It fails to meet the standards of a retirement income system. It is costly and inefficient, unnecessary, and incredibly unfair. (The tax relief alone is sufficient to double the old-age pension for all and/or to accommodate the ageing demographic).
The state-run old-age pension system is by far the most economically efficient retirement income system.
Scrap superannuation. Expand the age pension. Boost the economy.
Of course the very wealthy may do what they like with their spare after-tax money- at their own risk.
Then, as a country, we need not fear the coming failure of these managed asset funds.
Perhaps by some miracle of awakened logic, the new Labour government will finally come to understand that the appropriate source of public revenue is economic rent. Surface land is just one but very significant source of economic rent, which was explained by Adam Smith as unearned to individuals and private entities. All public lands (including offshore seas) made available to private users should be allocated under a leasehold structure awarded by competitive bidding, the rents yielded adjusted periodically based on current market rents. This is political economy 101.
Reeves is prepared to bail out capitalism but at the same time thinks the government has to limit its spending because there is no money. Sadly, she does not understand central banking.
Alan Greenspan, former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman
"monetary authorities—the central bank and the finance ministry—can issue unlimited claims denominated in their own currencies ..a government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency. A fiat money system, like the ones we have today, can produce such claims without limit."
Dear Ann, As mentioned to you in 2018 at Rachel Reeves speech event near Old Street, please do include a comprehensive index in your new book - can't wait for it!
Nowere to invest? The world needs sooo much investment. But when the west wants similar deals as they had in Iran in 1950s or in Russia in 1990s, and don't want to invest at all in infrastructure, like roads, railways, waterworks... what can we say. They are all extracting. And supporting the new cold war is sheer madness... for a normal person. Otherwise, it looks like they are for confronting this semi-socialist systems proposed by China, Russia, Iran, etc, where capital is not the King. Oligarchy cannot have that, can it?!
Pointing to this bailout economy raises a significant question for me. Ignoring tropes around how our institutions work, many of them are being driven toward the technocratic conditions of communism. For example, in education, children are often being parented by the State as parents are compelled to work by financial necessity. So, does this all add up to the drives of historical materialism and Marx's analysis bearing fruit? In other words, is an economic paradigm founded on Free-Market Capitalism evolving into a version of Communism (surely, unlike the beneficent vision of Marx for the workers)?
I commend to all this study by Dr. Cameron K. Murray
https://treasury.gov.au/sites/default/files/2020-02/murray290120_0.pdf
Scrap superannuation (i.e. tax-relieved private pension. ISA, 401k, Kiwisaver, Aus.super etc.)
It fails to meet the standards of a retirement income system. It is costly and inefficient, unnecessary, and incredibly unfair. (The tax relief alone is sufficient to double the old-age pension for all and/or to accommodate the ageing demographic).
The state-run old-age pension system is by far the most economically efficient retirement income system.
Scrap superannuation. Expand the age pension. Boost the economy.
Of course the very wealthy may do what they like with their spare after-tax money- at their own risk.
Then, as a country, we need not fear the coming failure of these managed asset funds.
Perhaps by some miracle of awakened logic, the new Labour government will finally come to understand that the appropriate source of public revenue is economic rent. Surface land is just one but very significant source of economic rent, which was explained by Adam Smith as unearned to individuals and private entities. All public lands (including offshore seas) made available to private users should be allocated under a leasehold structure awarded by competitive bidding, the rents yielded adjusted periodically based on current market rents. This is political economy 101.
"Reeve’s speech was a promise to de-risk capitalism". What could be worse? The capitalists therefore have no incentive to assess risk.
Reeves is prepared to bail out capitalism but at the same time thinks the government has to limit its spending because there is no money. Sadly, she does not understand central banking.
Alan Greenspan, former U.S. Federal Reserve Chairman
http://www.federalreserve.gov/boarddocs/speeches/1997/19970114.htm
"monetary authorities—the central bank and the finance ministry—can issue unlimited claims denominated in their own currencies ..a government cannot become insolvent with respect to obligations in its own currency. A fiat money system, like the ones we have today, can produce such claims without limit."
Not so, the limiting factor is distortion (de/inflation).
Dear Ann, As mentioned to you in 2018 at Rachel Reeves speech event near Old Street, please do include a comprehensive index in your new book - can't wait for it!
Thanks,
David Murray
Nowere to invest? The world needs sooo much investment. But when the west wants similar deals as they had in Iran in 1950s or in Russia in 1990s, and don't want to invest at all in infrastructure, like roads, railways, waterworks... what can we say. They are all extracting. And supporting the new cold war is sheer madness... for a normal person. Otherwise, it looks like they are for confronting this semi-socialist systems proposed by China, Russia, Iran, etc, where capital is not the King. Oligarchy cannot have that, can it?!
Pointing to this bailout economy raises a significant question for me. Ignoring tropes around how our institutions work, many of them are being driven toward the technocratic conditions of communism. For example, in education, children are often being parented by the State as parents are compelled to work by financial necessity. So, does this all add up to the drives of historical materialism and Marx's analysis bearing fruit? In other words, is an economic paradigm founded on Free-Market Capitalism evolving into a version of Communism (surely, unlike the beneficent vision of Marx for the workers)?