16 hours ago, A F said:

This is neoliberalisms con. It hollows out our own domestic jobs market and certainly doesn't give consumers a better price. Telstra is a perfect example. Astronomical prices for basic serviced and few Australian jobs when its infrastructure was built by public money.

Yeah, Telstra is a perfect example.

I am struck though by the way the neo-liberals have sent jobs overseas in search of greater profits. This has been the driver of the rise of China - cheap labour on a massive scale. Why couldn't Latin America perform the same role? Not that I think it is and would be a good thing for the world, necessarily, certainly not for American jobs, but it would certainly be good for Latin American elites plus a significant portion of the population, as has been the case in China: 200 million lifted out of poverty, with 95 million of those being CCP members.

Is it the lack of a binding polity that prevents it from happening? Could the US play that role in the same way that Beijing & Shanghai federal govt forms a layer of authority above essentially independent states such as Guandong and Fujian? Or is the US power simply not that great? Does the situation illustrate the limits of democratic capitalism? If the US were more authoritarian, and pegged its credibility to the economic rise of Latin America the way the CCP has pegged it's credibility, would it happen?

Fundamentally, I get the sense that the end of new-liberalism is nigh. If Biden is pegging the US economic resurgence to American jobs the way his plan has been presented, it indicates a fundamental shift. Of course, that doesn't mean he can pull it off....

45 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

Yeah, Telstra is a perfect example.

I am struck though by the way the neo-liberals have sent jobs overseas in search of greater profits. This has been the driver of the rise of China - cheap labour on a massive scale. Why couldn't Latin America perform the same role? Not that I think it is and would be a good thing for the world, necessarily, certainly not for American jobs, but it would certainly be good for Latin American elites plus a significant portion of the population, as has been the case in China: 200 million lifted out of poverty, with 95 million of those being CCP members.

Is it the lack of a binding polity that prevents it from happening? Could the US play that role in the same way that Beijing & Shanghai federal govt forms a layer of authority above essentially independent states such as Guandong and Fujian? Or is the US power simply not that great? Does the situation illustrate the limits of democratic capitalism? If the US were more authoritarian, and pegged its credibility to the economic rise of Latin America the way the CCP has pegged it's credibility, would it happen?

Fundamentally, I get the sense that the end of new-liberalism is nigh. If Biden is pegging the US economic resurgence to American jobs the way his plan has been presented, it indicates a fundamental shift. Of course, that doesn't mean he can pull it off....

The US is authoritarian in its foreign policy but not domestically. It's an interesting point though.

And not sure of you've heard Frydenberg's budget speech, but it appears the Libs are abandoning neoliberalism.

2 hours ago, A F said:

The US is authoritarian in its foreign policy but not domestically. It's an interesting point though.

And not sure of you've heard Frydenberg's budget speech, but it appears the Libs are abandoning neoliberalism.

Just took a look. Very nice. Of course, the tax cuts shoot them in the foot, but perhaps they will be watered down.

Makes for a significant change form the typical neo-liberal con re govt spending -- saying they have to cut it while simultaneously borrowing huge amount to 'stimulate' an economic system that wouldn't need stimulation if it actually worked....

Read the speech on the ABC site, where I also found this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-23/anu-unveils-162-million-budget-deficit-due-to-covid-19/100089624

When things go pear-shaped, which they are atmo and may continue to be for some time yet, those international students aren't coming back, leaving the govt as the only body in a position to fund the universities. There should be at least two positive knock-on effects: 

1. Disempowerment of CCP co-opting intellectual elites.

2. Restoration of academic standards

But the govt is going to need those taxes....

3 hours ago, A F said:

The US is authoritarian in its foreign policy but not domestically.

But they don't have the equivalent cultural strings to pull, as the CCP does. Otherwise they surely would have by now created a largely stable democratic Latin America that was a reflection of the US. Instead it's a shambles. It's like they meddle and meddle without ever really going the whole hog or pulling out. A half-arsed hegemony perennially ineffective in achieving it's aims....

Perhaps its the cultural differences which really matter. There is a school of thought that says democratic institutions developed in the US as a result of the indentured labour system. That is, most european immigrants, majority female, went as bonded servants, working five years without pay, but receiving board and 25 or 50 acres of land at completion of the contract, their's to keep or trade. It was a once in a lifetime opportunity to acquire property.

