SA sitting on time bomb - FF Plus

[Nicodeamus]

Non-polygamists

Monogamists! tsk tsk tsk!

 

[Ekstasis]

Monogamists! tsk tsk tsk!

Couldn't think of the right word
Dankie vir die reg help ou grote

 

[Garson007]

Ok erm here is the flaw in your logic: government CANNOT create jobs, they can only take jobs from the public sector because everything that government does he has to take from someone else. So every R1 spend by government is R1 spent less by the public sector, if the public sector makes to less profit entrepreneurial and business activity goes down and then eventually less jobs are created.

The government is an employer just like all other companies. They're not taking away jobs from anything. They create jobs. Where exactly does the government spend their cash? Yeah that's right, in the public sector. Money that gets spent gets spent. The government is one of the surest spenders out there, while billionaires could sit with their money in "investments".

labour laws also cause unemployment, it raises the price of hiring someone and makes cheap work more expensive, it only protects those currently employed and not the unemployed. There is an argument for government providing basic services, like Roads, the police, the judiciary, it has some merit and God forbid, we do not need the state to do 90% of the things that it is currently doing, it is strangling the middle-class.

Strangle? You mean provide for...

The foods making it towards the 'local' market will be cheaper relative to income if government doesn't subsidize it. The same goes for 90% of the things that they try and 'stimulate'.

I'd love to hear this logic.

The so called 'safety net' and social grands and what have you nots that our government currently hands out encourages unemployment. You know with every economic policy there is an unintended consequence (which is just ignored by most people, either blatantly or in ignorance).

I'm talking about the safety net for businesses. While we're at the safety net for citizens, the burden of proof is on you to provide a case study that people are wilfully unemployed, more so than without it.

if people are taxed more then they won't be able to buy from businesses! (once again a logic failure from you, so how are these businesses going to survive without customers!). Not to mention investment will go down and capital circulation will be slower. (unless you believe that government knows how best to invest into the economy, the Gautrain and E-toll gantras are a good example that they are not capable of doing so).

The idea was of course never to tax away all disposable income. It's obviously a very fine balance. However in a time like this it is critical to rather make sure businesses start up, creating jobs and a bigger buyer's market, than to make sure that real luxury items are bought.

The austrian school of economics isn't the only one that agrees with this approach, so does the Chicago school of economics and there are many many other that follows a same train of thought. The Austrians only differ because they derive their theories by means of formal logic, the Chicago guys usually add empirical evidence towards it. (I tend to look towards both nowadays).

Yet the Keynesian model still makes the most sense and also has the best track records.

Also you're once again assuming that if government doesn't spend money in basic needs then people won't do it at all, this is also simply not true and not even provable.

When you prove that social security is bad for the job market, I'll try and convince you of this.

 

[ponder]

The government is an employer just like all other companies. They're not taking away jobs from anything. They create jobs. Where exactly does the government spend their cash? Yeah that's right, in the public sector. Money that gets spent gets spent. The government is one of the surest spenders out there, while billionaires could sit with their money in "investments".

What you don't seem to understand is that the gov. is a very inefficient organization (and i hate calling it that because they don't qualify to be called organized). They are inefficient, utterly corrupt, full of nepotism, unaccountable and immune from prosecution. If you had to run a business would like people from the gov to run it for you???

 

[Garson007]

What you don't seem to understand is that the gov. is a very inefficient organization (and i hate calling it that because they don't qualify to be called organized). They are inefficient, utterly corrupt, full of nepotism, unaccountable and immune from prosecution. If you had to run a business would like people from the gov to run it for you???

That's not what we're arguing... I utterly agree though.

From an economic standpoint though you cannot argue that they're not good spenders. If you're going to target their lack of productivity, as in creation of products, then you need to talk about middle-management and the finance industry as well. Neither of which produce anything in terms of a tangible product either.

 

[ponder]

From an economic standpoint though you cannot argue that they're not good spenders.

No I can, they spending fscinking money they don't have, my money, you're money and everybody elses money!!! It's bloody tyranny!!!

 

[alloytoo]

He's more qualified than all of our ministers. And the president.

Most high school "learners" are more qualified the president.

 

[Nicodeamus]

That's not what we're arguing... I utterly agree though.

