# Sir John Howard



## Garpal Gumnut (31 May 2012)

There is talk at Court, of John Howard being knighted by Her Majesty the Queen during the Jubilee Year.

I have also heard that Baron Boyce may be stepping down as Warden of the Cinque Ports.

What a great honour, should it happen for the greatest Prime Minister we have had since federation, to be honoured thus by the Queen.

He would certainly deserve it.

gg


----------



## Caveman (31 May 2012)

And what deed has he actually done to deserve the title?


----------



## Caveman (31 May 2012)

Hope your not talking about this.


----------



## sails (31 May 2012)

Caveman said:


> And what deed has he actually done to deserve the title?





Compared to what we have in government now, he was a great statesman and managed several years as PM.  

Unlike the current short termed PMs...

Also compared to what we have in government now, Howard did a fantastic job as PM.

Unlike the current bumbling lot who don't seem to think twice before adding to our large debts, slapping on unwanted taxes and opening up our borders for all and sundry.

Let's hope Howard is duly recognised.


----------



## noco (31 May 2012)

I would like to see him become Governor General.


----------



## noco (31 May 2012)

GG, I should know and could probably google it, but how is the Governor General appointed and for period of time?


----------



## Caveman (31 May 2012)

He did an ok job compared to how he performed as treasurer,I hardly see how this deserves the title of Knighthood.


----------



## numbercruncher (31 May 2012)

His actions single handedly lost the Liberals their Governance , denied Costello his natural progression and lead to a red headed Lawyer stealing some young Ladies dream and birthright of being Australias first Female PM - 

Surely he would feel guilty accepted a Knighthood?


----------



## Caveman (31 May 2012)

I think squire would be more apt.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 May 2012)

He was a firm resolute leader who assisted the workers of Australia achieve tremendous prosperity and pride in their nation.

He kept our borders secure, stood up to foreign leaders and assisted in maintaining peace in the Middle East. Further he pursued the fight against terrorism and liberated East Timor after the appeasement of successive Labor governments. 

gg


----------



## Caveman (31 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> He was a firm resolute leader who assisted the workers of Australia achieve tremendous prosperity and pride in their nation.
> 
> 
> 
> gg



The workers themselves have created their own prosperity as they have had worked for it themselves.
But in light of you post perhaps John Howard should be promoted to head Squire.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 May 2012)

I was particularly struck by his actions after the Port Arthur Massacre, in going up against his own constituency and impounding firearms.

He was an honest, fine leader.

The ALP couldn't under Rudd, and can't under Gillard, pass wind without organising a focus group, consulting the unions or worrying about the effect on the polls. 

gg


----------



## ChrisJH (31 May 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> What a great honour, should it happen for the greatest Prime Minister we have had since federation, to be honoured thus by the Queen.




I don't think Paul Keating would be that interested, to be honest.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (31 May 2012)

And he saw off Paul Keating.

John Howard encouraged apprenticeships and training, and made workers proud of their achievements, with a small government attitude towards those who wanted self-sufficiency without handouts or union interference.

gg


----------



## rumpole (1 June 2012)

He did sod all when he was in government , just rode the wave of the mining boom and sold off public assets to create surpluses.


----------



## rumpole (1 June 2012)

Howard got an "Order of Merit" a personal gift from the Queen, not recommended by anyone else.

One could conclude this award goes only to people whom HM likes, and for services to the monarchy perhaps ?


----------



## moXJO (1 June 2012)

rumpole said:


> He did sod all when he was in government , just rode the wave of the mining boom and sold off public assets to create surpluses.




Libs were the ones who set the mining boom up in the late 90's. Labor fought against it as they wanted to invest in the booming tech bubble just before it poped. The libs also added to the strong asian trade where as this govt has stepped on everyones toes


----------



## numbercruncher (1 June 2012)

moXJO said:


> Libs were the ones who set the mining boom up in the late 90's. Labor fought against it as they wanted to invest in the booming tech bubble just before it poped. The libs also added to the strong asian trade where as this govt has stepped on everyones toes





Ahhh so thats who I blame for all this cheap Chinese junk littering the landscape


----------



## Tink (1 June 2012)

Politicians all have their flaws, and Howard was no exception.

Yep Rumpole, would be for the monarchy.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 June 2012)

moXJO said:


> Libs were the ones who set the mining boom up in the late 90's. Labor fought against it as they wanted to invest in the booming tech bubble just before it poped. The libs also added to the strong asian trade where as this govt has stepped on everyones toes




I would agree moXJO, 

John Howard had the ability to be assertive, stand up for working families and at the same time express Australian values on the world stage.

Unlike the mob of nincompoops presently passing as a government in Australia.

He had respect by the majority, both at home and abroad.

gg


----------



## MrBurns (1 June 2012)

My brother knew John Howard and described him as a decent man and my brother was no fool.

Compared to the squawking liar we have now...........well there's no comparison at all.


----------



## noco (1 June 2012)

rumpole said:


> He did sod all when he was in government , just rode the wave of the mining boom and sold off public assets to create surpluses.




What a load of crap. This Labor Government are receiving from the mining boom now than before the 2007 election.

Howard sold of part Teltra to pay for Labor's legacy of $92 billion which Howard had to inherit. But YOU, like other Labor supporters, tend to forget.


----------



## Gringotts Bank (1 June 2012)

I'd be happy enough for John to get the medal.  Old school.  Well assisted by Costello.  

