0:12
now similar to mine it might be interested to see what what is said on that border the Dallin grid has a quote
0:19
from Alan Greenspan in any case which basically says that a currency issue in
0:24
central government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency when it's the
0:30
currencies of fiat currency it could produce such claims without the limit anyway let me just stick this word more
0:40
expert statement on this and then I'll let it rest because I was too much celebrates Manley get the former
0:46
chairman of the Fitness's Alan Greenspan when he was under oath as chairman of the Federal Reserve he is faced with a
0:53
question from Congressman Paul Ryan now the question is about Social Security but it doesn't matter that the question
0:59
is about Social Security it could be about defense spending but the end about education spending it could be about
1:05
infrastructure spending could be about student debt could be about anything
1:10
what matters is his answer okay so let me play alan greenspan recognize that
1:17
greenspan is not the clearest speaker in the entire world so after you listen to him the IOP phrase so having personal
1:27
retirement accounts is another way of making a future retiree benefits more secure for their retirement and also do
1:34
you believe that personal retirement counts as a component to a system this obviously does help improve the Solomons
1:41
the superannuation you have a Western policy is a company with a benefit offset but that feature in place do you
1:47
believe that personal retirement house can help us achieve solvency for the system and make those future retiree
1:52
benefits more secure well I wouldn't say that the is you know benefits are
1:59
insecure in the sense that though does
2:05
nothing to prevent the federal government in creating as much money as it wanted to somebody the question is
2:11
how do you set up a system which assures that the real assets are created which
2:19
those benefits are employed to purchase so it's not a question of security it's
2:26
a question of the structure of a financial system which assures of the
2:31
real resources the real stock related moves for retirement as distinct from
2:37
the cache the cache itself is nice to have but disgustedly in the context of
2:45
the real resources being created at the time those benefits obtained so that you
2:53
can purchase real resources of the benefits which of course?
L:
3:12
OK.basically what similar to what I said he said in a slightly different way what
3:17
he's basically saying was it's not first the federal government u.s. federal
3:22
government can create as much money as it likes and handed over to pensioners the only thing that really matters is
3:29
that there's enough real stuff for pensioners to purchase okay and of
3:34
course that can be a potential problem because workers earn the income from the
3:39
goods that are produced Oh wonderful so in order for pensioners to get some
3:46
of that stuff without a thing inflationary the government taxes the working population to reduce some of its
3:52
spending there to provide free up some of those real assets goods and services that might not just be TV sets they
4:00
might be possible beds and so on and have to be goods with private limited characters they have a topic you have publicly two characters so let me just
4:07
summarize the so the issue that matters is will the real axis assets exist in
4:13
the future for retirees pensions superchips to purchase so I'm saying if
4:19
you want super just imagine seeing a pension check afford like you go to super cheap so will the basic goods and
4:28
services that your health facilities the nursing homes etc be available for retirees to claim with their pension
4:33
super checked as the population ages and the working population shrinks the ability of a nation to provide these
4:40
real assets will depend on one the productivity of the working population or in other words the economy
4:46
sustainable productive capacity and to what proportion of the real stuff being
4:51
produced is made available in the form of the roof stuff needed and desired by retirees because it doesn't have to be
4:58
hospitals the worker population could say no no no and we don't we don't want that I didn't even that even the retirees do so in our lives
5:06
I gave y'all there won't be a hot but in the meantime I'd rather be purchasing something that doesn't have to be but at
5:13
least there are choices available if the real stuff is available because the economy has the productive capacity so
5:19
no choice about money let me just
5:27
continue on timekeepers - that five or so minutes nice okay certainly you don't have to agree that
5:34
they ought or Alan Greenspan but let's just assume the clarity is your federal government currency central government
5:40
has no budget constraints um you ask the question and I've sort of answered this already but I go through
5:46
it again won't the federal government's exploitation of this bottomless pit of Australian dollars lead to
5:51
hyperinflation cuz every time I say that says ah you just get us in barber but I like to use in Barbies the poster boy
5:57
it's a classic example of a currency issuing central government that's got access to as much money as it was in
6:04
2008 the amount of money created by the Zimbabwean government for spending and other purposes increased a million fold
6:12
people say I ever feel that that's because it's run by a dictator well dictators to make the improbable
6:19
possible that they can make impossible possible how's the Zimbabwean government I would
6:24
create all this money was because it's only an issue of the Zimbabwean dollar now different to the federal government
6:31
here in Australia and the other issue of this triangle if Australian government wanted to access its of a million times
6:37
more money than spending right now in the space of 12 months it could do it it would be foolish to spend it and just be
6:43
like inflation you would get you would get this environment situation but that's a definition how you exploited
6:50
the question here is do does a central government have a liberal access to the
6:56
nation's currency the chances of a central government and the answer is yes okay so let's just just give you a 2
7:03
minute 30 seconds whatever it is lesson on on inflation there I'm gonna talk
7:09
about one particular type of inflation because whenever I say this and some let's be inflationary what they're
7:15
referring to is demand-pull inflation demand-pull inflation occurs when there
7:21
is excessive government spending not because they're running out of money but they're creating too much of this stuff and spending too much in your existence
7:27
that's all compared to the taxation the amount they destroy excessive government spending is referred to demand pull
7:33
inflation it occurs when my spending plus your spending because or the private sector and the public sector
7:40
exceeds the productive capacity economy sees the ability of the economy to
7:45
produce the real stuff that we're going to purchase with our money now that
7:51
productive capacity sometimes referred to as the full employment level income right so when you reach the productively
7:58
the total spending in the productive capacity economy then it means any
8:03
further spending not lead to any further output because when you reach the productive capacity coming all resources
8:09
are fully employed including human beings willing to work ok so any further
8:15
spending just causes inflation does not lead to an increase in real goods and
8:20
services being produced because you've reached your productive capacity if
8:26
total spending is less than that productive capacity economy then there is no demand for inflation at all but
8:32
there is unemployment so total spending is less than the productive capacity coming you will have
8:37
unemployment and that's been the situation in Australia for about the last 40 odd years total spending has
8:43
been less than the productive capacity of the economy that's why we've had unemployment not
8:49
had full employment for 40 odd years don't listen to the people who said around about 2007 when the official
8:55
unemployment rate was around our four point one percent that we have full employment at the time there was 450
9:01
thousand unemployed Australians and 150,000 and then at be unemployed for 12
9:07
months or more and there were 500,000 underemployed Australians they were denying 150,000 strains or
9:13
unemployed or underemployed at the time that's now one point I mean it's one point opening Australians right I mean
9:19
poor underemployed so clearly total spending is work short of the production
9:25
capacity is trying to kill me so that's the reason why despite these deficits that gal was now running it's not
9:31
inflation it wasn't because time spends less than the productive invest in the economy that's what matters
9:37
it's not moving at the budget position it's quite possible to have a demand for
9:42
inflation with the government running a service if private sector spending is strong enough if the combined the
9:49
aggregate the combined spending of you and me that the total spending relative
9:55
to the productive capacity that matters I can run a service but if you're you're borrowing so much that you're spending
10:00
plus mine exceeds the productive capacity coming there will be demand for inflation you're not running a service
10:05
do you mark on inflation for the surplus and you can have unemployment when you've got government running a deficit
10:13
ideally you want total spending to exactly equal productive capacity that's air you'd love the economy to run that
10:20
means you have full employment all the time in fact I would argue that and of course you have minimal inflation you
10:26
made mine a little bit something between two or three percent which is deemed to be acceptable and you can have that and
10:34
that's basically how the Australian economy was run from that 1945 to about 1973 so before well one of the reasons
10:47
why problems arise in 1973 was the authorizer yeah
10:53
the created inflation but it wasn't demand for inflation was cost-push inflation and that created a problem
10:59
because economists don't like they don't know that cost-push inflation okay they
11:05
only know thankfully that that the major form of inflation is demand to inflate we we haven't had demand pull inflation
11:11
in this country for 40 odd years how do I know we had full employment for 40 ideas the total spending has to
11:17
exceed the falling formula for that to half and you must have full employment star birth it's all being tossed push
11:24
cost-push inflation cost-push inflation is where the cost of doing things Rises because you have something like an
11:32
oil price shock but it's usually a symptom of the structural deficiencies
11:37
of the economy you can have wage pressures within the economy even though you've got a lot of people unemployed
11:43
because the skills of the work people while the working or seeking work don't
11:50
match the still been demanded by employers so you get buildup of wage
11:55
pressures in particular labor market that's caused by having a tranquil
12:01
training system in my opinion and an education system that doesn't produce
12:08
graduates of the type that employers or in the quantities that that employers
12:14
demand I'd say I'm sure in Adelaide tonight there will be a lot of people working behind bars in making coffee
12:21
that have got degrees in accountancy to mechanics but we and and the
12:28
introduction for four or five seven reason is because we're going to have enough trades people even though I'm gonna employ people because not training
12:34
so we've got a mismatch between skills demanding tea with school support which can lead to waste pressures in certain
12:40
labor markets that the best cost push inflation repression other reason we can
12:46
get cost pushing for placement precious because you can have a problem of scarcity of resources but governments
12:54
don't like that post push inflationary pressure to emerge in the economy and they make sure that it doesn't emerge in
13:01
