# Rudd and the stockmarket



## mime (15 May 2007)

Is anyone else concerned about what effects Kevin Rudds union friendly IR policy will have on company profits and the stock market? I personally want the good times to roll on.


----------



## The Mint Man (15 May 2007)

Put simply, YES!!!!


----------



## Nick Radge (15 May 2007)

Regardless of the IR policy, the markets have underperformed under Labour for over 50-years and I think you'll the underperformance is quite significant.


----------



## nioka (15 May 2007)

Nick Radge said:


> Regardless of the IR policy, the markets have underperformed under Labour for over 50-years and I think you'll the underperformance is quite significant.




In the past the markets may have underperformed under Labour but this was mainly because our economy was rural based for export income. This time we are in a resources boom which should last for some time. The legendry drovers dog could make money for the country right now.I'll probably vote Labour this time even though I have voted the other way for the past 55 years.


----------



## tech/a (15 May 2007)

> I'll probably vote Labour this time even though I have voted the other way for the past 55 years.




Why on earth would you swing.
People have short memories.
Highest interest rates seen to the lowest in 30yrs.
Fullest employment for the same period.
Budget surpluses.
Booming economies.

Yeh makes sence give it to someone to stuff up!


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (15 May 2007)

I agree !

I work in a company that is 99% union dominated and i have marched down goerge st against john howard, but i didn't for the last rally and i won't again.

All i here from Labour AKA the unions is all the bad things that we should get angry about. Yet i have yet to hear a single good opposition policy from either. The fact is the unions want to get rid of work choices , and replace it with what i say !

kevin rudds attempt at IR policy is crap, he should keep workchoices and build protection into it. The fact is it works.

the way i see it we need to continue to maintain a strong economy above everything else or else were all not eating and sleeping in bus shelters.

Howard takes measured approaches, imagine what will happen if labour comes out and says right 50% reduction in emissions by 2020 like it or lump it and personally i don't want them dipping into the future fund for crappy projects that should be privatly funded. We just privatised telstra why build another gov telco through broadband.

I think Howard has balls to make decisions that are neccesary and not popular where as Rudd is a puppet of peoples opinions.


----------



## doctorj (15 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Why on earth would you swing.
> People have short memories.
> Highest interest rates seen to the lowest in 30yrs.
> Fullest employment for the same period.
> ...



People do have short memories. They forget that liberal policies have had very little to do with the current state of the economy. The success of the economy (and by extension unemployment, budget surpluses and even interest rates) have had more to do with commodity prices being what they are rather than any economic mastery on behalf of Howard or Costello.

I suspect if labour are voted in, they'll have received a hospital pass - I'll be surprised to see China continue in the fashion it has on the other side of the next Olympics.

Given the economic advisors either party will use when in power are for the most part constant, I don't think either party has any significant advantage in economic credentials.

Any correlation between who's in power and economic performance more than likely has to do with the impact the state of the economy has on the psychology of swinging voters rather than the economic prowess of either party.

I'm not sure who I'm going to vote for, but I'm tired of the liberals and their supporters claiming they are better economic managers than labour when there is no evidence that is the case.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (15 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Why on earth would you swing.
> People have short memories.
> Highest interest rates seen to the lowest in 30yrs.
> Fullest employment for the same period.
> ...




How much of the prosperity is in despite of the various governments though eg interest rates were high worldwide back then. I recall Paul Keating actually made some long lasting changes which may have set the country up for the following years, & Howard & co have simply kept a steady course while the world generally has been prosperous.

It would be ironic that Rudd wins the election (or rather Howard loses) & a world recession begins (not saying it will but would be ironic).


----------



## chops_a_must (15 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Why on earth would you swing.
> People have short memories.
> Highest interest rates seen to the lowest in 30yrs.



Funny how Howard has been there for both. Short memory perhaps?



			
				Nick Radge said:
			
		

> Regardless of the IR policy, the markets have underperformed under Labour for over 50-years and I think you'll the underperformance is quite significant.



I would like to see the actual statistics on that if you have them.

But it is a fact that when there is economic hardship, left leaning governments/ parties have a tendency to come to power. It's not just an Australian phenomenon, it's more or less world wide. So it becomes a chicken or egg argument.

And at the end of the day, it has been Keating and Hawke that have given the Australian stock market such positive impetus through modernising the economy - floating the dollar and deregulation etc. and most importantly compulsory superannuation.

I don't think it will make much difference really Mint Man. If Labor wins, I'll put more money in bio-tech and enviro-tech type companies, if they don't, I'll keep more in resources.


----------



## mime (15 May 2007)

I was reading in the Australian that new construction contracts written up have clauses that allow for a 30% increase in costs if Rudd wins the election. How is that ment to help the economy or the rental property shortage? Good news if I already own a home but bad if I want to buy a new one.


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2007)

doctorj said:


> People do have short memories. They forget that liberal policies have had very little to do with the current state of the economy. The success of the economy (and by extension unemployment, budget surpluses and even interest rates) have had more to do with commodity prices being what they are rather than any economic mastery on behalf of Howard or Costello.
> 
> I suspect if labour are voted in, they'll have received a hospital pass - I'll be surprised to see China continue in the fashion it has on the other side of the next Olympics.
> 
> ...



You're right Doc,

Whoever wins the next election could quite possibly be dealt the death card... laboural or liber.

It is a mistake to fully accredit Johnny Rotten, Abbott and Costello, and minions with the remarkable run in Australia's economy. It has been an Angloshere phenomenom with USA, UK, NZ, Ire et al being along for the ride as well. The reasons have been extensively discussed on other threads.

The UK "Miracle Economy" has been under the stewardship of *Labour*... anyone notice that?

It all boils down to the US Fed who indirectly controls money supply for the whole English speaking world. Loose credit => Economic growth. Tight Credit => Economic Contraction. (It's a bit more complicated than that, but is the gist of how it works)

While Johnny Rotten and Costello haven't made a mess of it, the opportunity for true fiscal reform has been squandered. The taxation system is still an incomprehensible monster, and pork barreling and gravy training is as rife as it ever has been. Electoral bribery has been extensively expanded under the liberals. Plus we have become a puppet state of the US.

It's time for a change. I'm just not sure whether to trust laboural either.


----------



## mime (15 May 2007)

The Labor gov in the UK where in the middle. They arnt union controlled. Current Labor in a union bitch and swings to the far left. I have alot of respect for Tony Blair and what he did for politics(not being left or right) using the appeal of both sides. Too bad Australian Labor is a backward step giving all wage bargaining power to the unions otherwise I may have supported them.


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2007)

mime said:


> The Labor gov in the UK where in the middle. They arnt union controlled. Current Labor in a union bitch and swings to the far left. I have alot of respect for Tony Blair and what he did for politics(not being left or right) using the appeal of both sides. Too bad Australian Labor is a backward step giving all wage bargaining power to the unions otherwise I may have supported them.



Yer, I must admit the spectre of the militant unions getting a hand on the reins is not appealing in the slightest.


----------



## mime (15 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> Yer, I must admit the spectre of the militant unions getting a hand on the reins is not appealing in the slightest.




Then why support them if you know they will be a determent to the country?


----------



## doctorj (15 May 2007)

Union control of labor is almost a deal breaker for me too - giving power to those union groups is akin to voting for a socialist state.

That said, I'm not a fan of Howard's policies either.  Given one or the other will form government, it becomes a choice of the two evils.


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2007)

mime said:


> Then why support them if you know they will be a determent to the country?



I don't support anyone... yet. But am desperate to support someone other than the incumbents. I just really don't think Oz should be Uncle Sam's byatch.


----------



## KIWIKARLOS (15 May 2007)

WayneL: would you rather be Chinas bi$tch? The fact is the US strategic alliance is essential for this country sure they got to be superpower from the backs of English/european/australian hardship but the fact is they are way more modernised and moderate than the other three potential super powers (India, China, Russia).

