lee wrote on Sep 5^th, 2025 at 3:50pm:


er.... determining how many hours are required to support a particular disabled person IS the same thing as defining the disabiity's  severity.

Quote:


The problem is your GIGO; you said the WHO "have no research capabilities".....

Quote:


Can you give an example? (This will be funny....)

Quote:


That some disabilities required full time support, others don't.

Quote:


What studies show  there are NO differences - requiring different financial expenditures - between the levels of support required for different diabilties?

Quote:


Addressed above, your crippled brain conflates observations about different levels of disability and the required support , with different 'scientific opinions' ie you are hiding behind generalities instead of addressing the different funding required  for different disabilities.

Quote:


Ah, now we are getting somewhere....

1. Money is ALWAYS created out of thin air.

Call it "money printing" or issuing if you like, the question is (a) by whom, (b)and  for what purpose, (c)  and for whose benefit money is created/"printed".

The current convention is  (a) (mostly) by private banks, (b) for the private sector and (c)  for the benefit of private wealth accumulation by individuals competing in the 'invisible hand market.

Which is explains why (eg)  the UK government - which by convention is dependent on private sector  'taxpayers' to fund government spending, is "going broke"....

Quote:


Addressed above; "issue" or "create" or "print" are the same thing, money is alway created 'ex nilhilo'. And most money in the economy is created in private  banks, for the private sector.


Quote:


Wrong .

(google)

AI Overview

Q. Is the central bank a subset of treasury?

A:

(Re consolidated government – treasury and central bank).

No, the central bank is not a subset of the treasury; they are separate government entities with distinct roles, though they work together within a country's consolidated government sector, as seen with the Australian government...

Quote:


Agents of the BofE (as per the link)  have shown most money is created 'ex nihilo' in private banks when they lend money, ie they "print" money (a term you reserve for money creation in central  banks)....no  different to govt.  directing Treasury to type numbers into private sector bank accounts (as happened spectacularly during the pandemic lockdowns, so locked-down workers could still pay essential c-o-l bills.)   

Quote:


Already addressed in my comments re consideration of resource "opportunity costs" (the REAL cost of the transition); we are always depleting resources, though a necessary 'circular  economy' will slow the rate of depletion.   

Quote:


Addressed above; "maintenance,  replacement, and "capital  costs" are all part of choices between resource allocation (hence:" opportunity costs"), whether for private, profit-driven fossil industries, or government-directed planet-saving renewables.

Quote:


Same as now - you will still be able to buy shares in BHP, just not in fossil companies which will need to be bought by central banks and shut down.

Eventually recycling will reduce the rate of resource  depletion, except for  coal oil, and gas which MUST remain in the ground.

Quote:


What - creating money 'ex nihilo'?

It's already done; now the government just has to  take its rightful portion  (on behalf of the general welfare) without an artificially-enforced dependency on 'taxpayer money'......

Or sensible utilization  and allocation of resources, other than via the 'invisible hand' markets?

That's just - er - sensible, given the urgency of the transition to a green economy.      

lee wrote on Sep 5^th, 2025 at 7:15pm:


Your error (low IQ?): different individuals need different levels of government support. The individual has no control over the severity of his disability.

Quote:


The WHO has access to, and is informed by,  the world's health peer-reviewed research.

Quote:


Ah, so factual differences in autism's severity among inividuals - and hence support requirements, are now rejected as "prejudice" meaning ALL autism must be funded by the NDIS. Madness - or rather, a ruse to prevent ANY reasonable support for  disabled people, to "save taxpayer money". 

Quote:


You are now diverting to an examination of the WHO's considerations into what caused the pandemic (still an open question), to refute the WHO's much more  straighforward assessment  re different levels of disability in the autistic community.

Deplorable. 

Let's stick to degrees of disability and its support, the topic of this thread.

Quote:


"(The WHO) want to define those that are severely affected. Not the same thing".

....revealing your low IQ, or  dementia, or your Conservative brain  crippled by the  'taxpayer money'  delusion which forces governments to "save money", in this case  by (correctly) recognizing different levels of support required by different people - the topic of this thread.


Quote:


Dementia? That quote is yours, not mine....