the economy because in order to get natural resources and environmental services to be adequately priced because
13:09
of the characteristics of those services and goods they don't they're not
13:14
assigned a price naturally by the market it requires the government to put a price on them like a price on carbon all
13:21
right which of course creates cost push inflation repression no one wants inflation but my view is that cost push
13:29
inflation is something you wear and do in the proper way you don't kill the
13:34
Australian economy off you know kick it in the guts by raising interest rates cutting government spending you say okay
13:40
we've got cost-push inflation tree problem it's clearly the result of some structural weakness of deficiency of the
13:46
economy let's deal with the structural weakness it might take longer to get deal with that weakness and reduce the
13:52
cost push inflation tree pressure that's the price of bad policy in the past but when you use higher interest rates or
14:00
you use the cuts in government spending as a means of reducing demand which is
14:05
really a way of dealing with demand pull inflation refresher rather than cost push inflation air pressure you do to
14:11
off the inflation but you mask the structural deficiency and you never deal with it and just reminds and go off in
14:19
some sustainable pathway so there's no
14:24
reason why characters second the last point why can't assume central guard cannot net Spain to ensure there is
14:30
always spending equal to the productive full employment level of GDP
14:36
they thanks know financial constraint in doing this and this explains why the
14:42
huge budget deficits of the u.s. people government in the 2008 2011 period
14:48
burning flow through during that period the u.s. federal government's budget deficits as a percentage of GDP were the
14:54
largest since World War two effectively they ran the biggest budget deficit since World War two during that period
15:01
since World War two there's been at times high inflation in the u.s. a high interest rates
15:06
why was inflation very very low in URIs at the time and the Fed Funds rate I was
15:12
referring to that cash rate with the Reserve Bank's entity port it's called the Fed Funds rate in the USA it was
15:19
mark to have food marginally above zero percent how can that be explained it's
15:24
interesting when I ask that question to professors of economics they have
15:30
difficulty explaining them yet I would expect a reason no breeze
15:36
first year macroeconomics student to answer that question correctly and the reason why wasn't inflation was because
15:42
total despite these huge deficits by the US food and government huge injection of
15:47
spending by the US federal government in the viewers economy private sector spending it forward so much that the
15:53
combined spending the totals many private sector plus the federal government spending was still less than
15:58
the productive capacity the US economy how do I know because the artificial unemployment rate I can hear us at the
16:04
times nine or ten percent Sally nine trade conclusions can see
16:10
some eccentric government can always NetSpend to a level that interest I'm spending people was the full employment level GDP
16:15
it should never spend beyond this level anyone who would recommend that is a full so this is belief that people like
16:22
me just want to point this out so governments if you don't know while it spends banana I've never recommend that
16:30
a central government deficit spend to the point that toe spending exceeds the
16:35
productive capacity thought why don't never do something you've got full employment suddenly produce eliminating
16:41
more goods and services because you've used up all the resources that are available at that point in time it's just going to be inflationary but if in
16:48
doing that the government he's operating a deficit so on the government's go bottom was putting the nation's currency
16:55
at its disposal and he's been doing that every year making sure that total spend
17:01
is equal to full employment level of income the central government should instead currency to central government
17:07
running in deficit he can do it forever run deficit and in the meantime because of Associated when I'm running a deficit
17:14
I'm injecting more spending power that I'm destroying through taxation your financial assets possession of financial
17:21
assets is rising it was almost impossible in the 1960s to have a major
17:28
financial crisis and the reason for that was because there was almost a period of
17:36
probably 20 25 years where central government and some of these were
17:41
concerned ailments we're running deficits year after year after you the private sector
17:46
was flush with net financial assets so if things went amiss for a little while
17:52
they just are able to acquire some of their savings their net savings are
17:58
they'd accumulated to get through that little bit of a rough period and of course wasn't a very long rough period
18:03
because the central government was always prepared to a third spending to make sure all total spending was at the
18:08
full employment level and so it was any other shortly it's like you had a minor
18:14
increase in unemployment and if the government was a bit lazy in responding
18:21
and they were having private went to three percent like it did in 1961 to couple almost got booted out the men
18:26
she's coming by they've got up by one seat won the election by one seat because the unemployment rate went up to
18:31
three percent they did but didn't have a
18:39
major effect on the astray not on this train economy time spending with the
18:57
economy's as I said touch spent exceeds a full employment level you did inflation
19:02
more demand then the group's available for sale you get inflation if it's
19:08
exactly equal you get full employment go alone business if it's less you've got unemployment you if it's if the gap
19:16
between what's required their full employment and what what you do that is
19:22
sufficiently large enough least possible deflation but that's very sorry no it's
19:32
not no no you want you want process to be fairly constantly for you hey can I just meet five more minutes I just wanna
19:41
make these poor these last points i text fine I'm gonna repeat myself a little
19:47
bit here just because I haven't said that much about superannuation I really want to
19:53
say that so taxes paid by the working population do not finance the pension
19:58
build my bike just get money out of my bottomless pit of money tax by the
20:05
working population merely required to quell the inflationary effect of retirees spending and of course the
20:11
government's own spending okay perhaps I'll miss that first one because I've
20:16
spent a lot of time on that one I'll go to the second one this is idea that
20:24
switching from pensions to superannuation will reduce the tax imposed on the working population so the
20:30
view is like a Texas fund the pension and if all retirees now have a super fun
20:37
to draw from rather than getting a pension then there's no need for the federal government detects the working
20:42
population that's nonsense check first as I said before taxes don't finance the
20:48
pension system so we've been population not many tax to finance the pension that's the first thing
20:54
in order for retirees to spend it as I mentioned before in order for retires to spend in the way that is not
21:00
inflationary he's got it as as Alan Greenspan said to me enough of those rules that real stuff they're available
21:07
for pensioners and the working population and so forth to purchase with
21:13
the money that they've got available for spending purposes so in other words the
21:18
young the central government has got to make sufficient spending room for
21:24
retirees to spend in a way that is not inflation that spending room is required
21:31
whether or not the spending of retirees is financed by a pension or a check or a
21:37
super chip it's irrelevant okay so it doesn't matter whether or not a penny or
21:43
as position we were comparing situation when all retirees were either on a pension or all retirees when a super
21:51
chick and they were the same baby but the mainstream view is that the
21:58
one where it's just a pension check will mean the working population won't have to be taxed because taxes finance at the
22:04
pension when it doesn't doesn't matter in both cases the working population will have to be taxed because in both
22:11
cases to avoid inflationary pressure to the spending by retirees on that real
22:17
stuff whether it's financed by a pension ship or a super cheque room has to be made available for those good thoughtful
22:24
retirees to access that stuff and the way in which room is made available is by taxing the working population so the
22:31
working population will still have to be taxed ok we're still
22:39
if the superannuation could one that one that backs local benefits of superannuation as you get up is that the
22:44
super check that you get is higher than the picture check so you get as a retiree more to spend
22:50
well if superannuation means a higher fortnightly check for retirees but doesn't increase the nation's productive
22:57
capacity relative to having a pension system and there's no evidence that that's happening I've since compulsory
23:05
superannuation has been brought in introduced as we know in fact if anything the labor productivity is
23:11
formed then the tax liability of the working population increases because
23:17
more room has to be made if retirees have now got a higher check each four
23:22
nights now superchip then they're going to be claiming more of that real stuff
23:28
it is but I'm talking completely that's
23:42
upon mine but if retirees have more to
23:54
spend on those goods and services that the super check is higher than the pension check and there's no
24:01
corresponding increase in the productive capacity of the working population as a result shifting from a pension system to a
24:07
super system then more rooms gotta be made available for pensioners to access those goods and service means the
24:13
working population going to be taxed even more well governments and as I said before governments going like I reckon
24:20
this is already starting to occur this problem governments don't like taxing people more so the others remember the
24:26
other solution rather than reducing a working population spending on that will stuff the government reduces its
24:32
spending on their own stuff and so we could run down a public infrastructure a desire to cut spending to education and
24:38
so forth but basically I just want to
24:51
show a few diagrams just really quickly but the real solution the real solution
24:57
is to do something about sustaining or not increasing the cisco maintain or
25:02
sustaining the productive capacity the Australian economy and I said it comes to inversion everything to reduce it and
25:09
I pointed out that improving labor productivity is very important it's one
25:14
thing in the report that I agree with but because the way they argue that we go about doing am I disagree let's have
25:20
a good labor productivity don't worry about the blue line because that's selected parts of the economy that the brown line there shows the growth in
25:27
labor productivity it's in decline it's been in decline that I've got in blue
25:32
there but how it is still a budget surplus period labor productivity tends
25:38
to lag spending on infrastructure education training and so on and from 96
25:47
to 2000 sevens where you have the Howard if you still had budget surpluses ten years in the lemon had budget surpluses
25:53
you still had a bit of growth in labor productivity up until about 2002 but the
26:00
effect of those budget surpluses was to result in labor productivity drop
26:05
alarmingly towards the end of that particular government and then you've got that
26:11
rudd-gillard-rudd deficit use flat line instead of increase a lagged effect
26:17
there sorry population growth also undermines
26:22
and resource throughput growth as I said undermines the productive capacity this
26:28
this green line your buck might be heard of a thing called the ecological footprint okay that green line meant