Compared with the current world leaders, he looks like a saint.  On my list of "needs replacement" I have Obama, Jintao, Jong-un, all the PIGS nations leaders, most of the African nation leaders, most of the South American nation leaders... :

David Cameron seems ok.


----------



## wayneL (1 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> And he saw off Paul Keating.




JH's greatest achievement. He would desreve the knighthood on this basis alone.


----------



## wayneL (1 June 2012)

noco said:


> I would like to see him become Governor General.




What we need in a GG is someone who can channel Sir John Kerr.


----------



## Knobby22 (1 June 2012)

wayneL said:


> What we need in a GG is someone who can channel Sir John Kerr.




I'm sure we could give an alchoholic a top hat to get somewhat close!


----------



## wayneL (1 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I'm sure we could give an alchoholic a top hat to get somewhat close!




Knobby, can you please show some evidence that Sir Jon was an alcoholic. As far as I know, he was not.  Otherwise you should show contrition for what would amount to an outrageous libel.

However, whether or not an alcoholic, the shrill socialists and their sympathizers should consider that Sir John took the only action left available because of the impasse in parliament regarding supply as the government was unable to function.

The real villains in the episode were Whitlam and Fraser.


----------



## Calliope (1 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I'm sure we could give an alchoholic a top hat to get somewhat close!




I don't know whether he was an alcoholic, but he was pissed as a fart at the 1977 Cup. Maybe he was just a drunk.


----------



## Knobby22 (1 June 2012)

I don't hate the guy and as GG his decision re:the dismissal was probably justified, but  that's how I remember him, slurring his speech at the Melbourne Cup.

I was pretty young at the time, Calliope's comment is probably truer, maybe he was just a drunk. 

Winston Churchill was a drunk and he did OK. 

I was trying to be funny, loosen up Wayne.

(Better Loosen Up was a great horse by the way, didn't win a Melbourne Cup though, a bit far for it.)


----------



## Logique (1 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> There is talk at Court, of John Howard being knighted by Her Majesty the Queen during the Jubilee Year.
> 
> I have also heard that Baron Boyce may be stepping down as Warden of the Cinque Ports.
> 
> ...



+1 to that.


----------



## Ves (1 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> My brother knew John Howard and described him as a decent man and my brother was no fool.
> 
> Compared to the squawking liar we have now...........well there's no comparison at all.



 That's ironic considering Howard told two of the biggest political lies (one to get re-elected) of our generation.


----------



## CanOz (1 June 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I don't hate the guy and as GG his decision re:the dismissal was probably justified, but  that's how I remember him, slurring his speech at the Melbourne Cup.
> 
> I was pretty young at the time, Calliope's comment is probably truer, maybe he was just a drunk.
> 
> Winston Churchill was a drunk and he did OK.




Drunk vs alcoholic ... i can be a drunk at times LOL!

Not often enough for me likin though!

CanOz


----------



## MrBurns (1 June 2012)

Ves said:


> That's ironic considering Howard told two of the biggest political lies (one to get re-elected) of our generation.




Well thats bulldust, just another Labor tragic fable

The Queen of liars would be offended that someone should even suggest she wasnt the best.


----------



## DB008 (1 June 2012)

rumpole said:


> He did sod all when he was in government , just rode the wave of the mining boom and sold off public assets to create surpluses.




And Kristina Keneally/Anna Bligh didn't?


----------



## Ves (1 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> Well thats bulldust, just another Labor tragic fable
> 
> The Queen of liars would be offended that someone should even suggest she wasnt the best.



Fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixn9fFatdcs

Another fact.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E3WJ10xGkas

He said it.  Nothing to do with the ALP.


----------



## MrBurns (1 June 2012)

Ves said:


> Fact.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixn9fFatdcs
> 
> ...




He went to an election on the GST didnt he ?

and Children overboard, oh pleeeeease give it a rest, they probably did when it's all said and done.

The pathetic, yes pathetic attempts to discredit the Libs with fables from last century are laughable


----------



## sptrawler (1 June 2012)

Caveman said:


> And what deed has he actually done to deserve the title?




Well maybe he and the then treasurer, had Australia in a position, to be the only western economy to survive the G.F.C.
Any idiot can throw away money, ours was the only economy in surplus. The Eurozone and the U.S wouldn't be in the crap they are in if they had run a budget surplus.
Oh I forgot, budget surpluses are like workers without debt, boring.lol
So in answer to your question, he and the then government went against world trends to increase debt.


----------



## Ves (1 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> He went to an election on the GST didnt he ?
> 
> and Children overboard, oh pleeeeease give it a rest, they probably did when it's all said and done.
> 
> The pathetic, yes pathetic attempts to discredit the Libs with fables from last century are laughable



Last century? It was in October 2001.


----------



## MrBurns (1 June 2012)

Ves said:


> Last century? It was in October 2001.




Close enough.


----------



## McLovin (1 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Any idiot can throw away money, ours was the only economy in surplus.




Spain and Ireland were both in surplus until their property markets tanked. Like to take a guess where state governments get a fair whack of their revenue?

We have the highest household indebtedness in the world and run a current account deficit. What's really happened is that government saving has forced the household sector to borrow more in order to finance the CAD. 

It's hardly a ringing endorsement for the 10 years to 2007.


----------



## Julia (1 June 2012)

John Howard wasn't perfect, but overall he ran Australia with a certain calm resolve.
This is utterly different from the hysterical ranting that characterises parliament these days.

I never once heard him ranting in that ghastly shrewish tone so unbecoming to the present Prime Minister.

