governments and then no taxes – if).

    And you are quite wrong, I am too busy to give you a proper reply until at least this evening, possibly tomorrow, so it really would get you there faster if you did some of the homework I pointed you at. You should at least tell me what you call jargon, with examples, so I can avoid that when I get around to it.

  4. Paul – they are, to use your famous words “bane of every blog atempting serious conversation, across the entire cyberverse”?

    The rambling much bold headed intro about super reform, with reams of unintelligible jargon, was in reality probably just an excuse to drop the silly extremist link in here in the hope than they could convert one dense fool to their mad way of thinking….yes, the whole bottle alright.
    Its a zoo out there.

  5. Alice, the populist mood to cap exec salaries is a ridiculous sideline to the main issue of how banks operate and the leverage they are permitted to use.

    Reform is to existing tax laws, merely ensuring that laws are enforced is not “reform”

  6. rog, I think she’s citing executive restraint and lack of, as symptom rather than cause.
    I think that the criteria for deserving v undeserving is arbitrary whichever side you are on- but I do know, I don’t want to be in the gutter while some executive responsible for some of the mess through an anti social mindset and misplaced loyalties, walks away with tens perhaps hundreds of millions of bucks (s)he doesn’t need, as part of the move to dominance of one small class over the rest on some very dubious justifications, indeed.
    Am sick of the Murdochs of the world trying to sell me the idea that I should rot in a dumbed down fools paradise ( am surely not so malevolent that I deserve that, compared to others ?) just so they can keep the goodies all to themselves, without even a questioning of their right to it against the rest.
    There are a lot of shonks being sold to pleb land at the moment under cover of a rights based debate, but for my part, remain stubbornly unconvinced that some of the really rich jerks out there are entitled to all that extra loot, just because they wear a suit (sh-t, am a poet, didn’t know it!!)

  7. confirmed 85#. I am. Willingness for risk leverage levels incentivised by excessive remunerations. Or did the chicken come before the egg? Doesnt matter, its a cracked egg now.

  8. Alice, “The link isnt worth citing and you sir, are a practical joker” is a combination of “my mind is made up, do not confuse me with the facts” and resorting to abuse when argument fails.

    When I get the time, I shall catch up with a reply for Paul Walter at no. 70 above, but you appear indifferent to being told so unless you give me some reason to suppose otherwise, there doesn’t seem much point replying to your comments even when I do get the time. Not if you have decided that I am a practical joker or worse without even waiting for a reply or bothering to follow the link I gave to find out if there is any relevant background there or linked from there, just coming out and calling it worthless without anything to back that up.

  9. Readers, Alice’s “The rambling much bold headed intro about super reform, with reams of unintelligible jargon, was in reality probably just an excuse to drop the silly extremist link in here in the hope than they could convert one dense fool to their mad way of thinking” is offensive. That “jargon” is lifted straight out of the material the Henry Tax Review put out, so I coukld talk to them in their language. Likewise the bolding came straight out of the format that made sense for the submission. I did not make that submission up just to play with people’s minds around here. Feel free to check what submissions they have on their site; sooner or later it will be there, which shows I only posted it here to get feedback – it’s not mucking around with people here. And feel free to show just what at that link is the sort of thing Alice objects to, or how my posting the submission leads to that – it came from a sincere attempt to give questioners here some relevant background, later on, when I tried to follow up what I thought were sincere requests and which I couldn’t foresee in advance.

    But my library session is coming to an end, so I must stop for a while.

  10. Pm I gave you feedback. The link you posted is extremist nonsense and the same nonsense expresses itself in your super plan. Reduce taxes, starve the government, keep people working to 70 before they get any entitlement, but keep their money longer in super with regulation. Most would despise that plan right now. Look what is happening as you draft this plan. Thats the last thing Ill say on it because the underlying philosophy leaves me completely cold.

  11. Alice, judging by your remarks and lack of substantiation you didn’t read anything at that link. Did you even know that Kevin Carson is routinely called a Marxist for criticising what he calls “Vulgar Libertarianism”? That you can look more deeply than those people do just by seeing what he finds to criticise about them? If you can be bothered, that is.

