In response to a Facebook post of a video by Pauline Hanson responding to a TV debate, I wrote:
What is the budget debt got to do with the cost of living? The price of a loaf of bread has nothing to do with the budget debt. Explain exactly what debt is? Is money, an asset, actually debt? Depending on which side of the government, non government side you look at it from.
If all debt was a squillion dollars, what difference would that make to everyones daily life?
I would be interested in anyone's answer to these questions?
Geoff GreigWhat’s debt got to do with the cost of living? On the surface, not much — a loaf of bread doesn’t rise in price because of federal debt directly. But when government debt leads to higher taxes, rising interest rates, inflation, or cuts to services, that’s when Aussies feel it in their wallets.
So what is debt, really? In today’s system, money itself is a form of debt — created by governments and banks, backed by confidence, not gold. From a government view, debt can be managed. But from a taxpayer’s view, it often feels like the burden is passed down to us.
If all debt was a squillion dollars? If confidence holds, life goes on. But if it doesn’t — we get a weaker dollar, higher prices, and foreign control over our economy. That's the danger.
Pauline Hanson's take? Debt is the result of political mismanagement, globalism, and selling out Aussie assets. While Canberra racks up billions, it’s working families who cop the price at the bowser, at the checkout, and on their power bills.
Same Same or should we all be calling you the Pauline Hansen one nation spokesperson?
Even under the surface, the only thing you mentioned that has increased, so does effect the cost of living, is inflation. Income tax rates have decreased. The reserve bank, supposedly, sets interest rates to control inflation, to control the money/debt supply. Ther is no correlation between government cuts in services and government debt.
So show me proof of the direct or indirect correlation between government debt and inflation, even though it is not applicable to our loaf of bread.
I agree with you that governments can manage debt. I also agree with you that it is only taxpayers feelings that the burden is being passed on to them. It is just a feeling, not a reality. It is what I could call aggregated anxiety
So why are you, and most politicians. Further propagating this aggregated anxiety?
Again I agree with you that if debt was a squillion, dollars as long as confident holds, life Will Go On. So again why are you and politicians actively reducing confidence?
I no the answer, but I would like to hear it from you.
Another question for you. Would we all be better off without politicians?
Debt has interest attached, therefore every dollar you generate in revenue isn't able to be used for productive purposes, because a percentage of that dollar is spent paying interest.
So either governments need to increase revenue (taxes) to maintain the same level of service, or they need to reduce services to maintain the same level of taxation.
If services are reduced, private enterprise steps in and that's almost always more expensive.
A big part of government is regulation. Reducing services also means reduction in enforcing regulation. So think the ACCC for example can't be funded properly and corporations start getting away with anti-competitive behaviour.
There are a lot of trickle down effects of government needing to repay debt.
But of course, the other solution is government growing a pair of balls and outlawing the stuff ruining things.
Glen Greig You would make a reasonable politician. You replied to my post without answering my questions.
Governments can repay existing debt, without increasing revenue or reducing services, by simply creating more debt. I used to have a business partner that used to do that. Use one credit card to pay off another credit card. It eventually catches up with individuals, but those governments that have their own currency can create more money to pay debt. I no about inflation, but that can supposedly, be controlled.
Other than the perceived public issue with government debt, that I named aggregated anxiety, on another Post, what is the trickle down effect of debt?
So you want, bigger, smaller or different government? Personally I want no politicians. So direct democracy.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Direct_democracy
I no, politicians are not going to put up a possible change to the constitution to eliminate politicians. I wonder how the Liechtensteins did it?
Geoff Greig, i directly answered your first question.
If you forgot what your own question was, that's on you. But ask yourself, are you really asking a question you want an answer to or just going on some whacky rant? Because if the latter, i don't have time.