If spending must increase, onwhat should it increase, and on what not?
- Thread starter Machjo
- Start date
Actually, we kind of got off topic. While I'm hesitant about supporting increased government spending without a commensurate increase in taxes, it appears that that is coming whether we like it or not, and inflation will likely follow after a couple of years. That's the reality.
Now if spending must increase, where would you like to see it go, and where not?
Now if spending must increase, where would you like to see it go, and where not?
I see what you are saying and understand it. By taking currency out of curculation you lower the amount of currency which raises the value per unit of currency. But you cannot do this forever. At some point there will be no currency to take out. Since globally there is inflation to keep up....every year they would have to take money out of curculation, on average 3% to just counteract the global economy.
Every year they would have to take money out of curculation. Every single year, and basically burn it. They couldn't use it to pay down debt, they couldn't use it for anything. Because that is not taking it out of circulation. Most countries do this not by taking out but by producing less. Each year the federal reserves of countries, or equivalent, take old bills out and produce new ones. This along with interest rates controls inflation.
Every year they would have to take money out of curculation. Every single year, and basically burn it. They couldn't use it to pay down debt, they couldn't use it for anything. Because that is not taking it out of circulation. Most countries do this not by taking out but by producing less. Each year the federal reserves of countries, or equivalent, take old bills out and produce new ones. This along with interest rates controls inflation.
By paying the difference in price, the government would be either contributing to inflation, interest rates, debt, or any combination thereof. By raising taxes, cutting spending, or a combination of the two, the government would be taking money out of the system. This woudl mean that it would be harder to sell goods, and so prices would have no choice but to drop!
Of course gas prices might increase, but with less money in the system, people would just buy less, and if they buy less, fewer goods travel. If fewer goods travel, truckers buy less gas. If truckers buy less gas, gas prices must drop.
You might argue that this would involve halting inflation at the cost of recession. True. But this could be counterbalanced by a drop in salaries. Clearly if jobs are scarce, people will be willing to drop their salaries. And if prices aren't going up, then this drop in salaries won't be so painful. Like I said, the shock would be mainly psychological, and I realise no party could win an election on this. I'm just saying that it is doabel though.
And recession could be countered by increased funding for education to ensure that the public has the skills to create their own jobs if necessary. This would mean that we would need a highly educated workforce though.
This idea, which wouldn't work and would cripple our economy. You even said it possibly at the cost of recession. Simply won't work. Is the system we have not that bad. Wouldn't all the cons of a 0 inflation system, which would fail, and the energy it would take to put into one be better spent on better ideas that would work and don't have a short shelf life.
You cannot continuously take cookies from the cookie jar before there are no more cookies to take. And that is what your saying, you would have to continuously every year take money out of circulation, at some point there wouldn't be any money to take.
You cannot continuously take cookies from the cookie jar before there are no more cookies to take. And that is what your saying, you would have to continuously every year take money out of circulation, at some point there wouldn't be any money to take.
I still disagree, but since this thread was about where the government should increase or not increase spending (sinse whether we like it or not, it looks like a coalition would move in that direction anyway), where would you want the government to increase or not increase spending?
Increase:
Education is always the top of the list.
Environment. There are things that can be done to help without hinderencing the economy. Grants, etc.
Not,
Autosector, its dieing and we can't stop it. Re-Education to provide them with jobs that are here to stay would be an increase.
Education is always the top of the list.
Environment. There are things that can be done to help without hinderencing the economy. Grants, etc.
Not,
Autosector, its dieing and we can't stop it. Re-Education to provide them with jobs that are here to stay would be an increase.
If you need an explanation for Education, wow maybe we should put more than i think we should into it.
Environment, I think the Liberal Green Shift was a little over the edge. I think the Conservatives could do more. Do I know the be all end all into what should be done, nope. But there are a lot more smarter people out there that I'm sure could come up with some great ideas that would work.
The Autosector has been in meltdown for many many many years. It is not self sustaining in its current form. If the government is going to continually introduce money each and every year to keep it running, is it worth it? Aren't there other sectors that we could get into that would be self sustaining? The money they want put into the autosector, couldn't they use that same money and put it into a sectore or industry or whatever that would produce just as many jobs and be self sustaining? And re-educate if necessary the people loosing there jobs. Education is Huge on my list and I think can solve a lot of problems.
Environment, I think the Liberal Green Shift was a little over the edge. I think the Conservatives could do more. Do I know the be all end all into what should be done, nope. But there are a lot more smarter people out there that I'm sure could come up with some great ideas that would work.
The Autosector has been in meltdown for many many many years. It is not self sustaining in its current form. If the government is going to continually introduce money each and every year to keep it running, is it worth it? Aren't there other sectors that we could get into that would be self sustaining? The money they want put into the autosector, couldn't they use that same money and put it into a sectore or industry or whatever that would produce just as many jobs and be self sustaining? And re-educate if necessary the people loosing there jobs. Education is Huge on my list and I think can solve a lot of problems.