Are we witnessing the end of the surge on Wall St? Or is, what we witnessed this week, no more than a minor correction? The current roller coaster ride on the NYSE and other world markets including Australia, demonstrates just how much of a casino these places are.

Putting aside the investment most Australians have with the markets through their super funds, let’s call this out for what it is. While conservative governments pride themselves in using the markets as a guide to economic health, the reality is, they are nothing of the sort.

They are nothing more than gambling houses for institutional investors, merchant banks, brokerage firms and individuals brave or foolish enough to chance their hand.

Yes, there is a plethora of data to show a healthy stock market is necessary for each of us who hold super accounts but overriding that is the reality that super accounts are a secondary consideration when investors make their moves to buy or sell.

Super funds benefit on stock markets by good luck, rather than good management.

To equate these monetary whore houses with that of a feeding frenzy in a poorly run zoo would not be too far from the truth. To pretend that the stock market runs world economies is an insult to the average person’s intelligence. It does no such thing.

Better it didn’t exist, rather than have good performing companies pretending they have inflated values which are based on no more than a guess or a whim. Better it didn’t exist than to use well managed firms as a vehicle in a calculated strategy to make a quick profit from a confidential in-house tip-off.

Better, because only those who got in first benefit, while those who bought late are left wearing a loss when the ones who got in first decide to get out.

At the other end of the market, better it didn’t exist than to have poor performing companies suffer a rumour, become a target for takeover, and lose enough value to become a bargain. Invariably we see the new owners strip these companies bare, show long time employees to the door and bask in the glory of less competition in their chosen market.

Better it didn’t exist if all it does is enable banks to use excess reserves to pump money into a honey pot to reward executives with obscene bonuses.

The markets always recover after a crash. That’s because the crash had nothing to do with performance. Markets are manipulated by traders, by boardroom decisions, by insiders, always with one thing in mind: be first, or if not first, then cheat.

All bull markets, including the one witnessed on the NYSE over the past 5 years, end in a crash. It’s not an accident. It’s planned that way. Bull, crash, bear. Bull, crash, bear.

The clear majority of the QE money issued by the US Federal Reserve in the post GFC period, went into the stock market. It didn’t create jobs, it didn’t bring about the modest recovery experienced since the GFC. That came about by direct government stimulus spending in key job creating industries.

The QE money that flooded the stock market could, if targeted toward production and services, have brought about a quicker recovery.

Is this a responsible method of wealth creation? Money invested in the markets doesn’t produce anything except more money. The higher the index, the greater its value. But nothing has been produced. No jobs have been created.

Perhaps it is time that we called out our politicians who claim that the markets “won’t be happy if we continue with deficit spending.” Of course, they won’t and that’s probably the best reason to continue doing just that.

Better it never existed, or at least, have its reputation downgraded to no more than the commercial casino that it is.

Malcolm Turnbull just doesn’t get it. Or, perhaps he does, and he is hoping against the odds that the situation will improve by the time he finds himself forced to call an early election.

The problem is wages growth, or more particularly, the lack of it. He has been trumpeting the success of his government’s ‘jobs and growth’ platform now for months, citing the creation of 377,000 jobs in 2017 as evidence of that success.

The problem is, that so many jobs created should, by economists’ reckoning, have generated a competitive demand for labour which in turn, should have brought about a more competitive market in wages. But it hasn’t. So where have the profits generated by this job’s bonanza gone?

This is Turnbull’s dilemma. How does he explain to those thousands of white and blue-collar workers who are employed by highly profitable firms that their share of the rewards that they helped produce, have been soaked up by executive bonuses and share buy-backs?

When will it be the workers time to reap some of the rewards?

“Wages growth will come,” he says, “because a stronger economy results in more investment, more jobs and more intense competition between employers for workers.”

Turnbull should think about who he is talking to. His comments might go down well with the business community who are more than happy with the status quo, but it’s unlikely they will cut with average worker who has been starved of any of any meaningful wage increase for nearly five years now, while shouldering significant increases in the cost of living.

By any measure, most Australian workers have gone backwards. It has been a gradual deterioration since 2013 and a far cry from the promises the “adults” made when they rubbished Labor’s handling of the economy between 2007-13.

The very fact that the 700,000+ unemployed people today is the same as it was when the coalition won government in 2013 should send warning signals to every coalition member in Canberra. It simply doesn’t add up, unless one concludes that the job’s bonanza has nothing to do with government initiatives and everything to do with population increase.

It’s not peculiar to Australia. In the UK, Europe and the US, workers are experiencing similar imbalances, which makes one wonder if we do all exist in a matrix. Turnbull, however, should know that it doesn’t matter how good the economy is performing if the voters are not sharing in it.

He can say whatever he likes, but nothing resonates with people more than having to stretch the budget further to accommodate rising food and insurance costs, let alone mortgage rates. And if he is sprouting his government’ success while families are struggling to pay their bills, that will end badly for him and the government.

