This is from Crikey… if only we had it for International Talk Like A Pirate Day.
A new sea shanty
What shall we do with the drunken sailor?
What shall we do with the drunken sailor?
What shall we do with the drunken sailor?
Ear-ly in Octo-ber.
Put him down last don't re-elect him.
Put him down last don't re-elect him.
Put him down last don't re-elect him.
Ear-ly in Octo-ber.
fancy dave says:
I would just like to say that to criticise someone for spending a surplus is against my principles.
Therefore I hope that people will concentrate their gripes on WHERE the money goes (there's plenty of material here!) rather than getting all sore about spending the surplus. In an economy our size, a surplus this size is completely unjustifyable EXCEPT AS AN INSURANCE POLICY IN A DIFFICULT ELECTION.
At which time it can be spent on whatever seems most politically expedient, after worthier programs have been railroaded in creating it.
Hooray for Reaganomics! Where the little guy wins!!!!!*
*a chicken bone
killer says:
As always, you are spot on Fancy. Thankfully it seems the media (well, the media that I read) have viewed Howard's spending spree very cynically… let's hope the public is not dazzled by his antics, "Look! A shiny new penny".
Speaking about the public… I had a very "This Person Votes" moment in my kitchen today. Me, Amanda and Lu were in the kitchen talking about election advertising (which will end on the 6th of October);
Amanda: How long does the blackout last?
Killer: About three days.
(Pause)
Lu:… (confused)… So we are going to be without power for three days!
(Much laughter)
Sorry Lu, no offence to you personally, but that shit is too funny.
matt_f says:
actually dave, it is valid to criticise for spending a surplus in a period of sustained growth. if you save it, then in the contractionary phase of the business cycle you will be able supply a fiscal injection without having to borrow (and thereby putting upward pressure on interest rates, john). i guess it is like saving for a rainy day …
killer says:
I would rather see them spending now on education and <a href="http://theage.com.au/articles/2004/09/28/1096137217929.html">R&D </a> to make sure growth is sustained.
I would also be quite happy to see them spending $6 billion on a weekend bender… so I'm probably not the best person to advise economic management.
fancy dave says:
OK Matt, I'm aware that a saved surplus can be an insurance policy for leaner times, I was just suggesting that the size of the current and maybe previous budgets weren't just calculated to give a safety net to our national economy, but also to the current Government in the lead-up to an election.
Also, the two-party system means that Governments in fear of losing power tend to spend spend spend rather than give the free kick to the "enemy" which would come with passing on the benefits of "their" "sound" financial planning.
This tends to negate the whole theory in practical terms, as it realistically takes more than the life of a government to build up a meaningful surplus. Unless you slash and burn all public programmes other than defence and border protection and sell off public assets, of course!