Govt 'covering up' school funding plan

[oldrider]

GDP %100
GNI %75 ... %25 short unable to consume GDP
Introduce %25 interest free and consume GDP then cancel the %25. ... Sorted. (GNI= Gross National Income and GDP= Gross Nationa Product)

[mashman]

Why won't it happen? it has been happening for quite a while now, the new money I get to buy more things is what I earn, the govt doesn't print it for me. As the cost of living goes down, my expendible income goes up, so I spend more on products, and others spend more on mine, thus increasing GDP with no need to print money.

So, your million dollar hammer is just an excuse to print more money, this devalues the overall currency against our debt; any debt that is paid off is done so by taking value from all stored liquid assets, it's a robin hood type move (but against the middle class). This is why million dollar hammers/money printing is a shit idea. Also, how can you be saying money printing is a great idea under your system, but illegal under the financial system, seems like a double standard?

GDP is gross domestic product, it is the value of what is produced, the only way to manage it is to manage the production; rampant inflation as you are advocating allows us to manage the numerical value of it to whatever we want (to the detriment of economic stability), but the real world value (and its value against other currency) can only change based on production changes. So without production changes our debt cannot be changed. Without production changes our relative (to other countries) GDP cannot be changed.

And when those expenses go up I buy less items and store what's left under the mattress because the prices are gonna keep going up. Maybe you're more indicative of a shopper than I am.

If my million $ hammer is just an excuse to print more money, then every single product that is produced is just an excuse to produce more money. Something I happen to accept quite willingly as the truth. I never said that we'd be printing money.

You're really hung up on me printing money when that's not what I'm advocating at all. People can charge whatever they like for their product, Ocean said so.

[bogan]

And when those expenses go up I buy less items and store what's left under the mattress because the prices are gonna keep going up. Maybe you're more indicative of a shopper than I am.

If my million $ hammer is just an excuse to print more money, then every single product that is produced is just an excuse to produce more money. Something I happen to accept quite willingly as the truth. I never said that we'd be printing money.

You're really hung up on me printing money when that's not what I'm advocating at all. People can charge whatever they like for their product, Ocean said so.

Exactly, many factors affect GDP, money printing is but a very minor one. There is no reason to say increasing GDP requires more money to be printed or laundered.

No, because other products will actually be purchased at said value. Nobody is going to buy a million dollar hammer in a free market. 'selling' a million dollar hammer in a virtual local economy is just a way to cook the books for the international one, which is just like printing money. Try and go through the example and pinpoint exactly where the money is coming from to buy those million dollar hammers.

You just said before "Tis the same as minting a $1 trillion platinum coin and paying off a chunk of debt", if that is not the case, then provide a clear example as to where else the money comes from.

[MSTRS:Me]

They won't? Of course they will, you merely need to find the right button to push... which could be as simple as having a conversation about it.

The 'right button' is as elusive as rocking horse shit...

Dunno about them being grasshoppers because I honestly don't think they give a shit or have considered that they are being carried.

This

[MSTRS:Me]

Great teachers do this. The rest just follow the book.

[mashman]

The 'right button' is as elusive as rocking horse shit...

This

True. But why stop trying?

True. Then mention it and if all else fails, start proceedings to get rid of them if it is so damaging to staff moral.

[MSTRS:Me]

True. But why stop trying?

True. Then mention it and if all else fails, start proceedings to get rid of them if it is so damaging to staff moral.

Ever tried sacking someone? There be dragons...

[mashman]

Ever tried sacking someone? There be dragons...

Aren't you supposed to make their position redundant

[mashman]

Exactly, many factors affect GDP, money printing is but a very minor one. There is no reason to say increasing GDP requires more money to be printed or laundered.

No, because other products will actually be purchased at said value. Nobody is going to buy a million dollar hammer in a free market. 'selling' a million dollar hammer in a virtual local economy is just a way to cook the books for the international one, which is just like printing money. Try and go through the example and pinpoint exactly where the money is coming from to buy those million dollar hammers.

You just said before "Tis the same as minting a $1 trillion platinum coin and paying off a chunk of debt", if that is not the case, then provide a clear example as to where else the money comes from.

Yet that's what we do. There must be a reason for it. My fave be that peeps ain't spendin.

That hammer could be purchased by X number of individuals in a day, or whatever frequency is used. It is a way to cook the books, but the idea is to do it as a part of a whole and not to get rid of debt. We're making a hammer and the computer will buy and sell that hammer on behalf of those who have the money in their accounts at the time, even if that means we credit your account with that $1 million for the millisecond it takes to make the transaction. It's how it happens, but the pricing is more realistic. It makes debt levels manageable without affecting the progress that human beings can make i.e. you want 2 teachers in a class, then "cook the books" so that the numbers stack up and the result is that you have 2 teachers in the class. What's more important? Cooking the books (which is really just a revaluation) to get the extra teachers in the class or sticking with the current methods and shifting money from one budget to another and still not getting another teacher in the class?

