Thoraiya DyerElections and the economy: what the hell?
November 30th 2007 02:25
Now, I’m no economist. No siree Bob. I’ll leave understanding the economy to accountants and stockbrokers and people who wear nice suits to offset their lack of personality. In fact, in my time studying economics at school I learnt how to pour a pint of Guinness. Two years well spent! I do, however, know a thing or two about politics, and I continue to be baffled about issues residing in the intersection between politics and economics.
Ok, so if you believe the BS, the Liberal party are fiscally conservative, and apparently more able to competently manage our economy. I’m sorry - feel free to call me stupid, ignorant, lacking in understanding or erudition etc etc etc – but I was under the impression that our economy relies on the market.
As far as I can tell, the Australian government has control over what they spend, but not what we spend. To an economic laywoman such as myself, all this talk about the government keeping interest rates low seems incongruous with the fact that the reserve bank sets interest rates. The stock market gauges the demand and supply of gold and oil and all those scarce natural resources that are apparently “so important”. The Australian dollar is likewise determined. Employment rates hinge upon demands of goods and services, which depends upon a public of consumers (including, not exclusively, the government). If anything, the Liberal government implementing a goods and services tax seemed unlikely to encourage people to spend more, limiting the capacity for economic growth.
So when talking about economic management, all they are talking about is the extent to which government is ‘small’ or ‘big’ - on spending? Limited government economically means less imput by government into the economy, but it also means restrictions to our social welfare net and spending on important societal realms such as health and education. And this is a good thing... how?!
Of course, the media laps up all this talk about the economy, because every mo-fo in Australia seems concerned about it. Like its something tangible that can be controlled, like it actually exists, like its something that can tied down with a leash and given a biscuit every now again for behaving itself. Oh how the media loved the tirades against the unions! I think we can all agree that trade unions can be self-interested bullies... but any collective organisation that seeks to protect workers not big business is better than the alternatives.
Alternatives like the WorkChoices system, which seeks to strip workers of their entitlement amid contentions that working seven days and eliminating weekends is some sort of modern reality. Capitalism seems to me the newest form of feudalism. What are we doing now, living to work? That’s what they did in the middle ages! Why don’t we bring back surfs and slaves and capital punishment and time telling mechanisms that involve massive slabs of rock placed in the middle of a field? When are we supposed to have fun? When are we supposed to recover from our hangovers? Trying to vacate ol’ struggles town at work is nigh on impossible.
Call me a commie, but limited government vis a vis the economy strips away at our safety net, which is justified by some via the continuing rhetoric about ‘dole bludgers ripping off honest, hard-working Australians’. I’m sorry, but there are two major things wrong with this discourse. First: ‘hard-working Australians’ is a total oxymoron. (HA!) Second: total reliance on the market to provide jobs for those who need them is fundamentally unsound. The means by which people live is not protected against the ebbs and flows of the market without welfare and social justice.
And don’t get me started on the treatment of those whom legitimately cannot work. Imagine how they must feel, having to justify their lack of paid employment. There is such a stigma attached to not working in this society, who would not want to work? Ok, there are some lazy, selfish bums who spoil the social welfare argument for everyone (you know who you are, you bong-smoking, cock-stroking, Playstation three-playing deadshits) but I think Marx was somewhat on the money: unemployment equals alienation. Mind you, the argument’s natural progression to suggesting that those who can’t work should is certainly not part of my adapted ‘red under the bed’ agenda.
So if the government can control our economy by limited spending (allegedly), then I say screw the economy. Keep those centrelink cheques flying. I want to see a government that doesn’t impinge so much on our social liberties, but spends bucketloads to ensure we have the monetary capabilities to do as we will. Stop making laws about little bullshit trivialities and creating more nightmarish red tape, and start spreading the health, education and social justice love. So what if we end up like Germany in the 1930’s, lugging wheelbarrows of cash to pay for chuppa chupp? Would that be so bad? Oh, hang on…
Regardless, my point remains. Talk of government and the economy is steeped in rhetoric and lacking in depth. Superficialities are what politicians do best; scratch a little deeper and there is nary an iota of evidence in sight to back up their baseless, pointless, boring talk.
