I have a degree in Business Studies. Believe me when I say economists know very very little. The proof is obvious. If economics were in fact a developed true subject then of course we would have abundance and we would all be flourishing in a prosperous society and money would not really be too much of an issue. Is that the case?
I remember a lecturer one day in Economics 11 doing this complicated graph on the blackboard with lots of lines on it and he snaps the chalk on one spot where some lines intersected and he says "and THERE is optimum growth".
The newspapers at the time were complaining all about how bad the economy was.
I decided then these guys actually know very little about the true subject at all and they are in the category of pretenders.
Very often subjects are taught as if it were fact and true and are in fact quite incorrect and based on false assumptions and incorrect basics.
Remember Keatings famous "J curve" and the "recession we had to have" - that's how bad it gets when people pretend knowledge on a subject which is not based on the true basics. He was the world's best Economist by his own admission!
We had a 5 year severe recession many times worse than the worlds average back in the early 90's when many people lost their businesses and homes due to an incorrect subject. There was no "J" curve (a dip followed by a bounce up), only a down.
Taxes are always inhibiting, they never enhance. I reject any argument that a tax is economically sound - that ignores basics where taxes only ever inhibit. Economics to be sound requires production and requires activity and exchange of products and money and that requires inniative and incentive. Taxes only ever inhibit that. Talk to anyone about why they don't work 2 jobs, because the tax system says no don't do that. Taxation is perhaps a necessary evil in Western worlds where people want hot and cold running governments to take responsibility for their own lives. A certain amount of Government is clearly needed - defence for one, but I am of the opinion that the smallest governement possible is the best scenario. Others may think otherwise but you only have to see some Govt programs to realise just how inefficient any government is in getting a job done. Private enterprise has always been more efficient in getting a job done for far less cost. But not everything can be run for money only, there has to be a social conscience. Whether taxation is based on income (production inhibiting) or sales (consumption inhibiting but not production inhibiting) is another issue.
You know in the very early 1900's there was no income tax.When it was introduced it was 1%. There's a measure of how much we "need" a large government and how it has grown over the years.
On a less controversial note, I have a question about the Carbon Tax. There hasn't been (at least that I have seen) talk about how much money it is expected to raise and the accounting for where that money goes. I know a substantial slice is used for compensation of low income earners but what about the other $25 billion or so? Also what is the cost of administering this? I imagine it will take possibly 10,000 government workers to administer and cost business millions in extra accounting costs. That will take a large bite out of its effectiveness - yes? Will it create a black carbon economy also for the cheaters?
One argument for the carbon tax is at least somebody is doing something about the environmental issue. Whether or not it is the best is the point of controversy as most Aussies are very environmentally in tune. Especially given the Aboriginal heritage of this nation who are by far and away the best environmentalists of all time.
Greg.
Quote:
Originally Posted by strongmanmike
Many of you will have already read the report I am sure, so sorry all you anti carbon tax guys but the vast majority of economists think the currenly proposed Carbon Pricing system is sound economics and in fact good policy ...even more say the opositions direct action system is inferior and will not work ...so, if we change governments we would have a much worse system  ...yet it is clear people would vote for them now because of the fears and inacuracies being pushed on them by those with little clue or who are missing the point. I think the whole confussion is a good example of how missguided adversarial politically biased opinions can make such a mess of what should be a very simple transition to good policy, that nobody will really notice as it is introduced but will be the start of a fantastic, over due, change in approach.
Bring on the Carbon Price  
Was that too obvious?  |