The unions are good as a counterbalance to the opposite side of politics and big business. Without them we would all be on minimum wage with no benefits. Unions set up this country and its workers once all the protect is gone we are screwed. But saying that i wouldn't want them running the country.


----------



## mime (15 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> I don't support anyone... yet. But am desperate to support someone other than the incumbents. I just really don't think Oz should be Uncle Sam's byatch.




Is the UK uncle Sams bitch too or a partner?


----------



## Buster (15 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> I don't support anyone... yet. But am desperate to support someone other than the incumbents. I just really don't think Oz should be Uncle Sam's byatch.




Ha.. I seem to remember standing on the flight deck of HMAS DARWIN way, way back for the first deployment of Desert Storm (called Op Damask).. And it was Bob Hawke that was giving us the farewell gee up.. Now he is certainly not one of the current incumbents..

I'm tipping it don't matter one way or the other, we'll always be 'Uncle Sam's byatch'..  

Regards,

Buster


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 May 2007)

It has far more to do with bankers and the international situation IMO.

Howard was Treasurer for the highest interest rates we've ever seen. Now he's Prime Minister for the lowest.

Bob Hawke came to power at a time of economic strife, saw the boom times of the 80's and was replaced around the time it ended.

Victoria in the 1980's had a Labor government. Tasmania had a Liberal government. Both states ran up massive debt to fund overly expensive infrastructure and, even more seriously, ongoing expenditure.

Victorians elected the Liberals to fix it, Tasmanians elected Labor-Green immediately before the problem became widely known - but the new government did its best to balance the books. Then Victorians put Labor back into office and Tasmanians returned the Liberals. Following another six years of stagnation, Tasmanians went back to Labor handing them a truly massive majority. Since then the economy has boomed or, as Labor would likely put it, been energized.

So, Howard tells us that Liberal is the party of economic stability and debt repayment. Victorians might well agree. Tasmanians would argue that Liberal is the one who promised more debt and Labor's the one that repays it. All of which comes down to what the international circumstances were at the time they were last in office for an extended period - we'd have seen interest rates fall no matter if it were Liberal or Labor unless one of them seriously proposes to start running the US Fed or hyperinflating the currency.

Given the recent economic success and that economics tends to be cyclical, I'd hate to the the next PM. Odds are that no matter if it's Labor or Liberal they'll face some very difficult times one way or another and quite possibly be branded "economically irresponsible" for it - if he stays around then that could well end up being Howard (though he's probably too smart to stay around for that).


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 May 2007)

KIWIKARLOS said:


> The unions are good as a counterbalance to the opposite side of politics and big business.



Always good to have some balance, even if you totally disagree with what they're saying. 

Anything that goes totally unopposed eventually goes too far and usually ends up with a spectacular collapse. Absolute power...


----------



## Kimosabi (15 May 2007)

Interesting question, who was in power during the Great Depression?

Unfortunately, I think this may be one the last elections Labor will win for a very long time.

The reason I say this, is that we are probably going to see everything go Bust big-time while we have all Federal and State Goverments running under Labor.

I wouldn't be surprised if the Liberals know this and will deliberately loose the next Federal Election, banking on the fact that they will probably stay in power for another 20 - 30 years after Rudd and Labor get left carrying the can and then get wiped out in the subsequent election...


----------



## constable (15 May 2007)

Kimosabi said:


> Interesting question, who was in power during the Great Depression?
> 
> Unfortunately, I think this may be one the last elections Labor will win for a very long time.
> 
> ...




That's sure easy to subscribe to Kimo, but good golly it's cynical!!


----------



## YELNATS (15 May 2007)

Smurf1976 said:


> Always good to have some balance, even if you totally disagree with what they're saying.
> 
> Anything that goes totally unopposed eventually goes too far and usually ends up with a spectacular collapse. Absolute power...




... corrupts absolutely. I completely concur.

Although a died-in-the-wool capitalist, I would like to see the ALP given a go. The Libs are in denial over climate change and the electorate knows it. I nearly voted Labour last time, but realised at the last moment that Latham was lurching out of control. Rudd and his team bring a much-needed breath of fresh air. I don't think the markets have anything to fear from change.  

regards YN.


----------



## mime (15 May 2007)

YELNATS said:


> ... corrupts absolutely. I completely concur.
> 
> Although a died-in-the-wool capitalist, I would like to see the ALP given a go. The Libs are in denial over climate change and the electorate knows it. I nearly voted Labour last time, but realised at the last moment that Latham was lurching out of control. Rudd and his team bring a much-needed breath of fresh air. I don't think the markets have anything to fear from change.
> 
> regards YN.




Even with the unions controlling wages?


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2007)

Buster said:


> Ha.. I seem to remember standing on the flight deck of HMAS DARWIN way, way back for the first deployment of Desert Storm (called Op Damask).. And it was Bob Hawke that was giving us the farewell gee up.. Now he is certainly not one of the current incumbents..
> 
> I'm tipping it don't matter one way or the other, we'll always be 'Uncle Sam's byatch'..
> 
> ...



Yer,

But we should at least play hard to get


----------



## wayneL (15 May 2007)

mime said:


> Is the UK uncle Sams bitch too or a partner?



Yup, byatch too. But the populace aren't. American is deeply unpopular in the UK and Tony bLIAR is paying the price now for being Bush's poodle.


----------



## YELNATS (15 May 2007)

mime said:


> Even with the unions controlling wages?





But I don't see that happening. Unions are a but weedy version of the force they were in bygone decades. Observe their decline in membership and political clout.


----------



## nizar (15 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> I just really don't think Oz should be Uncle Sam's byatch.




Agree wholly, my friend 
Thats the way i see things as well.


----------



## wavepicker (15 May 2007)

mime said:


> Is anyone else concerned about what effects Kevin Rudds union friendly IR policy will have on company profits and the stock market? I personally want the good times to roll on.





it's interesting how people like to keep the status quo in terms of governments after the markets have been doing well. 

The forces of the market are internal, dynamic and feed upon themselves, the market will do what it wants irrespective of whoever is in power and if anything are more subject to the movements of the global economy market as whole.

This secular bull market really took off in the early to mid eighties(just like the US amrkets did). We have had 3 changes of government in that period

Cheers


----------



## Julia (15 May 2007)

Only one person has referred to the concern of having both Federal and all State Governments as Labor.  The idea horrifies me almost as much as the fear of hearing Julia Gillard's voice even more than I do now.


----------



## Spaghetti (15 May 2007)

I cannot see how Howard has done a great job with the economy.

It reminds me a bit of dutch syndrome. We are too heavily reliant on the resource boom which has increased the value of our dollar and hurt other industries in the process.

The bite will not hit until the resource boom ends big time but in the meanwhile it has already bit for those not directly benefiting from it, hence the two speed economy we have. The unethical issue here is that the resources we are digging out of the ground do actually belong to all Australians. We tend to forget that when we bet on our next big stock lol.

The trouble with low interest rates plus a resource boom is that debt has gone out of control. When interest rates were high people did not accumulate such high degree of debt so when bad times hit it wasn't so critical as it will be in a future downturn.

Also on the union note. the unions did get a bit out of control and did need restraining. However they did build the workplace culture in Australia that defined us an a egalitarian nation. It was an Australian trait that we used to be proud of. I did prefer it that way in all honesty, compared to today ...plus back then people were allowed to have a personality, now our businesses are becoming populated with workplace culture clones rather than real people. Defined by technical savvy robotics rather than lazzie-faire thinking.

Plus the war, really the only reason required to rid ourselves of Howard. Huge humanatarian disaster.


