This page has been archived and commenting is disabled.
Stop Printing Money For The Banks, Hand Out Cash To The People Instead, Citi Tells Australia
In 2009, in response to the global financial crisis of 2008-09, Australia put in place one of the largest fiscal policy packages in the developed world one which amounted to 4.6% of its 2008 GDP. Among the various fiscal stimuli passed by Australia were:
- Pensioner payments of $1400 for single pensioners and $2100 for pensioner couples.
- Carer payments of $1000.
- Child payments of $1000 per child.
- Tax Bonus for Working Australians of $900 for individuals with taxable incomes of $80,000 or less.
- Back to School Bonus: $950 per child for low-income and middle-income families
- Single-Income Family Bonus: $900 per family
In other words, Australia engaged in what was effectively a helicopter drop of money designed to stimulate spending and boost inflation.
Since then, things got better for a few years courtesy of the relentless money printing machine in China (where the latest bank "asset" count was fast approaching $30 trillion), which however over the past year has sputtered, pushing Chinese GDP to its lowest annual growth in modern history and dragged Australia's economy, which is merely a derivative of Chinese commodity imports, down.
In response the RBA has engaged in a series of rate cuts designed to boost investment in non-mining businesses as a hope of diversifying the economy from relying solely on China. These have achieved little.
Then overnight Citi's Paul Brennan had a modest proposal for Australia. do another fiscal stimulus for households. From Brennan. In the note, lamenting the "limits to the effectiveness of monetary policy", Brennan says that "the RBA Governor has said he is open to further easing, but noted that of households, government and corporations, “it is households that probably have the least scope to expand their balance sheets to drive spending.”
Actually he is spot on, which is curious why if this is indeed economics 101 do most "western" central banks persist in creating a wealth effect solely for the benefit of the banks, i.e., QE/ZIRP/NIRP, instead of for the people?
Cit continues:
Companies are waiting on households to spend, so that leaves the government. Government debt is low, borrowing costs are low and there is scope to stimulate given that public sector demand fell in the last 12 months. If public sector demand was growing at its average rate, this would push growth in the economy close to trend.
It is true that by comparison with some of its more "developed" peers, Australia debt is lower which is why there will be mass sovereign defaults before anyone even cares about Australian CDS. Especially if Citi's idea catches on elsewhere.
So what does Citi recommend? Simple: making it rain.
Fiscal stimulus to households was successful during the financial crisis. Cash payments to households of around 1% of GDP (half of the size deployed during the GFC) could help lift economic growth close to trend, particularly if the accompanying political message was “confidence enhancing”. By increasing activity and therefore revenue, it would not add materially to the medium term fiscal consolidation task.
Because nothing boosts confidence that "all is well" like the government paradropping money.
As for adding to the "consolidation task", it would because one thing economists don't realize is that consumer around the globe have learned from the crisis and refuse to forget. As such instead of blindly spending all the newly paradropped money, they save a substantial majority of it having realized long ago just how fake and manipulate the artificial sense of calm in the global markets is. Which is why Australia's experiment with paradropping money will almost surely be a failure in the long run unless the money handed out has an expiration date in which case the long desired "core" inflation will finally emerge. In any event, it would be a start to diverting money away from the banks, which use the reserves as collateral against which to buy equity futures and push stock markets to ridiculous levels even as the global economy grinds to a halt.
The real question is how long before others join Citi in calling for comparable moneydrops no just down under, but around the entire world. Because people's patience with record class and wealth disparity is getting very thin, and if anyone should be concerned by this it is politicians, and of course bankers.
»
- 26826 reads
- Printer-friendly version
- Send to friend
- advertisements -
better option: close big banks like Citibank.
everyone wins (who is not a banker)
Where do I sign up for my fair share?
Probably with a TBTF that is going to charge fees. If they helicopter drop to the masses, I'll spend mine faster and wiser than most others. If they ever start talking about it here, I'm going to have my purchases all laid out before it hits, and it won't be on a 52" TV.
To avoid people putting it under their mattress, they'll issue it on VISA gift cards (not debit cards).
VISA will get their fare share, of course... As will the sponsoring bank...
I got unemployment 'benefits' once, back in '08, when I was a less educated man and those distributions were through a bank sponsored VISA debit card (Chase I think), with ATM fees.