Reserve Bank boss, Philip Lowe, is on the worker’s side, saying they should demand higher wages. He knows that some banks have already increased mortgage rates, and if interest rates around the globe start to rise generally, he will be forced to follow suit to protect the dollar. Any interest rate rises here, without a pay increase will precipitate a rise in unemployment.

The time for self-congratulatory back-slapping is about to end for the government and some serious explanations given for the present wage/growth imbalance. There’s an election coming, most likely this August or September, and the clock is ticking.

Following an interview with an unusually frank and forthright politician, a journalist was struggling to absorb the reality that taxes don’t fund government spending. He was, however, still conscious enough to ask the next obvious question: if taxes don’t fund spending, why do governments tax?

The next day, while still trying to grasp how sovereign monetary governments pay for things, he returned to continue the interview. While it was questionable as to whether he was mentally ready to learn the truth about why governments tax people, he did have a deadline to meet.

The tax interview resumes…

Journalist: So, let me repeat my earlier question for you. If we can’t ever run out of money, why bother with taxation?

Politician: Taxation is one of a handful of tools the government uses to help stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar. When the government realises the economy has too much money in the system, it acts to correct the balance. It can raise taxes or interest rates, or it could cut back on spending, but that’s never a good idea because those cuts could create unemployment and make the situation worse. This my friend, is the part that gets a bit technical. So, I’ll speak in words of one syllable if necessary. Are you paying attention?

Journalist: er…yes.

Politician: Whenever the government spends, it is creating new money and it distributes that money into the community, via our banking system. That is how you get your hands on it. You think they get it from your taxes, but at this stage, you haven’t paid any taxes, have you, yet, bingo, there it is.

Journalist: Well yes, they had to do that in the beginning to get things rolling, but then taxation took over…. didn’t it?

Politician: No, it didn’t. Taxation never took over. Taxation has always been a means of removing money from circulation, so the economy won’t overheat. If too much money is allowed to circulate, we get inflation.

Journalist: Please explain?

Politician: If the money in circulation exceeds the current capacity of the nation’s production, we get inflation because suppliers haven’t had time to meet the extra demand that comes when we suddenly have more money to spend. When too much money is chasing too few goods and services, prices go up. These things must be done gradually. Taxation helps to keep a lid on things.

Journalist: But then the government has all this extra money it got from taxation. What happens to that?

Politician: It doesn’t need any extra money. It can create any amount it wants to. Your taxes are destroyed, written off the books, they go up in a puff of smoke.

Journalist: You’re kidding.

Politician: No. I’m sorry to be the bearer of bad news, my friend, but you’ve been had. Your taxes don’t pay for anything. Zip, nada, rien, niente. They disappear into the great nothing.

Journalist: My hard-earned taxes are destroyed?

Politician: Sorry about that. Do you need to take a few minutes to recover? Would you like a brown paper bag, or something?

Journalist: I bet Barnaby Joyce has something to say about this!

Politician: I’m sure he does but that won’t change anything. Keeping a lid on the amount of money in circulation helps to maintain its value, but there’s another reason why we must pay taxes.

Journalist: And that is…?

Politician: It forces people to use it. If the government says you can only pay your taxes using Australian dollars, it makes us want to get our hands on it.

Journalist: I doubt that. I’m sure if I offered the tax department a fistful of American dollars to pay my taxes they would happily take them.

Politician: Well, you’re wrong. They wouldn’t. They would tell you to go away and convert them to Australian dollars before they would accept your money. So, if we know that everyone needs our money to function and pay our taxes, we are happy to use it and be confident of its value.

Journalist: I think I need to get a second opinion on this.

Politician: Well that won’t change anything either. And you will probably ask the wrong person and get the wrong advice. The next time you hear anyone say, “my taxes are paying for that,” you can confidently say, “no, your taxes don’t pay for anything, but they do make room for government to spend.”

Journalist: But, if removing money by taxing us, allows government to spend, isn’t that the same thing? Doesn’t one cancel out the other?

Politician: If the total amount of spending equals the total of tax removed, it does look like the same thing, yes. But it isn’t. They are two quite separate functions operating independently of one another. And spending the same amount as the tax removed, is rare. It’s usually the other way. It’s not so much the amount spent, as what the spending is for.

Journalist: If what you say is true, government needs to come clean and explain it.

Politician: Well, don’t hold your breath. If they came clean, they would have to acknowledge their spending patterns are discriminatory and favour certain groups over others.

Journalist: What do you mean?

Politician: Look at all the areas that could really improve our productivity. Our health for a start, our education, public transport, planning, infrastructure, making sure everyone who wants a job can get one. All these areas where spending is kept to a minimum, are the very areas where we should be investing. If our economy is under-utilised, as it is now, the value of our currency will always be less than it would if we had 100% utilisation of our available resources. Instead, we give huge subsidies to the business sector who then use them to feather their own nests.

Journalist: But they employ us. They create the jobs.

Politician: They couldn’t create those jobs without the infrastructure governments provide for them. Roads, rail, airports, seaports, hospitals, schools, police, the military. They reap the benefits of all those services the government builds, and they profit from it. I think the least we can expect of them is to employ people.

