The Prime Minister’s Exegesis

What Joseph said unto Pharaoh, from Genesis 41:

Now therefore let Pharaoh look out a man discreet and wise, and set him over the land of Egypt.

Let Pharaoh do this, and let him appoint officers over the land, and take up the fifth part of the land of Egypt in the seven plenteous years.

And let them gather all the food of those good years that come, and lay up corn under the hand of Pharaoh, and let them keep food in the cities.

And that food shall be for store to the land against the seven years of famine, which shall be in the land of Egypt; that the land perish not through the famine.
And the thing was good in the eyes of Pharaoh, and in the eyes of all his servants.  (33-37)

What happened over the seven plenteous years:

And [Joseph] gathered up all the food of the seven years, which were in the land of Egypt, and laid up the food in the cities: the food of the field, which was round about every city, laid he up in the same.  (48)

What happened when the seven years of plenteousness were ended:

And the seven years of dearth began to come, according as Joseph had said: and the dearth was in all lands; but in all the land of Egypt there was bread.

And when all the land of Egypt was famished, the people cried to Pharaoh for bread: and Pharaoh said unto all the Egyptians, Go unto Joseph; what he saith to you, do.

And the famine was over all the face of the earth: and Joseph opened all the storehouses, and sold unto the Egyptians; and the famine waxed sore in the land of Egypt.

And all countries came into Egypt to Joseph for to buy corn; because that the famine was so sore in all lands.  (54-57)

In times of plenty, we see, Joseph advocated laying a store for the inevitable time of dearth.

What the Prime Minister of Australia said unto Australians yesterday:

The Pharaoh might have kept one fifth part of the grain from the field but the Tax Commissioner collects in dollars and cents.

Uh huh.  So, a modern Government cannot lay stores during plenteous times for times of dearth?
What happened over four plenteous years and thereafter in the case of the Prime Minister’s imaginary “wage earner, John”:

For a period in 2003 to 2007 every year his employer gave him a sizeable bonus.
He was grateful but in his bones knew it wouldn’t last.
The bonuses did stop and John was told that his income would rise by around five per cent each year over the years to come.
That’s the basis for his financial plans.
Now, very late, John has been told he won’t get those promised increases for the next few years – but his income will get back up after that to where he was promised it would be.
What is John’s rational reaction?
To respond to this temporary loss of income by selling his home and car, dropping his private health insurance, replacing every second evening meal with two-minute noodles.
Of course not.

As always with our dichotomizing PM, there are ever only two extreme choices to make.  Could not John exchange his car for a smaller, cheaper model? Could he not economise without adopting a monochromatic, all-or-nothing approach?  Could he not have set aside some funds, since he knew “in his bones” that his prosperity “wouldn’t last”?  Of course not.  Notice that the “loss of income” which the PM describes is not so much a loss of income but a brief cessation of expected increases.  Notice also that, as the PM uses her imaginary friend to represent the country, she assumes that current financial difficulties are merely temporary and slight and that, mysteriously, prosperous times will return in a few years.
What is the PM’s “rational” recommendation:

A rational response would be to make some responsible savings, to engage in some moderate borrowing, to get through to the time of higher income with his family and lifestyle intact and then to use the higher income to pay off the extra borrowing undertaken in the lean years.

The PM, after alluding briefly to a sound policy of laying stores during times of plenty in order to be prepared for times of dearth, contrarily recommends that people should spend when times are good and borrow when times are bad in the certain expectation that, somehow, good times will resume.
It is no wonder that this inept PM, with the connivance of her incompetent accomplices, is ruining Australia’s economy.
How the PM summarises her exegesis:

This revenue discussion is not historical, it’s very contemporary.
There is new news here compared to six months ago—and new news here compared even to three months ago.

Pharaoh said unto Joseph, “There is none so discreet and wise as thou art.”  Our prime minister is no Joseph.