----------



## Uncle Festivus (15 May 2007)

Another thing overlooked is the fact that if Labor does win won't the Senate still be controlled by the Liberals? Will that be a constitutional nightmare? Is that correct?


----------



## mime (15 May 2007)

YELNATS said:


> But I don't see that happening. Unions are a but weedy version of the force they were in bygone decades. Observe their decline in membership and political clout.




No. Labor wants to introduce collective bargaining and the unions are likely to negotiate the terms. This is fine for big business but when small and medium sized business come against the resources of the union they don't stand a chance. 

I've read numerous stories of unions bullying companies and the companies can't do anything because the unions are protect by statue law. 

Doesn't anyone else think that the millions of dollars donated to the Labor party and the other millions of dollars spend on anti lib/nat advertising will not go unrewarded??


----------



## Nick Radge (16 May 2007)

> the market will do what it wants irrespective of whoever is in power and if anything are more subject to the movements of the global economy market as whole.




The cycle is also clear in the US as well - in fact more so. The US Presedential Cycle is very strong. Over the last 100-years the annual return under Republican power has been 6.6% verse Democrat at 13.3%. The same skew is shown in Australia. There is also emperical evidence to suggest that it's not aligned to the global economy. I refer to the following paper:

Investment Returns Under Right- and Left-Wing Governments in Australasia 
Hamish D. Anderson , Christopher B. Malone and Ben R. Marshall 
Massey University - Department of Finance, Banking and Property Studies 

Also suggest the correlation between the US$ and US political parties. Its been extremely clear since 1980 that the US$ weakens under Republicans and strengthens under Democrats.

That said, over the last 100-years, the US$ has been devalued substantially more under Democrats, value = $0.12 verse $0.33 under Republicans.


----------



## wayneL (16 May 2007)

mime said:


> No. Labor wants to introduce collective bargaining and the unions are likely to negotiate the terms. This is fine for big business but when small and medium sized business come against the resources of the union they don't stand a chance.
> 
> I've read numerous stories of unions bullying companies and the companies can't do anything because the unions are protect by statue law.
> 
> Doesn't anyone else think that the millions of dollars donated to the Labor party and the other millions of dollars spend on anti lib/nat advertising will not go unrewarded??



I have a feeling this issue may spook the swingers come election time. Maybe a lot of folks don't like the current system, but it sounds like Kevin cRudd and Julia Dullard ( I have names for all of them lol) want to take things too far the other way again.

*Julia,*

Good point re state/federal Labour duopoly (should the ALP win) More reason to think the pendulum could swing to far the other way.

(groan) the dilemma!


----------



## marklar (16 May 2007)

Uncle Festivus said:


> Another thing overlooked is the fact that if Labor does win won't the Senate still be controlled by the Liberals? Will that be a constitutional nightmare? Is that correct?



Not at all.  The two houses being controlled by different parties will make it more difficult to get legislation through, but still possible.  If bills are bounced a couple of times the incumbent PM can go see the GG and get BOTH houses dissolved.  Read your history on the Australia Card in the mid 80's.

m.


----------



## mime (16 May 2007)

Reading the newspapers Costello has accused Rudd of being a socialist. I wish it wern't true. Finger crossed for the Libs/nats. If they won the election on the basis of the introduction of the GST then their is hope.


----------



## happytown (16 May 2007)

mime said:


> ...
> 
> I've read numerous stories of unions bullying companies and the companies can't do anything because the unions are protect by statue law.
> 
> ...




statue law?

what, so they are going after pigeons now!

could you elaborate on the statute law in aust that protects the unions in the way you claim, ie provide the name/s of the act/s and/or regulation/s and their relevant sections and/or regulations as I find your assertion as to 'numerous stories' of 'companies [that] can't do anything because the unions are protect by statue law' intriguing

cheers


----------



## mime (16 May 2007)

Read about the case where three miners died in a NSW mine because of bad infomation provided by the NSW govt department. The mine was found liable for damages for their deaths even though they died by a mistake by the govt because of a statue written up by the Carr govt that protected the govt for negligence. I'm sure Carr is still happy now working at the Mac bank. 

Under the old system unions could call a strike when ever they wanted and not be liable for the damages they inccured on the business because of statues written in by Labor govt to protect them. They could also fine companies and collect half of it. I read a story where they demanded 50000 documents from a medium sized business and the business had to pay for the copies.

This stuff doesn't really happen anymore because of changes made but it may come back if Labor wins power.


----------



## mime (16 May 2007)

Read about the case where three miners died in a NSW mine because of bad infomation provided by the NSW govt department. The mine was found liable for damages for their deaths even though they died by a mistake by the govt because of a statue written up by the Carr govt that protected the govt for negligence. I'm sure Carr is still happy now working at the Mac bank. 

Under the old system unions could call a strike when ever they wanted and not be liable for the damages they inccured on the business because of statues written in by Labor govt to protect them. They could also fine companies and collect half of it. I read a story where they demanded 50000 documents from a medium sized business and the business had to pay for the copies.

This stuff doesn't really happen anymore because of changes made but it may come back if Labor wins power.


----------



## nioka (16 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Why on earth would you swing.
> People have short memories.
> Highest interest rates seen to the lowest in 30yrs.
> Fullest employment for the same period.
> ...




I've seen just as many bad times, high interest rates,etc under libs as with labour. Remember Costello's "core promises". Howard going from "honest John"
to an unbelievable stooge. 
Why on earth wouldn't you swing.
 Politics and religion certainly are good subjects for argument.


----------



## The Mint Man (16 May 2007)

Julia said:


> Only one person has referred to the concern of having both Federal and all State Governments as Labor.  The idea horrifies me almost as much as the fear of hearing Julia Gillard's voice even more than I do now.



Cant agree more.

EDIT: thought I would post it here, I found it quite funny..... but true!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUx0UK0e05c


----------



## Shane Baker (16 May 2007)

Thanks for the paper Nick

For those who are interested the link is

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=982691#PaperDownload

Cheers

Shane


----------



## happytown (16 May 2007)

mime,

i couldn't help but notice that you replied twice,

does this mean that you are

'all talk and no action'; or

'no talk and all action'   

you originally stated, inter alia,



> I've read numerous stories of unions bullying companies and the companies can't do anything because the unions are protect by statue law.




and i asked, of you, inter alia,



> could you elaborate on the statute law in aust that protects the  unions in the way you claim, ie provide the name/s of the act/s and/or regulation/s and their relevant sections and/or regulations




you subsequently responded, inter alia,



> Read about the case where three miners died in a NSW mine  because of bad infomation provided by the NSW govt department. The mine was found liable for damages for their deaths even though they died by a  mistake by the govt because of a statue written up by the Carr govt that protected the govt for negligence. I'm sure Carr is still happy now working at  the Mac bank.




are you simply saying that you have 'read about the case' or are you suggesting that i 'read about the case' - if it is the latter, please be so kind as to provide me with the case citation, as i currently have neither the time nor inclination to trawl through the Aust Tort Reports, or the NSW Law Reports, or indeed the Commonwealth Law reports, or any other law reports  in search of this case, which of course assumes it is a reported judgment as opposed to an unreported judgment

but of more significance here, you yourself have indicated it deals with govt  negligence, so it would appear to be a case about negligence and govt/crown immunity from litigation, and nought at all to do with, as you  assert, 'unions bullying companies and the companies can't do anything because the unions are protect by statue law' 

you then continue,



> Under the old system unions could call a strike when ever they  wanted and not be liable for the damages they inccured on the business because of statues written in by Labor govt to protect them.