Journalist: But they pay their taxes too.

Politician: Well, you and I know that is not true. Some do, many don’t. But that’s another reason for taxation; to enable the subsidising or penalising of various industries and economic groups. Government has a responsibility to create a society that is fair and equitable, something, which is sadly neglected these days.

Journalist: You’re right. They don’t pay their fair share.

Politician: If companies fail to pay their share, you and I pay more. Remember, the wider and more equitable the tax collection is, the more equitable the distribution of the wealth. Taxation also forces governments to be transparent, to show where they are spending the money they create. The fiscal statement they produce every year, what they call the budget, means we know who gets what, and how much things cost.

Journalist: I’m feeling tired. I think I’ll go home now.

Politician: Your headline in yesterday’s paper was very misleading. I hope you’ll do better this time.

The interview ends

In fact, the journalist doesn’t go home. He heads for the nearest bar to clear his head. It’s all too much. He decides to stick to what he knows best. His afternoon headline reads, “Politician confirms taxes are necessary but doesn’t know why.”

If there’s one question a politician fears being asked, it is this one. After announcing a decision to undertake a bold new and expensive development project, the question always arises, “How are you going to pay for it?”

It shouldn’t be a horror moment for politicians, but it is, and the reason is simple. They are afraid to be caught out. Such is the millstone they have tied themselves to, over the years, trying to discredit their opposition, or portray themselves as fiscally responsible. In the process, they have shot themselves in the foot because they don’t understand how sovereign money works.

Therefore, in the interests of common sense and as a means of bringing an end to the foolishness that is endemic within this charade we call our parliamentary system, here is a prepared script for politicians to study which should help them to manage the, “How are you going to pay for it,” all fearing, all threatening, career ending, monster question, when being interviewed by a journalist.

Beginning of interview:

Journalist: And how are you going to pay for it?

Politician: We will pay for it the same way we have always paid for it. By crediting the bank account of the recipient.

Journalist: But how can you do that if there is no money in your account?

Politician: We create the money. There is always money in our account.

Journalist: Until you run out of it, or have to borrow, you mean.

Politician: No, we don’t need to borrow money, we create it. We can’t ever run out of it.

Journalist: But how is that possible?

Politician: We use computers, just like you do. Do you use internet banking?

Journalist: Yes, but I can only do that if I have money in my account.

Politician: That’s right, because you are the currency user. The government is the currency issuer.

Journalist: But you still must have the money.

Politician: No, we don’t. What part of, “we are the currency issuer,” don’t you understand?

Journalist: I’m confused. Are you saying a government doesn’t need to raise revenue to spend?

Politician: I understand your confusion. It sounds a bit fishy, but a sovereign government who issues its own currency doesn’t need to raise revenue to spend.

Journalist: But you need taxation revenue to spend?

Politician: Not for spending we don’t.

Journalist: I don’t get it. You seem to be advocating printing limitless amounts of money. Isn’t that what Mugabe did?

Politician: No, it’s not what I am advocating, and it’s not what Mugabe did. Firstly, we don’t print money anymore. It’s all done via electronic interbank transfers. Secondly, Mugabe wrecked his country’s economy by systematically destroying its resources, not by spending.

Journalist: What about Argentina?

Politician: Argentina foolishly borrowed foreign currency and then wasted it.

Journalist: Venezuela then?

Politician: Sheer incompetence, again, by using another country’s currency.

Journalist: But if we just create money what’s stopping us from doing the same as they did?

Politician: We don’t ‘just create money.’ It’s not about the money, it’s about how we use it. If we use it to engage our workforce and produce meaningful goods and services, the kind of things people here and overseas want to buy, we strengthen our economy, unlike those countries you mention, who failed to use their natural resources, and failed to use their own currency.

Journalist: But surely there is a limit to what we can spend?

Politician: There are always limits, but they are resource related limits, not money limits. We can’t spend if there’s nothing to buy. We must produce before we can buy. So, logically, we must issue the money to get our workforce into jobs and manufacture things we need to live and to prosper.

Journalist: All this seems to contradict any need for the government to produce an annual budget that shows how much they will spend, how much they expect to receive in taxation, how much they need to borrow, to make up the difference, that sort of thing.

Politician: Yes, it does seem that way, but that’s a political choice. We do that to keep the accountants happy and to have you believe that running a government is the same as running a household or a company. It isn’t. Households and companies are different. They can’t create money. They can only use money. Only sovereign governments can create money. But keeping books that show spending versus revenue, makes it easier for us to say we can’t afford it and stuff like that. God help us! We can’t have you think we can work miracles.

Journalist: Then why bother with taxation?

Politician: That’s a great question. We do need to tax, but you are confused enough already. We’ll leave that for another day. There is a limit to what you can absorb in one sitting. Best we schedule another interview where we can cover that issue separately.

End of interview.

Don’t be surprised if, after the interview, the journalist returns to the office and pens tomorrow morning’s headline, “Politician says government is money machine, Taxation unnecessary. Hyperinflation imminent.”