Quote:


Your crippled brain again, can't follow logical progression of an argument for more than one point, as revealed in this debate. 

Albo wants to save money by recognising differences in level of support required for differnet individuals, you want to say severity of disability and its required support  is a matter of opinion.

Do you want to save taxpayer money or not?

Quote:


Your error: all banks create, ie  'print' money (your teminology for central bank money creation) when they create deposits , ie write loans for credit worthy customers.

Exchanging a cheque for cash is NOT money creation, ie, is NOT an increase in the nation's money supply.   

Quote:


Oh dear, says the guy who thinks cashing a cheque is equivalent to creating/printing money...


Quote:


Waiting for your "subset of treasury" ideation to appear...

Quote:


"Sole shareholder of" is not equivalent to "subset of"; as already explained:

(google)

The central bank is not a subset of the treasury; they are separate government entities with distinct roles, though they work together within a country's consolidated government sector

Quote:


Ah - so money is not "printed"...ok,  let's go with that (correct) terminology then, even though the average 'joe blow' accuses central banks of "printing money" when most money is actually created ("printed") in private banks.

eg,  joe's assertion that QE (a misguided operation of conventional economimcs)  is "printing money"....when it is money creation in the central bank.   

Quote:


er, I'll let the rapidly increasing majority of the general public speak for itself,
while pointing out that  'taxpayer money' ought not be a consideration in the transition.

In the meantime, the Coal-ition is ensuring it remains unelectable, backed by  the likes of Senator Macolm Robert's AGW climate denialism.   

Re-"the rapidly increasing majority"

"Though most Australians accept that climate change is
happening (82%), only a minority think it is an extremely
serious problem now (15%) or will be in 2050 (34%"

https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0020/2032643/2023-Climate-Act...

"Results also show 15% of
Australians believed climate change
is an "extremely serious" problem
right now (compared to 22% in
2021), whereas 31% believed it will
be so in 2050 (compared to 45% in
2021)."

https://www.griffith.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0031/1843807/MC05692-Climate-...

"22% believed climate change was an ‘extremely serious’ problem right now, and 45% believed that it would be so in 2050."

https://news.griffith.edu.au/2022/04/28/what-australians-really-think-about-clim...

So let's see 22% serious in 2022, to  15% in 2023, 2024. Trending down not up.

lee wrote on Sep 6^th, 2025 at 2:08pm:


Proving you have no awareness of severe disability, and the level of goverment support required. 

Do you want to 'save taxpayer' money or not?

Quote:


One thing for sure, you won't answer the above question, proving your Conservative self-interest has crippled your brain. 

Here's the question again -

Do you want  to save taxpayer money being spent on the NDIS, or not?

Quote:


So, do you want ALL austistic individuals to be funded by the NDIS, which is concerned with supporting individuals with severe levels of disability,  or do you want the "people's party" (sic) to save 'taxpayer money' (...how nasty of the "people's party"....) by moving those  who don't need NDIS support,  to less intensive/expensive  support?

Quote:


Central banks sometimes create money in emergencies like the GFC and the covid pandemic***, but as already pointed out in the linked BofE memo, most money is created ex nihilo in private banks.

***but central bankers conspire to ensure they hide their  money creation operations from the public, by selling interest bearing bonds after the fact.

Hence hapless 'treasurers' of the governing party, currently Chalmers (not the unelected officials running the treasury department) claim  the pandemic rescue package has resulted in "the nation's debt swelling to one c. one trillion dollars which "has to be repaid with interest".

Lies, of course.   And indeed the government should NEVER borrow money from the private sector, which is MMT's insight. 

Quote:


Yes, other studies see things differently; but do YOU want to save 'taxpayer money' when funding the NDIS, or not?

And do you want to continue to force the government, as per convention.  to borrow money from the private sector - money which is created ex nihlo  regardless of who has the legal authority to do so?

Quote:


Did read the link? Short term memory loss?

Let's try again:

https://www.bankofengland.co.uk/quarterly-bulletin/2014/q1/money-creation-in-the...