are you stating that the alleged legislation explicitly authorised strike action  and further explicitly authorised that damages caused by the explicitly authorised strike action could not be remedied

or are you stating that the alleged legislation was silent as to explicitly  authorising strike action and damages remedies and that this silence was  interpreted therfore that by not prohibiting such action there was indeed an implied permissibility to carry out such strike action

irrespective of whether it is the former or latter, or a combination of the two, again please be so kind as to provide the legislative details, even if the legislation has been subsequently repealed, amended or substituted, and further, is the legislation you refer to state or commonwealth

and then,



> They could also fine companies and collect half of it.




as per above please provide the legislative details to support your assertion

further still,



> I read a story where they demanded 50000 documents from a  medium sized business and the business had to pay for the copies.




this sounds like it may be more likely a legal issue dealing with discovery and  costs, as opposed to legislation regarding 'unions [that] are protect by statue law', but nonetheless, giving you the benefit of the doubt, i simply reiterate, show me the legislation (in my best castro gooding jr)

and finishing with,



> This stuff doesn't really happen anymore because of changes made but it may come back if Labor wins power.




your use of 'are protect' indicated to me that it was present tense, as opposed to 'were protect' indicating past tense, thus my original line of questioning as to your assertion of statute law, ie law created by legislation, ie by parliament, that 'protect' unions

nonetheless for my own legal research and to further back up your 'stories' i  invite you to provide the legislative details regarding the 'protect'[ion] of unions by 'statu[t]e laws'

cheers


----------



## Julia (16 May 2007)

nioka said:


> Why on earth wouldn't you swing.




Nioka,

Could you outline exactly (a) what you feel would be the advantages to us of a Rudd led government, and (b) what you feel are the current disadvantages of the present government, in general, and as it affects you personally.


----------



## tech/a (17 May 2007)

*Yes I'm interested as well.*

I cant see any benifits from a change in government.
If anyone could suggest some we/I could make a list.


----------



## The Mint Man (17 May 2007)

Me three!
I cant possibly see how you could vote in someone with no track record... or should I say a Party with a bad track record. Not to mention most of his make up is a lot of sunrise spin, I have heared people say they like him just because he 'seems like a nice guy', because he was on sunrise.
Heres one good reason not to vote labor in.... I must warn, this may bring back painful memories to older ASF members 
Monetary Policy Changes:
23-Jan-1990	17.50
15-Feb-1990	17.00
4-Apr-1990	15.50
2-Aug-1990	14.00
15-Oct-1990	13.00
18-Dec-1990	12.00
4-Apr-1991	11.50
16-May-1991	10.50
3-Sep-1991	9.50
6-Nov-1991	8.50
8-Jan-1992	7.50
6-May-1992	6.50
8-Jul-1992	5.75
23-Mar-1993	5.25
30-Jul-1993	4.75
17-Aug-1994	5.50
24-Oct-1994	6.50
14-Dec-1994	7.50
31-Jul-1996	7.00
6-Nov-1996	6.50
11-Dec-1996	6.00
23-May-1997	5.50
30-Jul-1997	5.00
2-Dec-1998	4.75
3-Nov-1999	5.00
2-Feb-2000	5.50
5-Apr-2000	5.75
3-May-2000	6.00
2-Aug-2000	6.25
7-Feb-2001	5.75
7-Mar-2001	5.50
4-Apr-2001	5.00
5-Sep-2001	4.75
3-Oct-2001	4.50
5-Dec-2001	4.25
8-May-2002	4.50
5-Jun-2002	4.75
5-Nov-2003	5.00
3-Dec-2003	5.25
2-Mar-2005	5.50
3-May-2006	5.75
2-Aug-2006	6.00
8-Nov-2006	6.25

While labor was in they only managed to get below 5% once, at 4.75% after which it jumped to straight back to 5.5% (0.75% in one hit, if that happened these days there would be murder!), with a high of 17.5%  not to mention the above only goes back to 1990.
C'mon people lets face it, Labor has a **** record when it comes to running Australia. There have only been a handfull of things that they have done which majority Australians thought were good for our country.
On the other hand the Liberal party, over the last 10 years has done a damn good job in comparison. Why would you change?
If your thinking of changing (out of spite) because of one or two policies that you dont like then IMO that would be foolish, because Labor has a proven track record of F*@king things up worse then Liberal ever have. 

Cheers


----------



## chops_a_must (17 May 2007)

Mint Man. Can you please post me the details of the interest rates in 1982 and then also tell me who was the treasurer then?

Cheers,
Chops.


----------



## petervan (17 May 2007)

Looking at opion polls it seems like labour will win in a landslide. I own a deli and talk to alot of people and the general feeling amongst the battlers is its getting harder and harder out there.I personally think the stockmarket will not be affectted by a Rudd win.While theres world growth our market will continue to grow.Doesnt really matter who wins, the sun will come up the next day and all the companys your trading in will still be there


----------



## happytown (17 May 2007)

julia, tech/a and the mint man,

with respect

that's the beauty of voting in aust, it is literally a tick-the-box exercise with no justification required

gotta love those polls

have noticed how these political threads are getting more and more chicken little, the more the majority appears to be indicating a complete and utter demolition of the current govt is inevitable

imaginary nightmares of a leftist, socialist, commie pinko, economy wrecking, job destroying, wealth eliminating labour party just ain't cutting it with a sophisiticated[?] electorate

howard's scare campaigns have thusfar failed miserably

again gotta love those polls

and whilst it is still early days

you all appear to be well and truly in the minority

i hear a change a comin'

and mint man i noticed you did not include the interest rate from when howard was treasurer in the early days [see chops supra]

cheers 
	

		
			
		

		
	




disclaimer: recognition that it is early days and power hungry megalomaniacs never give up without a dirty fight


----------



## Spaghetti (17 May 2007)

Mint Man

I remember high interest rates. I was better off at that time. Go figure. Maybe having a mortgage of $20,000 on an Sydney inner city terrace in my 20,s when earning only a little less than today offset the higher rates. Also getting huge interest on savings (as you could save easily) offset also. You could actually save and buy a house outright if you still lived at home. Not that we stayed at home back then. Still I was single and could do it but my married friends at that time could easily save one income, doing even better.

So high nterest rates have made housing out of reach for many, so not such a bargain afterall.


----------



## The Mint Man (17 May 2007)

Chops I'm sure you can post them yourself, you wouldn't be asking if you didnt know.



petervan said:


> Looking at opion polls it seems like labour will win in a landslide. I own a deli and talk to alot of people and the general feeling amongst the battlers is its getting harder and harder out there.I personally think the stockmarket will not be affectted by a Rudd win.While theres world growth our market will continue to grow.Doesnt really matter who wins, the sun will come up the next day and all the companys your trading in will still be there



yes your right on the sun coming up 
In my opinion, opinion polls mean very little. An article in the sunday tele was proof of that. I have had one of these polls ring me up and let me tell you, they can be quite bias!
Also Im interested to know what you think a 'battler' is? Kevin Rudd thinks you can be a battler while earning $250000 a year.

Cheers


----------



## chops_a_must (17 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Chops I'm sure you can post them yourself, you wouldn't be asking if you didnt know.



It's just I find self-refutation so much more enjoyable. 

And no, I don't know. I'm just a retarded _no_ nothing pinko that lives under your bed. Lol!

And I think it's important you put the figures alongside these statements:


> "I cant possibly see how you could vote in someone with no track record... or should I say a Party with a bad track record."
> 
> "If your thinking of changing (out of spite) because of one or two policies that you dont like then IMO that would be foolish, because Labor has a proven track record of F*@king things up worse then Liberal ever have."




If not for your own education, then for the education of other people here as well.

But I pose these questions... what track record did Howard have before he was elected?

And;

if we made every decision in our lives based on people's track record, what would anybody be able to achieve?

Cheers,
Chops.


----------



## Rafa (17 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> let me tell you, they can be quite bias!




pretty ironic, that statement coming from you....