I might be wrong, but I'd say the current disaffection for both sides of politicians at present is largely because of their pathetically childish accusation and counter-accusation.  The electorate has no interest in their stupid squabbling.  We just want them to have a bit of dignity, and a level of integrity which might just begin to convince us that they have even the slightest interest in actually running the country for the benefit of the Australian people.

Instead of that, we see the government instigating a damaging class war, defending people who abuse funds, and above all, acting in their own personal interests.
No wonder the dissatisfaction rating of both leaders is where it is.


----------



## Caveman (1 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> and made workers proud of their achievements,
> 
> gg




By rewarding them with Workchoices?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WorkChoices


----------



## Caveman (1 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> John Howard encouraged apprenticeships and training
> 
> gg




Well I think this is rubbish,you got any links GG?


----------



## MrBurns (1 June 2012)

Caveman said:


> Well I think this is rubbish,you got any links GG?




No links needed , anyone who handles the economy correctly automatically encourages all levels of employment.


----------



## Caveman (1 June 2012)

I dont think he gave a stuff about tradesmen apprentices and training untill their was a dire skill shortage.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 June 2012)

Caveman said:


> Well I think this is rubbish,you got any links GG?




Certainly Caveman, 

A 161% increase in apprenticeships under Mr.Howard.from 1996 to 2006.

He increased apprenticeships and encouraged workers in every year he led this country. All the present muppets do is bring in taxes, like the carbon tax which cause workers to lose jobs, and the first ones to go are apprentices.



> 403,600 Australian Apprentices in training in the March Quarter 2006 – a 161% increase since the Coalition was elected in 1996, latest vocational and technical education figures released today reveal.
> 
> Figures from the National Centre for Vocational Education Research (NCVER), are proof the Australian Government’s initiatives and Work Choices changes were encouraging people to seize training opportunities, particularly in the trades.
> 
> ...




http://www.ruddockmp.com.au/Berowra...-APPRENTICESHIPS-UNDER-HOWARD-GOVERNMENT.aspx

gg


----------



## Ves (2 June 2012)

Can you post some figures regarding the increase in Australia's productivity under Howard?  More skilled employees (well, apprenticeships leading to more skilled workers) mean that it should have risen dramatically?


----------



## Caveman (2 June 2012)

lol i wasnt really looking for a Liberal Party source


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> Spain and Ireland were both in surplus until their property markets tanked. Like to take a guess where state governments get a fair whack of their revenue?
> 
> We have the highest household indebtedness in the world and run a current account deficit. What's really happened is that government saving has forced the household sector to borrow more in order to finance the CAD.
> 
> It's hardly a ringing endorsement for the 10 years to 2007.




Maybe you should re read your post.
That is the biggest crock I have heard in a long time. Get a grip.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 June 2012)

John Howard has always behaved with decorum.

None of his office organised a riot wherein he lost a shoe.

On the other hand, he has had shoes offered to him, which he graciously declined. 

When did that ever happen to the muppets we have leading the ALP?

gg


----------



## Calliope (2 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> John Howard has always behaved with decorum.
> 
> None of his office organised a riot wherein he lost a shoe.
> 
> ...




You have certainly exposed all the Howard haters GG. Perhaps you should nominate an award for the nastiest.

It reminds me that Phillip Adams prided himself on being Australia's leading Howard Hater. He had a period of withdrawal when Howard was deposed. He has now switched to being a Gillard hater...but only because he loves Rudd.


----------



## McLovin (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe you should re read your post.
> That is the biggest crock I have heard in a long time. Get a grip.




Which part?


----------



## Ves (2 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> Which part?



Struggling to see it too.

Also notice that GG has ignored my post on productivity.  Funny that!


----------



## MrBurns (2 June 2012)

Ves said:


> Struggling to see it too.
> 
> Also notice that GG has ignored my post on productivity.  Funny that!




I would too, go research if you doubt.

gg is a respected authority in here and has to justify nothing.


----------



## Julia (2 June 2012)

Ves said:


> Also notice that GG has ignored my post on productivity.  Funny that!



I couldn't count the times I've posed a request for justification/information to various posters and received no response.
It aids the discussion if we do all respond to anything we're asked, but it's not obligatory.


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> Which part?




The part where you infer the gov saving, forced households to borrow to support the current account defecit and blame the years from 1997-2007.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (2 June 2012)

Ves said:


> Can you post some figures regarding the increase in Australia's productivity under Howard?  More skilled employees (well, apprenticeships leading to more skilled workers) mean that it should have risen dramatically?




My apologies Vespuria,

I did not wish to ignore you, but had to await the return of our chief economist here at the Ross Island Hotel from a sojourn in the Stanley St. Watchouse.

As is normal for economists he needed to be oiled, but eventually he stopped shaking and managed to give me an answer.

I must admit as a non-economist I found it hard to follow. He dribbled words such as aggregation, determinants, Ireland, USA, Keating, Howard, entrepreneurial action being preferable to socialist input, but nary a mention of Rudd or Gillard. Before he was taken by a fit and an Ambulance was called.

He did suggest a recent paper from the IPA library which may help you, I'm buggered if I can understand it.

http://ipa.org.au/library/publication/1331585603_document_davidson_desilva_productivity.pdf 

gg


----------



## McLovin (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> The part where you infer the gov saving, forced households to borrow to support the current account defecit and blame the years from 1997-2007.