Having become landowners and therefore people of social consequence, they wanted a say in how their land was used, and so was born modern democratic institutions.

The situation in Latin America was different. Land was distributed to an aristocracy and immigrants had no power to acquire it. Most immigrants were slaves, far more than went to Nth America. No land equalled no power. 

On a related subject, with the majority of immigrants being females, there was a shortage of males. Among slaves, however, there was a shortage of females. Marriage between slaves and indentured servants was very common and the children of such unions were considered free. 

Eventually, as the powers that were clung ever more tightly onto an economic system that was fundamentally inefficient, they began to make distinctions between white and black, eventually outlawing marriage between black males and white females so as to ensure that children of slave marriages remained in the chattel system. This happened at the beginning of the 19th century as opposition to slavery was taking hold. In other words, the slavers dug in deeper and deeper on an economic system that had been superceded, leading eventually to the breakdown in society that was the Civil War.

Let's hope the neoliberals aren't so tough to shift.

 

Edited April 30, 20214 yr by Grr-owl

4 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

Just took a look. Very nice. Of course, the tax cuts shoot them in the foot, but perhaps they will be watered down.

Makes for a significant change form the typical neo-liberal con re govt spending -- saying they have to cut it while simultaneously borrowing huge amount to 'stimulate' an economic system that wouldn't need stimulation if it actually worked....

The borrowing happens after the spending has created reserves. And it isn't really borrowing. Since the currency is no longer fixed, the central bank has no need to defend its exchange rate by issuing debt/bonds. Since 1983 and the floating of the dollar, Treasury has chosen to issue bonds (via the AOFM since 2002ish) after the spending has occurred. The banks then buy the bonds with these reserves. If they didn't the interest rate would fall to the floor. This bond issuance is an asset swap. Non interest bearing reserves (or at least as of November 2020) for interest bearing bonds.

4 hours ago, Grr-owl said:

Read the speech on the ABC site, where I also found this: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-04-23/anu-unveils-162-million-budget-deficit-due-to-covid-19/100089624

When things go pear-shaped, which they are atmo and may continue to be for some time yet, those international students aren't coming back, leaving the govt as the only body in a position to fund the universities. There should be at least two positive knock-on effects: 

1. Disempowerment of CCP co-opting intellectual elites.

2. Restoration of academic standards

But the govt is going to need those taxes....

The Gov doesn't need the taxes. It spends via annual and special appropriations, which are passed through parliament, via Treasury, who then instructs its central bank to credit reserve accounts housed at the RBA. These are exchange settlement accounts. Taxation can be used to free up resources in the private sector for government use, but its main function is to place a demand on the currency. Without a tax liability, the currency has no value. So taxes drive demand for the currency.

I think Frydenberg and co know this. Tax cuts add to the deficit, because the tax revenue is reduced, so the fiscal position automatically slides into deficit (the gov spending more than it taxes). So Frydenberg's tax cuts are classic neoliberalism, but the supposed pledge to target the unemployment rate is distinctly not neoliberal. Neoliberals have targeted the money supply (a complete failure) and since the late 80s/early 90s, have targeted inflation (a disaster). Now they've finally agreed to target the unemployment rate. This is effectively what Menzies/Holt did for years and it led to the golden age of capitalism. It'll be interesting to see how far they go.

1 hour ago, A F said:

The borrowing happens after the spending has created reserves. And it isn't really borrowing. Since the currency is no longer fixed, the central bank has no need to defend its exchange rate by issuing debt/bonds. Since 1983 and the floating of the dollar, Treasury has chosen to issue bonds (via the AOFM since 2002ish) after the spending has occurred. The banks then buy the bonds with these reserves. If they didn't the interest rate would fall to the floor. This bond issuance is an asset swap. Non interest bearing reserves (or at least as of November 2020) for interest bearing bonds.

The Gov doesn't need the taxes. It spends via annual and special appropriations, which are passed through parliament, via Treasury, who then instructs its central bank to credit reserve accounts housed at the RBA. These are exchange settlement accounts. Taxation can be used to free up resources in the private sector for government use, but its main function is to place a demand on the currency. Without a tax liability, the currency has no value. So taxes drive demand for the currency.