----------



## petervan (17 May 2007)

Battlers. My view may be different from Rudd,s but battlers I see everyday include drink ,drug and pokie addicts. Grandmothers looking after sexually abused children,pensioners struggling to keep there heads above water,chilren with no guidance as parents are both working long hours to make end meets.Eveyone of them has an interesting story and when there a bit short of cash and I give them credit 95% payback within a week.It,s the suits that you never see again.Seems to be the way of the world


----------



## macca (17 May 2007)

I would also be interested in differences in state by state attitudes.

For example, NSW is a stuff up, everyone in NSW knows that, but the NSW Libs lost the unlosable election by being completely disorganised.

I can readily believe that anyone in Sydney subs would be doing it tough, the cost of fares or tollways would send anyone broke.

Lack of land and huge govt charges have pushed the cost of houses way out of reach for the average wage earner in anything but the lower subs.

Schools and hospitals have had a number of consultants look at them but not much has been spent, again a state issue.

These are a all state issues, not federal, but I don't blame the average Joe for not knowing that.

I think loss of working conditions and the Labor state stuff up will cost the Libs a few seats in NSW.

That and the huge spend by the unions, should be enough to see the Fed Labor Party get home IMO.


----------



## The Mint Man (17 May 2007)

petervan said:


> Battlers. My view may be different from Rudd,s but battlers I see everyday include drink ,drug and pokie addicts. Grandmothers looking after sexually abused children,pensioners struggling to keep there heads above water,chilren with no guidance as parents are both working long hours to make end meets.Eveyone of them has an interesting story and when there a bit short of cash and I give them credit 95% payback within a week.It,s the suits that you never see again.Seems to be the way of the world



I mostly agree with your view on this. People that get themself into huge debt and cant pay their foxtel bill are not battlers, just stupid. 
Good to see that you give people a fair go with the credit.


----------



## greggy (17 May 2007)

The Howard Government, after 11 years, is looking a little tired.  I personally feel the good times will continue to roll on no matter who's in government. Mr Rudd belongs to the ALP's Right Faction and is fairly conservative. My reading of history is that previous Labor Governments haven't been that bad for the stockmarket with the exception of Whitlam.  Whitlam's Labor Government spent too much, too quickly.  At the last federal election I voted for Mr Howard and at the following state election I backed Mr Bracks (Labor). At this stage I'm still undecided about who to vote for at the next federal election.  I would pretty happy having either of them in charge.  Finally, Labor has finally elected a leader that is electable and is unlikely to scare away the horses unlike the Latham debacle.


----------



## tech/a (17 May 2007)

Well nothing so far.

Battlers ALWAYS find life hard.
Thats why they're Battlers.
It wont get any easier for ANY Battlers unless they (The Battlers) do something to alter their circumstances. Its not a governments job to make it easier for Battlers. Labor OR Liberal.
These people arent Battlers either. Go to Sudan or Ethiopia and get a grip on what poverty REALLY is.


----------



## The Mint Man (17 May 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> And I think it's important you put the figures alongside these statements:



I listed the rates from 1990-07 surely thats figures?
On the party with a bad track record, the fact that the unions stuff up just as many jobs as they save (been there done that!) is one example... Oh but thats the unions I hear you say. Yes but the Australian Union Party, I mean Labor party supports them thick and thin.
Here is an observation that I found quite interesting from Terry McCrann's 'In The Know' article which is in The Sunday Telegraph.


> That reality is the biggest problem Kevin Rudd faces in his assult on the howard government's IR System.
> Its hard to make the case that the system is bad when there are more people in better-paid jobs than ever before.
> And here's a sobering thought: it's heavily unionised, government-type jobs such as in hostpitals and education, with collective bargaining, where workers feel exploited - not in the dreaded individual workplace agreements area.




This thread easily gets off track, hehe  So On the original question, 'Rudd and the stockmarket',
How did Patrick do when the Labor backed unions almost took them down? also, was it good for the economy? which we all have to worry about, even if you dont give a rats about the stockmarket.

Cheers

EDIT; Chops, that last part was not a question to you, it's a general question to everyone on the forum. You dont have to answer and I dont expect you to (unlike yourself) plus you already admitted that your (and I quote) "just a retarded no nothing pinko that lives under your bed"


----------



## chops_a_must (17 May 2007)

I wont answer your questions until you answer mine.


----------



## Julia (17 May 2007)

happytown said:


> julia, tech/a and the mint man,
> 
> with respect
> 
> ...



May I just ask you to answer the same question as I asked Nioka in Post 46 above?  

I'm not looking for an argument.  If anyone can tell me of genuine advantages they believe a Labor government will offer the country as a whole and me as an individual I'm very interested.  I am by no means in favour of every decision the present government has made, but see it as the better alternative from all the facts I have available at the moment.

What concerns me is that I'm getting the sense that simply because the present government has been in power for so long, there is a mood out there for change on just this basis.  An acquaintance said recently that she would vote for Kevin Rudd.  I asked her why.  Her answer:  because she'd watched him on "Sunrise" and liked his sense of humour!!!!!!
The response to the Budget was positive overall - my impression was that it was more generally positive than any Budget in the last decade.  And yes I know that economic performance is not everything, but without it there's reduced scope for everything else.

I don't know whether anyone knows this, but I'm curious about when polls are conducted.  Is it during the daytime when most business people are not at home answering their phones?  Even if they ring in the early evening, a lot of this category of potential respondents would not be home from work.
I'm wondering how representative the actual respondent base is.  The only times I've ever been phoned to participate it was at 10am and around 3pm.

So, if we could have from the Labor supporters a list of reasons why they believe we will all be better off, that would be really helpful.

Thanks.


----------



## greggy (17 May 2007)

Julia said:


> May I just ask you to answer the same question as I asked Nioka in Post 46 above?
> 
> I'm not looking for an argument.  If anyone can tell me of genuine advantages they believe a Labor government will offer the country as a whole and me as an individual I'm very interested.  I am by no means in favour of every decision the present government has made, but see it as the better alternative from all the facts I have available at the moment.
> 
> ...




Hi Julia,

I often agree with most of what you say and on this occasion you've made several fine points.  However, whilst this government has performed well on an economic basis, I feel that its somewhat tired and bereft of new ideas.  Also, whilst interest rates continue to be low, the last 4 rate increases have had an effect on an electorate that is becoming sceptical of this government.  IR laws have also played their part.  I know some people working for Spotlight who were forced to give up their penalty rates for a paltry 2% increase.  Yes, Mr Rudd's IR vision still needs fixing, but a number of scrupulous have taken advantage of the new IR laws.  Howard's system works well for good employers who reward hard working staff, but some low income earners need greater protection.  There's also the issue of Iraq.  With many in the US questioning their own involvement Mr Howard is still sticking with Mr Bush.  More effort needs to go into Afghanistan.  
There needs to be greater amounts spent on education as its the key to a more productive Australia. Its low by world standards.  More needs to be done on climate change.  Until recently, the Howard Government was denying that this was a looming problem.
At the end of the day, it comes down for me whether Mr Rudd's team can be trusted to take charge of the country's finances and won't be holden to left-wing groups. More info is needed but Mr Rudd has the potential to be a good PM. The sharemarket doesn't seem that worried about the likely prospect of a Labor win. I'm still sitting on the fence.


----------



## tech/a (17 May 2007)

> I feel that its somewhat tired and bereft of new ideas




So both Julia and I have been looking for a list of these new ideas.
Reasons to vote for this new "Labor" government.

As for IR laws.
Amazing how everyones as happy as hell to get a few bucks in the pocket but whinge like blazes when more and more companies are being forced off shore to compete.
Think labor over seas is being taken for a ride---low pay etc---Think again for the first time these labour forces are being paid in a month what most have been paid in a year.

Cant have it both ways.