The three sectors (public/private/external) need to balance to zero. It is impossible to have a government sector that is a net saver have the economy running a CAD, and have the private sector as a net saver. This isn't theory it's accounting fact. You sum the government surplus and the CAD together and you get the net negative savings amount of the private sector. So all that happened was the debt was transferred from the public to private sector. The end result being an overindebted household sector. If you want to, have a look at how unindebted households are in countries like Italy and Greece, in that instance the government paid for the CAD not the private sector. The result is more or less the same, it's just who has the debt at the end of the party.


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> The three sectors (public/private/external) need to balance to zero. It is impossible to have a government sector that is a net saver have the economy running a CAD, and have the private sector as a net saver. This isn't theory it's accounting fact. You sum the government surplus and the CAD together and you get the net negative savings amount of the private sector. So all that happened was the debt was transferred from the public to private sector. The end result being an overindebted household sector. If you want to, have a look at how unindebted households are in countries like Italy and Greece, in that instance the government paid for the CAD not the private sector. The result is more or less the same, it's just who has the debt at the end of the party.




Doesn't private sector debt include all non Gov debt? Not just household debt?


----------



## McLovin (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Doesn't private sector debt include all non Gov debt? Not just household debt?




Yes, and?


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> The three sectors (public/private/external) need to balance to zero. It is impossible to have a government sector that is a net saver have the economy running a CAD, and have the private sector as a net saver. This isn't theory it's accounting fact. You sum the government surplus and the CAD together and you get the net negative savings amount of the private sector. So all that happened was the debt was transferred from the public to private sector. The end result being an overindebted household sector. If you want to, have a look at how unindebted households are in countries like Italy and Greece, in that instance the government paid for the CAD not the private sector. The result is more or less the same, it's just who has the debt at the end of the party.




Also wasn't it Costello that said the government is running a surplus and needs to reduce the personal tax levels.
How the public reaportions that increase in disposable income is to a degree their resposibility. Isn't it?


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2012)

I get a bit fed up with hearing the overidebted household sector is a Government problem. People want to be treated as adults when they take on a loan, yet want to be treated as a victim when they overpay for the house or investment property.
It wasn't that long ago that the avrerage family car was worth one third the cost of the family house.
Now we have the situation where the house is worth ten to fifteen times the famiy car. Yet they are still the two major expenses.
The only difference is the house became a pyramid scheme, which always ends in the same manner.
Now everyone is looking for someone to blame for personal greed and as per usual the gov is an easy target. Rather than take responsibility.


----------



## Julia (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> I get a bit fed up with hearing the overidebted household sector is a Government problem. People want to be treated as adults when they take on a loan, yet want to be treated as a victim when they overpay for the house or investment property.
> It wasn't that long ago that the avrerage family car was worth one third the cost of the family house.
> Now we have the situation where the house is worth ten to fifteen times the famiy car. Yet they are still the two major expenses.
> The only difference is the house became a pyramid scheme, which always ends in the same manner.
> Now everyone is looking for someone to blame for personal greed and as per usual the gov is an easy target. Rather than take responsibility.




+1 x 10.


----------



## McLovin (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Also wasn't it Costello that said the government is running a surplus and needs to reduce the personal tax levels.
> How the public reaportions that increase in disposable income is to a degree their resposibility. Isn't it?




How does that change my point which you called the "biggest crock you had heard in a long time"? 

Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it seems that the government running a surplus and doing nothing to address the decades old problem of Australia's CAD left the household sector massively indebted.


----------



## McLovin (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> I get a bit fed up with hearing the overidebted household sector is a Government problem. People want to be treated as adults when they take on a loan, yet want to be treated as a victim when they overpay for the house or investment property.
> It wasn't that long ago that the avrerage family car was worth one third the cost of the family house.
> Now we have the situation where the house is worth ten to fifteen times the famiy car. Yet they are still the two major expenses.
> The only difference is the house became a pyramid scheme, which always ends in the same manner.
> Now everyone is looking for someone to blame for personal greed and as per usual the gov is an easy target. Rather than take responsibility.




The CAD's relationship with the household sector has nothing to do with buying overpriced property and everything to do with having to use debt to pay for Australia's imports.


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> How does that change my point which you called the "biggest crock you had heard in a long time"?
> 
> Unless you have evidence to the contrary, it seems that the government running a surplus and doing nothing to address the decades old problem of Australia's CAD left the household sector massively indebted.




Well then to your reasoning the current government must be achieving miracles, they aren't running surpluses, the CAD will increase due to increased taxes and unemployment is increasing as companies shut down.
Yet you refer to the years from 1997 - 2007


----------



## cynic (2 June 2012)

Garpal Gumnut said:


> John Howard has always behaved with decorum.




GG, this is one of those rare occasions when I find myself in partial disagreement with one of your posts.

There's no question in my mind that the LNP coalition was effective at getting the Australian economy back on the tracks during his period of leadership, but, in the end, little Johnny did a great disservice to both Australia, and his own party, by failing to acknowledge that it was time to stand down and surrender the reigns of leadership to someone more palatable. 

When the LNP lost to their opposition, much of the good work that had previously been done, was promptly undone. I do not have a specific grudge against the LNP - but I detest little Johnny for allowing his vanity to override the better interests of Australia and her citizens.

The farcical performance of our current (non)government is pretty much what I would have expected from any leftwing prosocialism/anticapitalism government. I consider the rise to power of this (non)government to be largley attributable to the failure of John Howard to surrender his leadership when it first became glaringly apparent that he'd passed his "best before date".

Shame on you Johnny! Shame,shame shame.


----------



## McLovin (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well then to your reasoning the current government must be achieving miracles, they aren't running surpluses, the CAD will increase due to increased taxes and unemployment is increasing as companies shut down.