26:35
like this measures Australia's ecological footprint from 1961 I'm sorry only goes about 2500 snotty easy to get
26:41
unless you want to play big bucks forget the data but that's that Green
26:46
Line is not the inaudible footprint that's Australian buyer capacity then that basically represents the the
26:54
natural resources that Australia on a per capita basis has available at its
27:02
disposal to use for economic purposes and you can see it's in decline the brown line is that per capita per
27:09
footprint now of course because the strange populations rising the totals were pretty surprising but on a per capita basis it's it's been fairly flat
27:16
the black line measures the difference which is the ecological circles if the buyer capacity is greater than the
27:23
footprint you've got a surplus Australia's quite a rare country in this regard but you can see the surplus is
27:30
falling and it's been falling since and if it keeps going in its current trend - your population growth GDP growth we're
27:37
going to have a deficit problem that's undermining the capacity to produce in the future to move the needs of the 19
27:43
population of course what's even more important is the ecological footprint
27:48
versus the bio capacity at the global level that dotted line is wonder if that's what we've got available to
27:55
ourselves that think these sort of are ready sort of line is the global
28:01
ecological footprint and you can see that about 1985 the humanities
28:07
ecological footprint was exactly equal to the u.s. buyer capacity and it's
28:12
exceeded it since and it's now at me a close to that one that 1.4 represents
28:18
1.4 planets and people say to me that happen this doesn't make sense we've
28:23
only got one planet happen you have something measuring in more than one
28:29
planet what that basically means when we see it up around in 1.4 is it means that you know aught up say 2001 if
28:37
that was one point for that one point four so that's one point four that would mean that for the amount of resources
28:45
that we used in 2001 to be used on a sustainable basis it would be necessary for us to have access to one point for
28:52
us only reason why you can be in that situation in a short period of time is
28:58
you can it's because you don't just live off the income of natural capital you can eat into the natural Chapel and
29:04
that's what we're doing once you go beyond that line you can do it for a period from but eating a natural kappa not just cutting down the odd tree
29:10
that's been regenerated by a forest but cutting into the forest and reducing the size of the forest and of course you can
29:16
only do that for a period so if you harvest timber at the same rate the forest regenerates and you can have the
29:23
timber forever but we're not doing that we're now eating into the natural jungle so we can that can only go up with
29:29
period on then it will come down as one of the comments one of the quotes if
29:34
something is impossible or whatever then it will stop at some point in time I
29:39
mentioned that being the intergenerational port become it's hell-bent on right of increasing
29:46
Australia's GDP which of course is one
29:51
of the driving factors behind these ecological problems but the question
29:56
that needs to be asked is this increase in GDP actually making this better off that blue line there this is thing
30:02
called a genuine progress indicator that blue line there is the per capita GDP at once again sorry it's 1962 to 2007 so it
30:11
needs to be updated that red line is the per capita genuine progress indicator
30:17
the genuine probe one of the problems with GDP is just a measure of the total volume of economic activity regardless
30:25
of what it is whether it's something that's beneficial or if it's cleaning up the natural environment
30:32
it's called gross domestic product the national level it's called gross state product at the state or provincial level
30:37
when the Exxon Valdez spilled its oil in
30:42
Alaska back twenty or so years ago the GSP the
30:48
gross state product of Alaska went through the roof because of all the money and all the resorts of all the resources that were allocated to allow
30:55
staff to try and clean it up dope in person that last movers been wrong every car crashing increases the that's right
31:02
if you want to increase the GDP just press your Karen or stove it all the way iron ore or if you marry it or if you
31:08
married and get divorced and if and if you're a situation where one of you
31:14
words and the other one stays home and does the work for you just employ your ex-partner GOP will go up and then we
31:20
know increasing economic but what is what the GPI does is it measures the
31:27
benefits and the costs of economic activity at the macro level if in
31:34
growing the economy the benefits are rising faster than the costs then that gap increases and the
31:41
per capita GDP goes up but it hasn't been going in fact it peaked in about the early 1970s so all this GDP growth
31:48
hasn't made us any better off it doesn't mean that we have any extra benefits we've had extra costs all these
31:55
pressures in terms of ecological costs infrastructure costs okay when as was
32:02
mentioned when a road is widened when they spent believe it or not I know if
32:08
you were watching looking at that side but where you live in Adelaide but the intersection of an Tek highway and South
32:15
Road there was a hundred and eighteen million dollars one hundred and eighteen me I don't know if it's how much has
32:21
improved the flow of traffic but I bet you the flow of traffic through that intersection is no better than what it was 30 years ago when you didn't have
32:27
that underpass that's a cost that's because those resources have been used
32:33
and never be available again they could have been used to build hospitals that's the cost of growth and that's not
32:39
reflected in G in fact it is reflected in G it goes up the GPI cuz as a cost
32:45
goes down when those sorts of things happen so it's not making this better off anyone is in it's undermining a
32:51
product capacity just what the other thing that were searching development spending is I
32:57
said public spending on research and develops it is important have a look at this here the blue represents the years
33:03
and which federal government's spending on research and development was at its
33:09
lowest point occurred almost always occurred when governments were running a surplus right there was a surplus in
33:16
eighty eight eighty nine a budget surplus rather Howard Keating budget surplus government spending on research
33:22
and development fell these are the help you still are used in the middle here you can see that the overall trend is
33:29
downwards in research and development spending by the federal government it's went up a bit during the stimulus
33:36
period short little stimulus period under the rug Gillard Swan budget deficit period but you can see when
33:43
there were budget cuts to try and run the budget back to service which was unnecessary you saw research and
33:51
development spending by the federal government started come on and it's continuing to decline so as I said
33:56
federal government do everything that undermined the ability of Australia to make the means of an aging population
34:15
you
https://love-and-theft-2014.blogspot.com/2022/08/now-similar-to-mine-it-might-be.html
https://love-and-theft-2014.blogspot.com/2022/08/now-similar-to-mine-it-might-be.html
0:12
今は私のものに似ていますが、その国境で何が言われているのか興味があるかもしれません。ダリングリッドには引用があります
0:19
いずれにせよ、アラン・グリーンスパンから、基本的に通貨の問題は
0:24
中央政府は、自国通貨の債務に関して支払不能になることはありません。
0:30
法定通貨の通貨 それは制限なしでそのような主張を生み出すことができました とにかくこの言葉をもっと固執させてください
0:40
これについての専門家の声明そして、マンリーが前者を手に入れたことを祝う
0:46
連邦準備制度理事会の議長として宣誓されたとき、フィットネスのアラン・グリーンスパンの議長は、彼が直面している
0:53
ポール・ライアン下院議員からの質問 質問は社会保障に関するものですが、その質問は問題ではありません
0:59
それは社会保障に関するものであり、防衛費に関するものかもしれませんが、教育支出に関するものかもしれません
1:05
インフラ支出は学生の借金に関するものかもしれません
1:10
重要なのは彼の答えだ
1:17
greenspan は全世界で最も明確なスピーカーではないので、彼の IOP フレーズを聞いた後、個人的な
1:27
退職金口座は、将来の退職者の退職金をより安全なものにするもう 1 つの方法であり、
1:34
あなたは、個人の退職がシステムの構成要素として数えられると信じています。これは明らかにソロモンの改善に役立ちます
1:41
あなたが持っているスーパーアニュエーションは欧米の保険会社で、給付が相殺される会社ですが、その機能は整っていますか?
1:47
個人のリタイヤメントハウスは、システムの支払い能力を達成し、将来の退職者を作るのに役立つと信じています
1:52
メリットがより安全であるとは言えません。
1:59
という意味では安全ではありませんが
2:05
連邦政府が誰かに望むだけのお金を生み出すことを妨げるものは何もない
2:11
実物資産が作成されることを保証するシステムをどのように設定しますか
2:19
これらの特典は購入に使用されるため、セキュリティの問題ではありません
2:26
を保証する金融システムの構造の問題。
2:31
実物資源 実物在庫に関連する退職金の動きとは異なります。
2:37
キャッシュ キャッシュ自体は持っていると便利ですが、のコンテキストではうんざりします
2:45
それらの利益が得られたときに作成された実際のリソース。
2:53
もちろん、利益の実際のリソースを購入できます
3:12
基本的に私が言ったことと似ているが、彼は少し違う言い方をした
3:17
彼は基本的に、連邦政府が最初ではないと言っていました。
3:22
政府は好きなだけお金を作り、年金受給者に渡すことができます 本当に重要なのは
3:29
年金受給者が購入するのに十分な実物があること
3:34
労働者は労働者から収入を得るため、潜在的な問題になる可能性があるコース
3:39
年金受給者が手に入れるために、ああ素晴らしいので生産された商品
3:46
政府は労働人口に課税して、その一部を削減します。
3:52
テレビだけではないかもしれない実物資産の商品やサービスの一部を解放するためにそこに支出する
4:00
ベッドなども可能かもしれませんし、非公開の限定キャラクターのグッズである必要があります。話題があります。2 つのキャラクターが公開されています。
4:07
要約すると、重要な問題は、実際の軸資産が存在するかどうかです
4:13
退職者年金のスーパーチップが購入する未来
4:19
あなたはスーパーが欲しい 年金の小切手を見て想像するだけで、超格安に行くように、基本的な商品と
4:28
退職者が年金と一緒に請求できるように、医療施設や養護施設などで利用できるサービス
4:33
人口が高齢化し、労働人口が減少するにつれて、これらを提供する国家の能力が大幅に低下します。
4:40
実物資産は、労働人口の生産性、つまり経済に依存します。
4:46
持続可能な生産能力と、実際のものの割合
4:51
生産されたものは、退職者が必要とし、希望する屋根材の形で利用可能になります。
4:58
病院労働者はノーノーノーと言うことができ、私たちは望んでいません退職者でさえ私たちの生活の中でそうしています。
5:06
暑くなることはないだろうと言いましたが、それまでの間、そうである必要のないものを購入したいと思いますが、
5:13
経済には生産能力があるので、少なくとも本物が利用可能であれば、利用可能な選択肢があります。
5:19
お金について選択の余地はありません
5:27
タイムキーパーを続けてください - その5分ほどはいいですよね確かにあなたはそれに同意する必要はありません
5:34
彼らはアラン・グリーンスパンにすべきですが、明確さはあなたの連邦政府の通貨中央政府であると仮定しましょう
5:40
予算の制約はありません。あなたが質問をして、私はすでにこれにある程度答えましたが、私は行きます
5:46
連邦政府によるこの底なしのオーストラリアドルの穴の搾取が、
5:51
ハイパーインフレだって言うたびに、ああ、理髪店に行かせてくれって言うんだけど、バービー人形でポスターボーイを使うのが好きなんだ
5:57
これは、元の通貨と同じくらい多くの通貨にアクセスできる通貨発行中央政府の典型的な例です。
6:04
2008 年、ジンバブエ政府が支出やその他の目的で作成した金額は 100 万倍に増加しました
6:12
人々は、それは独裁者によって運営されているからだと感じたことがあると言います。
6:19
彼らが不可能を可能にすることができる可能性ジンバブエ政府はどうですか
6:24
create all this money was because it's only an issue of the Zimbabwean dollar now different to the federal government
6:31
here in Australia and the other issue of this triangle if Australian government wanted to access its of a million times
6:37
more money than spending right now in the space of 12 months it could do it it would be foolish to spend it and just be
6:43
like inflation you would get you would get this environment situation but that's a definition how you exploited
6:50
the question here is do does a central government have a liberal access to the
6:56
nation's currency the chances of a central government and the answer is yes okay so let's just just give you a 2
7:03
minute 30 seconds whatever it is lesson on on inflation there I'm gonna talk
7:09
about one particular type of inflation because whenever I say this and some let's be inflationary what they're
7:15
referring to is demand-pull inflation demand-pull inflation occurs when there
7:21
is excessive government spending not because they're running out of money but they're creating too much of this stuff and spending too much in your existence
7:27
that's all compared to the taxation the amount they destroy excessive government spending is referred to demand pull
7:33
inflation it occurs when my spending plus your spending because or the private sector and the public sector
7:40
exceeds the productive capacity economy sees the ability of the economy to
7:45
produce the real stuff that we're going to purchase with our money now that
7:51
productive capacity sometimes referred to as the full employment level income right so when you reach the productively
7:58
the total spending in the productive capacity economy then it means any
8:03
further spending not lead to any further output because when you reach the productive capacity coming all resources
8:09
are fully employed including human beings willing to work ok so any further
8:15
spending just causes inflation does not lead to an increase in real goods and
8:20
services being produced because you've reached your productive capacity if
8:26
total spending is less than that productive capacity economy then there is no demand for inflation at all but
8:32
there is unemployment so total spending is less than the productive capacity coming you will have