*Exactly what is labors platform??*


----------



## Broadside (17 May 2007)

I agree the government has been a pair of safe hands in boom times, and they rightly point to their zero debt and annual surpluses...all good stuff.  But while government debt is zero, private sector debt is at record - and frightening - levels and I don't see any national savings plan from either party that addresses this.  People are borrowing to the hilt on their inflated house values to buy plasmas and 4WDs and that is well and good, it is individual choice, but on a macro scale it is a potential recipe for disaster.  We run massive current account deficits and the scary thing is, this is as good as it gets for our terms of trade.   Gawd help us should they deteriorate or global interest rates kick up.

Neither party has shown any real vision on the R&D and education front, although the university plan offered by Costello is a start I guess.  When all the mineral wealth has been sold off from under us to fund our short term consumer bingeing, what have we got in terms of competitive advantage?  We must invest in science to develop intellectual property, the mining boom may last 10 more years but what then?  we need some vision and neither party is offering it.

Infrastructure...where is a coherent broadband plan from the Coalition?  I suspect they are doing a deal right now with Telstra to be unveiled during the election campaign, let's hope it is not a second rate, bandaid compromise, as I see Rudd's strategy to be.  But even Rudd strategy is better than nothing, which is what the Coalition has offered thus far.  They are complete Luddites in terms of technology and seem to have no understanding of the changing world.

As for global warming, well, Howard is now brought kicking and screaming into acceptance when he sees it is a hot topic.  Talk about cynical.

So....I will stick with the tired old Howard government, in the hope that Costello will kick him out after the election and get some vision and energy happening again.  Someone who sees the big picture.  I suspect if Costello gets his chance he may pleasantly surprise a few people.


----------



## nioka (17 May 2007)

Julia said:


> Nioka,
> 
> Could you outline exactly (a) what you feel would be the advantages to us of a Rudd led government, and (b) what you feel are the current disadvantages of the present government, in general, and as it affects you personally.




1. Honesty.
2. A swing away from being subserviant to George B
3. Capability or Rudd having a better relationship with China.
4. A fair go for those who sweat and toil and those who have sweated and toiled in the past, to make this a great country.
5. A new broom. The old one is tired and worn.
 I doubt if I will be affected either way. I may die with a little more or a little less. I have seen a lot of life, good times and bad ones, but I have never seen it as hard on family life as general working conditions are at present.
 We can't all sit around making money. Someone out there has to do some real work. They too deserve a reasonable standard of living.


----------



## nioka (17 May 2007)

Broadside said:


> Costello will kick him out after the election and get some vision and energy happening again.  Someone who sees the big picture.  I suspect if Costello gets his chance he may pleasantly surprise a few people.




Is that a core promise or a non core promise ? I don't trust him.


----------



## Broadside (17 May 2007)

wasn't Honest John the inventor of the core promise?  Never was there a more cynical politician than he.  I believe Costello has some integrity but it is not always easy to show as Treasurer.  His brother Tim certainly has a social conscience, I can't see the 2 brothers being that fundamentally different at heart.

As for the initial topic, Rudd and the sharemarket....I think Rudd will be fairly conservative and there won't be much change to the status quo, it will be global economic factors that control our fate in terms of the ASX.


----------



## nioka (17 May 2007)

Broadside said:


> wasn't Honest John the inventor of the core promise?  Never was there a more cynical politician than he.  I believe Costello has some integrity but it is not always easy to show as Treasurer.  His brother Tim certainly has a social conscience, I can't see the 2 brothers being that fundamentally different at heart.




I can remember Costello quoting noncore promises. I know of quite a few cases where one brother is a rogue and another a genuine honest person. A couple of jail bird local cases come to mind.


----------



## greggy (17 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> So both Julia and I have been looking for a list of these new ideas.
> Reasons to vote for this new "Labor" government.
> 
> As for IR laws.
> ...




Hi tech/a,

Surely there's some room here for some middle ground.  I'm surprised by the number of people who are so strong one way or the other (that's their choice) yet a centre position gets knocked by both quarters.  Also, please try not to use bold when asking questions as it can be seen as shouting (please don't take this the wrong way).  I still think overseas factors will largely determine where the sharemarket goes from here (the resource boom, Wall Street, China).

Cheers,

Greggy


----------



## CanOz (17 May 2007)

nioka said:


> Someone out there has to do some real work. They too deserve a reasonable standard of living.




Just what exactly do you think these people have been getting paid lately? Labour in Australia is among the highest paid in the world....not to mention the safest working conditions....ahhhh! Its hard to hire a supervisor on salary because once the OT hits they're on less than thier workers are!

I think the gov't should just pay everyone to stay home and watch TV....but then everyone would still figure out a way to put in a work care claim for that too!

20 years from now there will be no manufacturing left in Australia, no farms left...and the mines will be closing down.

Where's the plan for all of these issues?

Cheers,


----------



## waza1960 (17 May 2007)

The Best thing about Howard in my opinion is that he makes decisions that he believes are right for the country and sticks to them, doesn't change them just for electoral gain (except when election is near lol)and I believe Costello would be just as capable.Why take the risk on labour when the economy is in such good shape ?Let Labour have a go when the economy dips as it will.I can't come up with any pluses for labour being elected.


----------



## Rafa (18 May 2007)

Peter Laylor, generally a fervent Howard supporter has this to say in the Australian...

http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...alian/comments/work_choices_recipe_for_abuse/



> *Work Choices: Recipe for abuse*
> Friday, May 18, 2007
> Peter Lalor
> 
> ...


----------



## nioka (18 May 2007)

CanOz said:


> Just what exactly do you think these people have been getting paid lately? Labour in Australia is among the highest paid in the world....not to mention the safest working conditions....ahhhh! Its hard to hire a supervisor on salary because once the OT hits they're on less than thier workers are!
> 
> I think the gov't should just pay everyone to stay home and watch TV....but then everyone would still figure out a way to put in a work care claim for that too!
> 
> ...




If you are right why does it take 2 wage earners working long hours to have sufficient income to enjoy the standard of life that you no doubt enjoy. Remember it was the industry protection under the mensies era that helped make this country great. We run the risk of that being lost if the "economic rationalists" like Costello rely on the mining boom to be Australia's only industry.


----------



## mark70920 (18 May 2007)

PAUL KEATING: First of all you take him on. Howard had the highest interest rates in Australian history - 21% bank rates in 1982. What did he leave? He gave us a huge recession and 11% inflation. We had interest rates peaking at 18 per cent but we came out of it with 1 per cent inflation. 

Howard got the benefit of the hard decision taken in the Hawke and Keating era, things that were very unpopular at the time but serve us well now.

Howard is a populist politician with little future vision, I hope Rudd can do a better job future proofing Australia.

PS: Will not affect the market much either way


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> Peter Laylor, generally a fervent Howard supporter has this to say in the Australian...
> 
> http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...alian/comments/work_choices_recipe_for_abuse/



Up here in commodityboomsville (Geraldton WA) wage earners are whingeing bitterly about Work noChoices... it's even on the front page of the local rag.

When I was running a furniture factory it would have been a dream come true (However like Tech/A, we paid handsomely to aquire and keep good people... well above award), but I was to the right of Ghengis Khan then.

These days I socialize with people affected by this and on balance, I don't think it is a good thing. There is absolutely no scope for negotiation on AWA's, it's "here's our mean spirited and particularly onerous employment contract, if you accept it we'll pay you the pittance it says, if not, &^$% OFF.

I observe it is actually counterproductive. The businesses that go this route have employees who are inefficient, because they are unhappy and feel oppressed. The business suffers as a result.

On the other hand, we used to have a very moderate union in the furniture trade. It worked very well and we actually supported the union. But for financial reasons they had to amalgamate with the BWIU and that's when it all turned to sh!te. Typical militant union nonsense. That causes business (and ultimately employees) to suffer.