Huh?


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> The CAD's relationship with the household sector has nothing to do with buying overpriced property and everything to do with having to use debt to pay for Australia's imports.




CAD as far as I am aware is imports in relation to exports. If you are producing sod all and buying everything you have a problem. Then pay stupid prices for a house all becomes household debt. Still the net result is personal debt or company debt don't try and mix the two.
Australian imports still contain company expenses, which in mining and resources are huge.


----------



## McLovin (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> CAD as far as I am aware is imports in relation to exports. If you are producing sod all and buying everything you have a problem. Then pay stupid prices for a house all becomes household debt. Still the net result is personal debt or company debt don't try and mix the two.
> Australian imports still contain company expenses, which in mining and resources are huge.




No, now you're just confusing the current and capital accounts (they have to balance as well!).

Anyway, I've said what I needed to. Believe what you want.


----------



## Ves (2 June 2012)

MrBurns said:


> I would too, go research if you doubt.
> 
> gg is a respected authority in here and has to justify nothing.



Who said anything about justification? 


Thanks for the reply by the way GG,   I will have a read of the doco.


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2012)

O.K lets go back to your original statement that the gov from 1997 - 2007 caused the CAD problems resulting in household debt problems.
Maybe in your answer you can explain how blowing out gov debt as is currently happening and increasing personal and broad based tax is an improvement?
Also could throw in how does making net exporters become net importers help. eg solar panel manufacturer?


----------



## McLovin (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> O.K lets go back to your original statement that the gov from 1997 - 2007 caused the CAD problems resulting in household debt problems.




I didn't say they caused the CAD problems, they have been around since the 70's. I pointed out the relationship between the Pitchford thesis and the current level of household debt. Do you disagree that the relationship exists?



			
				sptrawler said:
			
		

> Maybe in your answer you can explain how blowing out gov debt as is currently happening and increasing personal and broad based tax is an improvement?
> Also could throw in how does making net exporters become net importers help. eg solar panel manufacturer?




This is completely non sequitir. I'm not quite sure if you're somehow trying to paint me as an apologist for the current government, something I am certainly not.


----------



## Ves (2 June 2012)

Australia has a massive CAD deficit because Australian corporations are heavily owned by foreign investors  (as is a lot of our property and farm land).  Massive amounts of interest and dividend payments flow out of the country which affects the CAD.  Doesn't matter that we sell more rocks to foreigners than ever before.  In layman's terms we owe them a ****load of money.  To maintain growth (in private sector business and housing sector)  we had to borrow a heap of money from overseas because we were not capable of generating these funds ourselves.  If the government doesn't borrow this money, who do you think has to?  I mean they could always not borrow it and the economy would be at a stand still I guess.


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> I didn't say they caused the CAD problems, they have been around since the 70's. I pointed out the relationship between the Pitchford thesis and the current level of household debt. Do you disagree that the relationship exists?
> 
> 
> 
> This is completely non sequitir. I'm not quite sure if you're somehow trying to paint me as an apologist for the current government, something I am certainly not.




Well then why make the pointed reference to the 1997 to 2007 years if the problem is intergenerational and not government specific. Other than for antagonistic reasons?


----------



## McLovin (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Well then why make the pointed reference to the 1997 to 2007 years if the problem is intergenerational and not government specific. Other than for antagonistic reasons?




I'll give you a hint, it's related to the thread title.


----------



## sptrawler (2 June 2012)

I'll give you a hint, they started with a labor debt of $90billion of useless debt. The next government is going to start with a labor debt of $300billion of useless debt.
Then you will be saying the same thing again, when you throw them out after the get out of debt.LOL


----------



## McLovin (2 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> I'll give you a hint, they started with a labor debt of $90billion of useless debt.




And household debt that was 50% of GDP. By the time they finished household debt was 150% of GDP but the government was debt free. All things being equal what do you think happened? Is it that hard to understand That's been the only point I've been trying to make despite your numerious attempts at creating strawman arguments.

Goodnight.


----------



## rumpole (3 June 2012)

> The farcical performance of our current (non)government is pretty much what I would have expected from any leftwing prosocialism/anticapitalism government.




Which party knocked back a tax cut for business and is trying to impose more expense on them with a paid parental leave scheme ?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 June 2012)

John Howard believed in Australians, and in their ability to be their best if left to work and raise their families, in peace and prosperity, with secure borders and a chance to work to their full ability. He provided stability and opportunity for all Australians willing to work.

The mob of Socialists in power at present believe they know what is best for Australians, and despite the evidence of polls, inflict their aged Fabian diktat on a suffering populace. When the "intellectual elite", and I use the word intellectual guardedly, get in to strife they throw bread at the vulnerable, who would prefer to have the dignity and opportunity that goes with proper jobs.

gg


----------



## rumpole (3 June 2012)

gg,

If you want to start a fund to finance the erection of a 20 ft bronze statue of JWH overlooking the shores of Lake Burley Griffin, I would be delighted to make a contribution


----------



## nulla nulla (3 June 2012)

Do they have pidgeons in the ACT? 

I couldn't think of anything more appropriate for JH than his efigy covered in pidgeon dung.


----------



## sptrawler (3 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> And household debt that was 50% of GDP. By the time they finished household debt was 150% of GDP but the government was debt free. All things being equal what do you think happened? Is it that hard to understand That's been the only point I've been trying to make despite your numerious attempts at creating strawman arguments.
> 
> Goodnight.