A quite lengthy article published back in November last year by Matt Barrie and Craig Tindale on Medium.com entitled, “Australia’s economy is a House of Cards”, gives us a comprehensive view of where the Australian economy is at present.

What is revealed should shake Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrison out of their overly optimistic complacency, but as unlikely as that is, the report warns of what is to come. It is a long and highly detailed read, so for those who are time-poor, here is an overview…

Australia’s economy is a HOUSE OF CARDS … a précis

In a nutshell, our economy has recorded its 104th quarter of growth through sheer luck, that luck being a combination of rich natural resources and China. Our economy is more dependent on China than any other OECD country.

“As a whole, the Australian economy has grown through a property bubble, inflating on top of a mining bubble, built on top of a commodities bubble, driven by a China bubble.”

Looking down the barrel of some “staggering” losses by Chinese banks in what has been a “$34 trillion experiment” to create an economic miracle, the Chinese government is facing a meltdown likely to be far more catastrophic than the sub-prime meltdown in the US in 2008.

Such a meltdown will have horrific consequences for Australia. But that is looking at it from a purely selfish perspective. More broadly, the world could plunge into depression, with no further wriggle room for escape, given the present level of record low interest rates across the globe.

The US, Europe, the UK, Japan and China all fought the global financial crisis printing $19 trillion US, in exchange for various bonds and securities offered by commercial banks. It might have worked had that money found its way into the hands of those who would spend it buying goods and services.

But instead, that money was used by corporations in share buy-backs and property development (high-rise apartments) too expensive for the average consumer to afford. While brand new homes and apartment blocks with inflated values remained empty, they pushed up stock markets to new, unprecedented highs, despite no corresponding lift in company performance.

In the property bubble market, China was the main offender causing billions of dollars to flow out of the country by investors in search of more affordable opportunities that, in the process, set off a subsequent bubble wherever they went.

Back in Australia, we are the largest producer of iron ore (29%), in the world and 80% of that is sold to China. As we speak, a perfect storm is developing with other nations like Brazil ramping up their production and moving in on our market, at a time when China’s demand is in decline.

One doesn’t need to be an economist to see that the price of iron ore is set to take another savage dive. Coal is our next biggest export supplying 38% of world production. The long-term future for coal is not good. It’s use-by date is approaching.

Banks know this, but our government has its head in the sand. In the meantime, for miners in Australia, revenue is down and costs are up, meaning profits are dwindling.

In any event, Australia’s “economic miracle” does not come from mining or manufacturing. It comes from services. “With an economy that is 68% services, as John Hewson put it, the entire country is basically sitting around serving each other cups of coffee or, as the Chief Scientist of Australia would prefer, smashed Avocado.”

With an export market that delivers just 20% of our GDP and the value of goods and services produced barely above cost, little wonder we run both a trade and fiscal deficit.

When one applies the principle of the three sectoral balances to this equation, it means that the private sector is in surplus. A good thing, one might think, except that the private sector is not spending it.

Corporate investment has been dragging its feet waiting for the government to lead by example. Consumers are using their money to pay down debt rather than buy goods and services, or hanging on to it in anticipation of trouble ahead. Retail trade figures confirm this.

The only thing keeping Australia in growth mode now, is the property bubble. It’s a bubble that is helping to sink average working Australians further and further into debt.

Meanwhile, the only thing enabling them to meet their mortgage payments is the low interest rates they are paying. Fortunately for them, that will continue for some considerable time yet, because the RBA has precious little to offer the country in terms of monetary policy.

But when consumers start to lose their jobs, the spaghetti will hit the fan. 60% of Australian bank loans are mortgage loans. This is consumer debt, not productive debt. This is a disaster waiting to happen. And it’s not as if we never saw it coming.

Australians have the second worst household debt servicing ratio in the world, spending more of their income paying off interest that was, in 1989/90, double what it is now. We are about to experience an asset value collapse that could bring banks to the edge of insolvency.

There’s more bad news, particularly in the field of education, our third biggest export. Many have been warning about the oncoming tsunami, including Steve Keen, Bill Mitchell and others.

When it comes it will not be pretty. More importantly, it will set us back decades, all because we thought property portfolios sounded more glamorous than making cars.

Better we had made cars.

Notwithstanding the issue of foreign citizenship facing both the Liberal and Labor parties, which could trigger an election in 2018, there is another more pressing issue looming for Malcolm Turnbull, one that he created all on his own.

It concerns the senate, the Constitution and the double dissolution Turnbull called in 2016. It may well be that 2018 turns out to be a federal election year, by necessity.

The Constitution states that after a double dissolution, there must be a half senate election no later than 30th June, three years later.

This means that those currently serving a three-year term will see their tenure expire on 30 June 2019. Allowing for a minimum of 33 days for campaigning prior to that date and finalising other necessary matters, the next half senate election must be held no later than 18th May 2019.