I think Frydenberg and co know this. Tax cuts add to the deficit, because the tax revenue is reduced, so the fiscal position automatically slides into deficit (the gov spending more than it taxes). So Frydenberg's tax cuts are classic neoliberalism, but the supposed pledge to target the unemployment rate is distinctly not neoliberal. Neoliberals have targeted the money supply (a complete failure) and since the late 80s/early 90s, have targeted inflation (a disaster). Now they've finally agreed to target the unemployment rate. This is effectively what Menzies/Holt did for years and it led to the golden age of capitalism. It'll be interesting to see how far they go.

Not to be cynical, but this may be one time in which a political party's bid for votes actually is a good thing for everyone. Additionally, it has the benefit, for them, of stealing the Labour Party's lunch. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter which party does it, but a focus on getting Australians into good jobs is the key to a better future.

17,000 jobs have gone in education. Although that sounds tragic, and it is, a lot of those were crap jobs, meaning casual exploitative position in which people were hired for 8 hours and given 16 hours of work to complete (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea), often servicing international students whose demands (natural, understandable demand from their POV) were the root of practices that were crippling the system, like the larvae of a parasitic wasp. 

I have a feeling that people from the US, Japan, Aus, probably the UK and hopefully Germany have been in behind-closed-door discussions for some time about the limits of privatization and the consequences of off-shoring jobs....

 

Edited May 1, 20214 yr by Grr-owl

42 minutes ago, Grr-owl said:

Not to be cynical, but this may be one time in which a political party's bid for votes actually is a good thing for everyone. Additionally, it has the benefit, for them, of stealing the Labour Party's lunch. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter which party does it, but a focus on getting Australians into good jobs is the key to a better future.

17,000 jobs have gone in education. Although that sounds tragic, and it is, a lot of those were crap jobs, meaning casual exploitative position in which people were hired for 8 hours and given 16 hours of work to complete (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea), often servicing international students whose demands (natural, understandable demand from their POV) were the root of practices that were crippling the system, like the larvae of a parasitic wasp. 

I have a feeling that people from the US, Japan, Aus, probably the UK and hopefully Germany have been in behind-closed-door discussions for some time about the limits of privatization and the consequences of off-shoring jobs....

 

The Germans love the free market, as do the Americans. The Japanese are smarter. They have the old mixed economy.

On 5/1/2021 at 3:28 PM, Grr-owl said:

Not to be cynical, but this may be one time in which a political party's bid for votes actually is a good thing for everyone. Additionally, it has the benefit, for them, of stealing the Labour Party's lunch. As far as I'm concerned it doesn't matter which party does it, but a focus on getting Australians into good jobs is the key to a better future.

17,000 jobs have gone in education. Although that sounds tragic, and it is, a lot of those were crap jobs, meaning casual exploitative position in which people were hired for 8 hours and given 16 hours of work to complete (I'm exaggerating, but you get the idea), often servicing international students whose demands (natural, understandable demand from their POV) were the root of practices that were crippling the system, like the larvae of a parasitic wasp. 

I have a feeling that people from the US, Japan, Aus, probably the UK and hopefully Germany have been in behind-closed-door discussions for some time about the limits of privatization and the consequences of off-shoring jobs....

 

jeez, wish I could get my 8 hours of paid work done in 16

Just now, Jara said:

jeez, wish I could get my 8 hours of paid work done in 16

Only takes you 17? Unlucky...

Lots oaf articles lately discussing a new economic era. BBC, Prospect and others…. Talking about the failures of neo-liberalism etc… Then there’s some agreement on an international corporate tax and what’s up at the G7.

The pandemic seems to have galvanised opinion in some respect…..

On 29/12/2020 at 22:40, Adam The God said:

A UBI would continue neoliberalism by ensuring the government doesn't need to create jobs and locks people into a self reliance on Government. But most importantly, a UBI would be wildly inflationary and provide no price stability. The numbers make no sense. 

The JG is meant to be 4.5-5% of the working population (the NAIRU equivalent of "full emoloyment"), not 100%. If everyone gets it, not only do the numbers not make sense, you'd have to find a way of having a counter cyclical tax. But there's absolutely no price stability with it.

There's a reason corporate America loves the UBI. It means they don't have to pay decent wages, but the economy has more money in its pockets to buy their products. 

I know Bill doesn't agree with this, but I think the JG paired with a small basic income (for the 1% that slip through the cracks) is the best solution.

I no longer agree with this.

JG or disability payments and that's it.