Ok, so if you believe the BS, the Liberal party are fiscally conservative, and apparently more able to competently manage our economy. I’m sorry - feel free to call me stupid, ignorant, lacking in understanding or erudition etc etc etc – but I was under the impression that our economy relies on the market.
As far as I can tell, the Australian government has control over what they spend, but not what we spend. To an economic laywoman such as myself, all this talk about the government keeping interest rates low seems incongruous with the fact that the reserve bank sets interest rates. The stock market gauges the demand and supply of gold and oil and all those scarce natural resources that are apparently “so important”. The Australian dollar is likewise determined. Employment rates hinge upon demands of goods and services, which depends upon a public of consumers (including, not exclusively, the government). If anything, the Liberal government implementing a goods and services tax seemed unlikely to encourage people to spend more, limiting the capacity for economic growth.
So when talking about economic management, all they are talking about is the extent to which government is ‘small’ or ‘big’ - on spending? Limited government economically means less imput by government into the economy, but it also means restrictions to our social welfare net and spending on important societal realms such as health and education. And this is a good thing... how?!
Of course, the media laps up all this talk about the economy, because every mo-fo in Australia seems concerned about it. Like its something tangible that can be controlled, like it actually exists, like its something that can tied down with a leash and given a biscuit every now again for behaving itself. Oh how the media loved the tirades against the unions! I think we can all agree that trade unions can be self-interested bullies... but any collective organisation that seeks to protect workers not big business is better than the alternatives.
Alternatives like the WorkChoices system, which seeks to strip workers of their entitlement amid contentions that working seven days and eliminating weekends is some sort of modern reality. Capitalism seems to me the newest form of feudalism. What are we doing now, living to work? That’s what they did in the middle ages! Why don’t we bring back surfs and slaves and capital punishment and time telling mechanisms that involve massive slabs of rock placed in the middle of a field? When are we supposed to have fun? When are we supposed to recover from our hangovers? Trying to vacate ol’ struggles town at work is nigh on impossible.
Call me a commie, but limited government vis a vis the economy strips away at our safety net, which is justified by some via the continuing rhetoric about ‘dole bludgers ripping off honest, hard-working Australians’. I’m sorry, but there are two major things wrong with this discourse. First: ‘hard-working Australians’ is a total oxymoron. (HA!) Second: total reliance on the market to provide jobs for those who need them is fundamentally unsound. The means by which people live is not protected against the ebbs and flows of the market without welfare and social justice.
And don’t get me started on the treatment of those whom legitimately cannot work. Imagine how they must feel, having to justify their lack of paid employment. There is such a stigma attached to not working in this society, who would not want to work? Ok, there are some lazy, selfish bums who spoil the social welfare argument for everyone (you know who you are, you bong-smoking, cock-stroking, Playstation three-playing deadshits) but I think Marx was somewhat on the money: unemployment equals alienation. Mind you, the argument’s natural progression to suggesting that those who can’t work should is certainly not part of my adapted ‘red under the bed’ agenda.
So if the government can control our economy by limited spending (allegedly), then I say screw the economy. Keep those centrelink cheques flying. I want to see a government that doesn’t impinge so much on our social liberties, but spends bucketloads to ensure we have the monetary capabilities to do as we will. Stop making laws about little bullshit trivialities and creating more nightmarish red tape, and start spreading the health, education and social justice love. So what if we end up like Germany in the 1930’s, lugging wheelbarrows of cash to pay for chuppa chupp? Would that be so bad? Oh, hang on…
Regardless, my point remains. Talk of government and the economy is steeped in rhetoric and lacking in depth. Superficialities are what politicians do best; scratch a little deeper and there is nary an iota of evidence in sight to back up their baseless, pointless, boring talk.
| 82 |
| Vote |
subscribe to this blog
Comment by Harry
Sydney Diary
Personals
Brisbane Diarystar
I agree that what most of the politicians say is rubbish, however that does not mean that they have no influence at all on the economy, it's just rather complicated and that means that it does not make for a good political sound bite.