You are correct. Australia did not enter a recession during the Financial Crisis.

The Governments big spend up on improving schools, roads, telecommunications and energy was a massive part of that... Which benefitted everyone.
Plus the lump sum handout to low/middle class Australians.

Which was in stark contrast to many other countries that were lowering Interest Rates to 0%, reducing tax rates for big business and the rich, spending 10's of Billions bailing out companies, providing interest free government loans and the such which really didn't amount to much. And why was that?
Because if consumers aren't spending, they aren't spending. - Propping up businesses doesn't change that.

In the end, Australia made the right choices to avoid a massive recession, the handing out of money to people was a part of that, which got people into stores.
China's addiction to our resources also helped significantly as well... And we have a very tightly regulated financial market as well, which helped to avoid this very issue.

However, not everything is peaches and cream at the moment though. At the moment our housing market is in a massive bubble... Our housing markets debt rate is almost equivalent to our GDP.
http://www.australiandebtclock.com.au/

*****

Socialism in moderation is also not a bad thing either.
It has it's advantages and disadvantages... Which we have leveraged to our betterment and has given us as a nation some of the best living standards in the world.
It has allowed us to have a healthcare system that is superior to the USA's for a lower cost for instance.

People seem to always miss the point that money redirected to the bottom is almost universally spent, flowing back into the economy. It's wealth being held at the top that stagnates markets.

@_@

That's not what automation results in. You are dreaming up a problem that doesn't exist. 200 years ago most people worked in agriculture because they had to. Automation has been happening since the start of the industrial revolution and today many people don't have to do the most basic jobs anymore because of automation. Automation is the reason more people can attend university, there are less high risk job, medicine is ever advancing, etc. You are imagining a world where machines replace humans but they will only replace the people who do specific manual jobs. Machines are not going to replace managers, psychiatrists, teachers, artists, game developers, product designers, R&D people, doctors, salesmen... I could go on but you get the deal. Machines do not replace human thought because machines are terrible at thinking. 

"But the working class will be replaced!" No. It won't. Education standards will rise, just as they are doing now. More and more people will move to 'higher' job-sectors and away from manual labor just like very few people work in agriculture today. This is good. Automation is the reason why you can write posts on a videogaming forum and don't have to do manual labor in the field all day.

You are the guy who is afraid of automobiles because they will take away the stable boy's job.

Yes automation will benefit us.

but a lot of jobs are getting replaced already, and not just labour ones but also blue collar jobs, Tax preparers jobs went down with 10-20% because of the turbo tax software, lawyer firms are investing more in software and less in people => they still hire people but what in the past would be 20 a year went down to 5. Same thing for accountants.  We already have a group of people who can't go on with the studies anymore and it will only get faster.

Less than ten year ago we saw people say that self driving cars/trucks will never happen and in 2010 showed us it is possible and we had the first self driving truck this year.

Don't think it'll be a good idea, that money will have to come from somewhere and inflation without a doubt play a huge role in "balancing" out economics with all that extra cash in the people's hands.

The level of inflation would go through the bloody roof. It would only make buying things get worse because their purchasing power would actually decrease. If they could actually account for every dollar given this wouldnt be much of an issue to me but it is quite questionable indeed.

They want to do something dumb like this. Potentially cause more debt. But won't simply build homes for the homeless, or employ them?

Why is it that some people on here simply insult the idea and its supporters and provide no meaningful discussion (whether it'd be in the form of other ideas or why handouts wouldn't work).

This is an idea that is seriously considered by people with the possibility that many people may lose their jobs in the next decade or two. I think it's worth talking about this

Actually, the idea that places charge more because people have more isn't accurate. Businesses might do so at first, but when consumers are able to buy more goods, increased sales means companies are actually able to charge less for each unit and be profitable. If such and such a brand increases the price because people have more money, other companies will sell the products at a cheaper rate (as the profit margins are still high) in order to fill the increased demand. 

The two biggest misconception about economics in the US:

- Higher Wages = Higher Unemployment (there is actually more drive to work)

- Giving Tax Cuts to the Rich Promotes Growth (the poor spend a higher percentage of their income, thus further driving the economy)