8:37
unemployment and that's been the situation in Australia for about the last 40 odd years total spending has
8:43
been less than the productive capacity of the economy that's why we've had unemployment not
8:49
had full employment for 40 odd years don't listen to the people who said around about 2007 when the official
8:55
unemployment rate was around our four point one percent that we have full employment at the time there was 450
9:01
thousand unemployed Australians and 150,000 and then at be unemployed for 12
9:07
months or more and there were 500,000 underemployed Australians they were denying 150,000 strains or
9:13
unemployed or underemployed at the time that's now one point I mean it's one point opening Australians right I mean
9:19
poor underemployed so clearly total spending is work short of the production
9:25
capacity is trying to kill me so that's the reason why despite these deficits that gal was now running it's not
9:31
inflation it wasn't because time spends less than the productive invest in the economy that's what matters
9:37
it's not moving at the budget position it's quite possible to have a demand for
9:42
inflation with the government running a service if private sector spending is strong enough if the combined the
9:49
aggregate the combined spending of you and me that the total spending relative
9:55
to the productive capacity that matters I can run a service but if you're you're borrowing so much that you're spending
10:00
plus mine exceeds the productive capacity coming there will be demand for inflation you're not running a service
10:05
do you mark on inflation for the surplus and you can have unemployment when you've got government running a deficit
10:13
ideally you want total spending to exactly equal productive capacity that's air you'd love the economy to run that
10:20
means you have full employment all the time in fact I would argue that and of course you have minimal inflation you
10:26
made mine a little bit something between two or three percent which is deemed to be acceptable and you can have that and
10:34
that's basically how the Australian economy was run from that 1945 to about 1973 so before well one of the reasons
10:47
why problems arise in 1973 was the authorizer yeah
10:53
the created inflation but it wasn't demand for inflation was cost-push inflation and that created a problem
10:59
because economists don't like they don't know that cost-push inflation okay they
11:05
only know thankfully that that the major form of inflation is demand to inflate we we haven't had demand pull inflation
11:11
in this country for 40 odd years how do I know we had full employment for 40 ideas the total spending has to
11:17
exceed the falling formula for that to half and you must have full employment star birth it's all being tossed push
11:24
cost-push inflation cost-push inflation is where the cost of doing things Rises because you have something like an
11:32
oil price shock but it's usually a symptom of the structural deficiencies
11:37
of the economy you can have wage pressures within the economy even though you've got a lot of people unemployed
11:43
because the skills of the work people while the working or seeking work don't
11:50
match the still been demanded by employers so you get buildup of wage
11:55
pressures in particular labor market that's caused by having a tranquil
12:01
training system in my opinion and an education system that doesn't produce
12:08
graduates of the type that employers or in the quantities that that employers
12:14
demand I'd say I'm sure in Adelaide tonight there will be a lot of people working behind bars in making coffee
12:21
that have got degrees in accountancy to mechanics but we and and the
12:28
introduction for four or five seven reason is because we're going to have enough trades people even though I'm gonna employ people because not training
12:34
so we've got a mismatch between skills demanding tea with school support which can lead to waste pressures in certain
12:40
labor markets that the best cost push inflation repression other reason we can
12:46
get cost pushing for placement precious because you can have a problem of scarcity of resources but governments
12:54
don't like that post push inflationary pressure to emerge in the economy and they make sure that it doesn't emerge in
13:01
the economy because in order to get natural resources and environmental services to be adequately priced because
13:09
of the characteristics of those services and goods they don't they're not
13:14
assigned a price naturally by the market it requires the government to put a price on them like a price on carbon all
13:21
right which of course creates cost push inflation repression no one wants inflation but my view is that cost push
13:29
inflation is something you wear and do in the proper way you don't kill the
13:34
Australian economy off you know kick it in the guts by raising interest rates cutting government spending you say okay
13:40
we've got cost-push inflation tree problem it's clearly the result of some structural weakness of deficiency of the
13:46
economy let's deal with the structural weakness it might take longer to get deal with that weakness and reduce the
13:52
cost push inflation tree pressure that's the price of bad policy in the past but when you use higher interest rates or
14:00
you use the cuts in government spending as a means of reducing demand which is
14:05
really a way of dealing with demand pull inflation refresher rather than cost push inflation air pressure you do to
14:11
off the inflation but you mask the structural deficiency and you never deal with it and just reminds and go off in
14:19
some sustainable pathway so there's no
14:24
reason why characters second the last point why can't assume central guard cannot net Spain to ensure there is
14:30
always spending equal to the productive full employment level of GDP
14:36
they thanks know financial constraint in doing this and this explains why the
14:42
huge budget deficits of the u.s. people government in the 2008 2011 period
14:48
burning flow through during that period the u.s. federal government's budget deficits as a percentage of GDP were the
14:54
largest since World War two effectively they ran the biggest budget deficit since World War two during that period
15:01
since World War two there's been at times high inflation in the u.s. a high interest rates
15:06
why was inflation very very low in URIs at the time and the Fed Funds rate I was
15:12
referring to that cash rate with the Reserve Bank's entity port it's called the Fed Funds rate in the USA it was
15:19
mark to have food marginally above zero percent how can that be explained it's
15:24
interesting when I ask that question to professors of economics they have
15:30
difficulty explaining them yet I would expect a reason no breeze
15:36
first year macroeconomics student to answer that question correctly and the reason why wasn't inflation was because
15:42
total despite these huge deficits by the US food and government huge injection of
15:47
spending by the US federal government in the viewers economy private sector spending it forward so much that the
15:53
combined spending the totals many private sector plus the federal government spending was still less than
15:58
the productive capacity the US economy how do I know because the artificial unemployment rate I can hear us at the
16:04
times nine or ten percent Sally nine trade conclusions can see
16:10
some eccentric government can always NetSpend to a level that interest I'm spending people was the full employment level GDP
16:15
it should never spend beyond this level anyone who would recommend that is a full so this is belief that people like
16:22
me just want to point this out so governments if you don't know while it spends banana I've never recommend that
16:30
a central government deficit spend to the point that toe spending exceeds the
16:35
productive capacity thought why don't never do something you've got full employment suddenly produce eliminating
16:41
more goods and services because you've used up all the resources that are available at that point in time it's just going to be inflationary but if in
16:48
doing that the government he's operating a deficit so on the government's go bottom was putting the nation's currency
16:55
at its disposal and he's been doing that every year making sure that total spend
17:01
is equal to full employment level of income the central government should instead currency to central government
17:07
running in deficit he can do it forever run deficit and in the meantime because of Associated when I'm running a deficit
17:14
I'm injecting more spending power that I'm destroying through taxation your financial assets possession of financial
17:21
assets is rising it was almost impossible in the 1960s to have a major
17:28
financial crisis and the reason for that was because there was almost a period of
17:36
probably 20 25 years where central government and some of these were
17:41
concerned ailments we're running deficits year after year after you the private sector
17:46
was flush with net financial assets so if things went amiss for a little while
17:52
they just are able to acquire some of their savings their net savings are
17:58
they'd accumulated to get through that little bit of a rough period and of course wasn't a very long rough period
18:03
because the central government was always prepared to a third spending to make sure all total spending was at the
18:08
full employment level and so it was any other shortly it's like you had a minor
18:14
increase in unemployment and if the government was a bit lazy in responding
18:21
and they were having private went to three percent like it did in 1961 to couple almost got booted out the men
18:26
she's coming by they've got up by one seat won the election by one seat because the unemployment rate went up to
18:31
three percent they did but didn't have a
18:39
major effect on the astray not on this train economy time spending with the
18:57
economy's as I said touch spent exceeds a full employment level you did inflation
19:02
more demand then the group's available for sale you get inflation if it's
19:08
exactly equal you get full employment go alone business if it's less you've got unemployment you if it's if the gap
19:16
between what's required their full employment and what what you do that is
19:22
sufficiently large enough least possible deflation but that's very sorry no it's
19:32
not no no you want you want process to be fairly constantly for you hey can I just meet five more minutes I just wanna
19:41
make these poor these last points i text fine I'm gonna repeat myself a little
19:47
bit here just because I haven't said that much about superannuation I really want to
19:53
say that so taxes paid by the working population do not finance the pension
19:58
build my bike just get money out of my bottomless pit of money tax by the
20:05
working population merely required to quell the inflationary effect of retirees spending and of course the
20:11
government's own spending okay perhaps I'll miss that first one because I've
20:16
spent a lot of time on that one I'll go to the second one this is idea that
20:24
switching from pensions to superannuation will reduce the tax imposed on the working population so the
20:30
view is like a Texas fund the pension and if all retirees now have a super fun
20:37
to draw from rather than getting a pension then there's no need for the federal government detects the working
20:42
population that's nonsense check first as I said before taxes don't finance the
20:48
pension system so we've been population not many tax to finance the pension that's the first thing
20:54
in order for retirees to spend it as I mentioned before in order for retires to spend in the way that is not
21:00
inflationary he's got it as as Alan Greenspan said to me enough of those rules that real stuff they're available
21:07
for pensioners and the working population and so forth to purchase with
21:13
the money that they've got available for spending purposes so in other words the
21:18
young the central government has got to make sufficient spending room for
21:24
retirees to spend in a way that is not inflation that spending room is required