LOL, my answer was based on cronyism, and cynicism. Yours is based on experience. They're not too far off.
That proves that these greedy shit hats are becoming very predictable.
When assessing a situation, always err to the side that fucks over the population, and you won't be far from the actual implementation plan...
The last time Australia gave a handout the anecdotal evidence was that it went into pubs, clubs and imported computers and games.
Citi: Printing money solves problems.
How about they just send us all some special markers and we can just add a zero to all our FRNs?
#Winning
Give people some money to stimulate the economy, instead of the fraudulent bean counters!!!!
Yeah, instead of shooting kids with water guns, why don't you shoot some bankersters commiting financial terrorism?
"unless the money handed out has an expiration date" - coming soon to a wallet near you, the ultimate way to stimulate the economy!
It sounds like the only Patriotic way for an Aussie to spend such a windfall would be on Iron Ore.
"Actually he is spot on, which is curious why if this is indeed economics 101 do most "western" central banks persist in creating a wealth effect solely for the benefit of the banks, i.e., QE/ZIRP/NIRP, instead of for the people?"
And that's how they're going to sell this really bad idea to "the people".
"Would you like free money? Oh, no, that might spark inflation, I don't want it." Nobody says that.
The more I hear this incredibly stupid idea come up (like the Trillion Dollar Coin), the more I realize it's not a possibility, it's an inevitability.
I remember when the trillion dollar coin idea was being floated. A couple of co-workers were in favor of the idea to get around "Republican obstruction" on the debt ceiling.
I asked them "Well, why can't Obama just mint 18 or 19 of those coins then and just go ahead and pay off the national debt?"
Hahaha! And I bet they missed the implications of your question. Did you get a deer in the headlights look?
It was and still is a good idea, should have just gone ahead and done it.
The F.S.A. must really be something down under. Can we ship OZ about 40 million illegal aliens to join in on the fun?
Better yet ship them about 100 million liberals.
No you cannot - we are full.
stats show that 80% refugees that come to australia stay on welfare payments for the rest of their lives.i have worked like a dog for over 20 years like a lot of people in sydney and the last thing i want is the government throwing my taxes money to support these people.
Sheeit. I predict if they did this that a full 50% or more of it would be spent on firearms related shit. They'd really start to worry then. Personally I'd spend it on a new astronomy mount which I have been wanting for about 10 years now.
They already did away with the firearms down under.
Yep,and they murdered the real Crockodile Dundee when he wouldn't turn his in.
Go inside the issuing bank and take out all the money = NO FEES
No, I am not on UI.
a good helicopter drop or 2 or 5 or 8 would be just the thing to get the velocity of money where it should be.
then...
hyperinflation like we've never seen.
I'm thinking of a nice Yurt, very cozy and liveable, truck portable home, but a nice one is unfortunately somewhat expensive. A nice helicopter drop would solve that problem for me.
I found that good tents are inexpensive for what you get.
http://denvertent.com/portfolio-posts/the-colorado-wall-tent/
Your local SNAP administration orifice.
Looks like about $2,000 to $5,000 per family, big whoop! Feed a man for a day.
The bankers are raking in $400k a year in bonuses and expensing another $120k to their muppet clients.
This whole discussion is a farce. Want to end this economic mire right now? Quit taxing wages and start taxing profits. Done.
Cool, Ill take your share. Never one to turn down free money!
I'm not an Aussie, so I get squat anyway, and by extension, so do you.
I'm an Aussie and got none of it.
Me neither Phil. The people who, over the years, had been paying most of the taxes, were just left once more by Rudd's socialists to go on paying the bill for Rudd trying to buy votes.
Just make sure you hand it out to actual Tax Payers though.
And to the ones most likely to do home additions and improvements, install solar panels for energy independence, etc.
Notice they aren't saying that to the FED since they are a major beneficiary. Of course throwing magic money at main street would cause hyper-inflation but that's a mere bagatelle.....
Giving workers enough money to survive has been proven to cause massive and immediate HYPER-INFLATION!!!!!
Exactly, in this age of abundance, printing money and give it to the people won't cause hyperinflation (our production capabilities are basically unlimited), instead, it'll cause the greatest golden age known to man.
