rudd's scheme for commercial property projects, page-20

I keep thinking gov.'s can only do so much - step in where banks are too "scared" to go, for example. I also believe that when the gov. spends $1B, it gets back nearly half of that in a year or so in the form of taxes, etc., then more of it in consecutive years until eventually nearly all that money has been rolled back into the gov. coffers. In addition, the jobs "saved" have a double benefit, the workers pay taxes and are not on the dole queue.

Of course, those wages are also spend back into the "system", so that other ppl benefit too.

I guess believe that no matter where the gov. spends money, as long as the money stays within Oz, the result will be better of all of us. But of course this is simplistic - some will go O/S by way of business activities and some will be used to pay the national debt (also O/S?). Nevertheless, a lot of that money would stay here and is then "recirculated", appearing in bank deposits, etc. and available for loans to business, for mortgages etc.

If what ppl say is true, that Oz banks are well regulated and policed (the assumption being that US "banks" were not and if they had been this mess would not have happened), then the best we can hope for is better financial services regulations (and policing) in the US. As to recovery, ppl want a better standard of living and are prepared to work to obtain it, therefore I suggest recovery will happen with or w/o Gov. monetary action, although recovery will potentially be accelerated with gov. action.

It would seem that gov. spending across a large number of areas, should do the trick - especially if in the future that spending helps the GDP/GNP, i.e. the gov. has a real payback for the "investment".