Good morning.
If household debt is only a function of government debt and a reflection of cad as you are infering. Then households are doing extremely well at the moment by actually paying down household debt, which as I stated is tied to the speculative housing market. The housing debt has a reflection on the gross debt by the fact it is non productive debt, thereby robbing the markets of investment capital.


----------



## McLovin (3 June 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Good morning.
> If household debt is only a function of government debt and a reflection of cad as you are infering.




I never said that, that's about the third time you've put words in my mouth. Once again, and this is getting tiring, I'm explaining the relationship between the CAD and private/public sector balances: the CAD + Private sector balance + public sector balance must = 0. If the government ran a surplus and the CAD continued then the private sector _must_ become more indebted by an amount equal to the CAD + the government surplus. The government was running a surplus of 1.5% and the CAD was about 5% creating a shortfall for the private sector of 6.5% of GDP; ie they needed to borrow 6.5% of GDP in order to fund the CAD. So like I said, and as the Pitchford Thesis advocates, the debt in the economy was moved from public to private sector. Simpletons of course marveled at the incredible job the government was doing in reducing debt, when it was really sleight of hand and it had just been moved around the economy. The net foreign debt position confirms this. Property bubbles aside, as long as we run a CAD we will continue to need to borrow from overseas to pay for those imports.





Anyway, no point continuing with this. You believe what you want and I'll do the same.


----------



## Julia (3 June 2012)

cynic said:


> There's no question in my mind that the LNP coalition was effective at getting the Australian economy back on the tracks during his period of leadership, but, in the end, little Johnny did a great disservice to both Australia, and his own party, by failing to acknowledge that it was time to stand down and surrender the reigns of leadership to someone more palatable.
> 
> When the LNP lost to their opposition, much of the good work that had previously been done, was promptly undone. I do not have a specific grudge against the LNP - but I detest little Johnny for allowing his vanity to override the better interests of Australia and her citizens...............



Your posts are always welcome, Cynic, but couldn't you just refer to John Howard by his given name, rather than indulge in the petty pejorative insult referring to his stature?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (3 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Your posts are always welcome, Cynic, but couldn't you just refer to John Howard by his given name, rather than indulge in the petty pejorative insult referring to his stature?




+1

gg


----------



## Calliope (3 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Your posts are always welcome, Cynic, but couldn't you just refer to John Howard by his given name, rather than indulge in the petty pejorative insult referring to his stature?




The Howard haters never refer to Hawke As "little Bobby" whereas he was in fact 5 cms shorter than Howard - 1.7m to 1.75m. The silver bodgie wore built-up heels.


----------



## sptrawler (3 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> I never said that, that's about the third time you've put words in my mouth. Once again, and this is getting tiring, I'm explaining the relationship between the CAD and private/public sector balances: the CAD + Private sector balance + public sector balance must = 0. If the government ran a surplus and the CAD continued then the private sector _must_ become more indebted by an amount equal to the CAD + the government surplus. The government was running a surplus of 1.5% and the CAD was about 5% creating a shortfall for the private sector of 6.5% of GDP; ie they needed to borrow 6.5% of GDP in order to fund the CAD. So like I said, and as the Pitchford Thesis advocates, the debt in the economy was moved from public to private sector. Simpletons of course marveled at the incredible job the government was doing in reducing debt, when it was really sleight of hand and it had just been moved around the economy. The net foreign debt position confirms this. Property bubbles aside, as long as we run a CAD we will continue to need to borrow from overseas to pay for those imports.
> .




Your last sentence is the only thing I disagree with. You say "property bubbles aside" I maintain you cannot leave property borrowings out of the equation when talking about current account defecits. The majority of the housing finance is sourced from overseas, therefore it forms a major part of our balance of payments.
Also as I said housing debt is non productive debt, the Pitchford Thesis supports private sector debt as long as it is productive debt.

Also check out mortgage debt to GDP and tell me it isn't an influence.

http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/201...orsens-recessions/imf-mortgage-debt-to-gdp-8/


----------



## sptrawler (3 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> I'm explaining the relationship between the CAD and private/public sector balances: the CAD + Private sector balance + public sector balance must = 0. If the government ran a surplus and the CAD continued then the private sector _must_ become more indebted by an amount equal to the CAD + the government surplus.




Agree completely, the only issue is Private sector balance is the sum of household debt(mortgage + credit car) and public companies debt.
The major companies don't have an out of control debt problem. Households do, due to poor lending policies, greed and the fiat monetary system.
As you keep refering to Pitchford, it states debt must be underpinned by assett value. 
Therein lies your problem, households have been using debt as a substitute for wages. This works fine untill the underlying assett value drops and exposes your foreign loans or account balance as you would call it.

Also throwing in words like straw man and simpleton, doesn't add to the debate.


----------



## Judd (3 June 2012)

Is he actually Sir John Howard or is he John Howard who has been given a gong by the Queen?  Got a bit lost due to all the political brouhaha which sprung up in the thread.


----------



## noco (3 June 2012)

Judd said:


> Is he actually Sir John Howard or is he John Howard who has been given a gong by the Queen?  Got a bit lost due to all the political brouhaha which sprung up in the thread.





John Howard received the Order of Merit in which he is one of 24 in the Queen's exclusive club. It  was not a Knight Hood.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/in-...-joins-queens-24/story-fnaivo74-1226378774360


----------



## sptrawler (3 June 2012)

Judd said:


> Is he actually Sir John Howard or is he John Howard who has been given a gong by the Queen?  Got a bit lost due to all the political brouhaha which sprung up in the thread.




