I had a one-sided (almost) conversation with an economist today. I couldn't draw him - I think he realised I was trying to pump him.... I think:
So many people say that debt is bad, but for infrastructure isn’t it best to borrow, particularly when the infrastructure will take a long time to pay for because it’s expensive, for example, Dams, roads, etc. (We need more dams!!)
Local governments now prefer to be extracting the money from their ratepayers almost immediately for the provision of infrastructure. They no longer want to borrow because of the stigma attached to being in debt.
Also, with for example, the state buy back of the water infrastructure, the people really already own the infrastructure (piplines, pump stations, etc), and the council is bitching that they aren’t going to be getting enough from the state government for the asset – I just don’t get it.
The councils also reckon they’ll have to put up their rates (gee, that’d be a change from the norm, wouldn’t it!?!?!), because they’ll be getting less money because people won’t be paying water rates any more… ??
Maybe I’m confused, but I’m sure you can sort me out, economically speaking….
Surpluses? Well, to me, the object of the government isn’t to make a profit. If there’s surpluses, huge surpluses (not sure what’s classed as a huge surplus, though), doesn’t that mean that the infrastructure and services which are supposed to be furnished by the government/s are not being properly provided?
The economist said he basically agreed with me... or said he did. And then mentioned the coming "Glorious revolution". (Jokingly). I said "I was under the assumption that Kev07 was the glorious revolution."
...And one more thing, if the price of petrol or sugar go up, everything goes up. I've kinda noticed that over the years.
If anyone wants to enlighten me I'm open to knowledge!