From an economic standpoint though you cannot argue that they're not good spenders. If you're going to target their lack of productivity, as in creation of products, then you need to talk about middle-management and the finance industry as well. Neither of which produce anything in terms of a tangible product either.

spending is not wealth creation, basically government takes wealth from you.... and then spends it on something else. If you have R100 and I take R50, give R20 to our government then our net sum is still R100 where was wealth created in this entire process?


That is exactly what government is doing, it is also legalized plunder (from a moral opinion).

 

[Nicodeamus]

Yet the Keynesian model still makes the most sense and also has the best track records.

which is total nonsense, the Keynesian model caused the financial crisis, ironically the Austrians predicted it..

However the Chicago school contributed significantly during the 1980's, its line of thinking put England back on the map of the world.

Your however making the fundamental mistake of judging an economic policy on its intention and not its consequences.

 

[Nicodeamus]

Strangle? You mean provide for...

so far that are only stranglying

]
I'd love to hear this logic.

Lets compare the obvious, if government doesn't subsidize food then I only have to pay the farmers, the factories and the current people in that process. How is it going to be cheaper if I have to pay government the farmers and the factories?

Paying R2 + government is not cheaper than paying R2. Now it might seem cheaper in price terms, however relative towards your income earnings the price of food goes up. I didn't even add the obvious fact that when government subsidizes something then the beneficiaries have the incentive to up the price of their goods.

 

[Sinbad]

You cannot legislate the poor into prosperity by legislating the wealthy into poverty.

For every cent given to someone who has not worked for it, someone has to work without getting paid.

The problem with our government is they do not spend wisely. They waste far too much money on inefficiency, corruption and other needless things. Sure that money is spent into the private sector, but it was taken from the private sector in the first place, and it SHOULD have been used to invest in the future of the country. Every million rand that some fat **** tenderpreneur steals is a million rand that will not uplift the country. It will not build schools. It will not pay teachers. It will not maintain infrastructure, resulting in the overburdened taxpayer having to pay extra for these things, things they have in reality already paid for...

 

[xrapidx]

Sad part is those that are voting for the ANC believe they're voting for a better life for themselves, but all they're doing is voting for a better life for those already in power.

Pretty much voting their own future down the drain.

 

[Jola]

Sad part is those that are voting for the ANC believe they're voting for a better life for themselves, but all they're doing is voting for a better life for those already in power.

Pretty much voting their own future down the drain.

But you will never convince the sheeple of that !

 

[binkybozo]

so what exactly is your point, that this article is BS?

If so, you're deluded. I've seen enough posts from members of this forum that are really starting to struggle to make ends meet

Agreed.

I don't see how some people make it each month. We have cut so much that it is almost to the point of "what do we cut now?" Those salaries just don't stretch like they used to and I don't see it getting any better.

 

[Garson007]

which is total nonsense, the Keynesian model caused the financial crisis, ironically the Austrians predicted it..

However the Chicago school contributed significantly during the 1980's, its line of thinking put England back on the map of the world.

Your however making the fundamental mistake of judging an economic policy on its intention and not its consequences.

Nonsense. Reaganomics (supply-side economics) is what caused the collapse. In fact, companies like GM have done ridiculously well after the Keynesian stimulus. The USA are trying to save it all by moving towards exactly my suggestions - lower business tax, higher income tax. All the while the EU is spinning out of control with is austerity measures.

 

[Sonic2k]

they wanted to create a society where 1% belongs to the wealthy elite and 99% are struggling

That is how every government in Africa wants to run a country, there are countless examples. Zimbabwe is perhaps the best one. It reflects their true dumb mentality

 

[Ekstasis]

That is how every government in Africa wants to run a country, there are countless examples. Zimbabwe is perhaps the best one. It reflects their true dumb mentality

 

[Nicodeamus]

Nonsense. Reaganomics (supply-side economics) is what caused the collapse. In fact, companies like GM have done ridiculously well after the Keynesian stimulus. The USA are trying to save it all by moving towards exactly my suggestions - lower business tax, higher income tax. All the while the EU is spinning out of control with is austerity measures.

Because of a flawed monitory policy that gave them easy access to credit. Reaganomics was a big contributor because the republicans decided to cut taxes without cutting government. Government grew significantly under Reagan and Bush.
How do you pay for something that you don't have? You borrow money... which explains the big fact debt!

Anyways, please tell me why the 'superior' Keynesian people couldn't have predicted the financial crisis?