Somewhere in the middle is a happy medium and neither side seem to have a good formula IMO.


----------



## CanOz (18 May 2007)

wayneL said:


> When I was running a furniture factory .




Just curious Wayne....what happened to the furniture factory?


----------



## wayneL (18 May 2007)

CanOz said:


> Just curious Wayne....what happened to the furniture factory?



Sold it. It continued for a few years afterwards but seems to have now disappeared. Tough business nowadays.


----------



## Smurf1976 (18 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Me three!
> I cant possibly see how you could vote in someone with no track record... or should I say a Party with a bad track record. Not to mention most of his make up is a lot of sunrise spin, I have heared people say they like him just because he 'seems like a nice guy', because he was on sunrise.
> Heres one good reason not to vote labor in.... I must warn, this may bring back painful memories to older ASF members
> Monetary Policy Changes:
> ...



Of course it only goes back to 1990. It wouldn't support your argument if it included the highest interest rates ever under John Howard as Treasurer.

Not that interest rates have much to do with which party is running Australia since neither of them have proposed taking over the US Federal Reserve. Until such an event happens, which seems highly unlikely to ever occur, interest rates aren't in the hands of Australian politicians.


----------



## Spaghetti (18 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> Well nothing so far.
> 
> Battlers ALWAYS find life hard.
> Thats why they're Battlers.
> ...






It actually is a government responsibility to ensure everyone has equal access to wealth. At the moment it is very easy to make money if you are a 30 year old white suit. Would not matter if technical and/or management skills are weaker than others, the young white suit will get the job. Discrimination is none more evident than in our own parliament. How do a bunch of middle aged and/or old white men represent Australia?

This is in fact a poor exploitation of our nation's greatest asset being the human resource, badly managed at the expense of greater productivity.

So yes, very much a government responsibility. If you had good management skills you would recognise that the most efficient and effective use of staff is the way to beat the competition. Makes staff happy through empowerment and has a flow on effect to the companies bottom line.

If you have companies whining about rewarding staff then it says to me, maybe the company should fire it's management.


----------



## moXJO (18 May 2007)

mark70920 said:


> PAUL KEATING: First of all you take him on. Howard had the highest interest rates in Australian history - 21% bank rates in 1982. What did he leave? He gave us a huge recession and 11% inflation. We had interest rates peaking at 18 per cent but we came out of it with 1 per cent inflation.
> 
> Howard got the benefit of the hard decision taken in the Hawke and Keating era, things that were very unpopular at the time but serve us well now.
> 
> ...





Hmmm the whole Hawke and Keating saved Australia is wearing a little thin. Labor got the boot for making a hell of a mess back then. Debt ,the good old payed to stay home (professional dole bludger)policies. Massive unemployment corruption left right and centre and strikes on a whim. How about that immortal promise “No child shall live in poverty". And who can forget Hawkes televised tears as that knife got twisted, even back then the labor party had massive internal blow ups and war in Iraqi part one,ahh good times .

Its a combination of the Hawke, Keating and Howard governments that were the build up to a stronger economy. Howard made a lot of hard decisions in the early years.
I'm sick of the whole poor labor victims to those nasty liberals arguments to support poor performance.
Maybe the pain caused  by labor from the last time they were in is fading. And people think its time to change governments. Personally I would like to see something more solid from labor then just a 'work choices sux so vote us in' type campaign though.

Will the stock market be affect that depends on how much leash the unions are given


----------



## rederob (19 May 2007)

mox
You will be hard pressed to find Howard making any hard decisions that were announced to voters before an election, except there was a GST introduced without any guidance on how it would work (Howard learnt from the "birthday cake" explanation that the GST was a can of worms).
Unless Howard can invent yet another major distraction -  perhaps joining the US in a fake "war" on Iran and its nuclear weapons - his government is likely to topple in the biggest landslide since Whitlam in 1972.
Our leaders make marginal differences to our economy, but have the capacity to be major influencers on certain sectors: As was John Button, and his legacy of a once thriving now barely surviving car industry.
Rudd has the capacity to influence in "clean energy" job creation and make investments in national infrastructure projects that Howard has avoided until push came to shove (probably out the back door in a few months time).
Outside of some fringe influences, our meagre economy will be at the beck and call of global giants that plunder our resources for a pittance.


----------



## greggy (19 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> Peter Laylor, generally a fervent Howard supporter has this to say in the Australian...
> 
> http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com...alian/comments/work_choices_recipe_for_abuse/




There are a growing number of nervous Coalition backbenchers in marginal seats worried about the impact of the IR laws on the electorate and indeed are probably regreting its introduction. IMO if it wasn't for the IR Laws, Mr Howard would probably be ahead in the polls.  Many of the so-called Howard battlers are returning back to Labor due to the unfairness of the new laws.  Whilst executive salaries are going through the roof, just ask Macquarie, there are many employees who are no longer geting a fair deal.  As I've explained before, I know a number of Howard voting battlers who will be returning to the Labor fold because of this.  IMO its all about fairness.  There are a number of employers out ther who take care of their staff, but there area also some out there who've been very unfair to their staff.
I've never seen a federal govt so far behind in the polls despite delivering a popular budget and good economic conditions.
Still I wouldn't be surprised if the sharemarket, looking ahead as it already does, has already priced in a Rudd win.  Once in govt, should Mr Rudd prove that he's a fiscal conservative then I think that the sharemarket will move even further ahead. Overseas factors (resources boom, Wall St, China etc) still have the greatest influence on our market.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2007)

A theme that keeps coming up is that Labor supposedly inflicted a lot of pain through high interest rates. Apart from the fact that the ALP has never controlled the world's major central banks, it seems things are even worse now under Howard.



> "In fact nationally the debt repayment burden now is higher than it was at the end of the 1980's when housing rates were much higher," he said.




http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200705/s1927481.htm


----------



## Dink (19 May 2007)

I think change has to occur but by this I only think that Johnny has to go. I, unlike a lot of people out there, am looking forward to Costello being PM. I think he will manage the economy well but have more compassion. And he is for an australian republic. Unfortunately we don't get to choose who leads the party. The only people who could force this to occur are those in Bennelong who could vote Johnny out while the coalition goes on to win the election. It is an interesting possibility that I am quietly hoping will occur. I imagine Johnny won't hang around for long into the next term anyway. 

PS. To answer the original question - I think the stock market will be better under a coalition government. But in saying this a booming stockmarket and making money is not the only thing that makes happy people and people should not forget this... probably isn't the best forum to make a statement like this.


----------



## Mofra (19 May 2007)

Julia Gillard is the one thing which would stop me voting Labour - their policy of compulsory unionism by stealth (unions allowed to charge "negotiation fees" to non-union members that are higher than union fees) will be an absolute disaster for infrastructure investment & already they are "rolling back" their policies for the mining industry.

Once more policies are rolled out it will be easier to judge their overall impact.


----------



## juiceman (19 May 2007)

While the Labour Party may serve some purpose in opposition  ( ie keep the bastards honest ) the thought of a Federal  Labor Party, running with State Labor Party"s sends a chill down my spine.

Do you really think a Union!!!!  can run this priviledged country?
Because that is what you will get!
Rudd is not the issue here, he is just the best face they could put forward, look behind,that smiling face and see the real picture.
Greg Combet has just entered Parliament to join his other Union Mates.
THIS IS FACT  nearly half of Labors members in Parliament are former full-time Union Officials.
Another 36 are former staffers of  ALP parliamentarians or full-time ALP officials.
Kevin Rudd"s real IR Policy is to hand a new monopoly to negotiate collective agreements through there unions and to charge all workers for their efforts.