It is the case for you as you equated the two in a strict manner. I said it can be looked at either way i.e. either a hammer that costs $1 million or a token that is offsetting the creation of new money. Either way it works, but one has inflationary implications a you say and the other doesn't. Hence the two examples, the platinum coin and the Jackson Pollock.

[bogan]

Yet that's what we do. There must be a reason for it. My fave be that peeps ain't spendin.

That hammer could be purchased by X number of individuals in a day, or whatever frequency is used. It is a way to cook the books, but the idea is to do it as a part of a whole and not to get rid of debt. We're making a hammer and the computer will buy and sell that hammer on behalf of those who have the money in their accounts at the time, even if that means we credit your account with that $1 million for the millisecond it takes to make the transaction. It's how it happens, but the pricing is more realistic. It makes debt levels manageable without affecting the progress that human beings can make i.e. you want 2 teachers in a class, then "cook the books" so that the numbers stack up and the result is that you have 2 teachers in the class. What's more important? Cooking the books (which is really just a revaluation) to get the extra teachers in the class or sticking with the current methods and shifting money from one budget to another and still not getting another teacher in the class?

It is the case for you as you equated the two in a strict manner. I said it can be looked at either way i.e. either a hammer that costs $1 million or a token that is offsetting the creation of new money. Either way it works, but one has inflationary implications a you say and the other doesn't. Hence the two examples, the platinum coin and the Jackson Pollock.

Indeed, it's why getting peeps to spend (increasing GDP) is seen as a good thing for the economy. I think you now understand that GDP increase is not money printing/laundering?

I'm not talking about internal resource allocation, I'm talking about what you said wrt our country's debt "a hammer made locally could "cost" $1 million and the "profit" from that could go to paying off the debt." Are you saying you now understand why this would not work?

[oldrider]

Aren't you supposed to make their position redundant

If you try to refill a position declared redundant there be unbeatable dragons! And so there should be!

[avgas]

Great teachers do this. The rest just follow the book.

He would have been a mad-as drummer too. Just put sticks in his hands and let him vibrate away.

[mashman]

Indeed, it's why getting peeps to spend (increasing GDP) is seen as a good thing for the economy. I think you now understand that GDP increase is not money printing/laundering?

I'm not talking about internal resource allocation, I'm talking about what you said wrt our country's debt "a hammer made locally could "cost" $1 million and the "profit" from that could go to paying off the debt." Are you saying you now understand why this would not work?

I don't remember saying that GDP was money printing or laundering. I did say that money printing would help go towards GDP as it will be spent. I consider the creation of money money laundering.

Of course not. If the hammer costs $2 to produce but we value it at $1 million and it is bought, does none of the GST go towards the govt?

If you try to refill a position declared redundant there be unbeatable dragons! And so there should be!

Create a new position and fill it... after a suitable length of time that is.

[bogan]

I don't remember saying that GDP was money printing or laundering. I did say that money printing would help go towards GDP as it will be spent. I consider the creation of money money laundering.

Of course not. If the hammer costs $2 to produce but we value it at $1 million and it is bought, does none of the GST go towards the govt?

So just for the record, you now know that increasing GDP is not money laundering?

For GST to be applicable, you have to have the money come from a sub-entity of the economy, person or company; which means said sub entity must value a hammer at 1million dollars to decide to pay for it. The absurdity of that line of thinking is nobody will pay 1million dollars for a hammer that costs $2 to produce.
And even if they did, or you forced them to, that is not creating wealth, it is just taking wealth off people in the society to pay the foreign debt.

[Ocean1]

Those "over achievers" also owe an immense debt to the rest of society for supporting them. What I'm advocating is simply a more equitable allocation of limited resources so that we have not only more over achievers but more achievers and fewer deadbeats. Investing in the lower end will mean that they contribute more in the long run.

But the rest of society don't support them, that's the point, they're penalised for their productivity. And I'm afraid if by "equitable" you mean spending more on underachievers, or any other minority group then you're use of the word is the opposite of that given by most reputable authorities. Do you have references showing that spending more on the lower end performers is more productive that spending it on high performers? 'Cause I'm pretty sure that's crap.

Also, the over achievers may have created the technology necessary to make more resources available but without the masses that to operate that technology it's worthless. Where would a cleaning company be without it's cleaners?

Investing heavily in other high achievers to produce cleaning machinery.

The days of paying for labour are all but gone, if you want a job best you rethink that underwater tofu weaving course and get yourself some tech qualifications.

I hate the tall poppy syndrome as much as anyone. What I don't like is those at the top of society completely ignoring the needs of those at the bottom. This disdain for the masses has led to more than one revolution and it is set to do the same again if we're not carefull.

And as I've already said; the end of civilisation is under far more threat from the comfortably average citizen in his artificially supported existence than any peasant revolt. When there's some benefit in achieving production over the bare average then you'll get improvements in productivity, and not until.