A more logical helicopter drop is Mortgage Interest Releif or even Negative Mortgage Rates. I proposed my idea to Steve Keen the other day but he prefer's the idea of giving everyone equal money through a Jubilee.
My argument is that if the Central Banks offer 0.25% mortages via the banks and buy up exisiting mortgages from the banks then reissue them from say 4% to 0.25% interest rates. Doing this would be a massive stimulus and cost saving targeting the more productive sector (represented by home owners) and also provide more inpetus for non-home owners to work harder (be more productive) and more productivly to buy a home that would now be much more realistic.
Fiat is backed by a nation's productivity and confidence and this simple act would do it. It's a no brainer IMO.
Plus do the same with outstanding credit card / home improvement debt.
But if you're one of the first 500 callers, you will also get double dependent credits on your tax return for the next five years. And to make this offer even better, you can count the neighbors kids and inlaws if they occasionally raid your refrigerator.
On second thought, why in the h*ll even work. The next 5,000,000 callers will get $200,000 / year for life, Money Fur' Nothin'. You heard that right. That will allow you to also become a gubbermint sponge and watch every sporting event on cable that's ever been broadcasted. Call now, bitchez!
A 4% mortgage?
Why would I want to raise my interest rate?
Mine has been bottom bouncing for years. A stunning 2.35% current, upping to a crushing 2.50% in July.
Not my fault the US government can't afford higher interest rates. Fuck em.
pods
I'm suggesting the opposite. Lets say your mortgage is ARM of 2.5%, I'm saying the FED print money to buy this mortgage from who ever owns it now and reduce it's interest bearing value by reissuing it to you at say 0.25% fixed. This would put more monuye in your pocket to be productive with and/or consume. Effectively nationalizing (or the tyranical privately held FED equivalent version of nationalization) the mortgage business.
All your idea would accomplish is drive RE up in price by 20% overnight making it even more unaffordable for anyone in a metro area not making $200k or more to live in a hood that isn't full of section 8 and illegal alien renters. The best idea for a stimulus imo is 3-6 months of no taxation by any entity. No local, state or federal taxes on ANYTHING for a minimum of 3-6 months. Food, fuel, payroll all tax free for 3-6 months. But then the gimmiedats wouldn't get anything since they don't work and use foodstamps.
Driving up RE prices is correct but remember there are over 8 million RE owners that are currently underwater. They would rapidly become above water. With much lower 'affordable' mortgage rates their would be a new tranch of potential home buyers that would also fuel home builders.
Don't get me wrong this is massively inflationary and investers would need to hedge this affect. But for the overlords, this outcoome would be 100 x more palatable than a deflationary collapse leading to hyper inflation, which is the alternative.
yup, CITI already got theirs, now the only quesiton is what to do w/ the leftovers
what the shit?! QE unlimited and all the free money they could possibly want and the markets are still tanking?!
Show me the fiat bitchez!
http://www.fiatusa.com/en/500e/
;-)
As if that wouldn't devalue the currency sooner.
Fuck all the banks.
bitcoin FTW
Bitcoin FTS......(for the stupid)
It's funny that you have an opinion without knowing what the subject is.
One of my favorite animations.
It's been a while since we last saw the Money Gun. Always liked it.
I can use a money gun this week, I'm going to the DMV and will have to throw some large amounts at them. The money-gun would make that a lot more convenient.
What about not excessively taxing people and letting them keep the fruits of their labour in the first place?
Radical..
You sir...are a mental case.
I concur with your diagnosis. A radical subversive with delusions of fairness.
Here, here! Where do we report this domestic terra-wrist? What a nutjob! I mean, how else is the gubbermint supposed to fund all those roads and stuff? Duh!
That would be un-American.
You sound like one of those constitution supporting terrorists.
I wonder if they would do a "cash" distribution in a digital form, i.e. debit cards where you can't deposit the money in a bank or something, only spend it. JPM gets their cut in managing the program, and you have to spend it by the end of the year.
Canada went large on infrastructure and has done well. Iceland let banks fail and is doing VERY well now.
Then there's Japan and the US printing trillions saving those banks for the almost there, coming soon, never happen, wealth effect.
...sad...just sad.
That's what Ron Paul said to do back when he was running for president.
No economy functions properly when most of its assets are concentrated in the hands of a few.
50 men today control more wealth than half the planet.
The highest concentration of wealth in recorded history.
