Priorities of a pathetic government
May this year:
...this government has slashed more than $450 million from key science
agencies that have all suffered substantial losses, including:
Today:
A controversial tourism facility at a Cadbury factory partly funded
by taxpayer dollars looks set to go ahead, with the chocolate maker
announcing the "globally relevant chocolate experience" should be signed
off within weeks.
Tony Abbott promised a $16 million grant to the Hobart
project during last year's federal election, however questions have
since been raised about the generous pledge given the Coalition
government's refusal to provide taxpayer assistance to fruit cannery SPC
Ardmona.
20 comments:
Stepford,
What should the appropriate funding levels. Let us know and don't skulk away like a scraggy dog by not answering the question in an attempt to avoid it.
Demonstrate a little courage this time.
I can tell you JC.
you do not cut any money at all.
if nominal GDP is weak it is completely stupid. Wayne Swan showed that in the tightest budget of any budget recorded.
The one that detracted 0.7 percentage points from GDP.
The one you said was expansionary.
now that is imbecility!
Shut up homer. Stop plagiarizing Scott Sumner. At the very least you ought to cite him when commenting about targeting NGDP, you clown.
Sumner also shows that the US had a larger contraction in government spending at the same time as the EU and the respective economies moved in the opposite direction because of the difference in monetary policy management.
You moron, Homer. Go make some wooden toys at the local shelter.
You're a regular ornament to the internet, JC.
The question is one of priorities; I don't have to play your silly game to make that point, especially when you and everyone at Catallaxy object to the Cadbury gift on principle anyway.
JC,
I am not saying to target NGDP as Summer is. He says merely use Monetary policy which is clearly wrong. Al I am saying is you do not cut spending when NGDP is so weak as Swan proved.
Summer has shown that at all. The structural budget in EU were much tighter and the EU economy much weaker to start with.
Nick Rowe is a much more impressive market monetarist
I don't quite get your comment about being ornamental, stepford. Perhaps you mean that unlike you I don't have a blog and unlike you more people read what I say than they do you . Is that broadly right?
I also don't quite understand your argument. Why would being against the Cadbury troughing suggest I shouldn't support the cuts you deem pathetic?
What on earth is your point, dumbquot?
Hate to break it to you JC but it is very Keynesian to worry about nominal GDP.
yep,
that is why having inflation and nor deflation is part of the answer. This is why Hawtrey for example though not a 'keynesian' thought a devaluation was essential to combating the depression.
Australia for a time under the previous government had above average real GDP but below average nominal GDP because of deflation. That of course is when Davidson predicted stagflation!
sdfc said...
Hate to break it to you JC but it is very Keynesian to worry about nominal GDP..
And monetary policy becomes ineffective at zero bound? Ummm
Yeah well that has been proved world wide!
Piss off homer, you degenerate moron. Go hang yourself in the ladies toilets with a tie.
oh dear every time you show up JCs arguments he swears,
what an intellect.
found out about the NBN yet mate. I noticed SDFC has said you never apologized for being outrageously wrong!
you aint good at that are you?
Yeah well that has been proved world wide!
What's been proven is that you ought to be incarcerated in a women's mental asylum, Paxton.
So if rates go to zero, QE is ineffective, is it?
Don't ever discuss economics, as you're terrible at it.
really effective. good to know you are still an absolute dill at anything.
Care to tell us where it was effective?
Paxton
According to Sumner...
America's deficit reduction was larger than Europe's. It's monetary policy looser. The US has been growing at a moderate rate and Europe is a shambles.
So piss off
wow.if you take a forward looking Taylor rule interest rates had to be -6% at its peak to be effective. Rudebusch should even with QE at its peak it never got near there.
Summer should change his name to winter and you to Wood-duck
wow.if you take a forward looking Taylor rule interest rates had to be -6% at its peak to be effective.
Show us how you came up with that number, Paxton?
I didn't Mankiw and Rudebusch both came up with it separately.
Summer says the fiscal multiplier is o. Crank
Frankly I don't believe it when you say Mankiw and Rude bush came up with it. i want to see the evidence as you're a delusional lying moron.
Secondly, Sumner believes that a central bank has failed if call rates are near zero. In other words if the CBs weren't so tight just before and into the GFC we would have had a mild recession but nothing of the magnitude we experienced.
But you're too dishonest and stupid to understand all this, paxton.
JC ,
you have been caught out to often with lying so I really do not care about what you say.
you clearly do not know about the famous Rudebusch/Taylor debates about the Taylor rule.
The CBA use the 'Mankiw' rule in their reports on looking at the Taylor rule at Asutralia.
you are simply showing your ignorance again.
Summer is an idiot.
Banks couldn't get funding period. in the early stages the interest rate was academic. Even the CBA here with a Government government guarantee could not get funding.
Summer is now getting hit form head to post by David Glasner on his lack of knowledge.
Any person who says the fiscal multiplier is zero is an idiot given the large slabs of empirical data.
Post a Comment