Yep, easier just to sit back and let misleading comments go unchallenged. Then the debate is the same as the one at the pub.


----------



## McLovin (3 June 2012)

McLovin]Property bubbles aside said:


> Your last sentence [above] is the only thing I disagree with.You say "property bubbles aside" I maintain you cannot leave property borrowings out of the equation when talking about current account defecits






Debt has nothing to do with the current account. It's a capital account item. 

Example: I buy a car from Japan for $20,000 and sell them $15,000 in steel to build the car. The current account would look like 

Imports: $20,000
Exports: $15,000

current account deficit: $5,000

In order to pay for the current account I have to borrow money from a Japanese bank which creates a separate capital item giving me a capital account surplus of $5,000 (ie have recieved money in). Similarly, when a bank borrows money overseas to write mortgages in Australia it goes through the capital account and has nothing at all to do with the current account.

So property speculation (or any asset) have nothing to do with the current account deficit.

But as per my example, when we run a CAD we need to borrow an equivalent amount from foreigners in order to pay for those imports. This debt would go through the capital account as a seperate item.




sptrawler said:


> Agree completely, the only issue is Private sector balance is the sum of household debt(mortgage + credit car) and public companies debt.The major companies don't have an out of control debt problem.




If you accept that equation and are arguing that the non-household private sector does not have a debt problem then by extension wouldn't it be the household sector that is the one taking on the debt to pay for the CAD?



			
				sptrawler said:
			
		

> Also throwing in words like straw man and simpleton, doesn't add to the debate.




Apologies for using simpleton, it wasn't called for.


----------



## CanOz (3 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> Apologies for using simpleton, it wasn't called for.




Well done McLovin...fine example of forum etiquette. 

So many arguments on here lately, we should all take a leaf out of your book when things get a little _frustrating_.

CanOz


----------



## sptrawler (3 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> Debt has nothing to do with the current account. It's a capital account item.
> 
> In order to pay for the current account I have to borrow money from a Japanese bank which creates a separate capital item giving me a capital account surplus of $5,000 (ie have recieved money in). Similarly, when a bank borrows money overseas to write mortgages in Australia it goes through the capital account and has nothing at all to do with the current account.
> 
> ...




No I must appologies, I thought our banks lending overseas money, whether it be for mortages or business lending was still a debt incurring an interest cost on our balance sheet. 
Also I would have thought the household borrowings for investment property and or equities would have to be underpinned by income or collateral. 
If that isn't a problem then let the party go on, 10 investment properties and work for Bunnings, that isn't causing a problem.LOL

Also the problem if you are correct will be resolved in no time, because people aren't buying anything.
So imports should plumet and by your reckoning we will have a CAD in surplus in no time.
All's good.LOL the government should employ you.


----------



## sptrawler (3 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> If you accept that equation and are arguing that the non-household private sector does not have a debt problem then by extension wouldn't it be the household sector that is the one taking on the debt to pay for the CAD?
> 
> 
> 
> Apologies for using simpleton, it wasn't called for.




How is that debt manifested? DUH 
They certainly have the debt.


----------



## McLovin (4 June 2012)

I don't even understand the point you're trying to make anymore. I'm done here.


----------



## sptrawler (4 June 2012)

McLovin said:


> I don't even understand the point you're trying to make anymore. I'm done here.




Agree completely, last post *Alan Greenspan 2005*.

An increase in household saving should also act to diminish borrowing from abroad. The growth of home mortgage debt has been the major contributor, at least in an accounting sense, to the decline in the personal saving rate in the United States from almost 6 percent in 1993 to its current level of 1 percent. The fall in U.S. interest rates since the early 1980s has supported both home price increases and, in recent years, an unprecedented rate of existing home turnover.

This combination has led to a significant increase in home mortgage debt. The rise in home prices creates capital gains, which become realized with the subsequent sale of a home. The amount of debt paid off by the seller of an existing home averages about three-fifths of the mortgage debt taken on by the buyer, effectively converting to cash an amount of home equity close to the realized gain. This cash payout is financed by the net increase in debt on the purchased home, and hence on total mortgage debt outstanding.

Even after accounting for the down payments on any subsequent home purchase, sellers receive, net, large amounts of cash, which they view as unencumbered. The counterpart of that cash, the increased debt taken on by the homebuyers, is supported by the new home values enhanced by capital gains. In addition, low mortgage interest rates have encouraged significant growth of home equity loan advances and cash-out refinancings, which are another channel for the extraction of previously unrealized capital gains on homes.

All told, home mortgage debt, driven largely by equity extraction, has grown much more rapidly in the past five years than during the previous five years. Surveys suggest that approximately half of equity extraction shows up in additional household expenditures,* reducing savings commensurately and thereby presumably contributing to the current account deficit*.
My bolds.


----------



## Caveman (4 June 2012)

Julia said:


> Your posts are always welcome, Cynic, but couldn't you just refer to John Howard by his given name, rather than indulge in the petty pejorative insult referring to his stature?




C`mon guys isnt this a bit rich?You only have to read down these forums and see for yourself
all the ridicule and Nicknames of Prime ministers,ministers Present and past.


----------



## wayneL (4 June 2012)

Caveman said:


> C`mon guys isnt this a bit rich?You only have to read down these forums and see for yourself
> all the ridicule and Nicknames of Prime ministers,ministers Present and past.




Yeah but the Fabian socialist heathen deserve it. :


----------



## cynic (9 June 2012)

rumpole said:


> Which party knocked back a tax cut for business and is trying to impose more expense on them with a paid parental leave scheme ?