It's hard to imagine a more unstable or inequitable state of affairs caused by centrally planned capital allocation.
No thinking person should reasonably expect this to end well.
I'm "thinking" that 50 men are a pretty small price to pay for a planet's prosperity.
Those 50 men, if they do exist, should deeply and seriously consider that. For I am sure others, who are not as level-headed as I, surely have.
One (not you or me, of course) would think so . . . but it appears not to be the case. After all, although I'm sure security is mighty tight for a private citizen context, there have to be a whooooole lotta cracks.
Inexplicable, really. Given how many people aren't as level-headed as us.
"....... Government debt is low, ....."
What the flying fuck is he talking about???? The Government of Atlantis??
Currency = government debt
Low government debt = low money supply
Low money supply = low asset prices
A banker wanker wants the government to SUPPLY the people with moar money.
Hmmm
Significant inflation in anything required to maintain a high standard of livin is already here. this is just another indicator that central banks are criminal operations that are about to lose control and global hyperinflation is not far off...
same as it ever was.
The government drunk too much Fosters.
There is an idea called Universal Basic Income which gives everyone a monthly stipend which is enough to physically survive, i.e. procure food and shelter. It's a famous idea that has been advocated many times throughout history including by Thomas Paine and others, this video explains. It's a way of, at the very least, reversing the trends towards inequality and declining demand. Talk about a stimulus that was guaranteed to be spent!!
It's not supported by conventional monetary theory of either the Keynesian or Austrian schools, those twin-headed monsters of misunderstanding. Wherever it has been tried, there have been many positive effects noted (see video above and reddit page for sources), including an increase in small business formation.
Basically you are monetizing the faith in the social capital of the population you give to, turning a belief in the people into a reality that can be physically exchanged. For those who hold to a scarcity, commodity view of money, it can only lead to worthless fiat deathtraps; on the other hand, supporting it would require less money than our welfare+military complex currently spends ex nihilo, so we are in effect already doing this but just not distributing it, and thats even before QE and the 'black budget' are considered. We very clearly spend more each year on the rich and foreign wars than is needed to implement this.
If you believe that wealth stems from society, from us, from shared social capital, and that money generation should be spread evenly amongst everyone, then this idea might appeal to you. It will certainly be hard to imagine a future where automation keeps us at 20% unemployment, without implementing something along these lines. Thanks for reading.
Ignoring the physical properties the biosphere you lve in, this idea might be valid if everyone was in fact equal in what they could contribute to society in terms of capital creation. The fact is, they are not and will never be. That's not how evolution works.
Hey LawsOfPhysics,
I see your fascination with the physical world and its laws plays a pivotal role in your understanding of this topic and the possibilities for life on earth. I have a different view, which says that human beings are created by God. Even common science posits a miracle -- The Big Bang, when everything in existence instantaneously springs into existence from nothing in an instant -- as the foundation of its physics. In the words of Terrence McKenna, "Give us one free miracle, and we'll explain the rest".
I do believe in the laws of metaphysics, according to which everyone has a God-given soul which is equal in potentiation to every other soul. Contributing to society 'in terms of capital creation' is fallacious, because the mothers of great men most likely contributed nothing but their sons. The parents of those women likely contributed little to nothing in terms of capital. Without Tesla's father, there would be no Tesla, and no AC motor. In that sense we are all interconnected and we need and require each other to really thrive. Each has a part to play, even the person who "doesnt contribute" -- no one is greater than another. Within the belief in disparate worth lie the seeds of elitism which is the tapeworm currently strangling our world. We have to give to all because we could never know by asking who the next John Lennon, Nikola Tesla, or Thom Yorke is.
Simple question; Do you believe that people should be compensated for the value of their labor or not?
Everyone is giving a finite amount of time to contribute, I suggest you stop wasting your time, because that all you really get at the end of the day.
I like basic income. Instead of everyone competing to get above 0, people compete to get above whatever the basic income is. It's cheaper to give everyone enough to be at the poverty level, then to administer all the various programs that are supposed to help people below the poverty level.
Just one teeny problem.......where do you get the money to pay everyone a 'basic income?
Also, who gets to distribute this money? Who gets to decide what a 'basic income' is?