And herein lies the dilemma for Malcolm Turnbull. Given that he will not want a half senate election on one date and a House of Representatives election on another date in the same year, Australia will go to the polls no later than 18th May 2019 for both houses.

But will he wait that long? South Australia will go to the polls 17 March 2018. Victoria goes to the polls on 25 November 2018. The next NSW state election is scheduled for 23rd March 2019. None of these fixed dates make it any easier for Turnbull. Adding fuel to the fire, Tasmania must go to an election no later than 19th May, 2018.

There is little to no time available between Victoria going in November 2018 and New South Wales going in March 2019. Either way, at least one and possible two states will face both a federal and state election in the same year.

Running the risk of local state issues coinciding with federal issues makes for a messy campaign trail and one in which some issues could become hopelessly confusing. Turnbull and his government, will want to avoid that and provide as much breathing room as possible.

That suggests sometime in August (Sat 4th being the earliest) or early September 2018 as the least damaging, one that allows the dust to settle in South Australia in March and before Victoria votes in November, with the possibility that Tasmania will go earlier. Tasmania will also be dealing with the Jacqui Lambie factor.

The South Australian election is the most interesting, because of the popularity of Nick Xenophon and his party. If both Labor and Liberal were to lose primary votes and seats to the Xenophon party resulting in some form of coalition, a honeymoon period would still be in play by the time an August poll was held.

Either way, it could influence the result in a federal poll, although not as seriously as one held too close to either NSW or Victoria. Current polling suggests the government will be struggling to survive either way and the timing of an election will be crucial to their chances.

Keen election watchers will be looking for the signs. If the Coalition begin offering big incentives to South Australia early in the new year, it could point to an August election nationally. Apart from the pork-barrelling, it’s all in the language and the activity in key seats. We should also be watching for signs from the mainstream media, particularly the Murdoch press.

Labor will be keenly aware of the timing and begin ramping up the pressure as well. There is a huge amount at stake for both parties as well as all four states involved, not to mention the leadership of Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten.

On Saturday night, we witnessed another spectacular crash by One Nation Party in the Queensland state election, following their less than inspiring performance in the WA state election earlier this year.

It seems the more attention the media give them, the worse they do.

During the lead up to both these elections, the mainstream media salivated over the possibility that ON could hold the balance of power, casting them as kingmakers, placing the fear of a missed opportunity clearly in the sights of the major conservative parties.

The Liberal government in WA chose unwisely as it turned out, to preference One Nation ahead of Labor. Ignoring that unhappy experience, the Queensland LNP similarly, decided they too would favour ON with their preferences in key seats.

Political opportunism at its worst.

One would have thought they might have taken note of the WA result and shown some backbone. Then again, backbone is not something that comes to mind when trying to second-guess the Liberal and National parties.

The mainstream media, not surprisingly, seemed oblivious to One Nation’s WA experience and went ballistic with their predictions of how ON would hold the balance of power in Queensland and win more than a dozen seats, ridding Queensland of their nemesis, that awful Labor government.

Ably assisted by a blatantly biassed media, the One Nation juggernaut stormed along in the battler bus, concentrating on particular sections of the Queensland community whose voice, it was said, was not being heard.

So, on Election Day last Saturday, everyone from Hobart to Darwin held their collective breath expecting to see a result that would bring great uncertainty to the sunshine state. Were Queenslanders going to send themselves down the road to chaos?

Not quite. Despite the media hype, the electorate chose a different path. They returned the incumbent Labor government and rejected the One Nation juggernaut restricting it to 14% of the primary vote. Moreover, they punished the conservative LNP for not showing sufficient backbone to stand up to ON.

One Nation’s support base is strongest in QLD and WA. It has some support in NSW, but in Victoria, Tasmania and South Australia, it is a non-event and treated more as an amusing distraction.

Opportunistic politics has never caught hold in the broader Australian psyche. It will, however, always attract those who have been left behind, those who have an axe to grind, those who want to hit back.

The marginalised and the deprived, will always look for ways to punish the major parties whose interest in them is as shallow as their pathetic displays of sincerity. They will always be fodder for the one-issue candidate, the voice that preys on the disaffected.

This is the legacy of the neo-liberal era. It has seen the wealth of the nation transferred from the majority to an ever-shrinking minority. Neo-liberalism has created the super-rich to the detriment of the majority and seen the emergence of a sub-class that toils continually, that contributes to the wealth, but never gets to enjoy its rewards. Little wonder they are so anti-immigration.

One Nation plays to this sub-class and will always have its support unless we address the root cause of their dissatisfaction. If we allow the sub-class to get bigger and bigger, we will indeed bring chaos to our system of government.

Far better that we stop it now, by ensuring full employment, just wages, adequate universal health care, free education, cutting edge communications and equality of opportunity. The alternative is to continue seeing the weak, the marginalised and less educated excluded from their rightful share.

If anyone still wonders why people like Pauline Hanson find a niche market in politics, it is the selfishness and greed of the majority, the not caring, which leads to the deprivation and inequality of the minority.

And it’s not peculiar to Australia, either. It’s called neo-liberalism.