By Michael McLeay, Amar Radia and Ryland Thomas of the Bank’s Monetary Analysis Directorate.
This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans. Money creation in practice differs from some popular misconceptions — banks do not act simply as intermediaries, lending out deposits that savers place with them, and nor do they ‘multiply up’ central bank money to create new loans and deposits. The amount of money created in the economy ultimately depends on the monetary policy of the central bank. In normal times, this is carried out by setting interest rates. The central bank can also affect the amount of money directly through purchasing assets or ‘quantitative easing’.

Interestingly, I found an article refuting the BofE analysis, but their argument is spectacularly easy to refute:

https://cepr.org/voxeu/columns/banks-do-not-create-money-out-thin-air

"Economically, money creation by private banks is far from magic, nor is it out of thin air.

There are several ways in which banks’ ability to create money through lending is constrained, meaning that the idea of limitless money creation conjured up by the image of a ‘magic money tree’ is flawed."

The error here is conflating money creation ex nihilo (which is fact), with the false idea of "limitless money creation" - the two propositions aren't equivalent because money creation in private banks is limited by the number of (hopefully) credit-worthy customers who the bank assesses will be able to repay the loan.

And central bank money creation (a small part of money creation in our "free enterprise economy) to fund government spending,  is limited by the RESOURCES available to be utilized by the currency-issuing government.

They continue:

When banks create money, they do so not out of thin air, they create money out of assets – and assets are far from nothing.

As noted above, if a customer walks into a bank with a business proposition, the only 'asset' the customer has is an idea....

And if the customer wants a mortgage, the only 'asset' is the borrower's ability to pay off the mortgage in the future, an ability which may or not be realized in the future; the 'asset'  certainly doesn't exist  when the bank creates the loan, and sinultaneously deposits money in the builder's account NOW, so the construction can begin NOW.

Quote:


By now you should know all banks "print money" ie,  create it ex nihilo.

Stop 'accusing' the central bank alone.

lee wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 6:03pm:


I want the NDIS to properly fund severe disability, which is the purpose of the NDIS; not people - individuals - who are largely independent - whether because  they are able to cope ( your contention), or level  of incapacity (which is observable fact in the case of  severe disability) ......

You still won't answer  the question: do you want to save taxpayer money - hypocrite. 

Quote:


Er.....  "new money is introduced into the economy",  mainly in private sector banks (in our private-sector based,  free enterprise system)  "when they lend money", as stated.

How is the 'new money' introduced into the economy?

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/265909749_Can_Banks_Individually_Create...

Can Banks Individually Create Money Out of Nothing? – The Theories and the Empirical Evidence

The question which of the hypotheses is correct has far-reaching implications for research and policy. Surprisingly, despite the longstanding controversy, until now no empirical study has attempted to do so. This is the contribution of the present paper. An empirical test is conducted, whereby money is borrowed from a cooperating bank, while its internal records are being monitored, to establish whether in the process of making the loan available to the borrower, the bank transfers these funds from other accounts within or outside the bank, or whether they are newly created. This study establishes for the first time empirically that banks individually create money out of nothing.

So there you have it, empirical proof private banks create money ex nihilo when they create new loans. 


Meanwhile (given heterodox economists still haven't managed to dislodge the mainstream dogma re money creation): do you  want to save 'taxpayer money' while funding the NDIS? 

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 8^th, 2025 at 11:14am:


Already answered.You just don't like the answer.

thegreatdivide wrote on Sep 8^th, 2025 at 11:14am:


And?

lee wrote on Sep 7^th, 2025 at 6:03pm:



You still didn't answer the question

Aquarius wrote on Sep 8^th, 2025 at 11:55am:


Yes, that's the result of handing a 'caring' industry to profit-seeking private sector operators. 

Quote:


Because neoliberal "small government' ideology has infected both sides of politics; but instead of saving 'taxpayer money', the private-sector scammers  end up costing  taxpayers much more than a "larger government" would have cost them (similar to the PwC scandal). 

Quote:


Er -  Labor is busy eradicating the 'gravy train' to make  NDIS funding sustainable.

Quote:


Yes, for the reasons outlines above.   

Quote:


How would the 'small government'  Coalition have operated the NDIS any differently?