21:31
whether or not the spending of retirees is financed by a pension or a check or a
21:37
super chip it's irrelevant okay so it doesn't matter whether or not a penny or
21:43
as position we were comparing situation when all retirees were either on a pension or all retirees when a super
21:51
chick and they were the same baby but the mainstream view is that the
21:58
one where it's just a pension check will mean the working population won't have to be taxed because taxes finance at the
22:04
pension when it doesn't doesn't matter in both cases the working population will have to be taxed because in both
22:11
cases to avoid inflationary pressure to the spending by retirees on that real
22:17
stuff whether it's financed by a pension ship or a super cheque room has to be made available for those good thoughtful
22:24
retirees to access that stuff and the way in which room is made available is by taxing the working population so the
22:31
working population will still have to be taxed ok we're still
22:39
if the superannuation could one that one that backs local benefits of superannuation as you get up is that the
22:44
super check that you get is higher than the picture check so you get as a retiree more to spend
22:50
well if superannuation means a higher fortnightly check for retirees but doesn't increase the nation's productive
22:57
capacity relative to having a pension system and there's no evidence that that's happening I've since compulsory
23:05
superannuation has been brought in introduced as we know in fact if anything the labor productivity is
23:11
formed then the tax liability of the working population increases because
23:17
more room has to be made if retirees have now got a higher check each four
23:22
nights now superchip then they're going to be claiming more of that real stuff
23:28
it is but I'm talking completely that's
23:42
upon mine but if retirees have more to
23:54
spend on those goods and services that the super check is higher than the pension check and there's no
24:01
corresponding increase in the productive capacity of the working population as a result shifting from a pension system to a
24:07
super system then more rooms gotta be made available for pensioners to access those goods and service means the
24:13
working population going to be taxed even more well governments and as I said before governments going like I reckon
24:20
this is already starting to occur this problem governments don't like taxing people more so the others remember the
24:26
other solution rather than reducing a working population spending on that will stuff the government reduces its
24:32
spending on their own stuff and so we could run down a public infrastructure a desire to cut spending to education and
24:38
so forth but basically I just want to
24:51
show a few diagrams just really quickly but the real solution the real solution
24:57
is to do something about sustaining or not increasing the cisco maintain or
25:02
sustaining the productive capacity the Australian economy and I said it comes to inversion everything to reduce it and
25:09
I pointed out that improving labor productivity is very important it's one
25:14
thing in the report that I agree with but because the way they argue that we go about doing am I disagree let's have
25:20
a good labor productivity don't worry about the blue line because that's selected parts of the economy that the brown line there shows the growth in
25:27
labor productivity it's in decline it's been in decline that I've got in blue
25:32
there but how it is still a budget surplus period labor productivity tends
25:38
to lag spending on infrastructure education training and so on and from 96
25:47
to 2000 sevens where you have the Howard if you still had budget surpluses ten years in the lemon had budget surpluses
25:53
you still had a bit of growth in labor productivity up until about 2002 but the
26:00
effect of those budget surpluses was to result in labor productivity drop
26:05
alarmingly towards the end of that particular government and then you've got that
26:11
rudd-gillard-rudd deficit use flat line instead of increase a lagged effect
26:17
there sorry population growth also undermines
26:22
and resource throughput growth as I said undermines the productive capacity this
26:28
this green line your buck might be heard of a thing called the ecological footprint okay that green line meant
26:35
like this measures Australia's ecological footprint from 1961 I'm sorry only goes about 2500 snotty easy to get
26:41
unless you want to play big bucks forget the data but that's that Green
26:46
Line is not the inaudible footprint that's Australian buyer capacity then that basically represents the the
26:54
natural resources that Australia on a per capita basis has available at its
27:02
disposal to use for economic purposes and you can see it's in decline the brown line is that per capita per
27:09
footprint now of course because the strange populations rising the totals were pretty surprising but on a per capita basis it's it's been fairly flat
27:16
the black line measures the difference which is the ecological circles if the buyer capacity is greater than the
27:23
footprint you've got a surplus Australia's quite a rare country in this regard but you can see the surplus is
27:30
falling and it's been falling since and if it keeps going in its current trend - your population growth GDP growth we're
27:37
going to have a deficit problem that's undermining the capacity to produce in the future to move the needs of the 19
27:43
population of course what's even more important is the ecological footprint
27:48
versus the bio capacity at the global level that dotted line is wonder if that's what we've got available to
27:55
ourselves that think these sort of are ready sort of line is the global
28:01
ecological footprint and you can see that about 1985 the humanities
28:07
ecological footprint was exactly equal to the u.s. buyer capacity and it's
28:12
exceeded it since and it's now at me a close to that one that 1.4 represents
28:18
1.4 planets and people say to me that happen this doesn't make sense we've
28:23
only got one planet happen you have something measuring in more than one
28:29
planet what that basically means when we see it up around in 1.4 is it means that you know aught up say 2001 if
28:37
that was one point for that one point four so that's one point four that would mean that for the amount of resources
28:45
that we used in 2001 to be used on a sustainable basis it would be necessary for us to have access to one point for
28:52
us only reason why you can be in that situation in a short period of time is
28:58
you can it's because you don't just live off the income of natural capital you can eat into the natural Chapel and
29:04
that's what we're doing once you go beyond that line you can do it for a period from but eating a natural kappa not just cutting down the odd tree
29:10
that's been regenerated by a forest but cutting into the forest and reducing the size of the forest and of course you can
29:16
only do that for a period so if you harvest timber at the same rate the forest regenerates and you can have the
29:23
timber forever but we're not doing that we're now eating into the natural jungle so we can that can only go up with
29:29
period on then it will come down as one of the comments one of the quotes if
29:34
something is impossible or whatever then it will stop at some point in time I
29:39
mentioned that being the intergenerational port become it's hell-bent on right of increasing
29:46
Australia's GDP which of course is one
29:51
of the driving factors behind these ecological problems but the question
29:56
that needs to be asked is this increase in GDP actually making this better off that blue line there this is thing
30:02
called a genuine progress indicator that blue line there is the per capita GDP at once again sorry it's 1962 to 2007 so it
30:11
needs to be updated that red line is the per capita genuine progress indicator
30:17
the genuine probe one of the problems with GDP is just a measure of the total volume of economic activity regardless
30:25
of what it is whether it's something that's beneficial or if it's cleaning up the natural environment
30:32
it's called gross domestic product the national level it's called gross state product at the state or provincial level
30:37
when the Exxon Valdez spilled its oil in
30:42
Alaska back twenty or so years ago the GSP the
30:48
gross state product of Alaska went through the roof because of all the money and all the resorts of all the resources that were allocated to allow
30:55
staff to try and clean it up dope in person that last movers been wrong every car crashing increases the that's right
31:02
if you want to increase the GDP just press your Karen or stove it all the way iron ore or if you marry it or if you
31:08
married and get divorced and if and if you're a situation where one of you
31:14
words and the other one stays home and does the work for you just employ your ex-partner GOP will go up and then we
31:20
know increasing economic but what is what the GPI does is it measures the
31:27
benefits and the costs of economic activity at the macro level if in
31:34
growing the economy the benefits are rising faster than the costs then that gap increases and the
31:41
per capita GDP goes up but it hasn't been going in fact it peaked in about the early 1970s so all this GDP growth
31:48
hasn't made us any better off it doesn't mean that we have any extra benefits we've had extra costs all these
31:55
pressures in terms of ecological costs infrastructure costs okay when as was
32:02
mentioned when a road is widened when they spent believe it or not I know if
32:08
you were watching looking at that side but where you live in Adelaide but the intersection of an Tek highway and South
32:15
Road there was a hundred and eighteen million dollars one hundred and eighteen me I don't know if it's how much has
32:21
improved the flow of traffic but I bet you the flow of traffic through that intersection is no better than what it was 30 years ago when you didn't have
32:27
that underpass that's a cost that's because those resources have been used
32:33
and never be available again they could have been used to build hospitals that's the cost of growth and that's not
32:39
reflected in G in fact it is reflected in G it goes up the GPI cuz as a cost
32:45
goes down when those sorts of things happen so it's not making this better off anyone is in it's undermining a
32:51
product capacity just what the other thing that were searching development spending is I
32:57
said public spending on research and develops it is important have a look at this here the blue represents the years
33:03
and which federal government's spending on research and development was at its
33:09
lowest point occurred almost always occurred when governments were running a surplus right there was a surplus in
33:16
eighty eight eighty nine a budget surplus rather Howard Keating budget surplus government spending on research
33:22
and development fell these are the help you still are used in the middle here you can see that the overall trend is
33:29
downwards in research and development spending by the federal government it's went up a bit during the stimulus
33:36
period short little stimulus period under the rug Gillard Swan budget deficit period but you can see when
33:43
there were budget cuts to try and run the budget back to service which was unnecessary you saw research and
33:51
私が言ったように、連邦政府は高齢化人口の手段を作るオーストラリアの能力を弱体化させるあらゆることをします。あなた
0:12
今は私のものに似ていますが、その国境で何が言われているのか興味があるかもしれません。ダリングリッドには引用があります
0:19
いずれにせよ、アラン・グリーンスパンから、基本的に通貨の問題は
0:24
中央政府は、自国通貨の債務に関して支払不能になることはありません。
0:30
法定通貨の通貨 それは制限なしでそのような主張を生み出すことができました とにかくこの言葉をもっと固執させてください
0:40
これについての専門家の声明そして、マンリーが前者を手に入れたことを祝う
0:46
連邦準備制度理事会の議長として宣誓されたとき、フィットネスのアラン・グリーンスパンの議長は、彼が直面している
0:53
ポール・ライアン下院議員からの質問 質問は社会保障に関するものですが、その質問は問題ではありません
0:59
それは社会保障に関するものであり、防衛費に関するものかもしれませんが、教育支出に関するものかもしれません
1:05
インフラ支出は学生の借金に関するものかもしれません
1:10
重要なのは彼の答えだ
1:17
greenspan は全世界で最も明確なスピーカーではないので、彼の IOP フレーズを聞いた後、個人的な
1:27
退職金口座は、将来の退職者の退職金をより安全なものにするもう 1 つの方法であり、
1:34
あなたは、個人の退職がシステムの構成要素として数えられると信じています。これは明らかにソロモンの改善に役立ちます
1:41
あなたが持っているスーパーアニュエーションは欧米の保険会社で、給付が相殺される会社ですが、その機能は整っていますか?