I'm not going to pretend to be anything less than prejudiced in my political views. When faced with a political system where the voting populace has become polarised to the point where there are only two likely outcomes, I have opted for the outcome that I consider to more closely match my values. That does not constitute automatic agreement with everything that my preferred political party does!

My expression of contempt for the ALP was included in this post in order to ensure that my expressed dissatisfaction with John Howard's behaviour wouldn't be misinterpreted as an expression of allegiance for the ALP. 
Having read your various posts Rumpole, I can see that you are very intelligent and I therefore assume that you will have already recognised this. 

I also am intelligent enough to recognise that your political philosophy is at significant variance to my own, and I am somewhat doubtful that anything productive will eventuate from us debating the finer points, however, I do thank you for taking the time to read my post.



Julia said:


> Your posts are always welcome, Cynic, but couldn't you just refer to John Howard by his given name, rather than indulge in the petty pejorative insult referring to his stature?




In answer to your question, Julia, yes I am able to denigrate John Howard without using pejoratives if that makes yourself and GG happier. Given the overall derogatory tone of my post I am somewhat surprised that the pejorative was your key complaint, but I do value your guidance in this forum just the same. 

For what it's worth, I always understood this pejorative to be a reference to John's media persona. To me his gestures combined with the way he spoke often seemed reminiscent of a schoolboy. In any case I accept that this pejorative could still be viewed in a derogatory context and given that some here have taken offense to its use, I shall desist from using it in future.



Calliope said:


> The Howard haters never refer to Hawke As "little Bobby" whereas he was in fact 5 cms shorter than Howard - 1.7m to 1.75m. The silver bodgie wore built-up heels.




You're quite right Calliope! I've never known anyone to call Hawke little Bobby. In fact there aren't enough expletives in the English language to adequately describe the depth of my contempt for him and what he tried to do to Australia.



Caveman said:


> C`mon guys isnt this a bit rich?You only have to read down these forums and see for yourself
> all the ridicule and Nicknames of Prime ministers,ministers Present and past.




Thanks for the support Caveman. Until I read your post I was wondering if it was just me who felt that way. I've seen one of my most admired Australian politicians referred to as "destroyer" (rhymes with her surname) on ASF, however, I did not see any reason to take offence for similar reasons to those that you've so aptly pointed out. (When in Rome...).


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

rumpole said:


> gg,
> 
> If you want to start a fund to finance the erection of a 20 ft bronze statue of JWH overlooking the shores of Lake Burley Griffin, I would be delighted to make a contribution




Thank you Rumpole, 



nulla nulla said:


> Do they have pidgeons in the ACT?
> 
> I couldn't think of anything more appropriate for JH than his efigy covered in pidgeon dung.




When the muppet ACT Government have fixed Capt.Emad's dishwasher, they intend to invest in the following to protect all politicians, living and dead.







gg


----------



## Julia (9 June 2012)

cynic said:


> I'm not going to pretend to be anything less than prejudiced in my political views. When faced with a political system where the voting populace has become polarised to the point where there are only two likely outcomes, I have opted for the outcome that I consider to more closely match my values. That does not constitute automatic agreement with everything that my preferred political party does!



That's the position of many of us.  This seems incomprehensible to the rigidly Left who appear able to admire every person and policy emanating from their party of choice.



> In answer to your question, Julia, yes I am able to denigrate John Howard without using pejoratives if that makes yourself and GG happier. Given the overall derogatory tone of my post I am somewhat surprised that the pejorative was your key complaint, but I do value your guidance in this forum just the same.



I don't now remember all the detail of your post but do recall mentally agreeing with the points on which you were taking issue with John Howard.  I just have a strong dislike of personal denigration in terms of commenting on someone's personal features.  That doesn't mean I can expect others to share that view.  I just hope they might.  I thank you sincerely for understanding my objection.



> Thanks for the support Caveman. Until I read your post I was wondering if it was just me who felt that way. I've seen one of my most admired Australian politicians referred to as "destroyer" (rhymes with her surname) on ASF, however, I did not see any reason to take offence for similar reasons to those that you've so aptly pointed out. (When in Rome...).



I'm trying to think of which politician you're referring to here and failing.  Could you put me out of my misery?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (9 June 2012)

My contacts in King Edward VII Hospital tell me that many more a royal and earl than Phil the Greek have been struck by ailments following their airing in near freezing temperatures on the Thames upon Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II Diamond Jubilee.

The Cinque Ports, is still in play for John Winston Howard.

It will be rather like a collective lemon sucking exercise for the ALP when it eventuates.

He will be the first Australian since Sir Robert Menzies to hold that position.

Well done Sir John.

gg


----------



## cynic (10 June 2012)

Julia said:


> I'm trying to think of which politician you're referring to here and failing.  Could you put me out of my misery?




Natasha Stott Despoja.

One of the very few Australian politicians that regularly displayed leadership qualities exceeding my highest expectations. 

Irrespective of any of my prior reservations, had either of the major parties invited her on board and appointed her as leader, it would have been enough to swing my vote. I believe that Australia missed a great opportunity by failing to recognise just how much she had to offer. 

When I see the types of people appointed to the leadership of our major parties, I often question the wisdom of their choices and ask myself the questions : "Can't they find someone better than that?" and "Is this truly the best leadership/representation that Australia has to offer?"

Of course, Her Majesty may bestow honours on whomsoever she chooses. It's her prerogative, but I do consider it to be a tragedy that other exceptionally talented Australians have been overlooked.


----------