Your question is excellent, just substitute "currency" for "money". The only way this plan works is with currency, unless you helicopter-drop soybeans, rice, gold, wheat, corn, etc onto people's heads.
If you mean currency, I'll answer your question:
CTRL+P
The paper could be gotten in two ways. Who decides is the biggest problem. Everyone who would be in charge would also have a lot of incentives to over-print.
1. shut down government welfare based programs to pay for it. In that case (in the US) either the Social Security Administration or IRS would be best suited to run the program.
2. The FED prints money and sends it to people; instead of or alongside QE. The amount of money they send people would be another "tool" in their toolkit. This option would scare me. But, theoretically, aren't they trying to get inflation but can't because all the credit is stuck in the pluming? If they sent paper directly to everyone they would succeed in getting the inflation they want.
Where do you get the money to pay a basic income?
Taxes and fees same as always. Kill welfare/snap/disability/social security/EIC. Cut a crap load of bureacracy (and those government jobs everyone likes to hate on). All replaced with a card that gets added to bi-monthly.
Who gets to distribute this money?
IRS makes as much sense as anything.
Who gets to decide what a 'basic income' is?
Well, the federal government already kind of has decided, in the sense that eligibility for most government handout programs is set at 150% of the poverty line.
Should be a big boost to monetary velocity and for small business. If everyone gets basic income then minimum wage shouldn't be an issue since the dole will supposedly be enough to at least survive at a lower standard of living. So if you are paying $2 an hour, well I will have to pay taxes on that, but any increment you pay me above the basic income should theoretically improve my standard of living.
So the governments official poverty is somewhere around $24,000. That would mean everyone would receive $2000 per month.
Assuming no price increases why would anyone work? And would they tax this 'FREE' money? How.
This is exactly why the USSR crashed. They provided exactly what you appear to advocate,,, an apartment, school and spending money. The difference is they required people to work at government business enterprises,,, so far unmentioned in your freebie quest.
The people had very low productivity due to the fact they all received the same amount regardless of output.
Basic income is a nice sounding name for Communism just like Private Public Partnership is a nice sounding name for Fascism.It was and is Bullshit.
simple and genuine question - how does one "create capital" via labor?
I grow a potato and trade it to you for a carrot that you grew because I like carrots and you like potatoes. The carrot and the potato are both capital in this example and are only so because the other party in the exchange was willing to trade you something for it.
Joe blow works and actually earns more than he needs. He puts the extra into a bank as savings which the bank uses or purchases stocks and bonds with it. That my friend is Capitol and that is what our present monetary system lacks. A central bank can print ( Inflate,,, Debase ) and pretend but that only ends up with malinvestments, like we have now.
That is the Capital in Capitalism.
Money is a representation of the fruits of one's labor. What you are talking about is currency. They aren't the same thing. Your plan works when everyone produces the same amount of labor, which would eliminate the need for your plan.
Money is much more than the text-book definition you've offered for it, and the clever distinction between money and currency is insufficient for grasping the important of what is at its heart a sacred symbol -- money is magic. It represents faith. Faith is what makes it work.
What do you call trading 20,000 pieces of paper for a working automobile? Magic. If we refuse to acknowledge the metaphysical nature of money and think of it only in terms of scarcity, like a physical good, we fail to understand its nature. This was clearly demonstrated by Europe's experiment with austerity in order to achieve greater fiscal responsibility, which has apparently had tremendous negative effects in spite of reducing spending (see this video). Metaphysical goods are not subject to scarcity.
Currency is magic. Money is real.
Well, magic and real aren't opposed in any way, in my usage.
Does finding gold incontrovertible in the event of a crisis decrease from its 'reality'? If someone preferred beans over gold in a given moment, would gold's value still be 'real'?
I didn't say gold...I said money. In your example the beans are the money. So you just helped me prove my point, unbeknownst to you.
You don't have a point. You're parroting someone else's.
And they're wrong.
Please elaborate.
You are 100% correct in your assertions concerning money.
Man,,, can you believe these reply's! And on Zero Hedge!
Incredible.
If I could post images...I have a great one of two cavemen, drawn in a Frank and Ernest looking cartoon, facing each other. One is holding a rock and is thinking, "I wish I had a stick". The other is holding a stick and is thinking, "I wish I had a rock". The title of the image is "Money, Explained".