1:47
個人のリタイヤメントハウスは、システムの支払い能力を達成し、将来の退職者を作るのに役立つと信じています
1:52
メリットがより安全であるとは言えません。
1:59
という意味では安全ではありませんが
2:05
連邦政府が誰かに望むだけのお金を生み出すことを妨げるものは何もない
2:11
実物資産が作成されることを保証するシステムをどのように設定しますか
2:19
これらの特典は購入に使用されるため、セキュリティの問題ではありません
2:26
を保証する金融システムの構造の問題。
2:31
実物資源 実物在庫に関連する退職金の動きとは異なります。
2:37
キャッシュ キャッシュ自体は持っていると便利ですが、のコンテキストではうんざりします
2:45
それらの利益が得られたときに作成された実際のリソース。
2:53
もちろん、利益の実際のリソースを購入できます
L:
3:12
OK.基本的に私が言ったことと似ているが、彼は少し違う言い方をした
3:17
彼は基本的に、連邦政府が最初ではないと言っていました。
3:22
政府は好きなだけお金を作り、年金受給者に渡すことができます 本当に重要なのは
3:29
年金受給者が購入するのに十分な実物があること
3:34
労働者は労働者から収入を得るため、潜在的な問題になる可能性があるコース
3:39
年金受給者が手に入れるために、ああ素晴らしいので生産された商品
3:46
政府は労働人口に課税して、その一部を削減します。
3:52
テレビだけではないかもしれない実物資産の商品やサービスの一部を解放するためにそこに支出する
4:00
ベッドなども可能かもしれませんし、非公開の限定キャラクターのグッズである必要があります。話題があります。2 つのキャラクターが公開されています。
4:07
要約すると、重要な問題は、実際の軸資産が存在するかどうかです
4:13
退職者年金のスーパーチップが購入する未来
4:19
あなたはスーパーが欲しい 年金の小切手を見て想像するだけで、超格安に行くように、基本的な商品と
4:28
退職者が年金と一緒に請求できるように、医療施設や養護施設などで利用できるサービス
4:33
人口が高齢化し、労働人口が減少するにつれて、これらを提供する国家の能力が大幅に低下します。
4:40
実物資産は、労働人口の生産性、つまり経済に依存します。
4:46
持続可能な生産能力と、実際のものの割合
4:51
生産されたものは、退職者が必要とし、希望する屋根材の形で利用可能になります。
4:58
病院労働者はノーノーノーと言うことができ、私たちは望んでいません退職者でさえ私たちの生活の中でそうしています。
5:06
暑くなることはないだろうと言いましたが、それまでの間、そうである必要のないものを購入したいと思いますが、
5:13
経済には生産能力があるので、少なくとも本物が利用可能であれば、利用可能な選択肢があります。
5:19
お金について選択の余地はありません。
5:27
タイムキーパーを続けてください - その5分ほどはいいですよね確かにあなたはそれに同意する必要はありません
5:34
彼らはアラン・グリーンスパンにすべきですが、明確さはあなたの連邦政府の通貨中央政府であると仮定しましょう
5:40
予算の制約はありません。あなたが質問をして、私はすでにこれにある程度答えましたが、私は行きます
5:46
連邦政府によるこの底なしのオーストラリアドルの穴の搾取が、
5:51
ハイパーインフレだって言うたびに、ああ、理髪店に行かせてくれって言うんだけど、バービー人形でポスターボーイを使うのが好きなんだ
5:57
これは、元の通貨と同じくらい多くの通貨にアクセスできる通貨発行中央政府の典型的な例です。
6:04
2008 年、ジンバブエ政府が支出やその他の目的で作成した金額は 100 万倍に増加しました
6:12
人々は、それは独裁者によって運営されているからだと感じたことがあると言います。
6:19
彼らが不可能を可能にすることができる可能性ジンバブエ政府はどうですか
6:24
このすべてのお金を作成したのは、現在連邦政府とは異なるジンバブエドルの問題にすぎないためです。
6:31
ここオーストラリアでは、このトライアングルのもう 1 つの問題は、オーストラリア政府が 100 万回アクセスしたい場合です。
6:37
12 か月のスペースで今使うよりも多くのお金を使うことができます。
6:43
インフレのように、この環境の状況を得るでしょうが、それはあなたがどのように悪用したかの定義です
6:50
ここでの問題は、中央政府が自由にアクセスできるかどうかです。
6:56
国の通貨 中央政府の可能性 答えは「はい」なので 2 を与えましょう
7:03
分 30 秒 インフレについてのレッスンが何であれ、私は話します
7:09
特定のタイプのインフレについて
7:15
デマンド プル インフレーション デマンド プル インフレーションは、ある場合に発生します。
7:21
過剰な政府支出は、彼らがお金を使い果たしているからではなく、このようなものを作りすぎて、あなたの存在に使いすぎているからです
7:27
それはすべて、税金と比較して、彼らが過剰な政府支出を破壊する量は、デマンドプルと呼ばれます
7:33
インフレは、私の支出にあなたの支出を加えたときに発生します。これは、民間部門と公共部門が原因です
7:40
経済が生産能力を超えている
7:45
私たちがお金で購入しようとしている本物のものを生産する
7:51
生産能力は、完全雇用レベルの所得権利と呼ばれることもあります。
7:58
生産能力経済における総支出の場合、それは任意のことを意味します
8:03
生産能力に達すると、すべてのリソースが来るため、それ以上の支出はそれ以上のアウトプットにつながらない
8:09
働く意欲のある人間を含め、完全に雇用されているので、それ以上
8:15
支出はインフレを引き起こすだけで、実質財の増加にはつながらず、
8:20
生産能力に達したために生産されているサービス
8:26
総支出がその生産能力経済よりも少ない場合、インフレの需要はまったくありませんが、
8:32
失業があるので、総支出はあなたが持つことになる生産能力よりも少ない
8:37
オーストラリアでは過去 40 年ほどの間、失業率が高い状況にありました。
8:43
経済の生産能力を下回っていたので、失業はありませんでした
8:49
2007 年頃に公務員が
8:55
失業率は約 4.1% で、当時の完全雇用は 450 でした。
9:01
1000 人のオーストラリア人の失業者と 150,000 人、その後 12 年間失業している
9:07
150,000 株または
9:13
当時の失業者または不完全雇用者は、今では 1 つのポイントです。つまり、オーストラリア人を開くのは 1 つのポイントです。
9:19
貧しい不完全雇用なので、明らかに総支出は生産に足りない仕事です
9:25
容量が私を殺そうとしているので、これらの赤字にもかかわらず、ギャルが現在実行していたのはそうではありません
9:31
インフレは経済への生産的な投資よりも時間が費やされたからではありません。それが重要です
9:37
予算の位置で動いていない 需要がある可能性は十分にある
9:42
民間部門の支出が十分に強い場合、政府がサービスを運営している場合のインフレ
9:49
あなたと私の総支出を合計すると、相対的な総支出は
9:55
私はサービスを運営することができますが、あなたが借りているので、あなたが費やしているのは重要な生産能力です。
10:00
さらに、鉱山は生産能力を超えており、サービスを実行していないインフレの需要があります
10:05
政府が赤字を実行しているとき、あなたは黒字のためにインフレをマークしますか、そしてあなたは失業することができますか
10:13
理想的には、総支出を生産能力とまったく同じにする必要があります。それは、経済がそれを実行することを望んでいます
10:20
常に完全雇用されていることを意味し、実際にはインフレが最小限に抑えられている
10:26
許容できると見なされる2〜3％の間で私のものを少し作りました。あなたはそれを持つことができます
10:34
それが1945年から1973年頃までのオーストラリア経済が基本的にどのように運営されていたかという理由の1つです。
10:47
1973年になぜ問題が発生したかは承認者だった
10:53
インフレを生み出したが、それはインフレの需要ではなかった コストプッシュインフレであり、それが問題を引き起こした
10:59
エコノミストは、コストがインフレを押し上げるということを知らないのが好きではないからです。
11:05
ありがたいことに、インフレの主な形態はインフレに対する需要であることを知っているだけで、需要がインフレを引っ張っていません。
11:11
この国では 40 余年にわたって 40 のアイデアを完全雇用していたことをどのように知ることができますか?