With the citizenship saga continuing to unfold in a manner that is exhibiting all the elements of a soap opera, i.e. farcical and treacherous, the government is facing the real danger of having a general election forced upon it, a situation reminiscent of the Whitlam dismissal of 1975.

Should it be determined that both Josh Frydenberg and Alex Hawke be required to face a bi-election at the same time as Barnaby Joyce on 2nd December, the government’s numbers in the lower house would be seriously compromised.

As matters stand, the Coalition has 76 members, Labor 69, 1 Greens and 4 independents, a total of 150. Already the government has lost one member, i.e. Barnaby Joyce. If it transpires that both Frydenberg and Hawke are ineligible, that would reduce the Coalition to 73 in a 147-member house.

That means they would require 74 votes to avoid a loss of confidence. With the support of the speaker, they would need only one of the independents to vote with them.

Depending on the circumstances of course, one might reasonably expect Cathy McGowan, the independent member for Indi, to vote with the government. She has said as much.

As matters stand, all three government members under a cloud at the moment, are in relatively safe seats. They would, most likely, be re-elected.

But what would happen if the latest citizenship revelation, i.e. John Alexander, caused a bi-election in Bennelong, a marginal seat, one that the government lost?

That would take the Coalition into minority government and while they could still govern with the support of independents, clearly their legitimacy would be seriously compromised.

As one connects the dots in this ever-widening web of intrigue, it becomes more and more apparent, that the one course of action Malcolm Turnbull should take to determine the government’s legitimacy is a federal election.

Reading various opinion pieces in the mainstream media over the past few days, one detects a general air of resignation by a number of respected writers who conclude this is the only path to take and that it is inevitable.

Furthermore, as speculation grows on the likelihood of a leadership change, there exists the possibility that the chaos within the Liberal party will undermine the stability of our democracy.

The citizenship issue has opened further the festering wounds of those who would see Malcolm Turnbull dismissed under any pretext. Installing a new PM would be likened to Nero fiddling while Rome burns.

An election subject to a disclosure regime for all candidates, as outlined by the prime minister yesterday, would wipe the slate clean. Any candidate that deliberately, or otherwise, gave false information about his/her eligibility, would face criminal proceedings.

There is no good reason for holding a referendum to change Section 44 of the constitution. It would not be successful. Nor should it be. A parliamentarian’s loyalty to the country he serves should never be open to compromise.

As much as election timing is paramount and the present time does not look healthy for the prime minister, sooner or later, the penny will drop and Turnbull and his chaotic government will have to face the cold hard truth.

To save the nation from what is more serious than the farce it appears to be, announcing a federal poll for the first Saturday in February 2018 would be the best move Malcolm Turnbull could make.

When we hear that a politician has abused his/her expense entitlements, or that federal cabinet has decided to carry out a postal survey costing $120 million, we throw our hands up in despair and cry out, “that’s taxpayers’ money you’re wasting,” and ask why isn’t this money being spent to build a hospital or a road or better still, to give aged pensioners a bit extra?

What will it take to convince people that the emotive outcry, “it’s taxpayers’ money” is a fallacy and a fraud? What does it take to have our ignorant politicians and economists be properly informed?

It’s not taxpayer’s money, it’s government-issued money, being returned to its rightful owners. It’s money created out of thin air by the government central bank and placed into circulation for the benefit of the communities for which it was intended. Then, as reliable as a boomerang and in the passage of time, it finds its way back into government hands, its rightful owners, via taxation.

You would think a process as simple as that, would be easy to explain, easy to understand and not be so deceptively turned on its head so as to make people think it works the other way round. But that’s what politicians and economists are doing. It is utterly dishonest of those who should know better and needs to be exposed for the deception that it is.

The process by which this deception is able to flourish is based on a decades old mindset that sounds simple enough. We are told that we pay our taxes and the government then spends that money to build infrastructure and improve services.

Furthermore we are told that when the government spends more than it collects in taxes, it has to borrow to make up the difference. We call it, the deficit, which then becomes part of the gross national debt that must be repaid over time. We are told that if it is not kept in check, it could threaten our grandchildren’s future.

It all sounds logical. After all, that is how we conduct our personal and business affairs. Our personal deficit spending, mostly on the credit card and the mortgage, must be repaid. So it stands to reason that government debts also must be repaid.

The government, we are told, is the same as a household, only much bigger. But it’s all balderdash! The problem is, the government is not the same as a household; our personal financial management, our household management, is not the same as the government’s financial management. The difference is simple. We can’t issue money. Only the federal government can do that.

But the message isn’t cutting through. The mantra, “it’s taxpayer’s money” keeps bobbing up anywhere and everywhere a politician or economist, a bureaucrat, or a radio or television talk show host has a microphone within reach.

They all keep going on, saying the same thing, over and over again and it’s simply not true.

We might think that our taxes are used to provide government services, infrastructure, pensions, etc., but the reality is, they are used for nothing. They are removed from circulation and once removed, they simply evaporate.