    You are definitely grossly misdescribing what I put forward, thus:-

    – “Reduce taxes” is part of it, but comes in tandem with other stuff. Doing the other stuff is what lets the taxes go down.

    – “starve the government” – that’s pure invention on your part. Even though I want the government wound back in step with winding back/engineering out what it does I would never advocate doing anything as destructive as that which would cause all sorts of other harm too, and I didn’t advocate it in the submission I posted here.

    – “keep people working to 70 before they get any entitlement” – plain wrong since they would get their stuff in other ways before that.

    – “but keep their money longer in super with regulation” – more pure invention. Nowhere do I suggest more regulation on superannuation, and nowhere do I suggest locking that up longer.

    – And, as I expect of you by now, you completely omit the part that puts more of people’s money under their own control in the run up to retirement – the most important part. But you probably just didn’t read that far.

    You have no knowledge of the underlying philosophy, since you have shown a bad habit of simply not reading to the end. You gave no feedback, just asked questions some of which I answered and the rest of which I did not have time to answer before you revealed yourself for what you are, someone who simply won’t be told or follow things up. Simply calling things extremist without bringing up objections is just a manner of closing off discussion.

    Ask serious questions and show an openness to being told, and I’ll start telling you things.

  12. As usual Pm you have these concrete plans (starve government, keep people working to 70, and lower taxes) and I have given you feedback. I dont like it. Its truly horrible in my opinion. Id like to stop seeing government holding peopl’e hands and forcing their money into super – especially those of middle or lower incomes who would be better off paying off their homes first…where is your plan for that? You say

    “Reduce taxes” is part of it, but comes in tandem with other stuff. Doing the other stuff is what lets the taxes go down.”

    Its the “other stuff” that is vague and non specific in your plan. What other stuff?

    and

    “I want the government wound back in step with winding back/engineering out”

    More meaningless jargon. “Engineering out”? How about “multi platform write down of government”? You havent used that one yet. Come now, PM, you are slipping.

  13. Alice, if I weren’t convinced you aren’t reading, I would be certain you are deliberately lying. You cite the following as “concrete plans” of mine:-

    – starve government;

    – keep people working to 70; and

    – lower taxes.

    Every single one of those is false, except that the last would be a consequence of some of my proposals if things worked through (i.e. it is not something I put forward as a “concrete plan”). Not one of them appears in my submission or my clarifications. If you knew what you were talking about you would know that, which would make those deliberate untruths and you a liar. Even though you don’t know what you are talking about, it’s still a straw man and you are working yourself up with “I dont like it. Its truly horrible in my opinion.” all by yourself. Pull yourself together, pay attention and come back with solid stuff, and you’ll be giving yourself a chance.

    I haven’t been following closely, but can we please cool this down – JQ

  14. This usual IMF suspect shows the kind of policy Australia is being pressed to adopt. Even if only recommendation (1.) above were adopted, it would cushion the effect on individuals more than that. The other recommendations aim at making up the losses in other ways. If it all comes right, of course, which is why this submission is not enough on its own and I am going to cover other stuff in a later submission.

  15. P.M.
    The ususal IMF suspect is suggesting the usual IMF remedies that have been so unsuccessful in downturns elsewhere. Find savings, cut public spending, and take urgent moves to reduce deficits and raise the retirement age. So those more vulnerable are made to harshy carry the crisis on their backs whilst those of means and plenty of savings arent made to endure an inconvenient rise in their income taxes. These IMF recommendations are a contractionary policy in the midst of one of the biggest shocks to the economy on a global scale that we have had in a century. The advice is the same old IMF wheelbarrow used for all countries and all circumstances. In this respect (and I dont agree with everything he says Keating is right; the IMF should be beheaded).
    I dont agree with this article’s recommendations either P.M. to roll back public spening even when countries are already in recession. These policies fall harshly on the most vulnerable eg Argentina 2002, plunged into poverty and social disruption, by just such policies (there are other examples). However I note already the IMF is moving towards recommending fiscal deficits in the case of Ukraine under current conditions. This is a softening of their usual stance P.M. but I still notice the overwhelming support for intervention for banks.
    http://www.imf.org/external/np/tr/2009/tr022709.htm

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

w

Connecting to %s