11:17
そのための落下式を半分に超えると、完全雇用のスターの誕生が必要です。すべてが投げられています。
11:24
コスト プッシュ インフレーション コスト プッシュ インフレーションは、物事を行うコストが上昇する場所です。
11:32
原油価格のショックですが、通常は構造的な欠陥の兆候です
11:37
多くの人が失業していても、経済の中で賃金圧力がかかる可能性があります。
11:43
働いている間、または仕事を探している間、働く人々のスキルは
11:50
雇用主が依然として要求しているものと一致するため、賃金の積み上げが得られます
11:55
静かな環境によって引き起こされる特定の労働市場への圧力
12:01
私の意見ではトレーニングシステムと生産しない教育システム
12:08
雇用者が雇用するタイプの卒業生、または雇用者が雇用する量の卒業生
12:14
需要 今夜のアデレードでは、多くの人がバーの後ろでコーヒーを作るために働いていると思います
12:21
彼らは会計学の学位を取得してメカニックを学んでいますが、私たちと
12:28
イントロダクション 4 または 5
12:34
そのため、お茶を必要とするスキルと学校のサポートとの間にミスマッチがあり、特定の地域で無駄の圧力につながる可能性があります
12:40
最良のコストがインフレ抑制を後押しする労働市場 私たちができる他の理由
12:46
リソースの不足の問題が発生する可能性があるため、貴重な配置のコストプッシュを取得しますが、政府は
12:54
ポストプッシュのインフレ圧力が経済に現れるのを好まず、彼らはそれが現れないようにします
13:01
天然資源と環境サービスに適切な価格を設定するため
13:09
それらのサービスや商品の特徴について
13:14
市場によって自然に価格が割り当てられ、政府は炭素の価格のように価格を設定する必要があります。
13:21
もちろんコストプッシュを生み出す権利 インフレ抑圧 誰もインフレを望んでいませんが、私の見解はコストプッシュです
13:29
インフレは、あなたが着用し、適切な方法で行うものです。
13:34
あなたが知っているオーストラリア経済は、金利を上げて政府支出を削減することで、それを根性で蹴ります。
13:40
コストプッシュ・インフレツリーの問題があります。
13:46
経済は構造的な弱点に対処しましょう。その弱点に対処し、
13:52
コストプッシュインフレツリーの圧力は、過去の悪い政策の代償でしたが、より高い金利を使用したり、
14:00
政府支出の削減を、需要を減らす手段として使用します。
14:05
あなたがするコストプッシュインフレ空気圧ではなく、デマンドプルインフレリフレッシュに実際に対処する方法
14:11
インフレを回避しますが、構造的な欠陥を覆い隠し、それに対処することはなく、ただ思い出させて出発します
14:19
いくつかの持続可能な経路があるので、
14:24
キャラクターが最後のポイントの 2 番目にある理由 セントラル ガードが確実にスペインを獲得できないと想定できない理由
14:30
常に GDP の生産的完全雇用水準に等しい支出
14:36
彼らはこれを行う際の経済的制約を知っていることに感謝しており、これが理由を説明しています
14:42
2008 年から 2011 年にかけての米国政府の巨額の財政赤字
14:48
その期間中の燃え尽きる流れは、米国連邦政府の GDP に対する割合としての財政赤字の割合でした。
14:54
第二次世界大戦以来最大の財政赤字 事実上、その期間に第二次世界大戦以来最大の財政赤字を出した
15:01
第二次世界大戦以来、米国では高インフレと高金利が時々ありました
15:06
当時の URI のインフレ率が非常に低かったのはなぜですか。
15:12
準備銀行のエンティティポートでそのキャッシュレートを参照すると、米国ではフェッドファンドレートと呼ばれます。
15:19
ゼロパーセントをわずかに超える食べ物を持っていることをどのように説明できますか
15:24
経済学の教授にその質問をすると興味深い
15:30
それらを説明するのは難しい
15:36
1 年生のマクロ経済学の学生がその質問に正しく答え、なぜインフレではなかったのかという理由は次のとおりでした。
15:42
これらの巨額の赤字にもかかわらず、米国の食糧と政府の巨額の注入による合計
15:47
視聴者経済における米国連邦政府の支出 民間部門の支出
15:53
多くの民間部門と連邦政府の支出を合わせた合計支出は、依然として
15:58
生産能力 米国経済 人為的失業率をどうやって知ることができるか
16:04
9 倍または 10 パーセント サリー 9 の取引の結論を見ることができます
16:10
一部の風変わりな政府は、私が人々に支出している利子が完全雇用レベルの GDP であったレベルまで純支出することができます。
16:15
それを推奨する人は、このレベルを超えて費やすべきではないので、これは人々が好む信念です
16:22
私はこれを指摘したいだけなので、政府がバナナを費やしている間にあなたが知らない場合、私は決してそれをお勧めしません
16:30
中央政府の赤字支出は、つま先の支出が
16:35
生産能力 完全雇用になったものをやらない理由を考えた 突然生産を排除する
16:41
その時点で利用可能なすべてのリソースを使い果たしたので、より多くの商品やサービスがインフレになりますが、
16:48
彼が運営している政府は赤字なので、政府の行く末は国の通貨を入れていました
16:55
自由に使えるように、彼は毎年それを行っており、総支出が
17:01
中央政府が代わりに中央政府に通貨を渡す必要がある完全雇用レベルの収入に等しい
17:07
赤字経営 彼は永遠に赤字経営を続けることができます 赤字経営をしている間、私が赤字経営をしているときは Associated のおかげで
17:14
私はより多くの購買力を注入していますが、それを課税によって破壊しています あなたの金融資産 金融資産の所有
17:21
1960 年代には大手企業を持つことはほとんど不可能でした。
17:28
金融危機とその理由は、ほとんどの期間があったためです
17:36
中央政府とこれらのいくつかがあったおそらく20年から25年
17:41
関係する病気 私たちは毎年赤字を出し続けています 民間部門の皆さん
17:46
純金融資産と同じくらいだったので、しばらくの間うまくいかなかった場合
17:52
彼らは貯蓄の一部を手に入れることができるだけで、彼らの純貯蓄は
17:58
彼らはその少しの困難な時期を乗り越えるために蓄積してきました.もちろん、それほど長い困難な時期ではありませんでした.
18:03
中央政府は、すべての総支出が確実に 3 度目の支出を行う準備ができていたからです。
18:08
完全雇用レベルだったので、すぐに他のものになりました。未成年者がいたようです
18:14
失業の増加と、政府が対応に少し怠惰だった場合
18:21
そして彼らは、1961年にカップルが男性を追い出されそうになったように、プライベートが3％になりました
18:26
彼女は来ている 彼らは 1 議席ずつ立ち上がった 1 議席ずつ選挙に勝った 失業率が
18:31
3% 持っていたが持っていなかった
18:39
この列車の経済的な時間の使い方に大きな影響はありません。
18:57
私が言ったように、経済は完全雇用レベルを超えています。
19:02
グループが販売可能になるよりも多くの需要がある場合、インフレが発生します。
19:08
ちょうど等しい 完全雇用を得る
19:16
彼らの完全な雇用が要求されることと、あなたがすることとの間に
19:22
十分に大きく、可能な限りデフレを最小限に抑えることができますが、それは非常に残念です。
19:32
いいえいいえ、あなたはあなたのためにプロセスがかなり一定であることを望んでいますねえ、私はあと5分だけ会えますか？
19:41
これらの最後のポイントを悪くしてください。私は大丈夫です。少し繰り返します。
19:47
退職年金についてあまり話していないので、ここでちょっと話してください。
19:53
労働人口が支払う税金は年金の財源にならないと言う
19:58
自転車を作るだけで、底なしの税金の穴からお金を得ることができます。
20:05
労働人口は、退職者の支出によるインフレ効果を抑えるために必要なだけであり、もちろん
20:11
政府自身の支出は大丈夫 おそらく最初のものは見逃すでしょう
20:16
1 つに多くの時間を費やしたので、2 つ目のアイデアに進みます。
20:24
年金からスーパーアニュエーションに切り替えると、労働人口に課せられる税金が減るので、
20:30
ビューは、テキサス州の年金基金のようなものであり、すべての退職者が今とても楽しい時間を過ごしている場合
20:37
年金を受け取るのではなく、そこから引き出す場合、連邦政府が労働者を検出する必要はありません。
20:42
私が言ったように、人口はナンセンスです 最初にチェックしてください
20:48
年金制度なので、年金を賄うための税金はそれほど多くありません。それが最初のことです
20:54
退職者が以前に述べたようにそれを使うために、退職者がそうではない方法で使うために
21:00
アラン・グリーンスパンが私に言ったように、彼はそれを理解しています。
21:07
年金受給者や現役世代などで購入する
21:13
彼らが支出目的で利用できるお金、言い換えれば、
21:18
中央政府は若者のために十分な支出の余地を作らなければならない
21:24
退職者はインフレにならない方法で支出するため、支出の余地が必要です
21:31
退職者の支出が年金、小切手、または年金によって賄われているかどうか。
21:37
スーパー チップ 関係ないから大丈夫だからペニーかどうかは関係ない
21:43
ポジションとして、すべての退職者が年金を受給している場合と、すべての退職者がスーパーを利用している場合の状況を比較していました。
21:51
ひよこと彼らは同じ赤ちゃんでしたが、主流の見解は、
21:58
それが単なる年金小切手である場合は、労働人口が課税される必要がないことを意味します。
22:04
どちらの場合も問題ではない場合の年金は、労働人口に課税する必要があります。
22:11
そのレアルに対する退職者による支出へのインフレ圧力を回避するケース
22:17
それが年金船やスーパーチェックルームによって資金提供されているかどうかにかかわらず、思慮深い人のために利用できるようにする必要があります
22:24
退職者がそのようなものにアクセスできるようにし、部屋を利用できるようにする方法は、労働人口に課税することです。
22:31
労働人口にはまだ課税する必要があります。
22:39
退職年金が、あなたが起きたときに退職年金の地元の利益を後押しするものである可能性がある場合、それは
22:44