One would have thought, given the exposure of this accounting identity to a broader audience over the past five years that the media would have been all over it, by now. But such is not the case. The media, deliberately or ignorantly, continue to sponsor the ‘taxpayers’ money’ myth.

Our politicians have made such a political football of it that cutting through with the truth, explaining how things actually work, has been rendered near impossible.

These days, as soon as one mentions the word, deficit, whistles start blowing in our heads. Up goes the cry, “They’re spending too much, borrowing too much, paying interest and mortgaging our grandchildren’s future. We’ll go broke!”

It’s so unnecessary. It’s a reflection of our collective mediocrity as well as our ignorance that this absurd situation is allowed to continue. How does it serve the common good to have people believe something that is simply not true?

Yes, we encourage our children to believe in Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny but at least, as the children grow older, they work it out. Why then do we continue to believe the “taxes are for spending” myth? Why, as adults, haven’t we worked it out?

All government spending is new money created out of thin air. Taxation serves to give our currency value, so we will use it, and also to help control inflation by withdrawing it from circulation. It’s just not that hard to understand.

It’s not taxpayer’s money. It’s government money. The taxpayer is paying it back to the government so the government can spend more without causing inflation.

If the Catholic Archbishop of Brisbane, Mark Coleridge thought he was going to make a definitive statement in the same sex marriage debate, he will have to do better than yesterday. “They don’t qualify for what we call marriage.” These were his words on ABC yesterday, describing same sex couples.

Bishop Coleridge’s argument is based on the principle that there is more than one kind of love. On that basic point he is right. The love between parent and child, brother and sister, for example is not the same as the love between a man and a woman who wish to marry.

But where Bishop Coleridge goes off the rails, is in thinking that same sex couples do not feel the same love for each other as do a man and a woman who wish to marry. He, as a celibate man, could not possibly know that.

Therefore, one can only guess that his comments reflect a theology carefully constructed by his Church to counter the same sex marriage argument. But such theology is flawed, and so is his Church.

Bishop Coleridge is careful to acknowledge that same sex couples are equal but claims that there is only one form of love for marriage and that is between a man and a woman. Nicely phrased but, simply not true. Society framed marriage. Society can change it.

To his credit, he refrained from quoting any perceived bible reference to the issue. That would have been too much. But he did suggest that equality has qualifications. “Every human being is equal, but not are all the same.” Really? Does that mean some are more equal than others?

He correctly notes that human society has always discriminated in deciding who can marry. Yes, that’s true, they have and in most cases, for good reason. There are biological reasons why brother and sister should not marry. Society, he says, has also ruled out marriage between people of the same sex. “That is not to say that they are not equal, but that they don’t qualify for what we call marriage,” he said.

Don’t qualify? In what way? Who decided what those qualifications would be? Over the past 2000 years governments around the world did. And they did so without recourse to the people. But this government doesn’t have the ticker for that, so they are asking us.

We have come a long way since the Stone Age. Human society has always made changes as it continues to evolve over time. When it decides certain long held views are no longer appropriate, society changes them. This is one such occasion.

In the end, we the people, will decide who can get married and who can’t. We the people have the ticker and will make the changes. This is just one of them. There will be others. That’s what the people do.

We have come a long way since the Catholic Church held sway over the decisions of governments across the western world. Their contribution to this debate no longer carries the clout it once did. In that sense their voice is just one more in the chorus.

The Catholic Church had to be taught that protecting paedophiles within its ranks was wrong. It has been forced to change whether it likes it or not. It is unlikely it will ever change its view on same sex marriage, but society has. It may not like it, but it must learn to respect it.

In case you haven’t noticed, the US is about to start another war. Remember George W. Bush and the lead up to the US invasion of Iraq in 2003?

On that occasion it was a carefully calculated move, complete with lies about Saddam Hussein’s arsenal, fabricated intelligence delivered to the United Nations by then Secretary of State, Colin Powell, more lies from Dick Cheney and a compliant Murdoch led media playing along.

The trigger was Iraq’s failure to take a “final opportunity” to disarm itself of alleged nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons that U.S. and British officials called an immediate and intolerable threat to world peace.

There was also the visit to the UN by President Bush warning of the axis of evil, namely, Iraq, Syria and North Korea. This week, another US President, Donald Trump has had his say at the UN, this time not bothering with the scripted diplomatic language of Bush.

Trump uses fighting words. There is no mistaking his intentions. He is preparing to destroy North Korea. His, is a different approach from Bush, who first sort UN approval to invade Iraq. We all saw how well that worked.

It is likely Trump won’t bother with the UN. He has little respect for it and his lack of diplomatic skills or interest in what is politically correct, leaves him open to say it and do it, anyway he sees fit.

The bad boy this time is Kim Jong Un of North Korea, who is demonstrating that he can rile the US’s feathers far more than Saddam Hussein could. With Saddam, it was weapons of mass destruction, which turned out to be bad intelligence. Saddam, never had any.

With Kim, it’s a little different. We know he has nukes. Whether he has the capacity to use them offensively is not clear. But it is likely Trump won’t bother to find out. He’s gearing up for a showdown. His language says it all.