I will concede that everyone creates their own system of concepts to explain the world, and it would be no surprise if yours and mine were different.
But if the above illustration of the concept of money is an indicator of how you think of it, it seems to me that the definition completely obfuscates the thing its meant to describe. In your definition money is literally everything.. except money. The term becomes all-encompassing and contrary to its natural usage, so I'm not sure I can sign on with it. Mike Maloney and John Rubino do have interesting ideas about money vs. currency, I can agree with that.
money is literally everything
Correct. Except currency, which has no real value and is enforced by legal tender laws, guns, and cages.
Who is John Rubino?
+1001
The truth really pisses off some, thus the anonymous down vote. Most of the nation is now a bunch of u.s educated, mind numbed, want everything free retardo's.
If everyman's struggle was to prosper, not just survive that would change the game dramatically.
Taking basic survival out of the equation, making it a given, would free up a lot of creative intellect. And with technology and planetary wealth at their peak, why shouldn't basic needs like food shelter and clean water be a given to every last person on earth? True every Billionaire on the planet might have to be a Millionaire to accomplish this, but I wouldn't lose a minute's sleep over that.
How many of those robots at McDonald's buy Big Macs? Cloths? Shoes? Cars? Fuel? McDonald Stock?
That Universal Basic Income is like the Fair Tax when you actually look into it. All BS. Anyway we already have it,,, called Section 8, EBT, Unemployment and an array of other goody goody freebies.
Money should be a controlled commodity based on the needs of a reasonably free market. It should be backed by something universal and everyone can agree to and it must have a store of value.
Going from one imbecilic system to another imbecilic system makes no sense.
Its a far better idea than standard QE. I understand, I think, the arguments against most people will have - and they're good arguments, but for a world we no longer live in.
Give everyone X$ to pay off their loans and mortgages and credit cards, but also raise the rate on treasury repos, some other tweaking, you'll have inflation - but you're going to have inflation *anyway* would be my...half serious argument...
may as well have inflation with workers/middle class not saddled with absurd levels of debt service.
Its a backdoor jubilee.
Its not ideal, its just better than what central banks have been doing.
No?
except that the .Gov will have to borrow the money from the central bank in order to drop it on everyone. SO, it's just more public backed debt AND inflation.
pssst...they are gonna borrow it anyway.
Mike Honcho is handsome and right.
Speaking with my 6 year old this morning. He was looking at a 100 dollar bill that I had. He asked, "why don't we just print the money?"
Your son has a bright future at the Federal Reserve.
Just about any monetary policy is better than a global "let the majority eat cake" monetary experiment. We already know how that turns out.
Nothing less than a million per head. Let's get this party started.
Junky logic.
Trippin on LSD
I've already started the queue.
Yeah and meanwhile Australia has socialized medicine. How can they do that with low .gov debt?
as all the debt was unlawfully "created out of thin air", there is no debt to pay, no taxes to pay, its one big robbery full stop.
people need to start with the principle fact that they are crimminals & we owe them nothing... THEY OWE US
everything else is immaterial
just end the USURY..........use interst free credit.......fuck the banks.
Exactly why would anyone loan money for no return?
It's the banks creating credit money out of nothing that's the problem... It's the FED, Government and Corporations playing the markets,,, Hell, the entire monetary system is now corrupted beyond any help.
Keep stacking!
If you print 80 billion a month , you could issue a $235 check to every person in the USA on a monthly basis.
you could lease a car for that much
Unlikely. In your scenario, once the money started dropping into peoples accounts leasing a car would not cost $235 for very long........as would many other things.
hey Ace!
What I think you might have missed about the above comment is that the commentator used a number 80 billion/month, which is more or less exactly equal to QE. I believe its safe to assume he was implying that the money printed to finance QE instead be directed at the citizens in the form of a citizen's dividend or Universal Basic Income. This is the same as pulling the life support from the banking system.
If this happen, the bubble in asset prices, especially for cars, homes/housing, education, would be very much pricked, because high prices for these goods are all supported by bank money -- these are the things that people generally finance via the banks. Collapsed banking system means no more auto loans, means cars have to sell for the bucks that Americans actually have, which is going to be far less than 50K for some average 10-year clunker.
So in the commentator's scenario, I believe, you would see asset price deflation because our banking system would have no way to prop up prices.
