Bobby. wrote on Sep 21^st, 2026 at 6:17pm:


In fact it is Gary Stevenson (see his youtube videos) who wants to capture some of the spiralling wealth of billionaires and mutli-millionaires, in the current cost of living crisis.

Quote:


That depends on the design of the tax, which Stevenson argues is required to rein in spiralling inequality with the rise of billionaires, amidst poverty and a cost of livng crisis. 

Quote:


Stevenson is not talking about taxing wages earned by workers, but taxing increases in asset prices owned by the wealthy 1%.

Quote:


Depends on your definition: I believe all should be able to afford the essentials.

"Communism"?

aquascoot wrote on Sep 21^st, 2026 at 5:55pm:


But the state only needs to ensure access to the essentials (defined) for all, not the private desires of citizens.

Quote:


Like I said, you have veered off into the realm of private desires - not the government's business (except if criminality is involved). 

Quote:


You are ignoring macro-economic realities, eg falling home owership rates due to market failure.

Quote:


I watched a report on illegal gold-mining in Indonesia: workes are forced into it because other sources of income had disappeared.

And Whyalla?

The prosperity of an entire town in on the line.

Quote:


Possibly; but the need to ensure the essentilas for all remains, which is the government's job. Democracy is on the line, as social breakdown ensues  due to private financial stresses, housing etc. 

Quote:


Yes: welfare (aka 'sit-down money') should be avoided and employment provided instead, especially for the non-disabled. 

Quote:


Well - they might say they are too busy, bit ok. ...but with a job guarantee at the end.

Quote:


White knight is probably looking at macroeconomic dysfunction, like me; governemet needs to stop pretending there is no alternative to the current system. 

Quote:


Not everyone is creative, but all are capable of contributing, provided dysfunctional family situations are addressed by government.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2026 at 11:25am:


The definition stands on its own. You are trying to redefine it.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2026 at 11:25am:


And of course you agreed that printing public money devalues the money already in the system. it is therefore, inflationary.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2026 at 11:25am:


See above.

lee wrote on Sep 22^nd, 2026 at 1:29pm:


Exactly: you can't cope with a logical statement?

C-I government, by definition,  doesn't NEED to 'collect money' from its citizens.

Quote:


Wrong: price controls and zero central-bank interest rates will fix inflation.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2026 at 11:45am:



You don't do logical. You try to redefine to your image.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2026 at 11:45am:


But collect it does, in the name of "public money".

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2026 at 11:45am:


As David Koch said yesterday about Bullock and Chalmers the greatest part of inflation in Australia IS government. people are saving, people are not spending, therefore inflation lies elsewhere.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 23^rd, 2026 at 11:45am:



Ah the hammer, the anvil and hope.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:


So the way is to print money, which you admit devalues the underlying currency in existence.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:


That is your definition.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:


The government is not in an ongoing war.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:


If private companies are going broke it is because they are not making a profit, which undermines claims of profit gouging.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:


And yet the Government and Greens keep putting obstacles in the way.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:


But as I said people are not spending, they are saving, that means the problem is elsewhere.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:


So exactly what are they funding, that is causing inflationary rises?

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 26^th, 2026 at 12:55pm:



You are the one that wants to imbed inflation further into Government.Inflation hurts the poorest most.

Define 'wealth' ..........

lee wrote on Sep 27^th, 2026 at 12:59pm:



Yes: but your assertion 'money printing' (more than once ie, after a one-off exchange rate devalution)  necessarily devalues money is wrong, as I said: 

I want to manage inflation directly via intelligent mobilization of available resources, not the blind 'invisible hand' of the market.

Your dismissal is merely an assertion 'intelligent mobilization of resources" is impossible.

News flash: not only is it possible, it's necessary to counter the impending "impossible nightmare" governments are facing as they are overwhelmed by debt which must be repaid.

Quote:


If the public sector printed money maintains/increases national productivity, all is good.

https://publicmoneypublicgood.net/

(Note: the US govt. debt just hit $30 trillion, but only dumb mainstream 'debt hawks' are gettihng their knikers in a knot: the US (and eg, China) are  maintaining productive capacity and growing the economy, despite the debt.


Meanwhile you are forgetting all money is "printed" ie created out of thin air, mostly in private banks at present when they write loans for credit worthy customers  - which is the problem (ie denying the c-i govt the capacity to issue its own non-bank free money, resulting in bankrupt public sectors (governments)  everywhere, which a disillusioned electorate is now increasingly rejecting as essential public services go begging.