And that now brings us to a point where, with two madmen facing off from either side of the Pacific, the world will soon be holding its collective breath. This time, however, the stakes are much higher.

It’s not the threat that Kim might nuke Japan, South Korea or Guam, because he won’t. We could ignore his continuous, reckless provocation because he knows he can’t win, and truth be told, he’s just blowing off. Just like Saddam.

But he knows that what he is doing aggravates the US. He saw how easily Saddam got under Bush’s skin. President Obama had his measure. He just played along with Kim’s tantrums and dismissed him as a pretentious young upstart, giving him the occasional verbal dressing down.

Sadly, Trump is no Obama. He has no diplomatic skills and also displays less patience. That means his generals are already planning an assault. How and when, is what will occupy most people’s minds. But that’s child’s play compared to the bigger question: How will China and Russia react?

The best guess is: not well. But by how much not well? Both Putin and Xi Jinping are rational, calculating leaders. They are also aware of the unpredictable, irrational and reckless way Trump reacts. If they move to support North Korea, Trump will likely go further and the unknown outcomes could result in Armageddon.

As much as they would protest and threaten Armageddon, one suspects they are unlikely to help North Korea beyond some defensive support. A full scale deployment against the US is unlikely. They may even calculate that a regime change in North Korea could work in their interests.

In the coming months, we can expect a great deal of speculation from world media interests, condemnations from some national leaders and praise from others, as Trump’s spin doctors start the PR campaign. There will also be protests, street marches and fierce debates that make it a left versus right issue. But we in Australia, should think seriously about where we stand.

We should think twice about our position. The ANZUS pact does not require us to automatically join the US in whatever they are planning. Nor should we. This will be a unilateral action by the US because Kim Jong Un has made it personal.

This issue could be resolved diplomatically with the right people in charge, but it probably won’t be. Just as with the 2003 invasion of Iraq, the unknown unknowns are the ones we should be worried about.

Watch as the rhetoric gets stronger and more urgent and see if it’s not all happening again.

Back in July, Treasurer Scott Morrison dismissed suggestions that inequality was getting worse. “The latest census showed on the global measure of inequality, which is the Gini coefficient, that is the accepted global measure of income inequality around the world and that figure shows it hasn’t got worse, it has actually got better,” Morrison said.

A few days later, Reserve Bank governor, Philip Lowe, contradicted Morrison stating publicly that inequality in Australia had risen.

It turned out not to be Morrison’s week when it was reported that just 8% of voters in his own electorate of Cook agreed with him. A whopping 63% believed inequality was worsening.

Most recently, this week the ABS released its 2015-16 Household Expenditure Survey where it concluded that, “The wealthiest 20 per cent of households in Australia has remained stable since 2013-14,” ABS chief economist Bruce Hockman said.

Were the ABS and Morrison right after all?

Not according to two leading academics who, this week, refuted claims by the ABS that inequality in Australia has remained stable since 2013-14.

The academics, Christopher Sheil, a fellow in History at the University of New South Wales and Frank Stilwell, Professor Emeritus in Political Economy at the University of Sydney, have written an article posted on the ABC’s News website entitled, “The ABS is Wrong: Inequality is getting worse in Australia” demonstrating how comparing the wealth at the two extremes (the richest 20% with the poorest 20%), is a better indicator of inequality.

The ABS released a report last week that showed the wealth of the top 20% increased by 0.4% to 62.5% and the wealth of the bottom 20% fell by 0.1% to 0.8%.

Sheil and Stilwell claim that because the increase in the top 20% of 0.4% equals half of the total wealth of the bottom 20%, that inequality has continued to increase at these two extremes.

The second richest quintile (60-79%) fell 0.1 to 20.4% and the remaining two quintiles spanning 21-59% were unchanged. The two academics challenge the ABS’s conclusion because the methodology they use (the Gini coefficient), ignores the increase in wealth above the 90^th percentile where most of the wealth increase occurs.

In their study, Sheil and Stilwell adopted the global standard best practice which uses data for the top 1%, the top 10% and the bottom 50%, drawing on OECD data and “ABS data supplied to the OECD not published in Australia.”

They concluded that the top 10 per cent of households owned at least 50 per cent of the total wealth, and the top 1 per cent owned at least 15 per cent. It is hard to argue against such an imbalance and confirms what most people have always believed.

As Opposition leader, Bill Shorten has made inequality a major issue leading up to the next federal election, it would appear Scott Morrison has been caught offside with his defensive comments. It also seems he was just plain wrong.

New data shows that with household debt at record highs and interest rates at a record low, even a small increase in interest rates will place one million Australian households in danger of financial stress, with one in four already under stress. If mortgage rates were to increase by 0.5%, the ratio would be one in three.

The next twelve months leading up to the election will be a testing time for Morrison whose blustering confidence in the strength of the Australian economy may well be his downfall.

Clearly, government spending is the only thing keeping growth above zero. How long that will last remains to be seen.