あなたが得るスーパーチェックは写真チェックよりも高いので、退職者としてより多くを使うことができます
22:50
老齢年金が退職者の隔週のチェックを増やすことを意味するが、国の生産性を向上させない場合
22:57
年金制度を持っていることと比較して能力があり、それが起こっているという証拠はありません
23:05
私たちが知っているように、退職年金が導入されました。
23:11
形成されると、労働人口の納税義務が増加するため、
23:17
退職者が 4 回ごとにより高いチェックを受けるようになった場合、より多くの余地を作る必要があります。
23:22
夜は今スーパーチップで、彼らはその本当のものをもっと主張するでしょう
23:28
それはあるが、私は完全に話している
23:42
私の場合ですが、退職者がもっとする必要がある場合
23:54
スーパー小切手が年金小切手よりも高額で、年金小切手がない商品やサービスに費やす
24:01
年金制度から社会保障制度への移行の結果としての、労働人口の生産能力の対応する増加。
24:07
スーパーシステムでは、年金受給者がそれらの商品やサービスにアクセスできるように、より多くの部屋を用意する必要があります。
24:13
労働人口はさらに課税され、政府は前に述べたように、政府は私が思うように進んでいます
24:20
これはすでに発生し始めていますこの問題は政府が人々に課税することを好まないため、他の人々はそれを覚えています
24:26
労働人口の支出を削減するのではなく、政府がその支出を削減する他の解決策
24:32
彼ら自身のものに支出するため、公共インフラを使い果たし、教育への支出を削減したいという願望があり、
24:38
などですが、基本的にはしたいだけです
24:51
すぐにいくつかの図を示しますが、実際のソリューションは実際のソリューションです
24:57
ciscoの維持または増加を維持または増加させないことについて何かをすることです
25:02
オーストラリア経済の生産能力を維持し、それを削減するにはすべてを反転させる必要があると私は言いました。
25:09
労働生産性を向上させることは非常に重要であると指摘しました。
25:14
私が同意する報告書の内容ですが、私たちが行っていることについて彼らが主張する方法は私が同意しないので、持ってみましょう
25:20
良好な労働生産性は青い線について心配する必要はありません。なぜなら、そこの茶色の線が成長を示している経済の選択された部分だからです。
25:27
労働生産性は低下している 低下している 青色で表示
25:32
ありますが、まだまだ財政黒字期の労働生産性は高い傾向にあります
25:38
インフラストラクチャ教育トレーニングなどへの支出が遅れ、96年から
25:47
2000 年まで 7 歳まで 予算余剰があればハワードがいる レモンの 10 年間は予算余剰があった
25:53
2002年頃まで労働生産性はまだ少し伸びていましたが、
26:00
これらの予算の黒字の影響は、労働生産性の低下をもたらすことでした
26:05
その特定の政府の終わりに向かって驚くべきことに、あなたはそれを手に入れました
26:11
ラッド・ギラード・ラッド赤字は、ラグ効果を増加させる代わりにフラットラインを使用します
26:17
申し訳ありませんが、人口増加も弱体化しています
26:22
私が言ったように、リソースのスループットの成長は、生産能力を弱体化させます。
26:28
この緑色の線は、エコロジカル フットプリントと呼ばれるものについて聞いたことがあるかもしれません。
26:35
このように、1961 年からのオーストラリアのエコロジカル フットプリントを測定します。
26:41
大金を賭けたくない限り、データのことは忘れてください。
26:46
ラインは、オーストラリアのバイヤーのキャパシティであり、基本的には
26:54
オーストラリアが一人当たりで利用できる天然資源
27:02
経済目的で使用するための廃棄物であり、減少していることがわかります。茶色の線は、1 人あたり
27:09
もちろん、現在の足跡は、奇妙な人口が合計を増加させたことはかなり驚くべきことでしたが、一人当たりのベースでは、かなり横ばいでした。
27:16
黒い線は、バイヤー容量が
27:23
フットプリントは黒字です この点でオーストラリアは非常に珍しい国ですが、黒字が
27:30
下落し、それ以来下落し続けており、現在の傾向が続く場合、人口の増加 GDP の成長は
27:37
19 のニーズを動かすために、将来的に生産する能力を弱体化させる赤字の問題が発生するでしょう。
27:43
もちろん、さらに重要なのはエコロジカルフットプリントです
27:48
点線が世界レベルでのバイオキャパシティに対して、それが私たちが利用できるものかどうか疑問に思っています
27:55
この種の準備が整っていると考える私たち自身が、グローバルな
28:01
エコロジカル フットプリントであり、1985 年頃に人文科学が
28:07
エコロジカル フットプリントは、米国のバイヤー キャパシティとまったく同じでした。
28:12
それ以来それを上回り、今では 1.4 が表すものに近づいています。
28:18
1.4 惑星や人々は私に、これは意味をなさないと言います
28:23
1つの惑星しか起こらない
28:29
惑星 1.4 でそれを見たとき、それが基本的に何を意味するかというと、2001 年のことを知っているということです。
28:37
それはその 1.4 に対して 1 ポイントだったので、それは 1.4 であり、リソースの量については
28:45
2001年に使用したものを持続可能なベースで使用するには、1つのポイントにアクセスできる必要があります。
28:52
あなたが短期間でそのような状況に陥ることができる唯一の理由は、
28:58
それは自然資本の収入だけで生計を立てるのではなく、自然のチャペルで食べることができるからです。
29:04
それは私たちがやっていることですが、その線を超えたら、しばらくの間それを行うことができますが、奇数の木を伐採するだけでなく、自然の河童を食べます
29:10
それは森によって再生されましたが、森に切り込み、森のサイズを縮小します。もちろん、あなたはできます
29:16
それを一定期間だけ行うので、同じ速度で木材を収穫すると、森林が再生し、
29:23
木材は永遠に残りますが、私たちは自然のジャングルに食い込んでいるわけではありません。
29:29
ピリオドが続くと、コメントの 1 つ 引用符の 1 つとして表示されます。
29:34
何かが不可能か何かである場合、それはある時点で停止します
29:39
世代間のポートであることは、増加する権利に地獄のように曲がっていると述べました
29:46
もちろんオーストラリアのGDP
29:51
これらの生態学的問題の背後にある駆動要因の
29:56
質問する必要があるのは、このGDPの増加が実際にその青い線からそれをより良くしているということです。
30:02
青い線が 1 人あたりの GDP であることを真の進捗指標と呼んでいます。申し訳ありませんが、1962 年から 2007 年です。
30:11
赤い線が一人当たりの真の進捗指標であることを更新する必要があります
30:17
GDP に関する問題の 1 つである本物の調査は、経済活動の総量の尺度にすぎません。
30:25
それが有益なものなのか、それとも自然環境を浄化するものなのか
30:32
国内総生産と呼ばれる 国家レベルでは 国家総生産と呼ばれる 州または州レベルでは
30:37
Exxon Valdez が油をこぼしたとき
30:42
20年ほど前のアラスカのGSP
30:48
アラスカ州の総生産は、許可するために割り当てられたすべてのリソースのすべてのお金とすべてのリゾートのために屋根を通り抜けました
30:55
車がクラッシュするたびに最後の発動機が間違っていたことを直接ドープしてクリーンアップしようとするスタッフ
31:02
GDPを増やしたい場合は、カレンを押すか、鉄鉱石を完全にストーブするか、それと結婚するか、
31:08
結婚して離婚して
31:14
言葉ともう一方は家にいてあなたのために仕事をしますあなたの元パートナーを雇うだけですGOPが上がると私たちは
31:20
経済の増加を知っていますが、GPI が何をするかは、それが測定することです
31:27
マクロレベルでの経済活動の便益と費用
31:34
経済が成長すると、利益がコストよりも速く上昇し、そのギャップが拡大し、
31:41
一人当たりの GDP は上昇していますが、実際には 1970 年代初頭にピークに達していないため、この GDP の成長はすべて
31:48
何も改善されていない 追加の利益があるという意味ではありません 追加の費用がかかりました これらすべて
31:55
環境コストに関する圧力 インフラストラクチャのコストは、以前と同じように問題ありません
32:02
信じられないかもしれませんが、道路が拡張されたときに言及されました。
32:08
あなたはその側を見て見ていましたが、あなたが住んでいるアデレードではなく、テック高速道路と南の交差点
32:15
1億1800万ドルがあった道 1億1800万ドルだった
32:21
交通の流れは改善されましたが、その交差点を通る交通の流れは、30 年前の交差点よりも改善されていないに違いありません。
32:27
そのアンダーパスは、それらのリソースが使用されているためのコストです
32:33
二度と利用できない 病院の建設に使用できた可能性があります これは成長のコストであり、そうではありません
32:39
Gに反映される 実はGに反映されます GPI cuzがコストとして上がります
32:45
そのようなことが起こるとダウンするので、これを改善することはできません。
32:51
製品容量 開発費を検索していた他のことは私です
32:57
は、研究開発への公的支出が重要であると述べています。これをご覧ください。青は年を表しています。
33:03
また、どの連邦政府が研究開発に支出したか
33:09
最低点が発生したほとんどの場合、政府が黒字を実行していたときに発生しました
33:16
88 89 むしろハワード・キーティングの予算余剰 政府の研究支出
33:22
これらはまだ途中で使用されているヘルプです。全体的な傾向は次のとおりです。
33:29
連邦政府による研究開発費の減少 景気刺激策の間に少し増加しました
33:36
期間が短い 景気刺激策が少ない期間 敷居の下で ギラード・スワンの財政赤字期間
33:43
予算をサービスに戻そうとするための予算削減がありましたが、これは不要でした。調査を見て、
33:51
連邦政府による開発支出が始まり、私が言ったように減少し続けています
33:56
連邦政府は、人口の高齢化に対処するオーストラリアの能力を弱体化させるすべてのことを行います
34:15
あなた
0 件のコメント:
コメントを投稿