Aussie PM Tony Abbott is following Citibank's suggestion to a limited degree, paying human traffickers from Indonesia $3,900 each to turn around there refugee filled boats.
----
Tony Abbott, the Australian Prime Minister, has declined to comment on reports claiming the Australian navy paid a group of people-smugglers thousands of dollars to turn around their boat packed with asylum-seekers.
Australia would not comment on "operational" crime-fighting and security matters, Mr Abbott said, amid claims that people-smugglers were paid about A$5,000 each to abandon their journey to Australia and return to Indonesia after being intercepted at sea.
Opponents of the Australian government's tough immigration policies have labelled the allegations "appalling" and akin to participating in people-trafficking, and called on Mr Abbott to give a full statement. The Indonesian government has said it is investigating the allegations.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/australasia/did-australia-pay-pe...
Nothing to do with Citibank's suggestion.
The Australian government also physically turned back boats, where the boats were too fragile it put their occupants in unsinkable lifeboats and towed them back to Indonesia. And it may well have sensibly made payments to Indonesian boat owners, as an economical way to stop the illegals and the lifetime sucking off Australian welfare payments.
Guess what. The boats don't come any more. The flow of illegals stopped. Australia is saving boatloads of money thay would otherwise have been spent on these bludgers.
http://www.themoney-gun.com/kickstart/
Get yours!
The should be printing money here soon.
Polymet Mining or PLM.
Looking at the payouts listed above, just like in the USA, I qualify for none of them. WTF?
they will tell you "Giving money to people is the surest way to destroy them."
but giving taxpayers' money to bankers is the surest to save the country.
Good to see animated gifs are still around. Or whatever they're called now.
http://static4.businessinsider.com/image/5049fdefecad04a361000008/throwing-money.gif
Well you see little buddy, that's called socialism, in capitalism, we have to keep giving more money to the people who made the mistakes.
Paul Brennan recommending that money not go to banks to make them richer? Looking for the next press release of a Paul Brennan nail gun suicide in 3...2...
Go for it!!
It's about time the people who are actually funding the debt get a piece of the printing action
Bernie 2016!!!!
It makes sense. One has to understand ALL money nowadays is funny money printed out of thin air. It's not real, just figures added in computers by banks. When they loan you money, that money literally comes out of nowhere, but produces DEBT. Which YOU will pay, not the banks.
Secondly, there is no sound economy without robust consumption.
All in all, give the dough - which is funny money anyway - to people who will consume. And up will the economy go.
What and stop funneling money to the .0000001%? Are they totally crazy??
This will increase the asset-value of the .0000001%, hence the idea.
Let's see. The answers to all our debt problems creating said bad economy are:
1: Print (debase) the money supply as rapidly as possible.
2: Try to coerce the government, corporations, and the lowly marks to take on even more debt they cannot repay.
Now the best part is, this fine example of monetary policy is coming from suits with PhD's. The creme de la creme.
Freshly printed money in the consumer's hands. Instant hyperflation.
That's why they have been able to get away with giving it to the banksters without consumer price hyper-inflation, it hasn't found it's way into the real economy.
Hyperinflation my ass. Like you understand deflation or hyperinflation. False propping up banks leading to false inflation of stock markets leading to stock buy backs and no investment is the problem. Making the so called rich richer in a false manner destroying the world economy and impoverishing the masses is the problem stupid.
wow, are you responding to what I said, or a hallucination you had while reading my comment?
Indeed yes. Give the money to the people and kick start spending and making investment and production worthwhile through increased circulation of money is the idea. About time the rich greedy hoarders are screwed with some inflation and decrease in value of their hoarded uncirculated money. Fagin has got to go.
Move in with the military and shut down the FED and the TBTF.
Give a little cash to the consumer and they'll do any of a number of things:
They'll go out and spend it on foolish things. (restaurants, down payment on a new car, etc)
They'll save/invest it.
They'll pay down debt.
Either way the rich will eventually get it, but a few smart people will have less debt, meaning the banks will have less bad debt on their books and the average consumer will have a little more disposable income.
http://thenewsdoctors.com/?p=469006
I calculated my fair share to be $30 trillion in physical gold bullion, but I'm still waiting for the helicopter drop in my backyard?
wtf?
Isn't that what the gov is doing with EBT?