Does any-body remember the union  (no ticket no start policy) of the labor gang"s.
Be warned, you don"t know what you got until it"s gone


----------



## nioka (19 May 2007)

juiceman said:


> While the Labour Party may serve some purpose in opposition  ( ie keep the bastards honest ) the thought of a Federal  Labor Party, running with State Labor Party"s sends a chill down my spine.
> 
> Do you really think a Union!!!!  can run this priviledged country?
> Because that is what you will get!
> ...




Labour certainly has strong union representation, so does society. They are no more dominant in the labour party these days than they are in our society.
They deserve a say and they don't get one now. They don't deserve to dominate and I'm sure they would not.
The libs are just as dominated by the other end of town.
I once wanted to fill a foremans position. I ended up offering a union organiser the job. He was a tough union organiser. He was a great foreman for the company and ended up in management.
I'll vote labour this time, my first time, because I believe the pendalum has swung too far one way.


----------



## juiceman (19 May 2007)

GST like it or lump it, all reciepts from gst is distributed to the now labor state"s and they still want more.
Remember when GST was first introduced by John Howard ? Labor was lying oop"s trying to convince their true believers that if GST was introduced they little johny and co would just increase it slowly?
The truth is it could never be increased unless each an every STATE agreed to an increase.
With a mixture of Liberal and Labor states we were all safe from that.
Now with all states being Labor. Kevin Rudd and co could increase GST if they wanted too.
Unless you totally trust Labor with that type of power think first.
Act in haste,repent at leisure 
Don"t think it could happen?  Just look at what happened in England with VAT.


----------



## nioka (19 May 2007)

Another angle to consider; Julia Gillard represents the union side of Labour. Kevin Rudd represents the middle to conservative side. Gillard couldn't get enough support to challenge Rudd as leader. Proof that the unions don't RUN the party?


----------



## mime (19 May 2007)

nioka said:


> Another angle to consider; Julia Gillard represents the union side of Labour. Kevin Rudd represents the middle to conservative side. Gillard couldn't get enough support to challenge Rudd as leader. Proof that the unions don't RUN the party?




How about the millions of dollars in donations to the party.


----------



## tech/a (19 May 2007)

> If you have companies whining about rewarding staff then it says to me, maybe the company should fire it's management.




In geberal terms I agree with the condition of  course that staff earn those Rewards. They are however seen by most as a right rather than something earned.


----------



## juiceman (19 May 2007)

nioka said:


> 1. Honesty.
> 2. A swing away from being subserviant to George B
> 3. Capability or Rudd having a better relationship with China.
> 4. A fair go for those who sweat and toil and those who have sweated and toiled in the past, to make this a great country.
> ...





Let"s Get It ON
1. Honesty hah! are you so nieve to think any politition will tell all the truth all of the time.
2. George B will pass in time as have others before him.
    But consider what Indonesia might have told Australia to do when we asked them to leave East Timor , had America not been standing beside us.
3. Rudd and China; He speaks Chinese so what.
4  A fair go for those that sweat and toil.
Do you mean the farmers,they don"t vote labor
Or is it small to medium business"s who"s owners usually bet their houses to raise capitol, and if succesfull employ staff, now they really sweat and toil for this great country.
5. Re the broom, no wonder it"s worn out look at all the s**t that had to be swept away before we could really get back to sharing this country"s wealth.


----------



## greggy (19 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> In geberal terms I agree with the condition of  course that staff earn those Rewards. They are however seen by most as a right rather than something earned.



Good point there tech/a.  Rewards should be provided as an incentive to staff that go the extra mile, not just for turning up.  Suych incentives often lead to considerable increases in productivity and leads to nicreased morale.
A harmonious workplace provides a win-win situation for both employees and employers.


----------



## Smurf1976 (19 May 2007)

Interest rates, unions, working conditions... 

All rather easy compared to:

1. Peak oil. It will happen, the debate is only as to the timing with even the optimists suggesting it's time to start planning.

2. Real effects of climate change. The actual flooding of major cities, lack of water, violent storms etc is potentially a truly massive crisis (assuming the science is right - I acknowledge the lack of absolute proof on the subject either way). 

3. Terrorism. 

4. US Dollar situation if it eventuates as many suggest. 

5. Human disease resistance to antibiotics.

Whilst they are all "doom" issues, they're all to some extent real and could well end in a crisis. 

Who's the best if things actually get tough and we have a REAL problem? Sorting out how to pay and employ workers or how much interest to pay on a loan is pretty trivial and ought to be outright simple compared to any of these or other serious issues.


----------



## Julia (19 May 2007)

nioka said:


> Labour certainly has strong union representation, so does society. They are no more dominant in the labour party these days than they are in our society.
> They deserve a say and they don't get one now. They don't deserve to dominate and I'm sure they would not.





I would question that union representation is no more dominant in the labour party than in society in general.  I don't have the figures, but I understand union membership is consistently falling.

Nioka,  You appear to have made up your mind about voting Labor.
How do you reconcile the concern about the country being wall to wall Labor with both Federal and all the State governments?  Doesn't seem too balanced to me.  Why are you so sure the Unions would not dominate under a scenario like this?  You will have Greg Combet actually in the government.
How many favours do you think he will be needing to pay back to all his Union mates and Labor party stalwarts who have shoved the previous member out to make way for him?

I do agree that there is too great a divide in our society between those who have done extremely well in recent years and those who have been left behind.  But on the other hand, the opportunities have been there.  There will always be a portion of the population who nurse a victim mindset and will never make the effort to change their circumstances.

I'd like to see some social changes, but I am not convinced that country-wide Labor will bring any sort of cohesion to the problems we presently experience.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 May 2007)

Julia said:


> How do you reconcile the concern about the country being wall to wall Labor with both Federal and all the State governments?  Doesn't seem too balanced to me.



Balance in everything.

Unions _and_ business interests. Greens _and_ pro-development people. Not one or the other but both.

IMO one of the keys to success in recent years has been having a different party for the Federal and State governments. To much of any one thing generally leads, at best, to stagnation.

All things considered, I'd rather see Labor running the states as the Liberals will just run up debt and sell everything. Whoever gets the outsourcing and consultancy contracts will be smiling but I'm more concerned about services to the public and keeping taxes down than profits for selected companies.

So I'm leaning towards the Liberals for the Federal government _unless_ there becomes a clear probability of the Liberals also winning State elections.

No chance though of me voting for whoever seems likely to form government to also control the Senate. Balance is needed and regardless of who I want to be in government, I don't want them also controlling the Senate. To do so is, if nothing else, sowing the seeds of their own demise as reasoned debate gives way to outright greed. 

This might shock a few, but the Greens are actually quite high on my list as far as the Senate is concerned despite my strong disagreement with several of their policies. We need balance and they're another voice if nothing else and are the only real counter opinion to the great bulk of policy that is common to both Labor and Liberal. Incredibly strange as it feels, Bob Brown isn't anywhere near the bottom of my list for the Senate for this very reason.


----------



## It's Snake Pliskin (20 May 2007)

tech/a said:


> In geberal terms I agree with the condition of  course that staff earn those Rewards. They are however seen by most as a right rather than something earned.




I totally agree.


----------



## spartn (20 May 2007)

Listen it doesn't matter who gets into power, Howard or Rudd, or even what happens with the share market, 'Go through life relying entirely on our working income, as your only financial support, you are stuffed regardless who is in power’.

John Howard said one year after he came into power that he would more than likely change the work place relations law, people have had ‘10’ fricken’ years to try and help their financial situations, and in those ten years look what has happened, 2 stock market booms and 1 massive real estate boom, if people had bothered to notice these things happening earlier on with some research, they most definitely would not be complaining about the money they are losing with the work place relations laws today.
And anyway where would most people be for their retirement years now if it wasn’t for the superannuation in 1996 which I think Paul Keating was responsible, the outlook financially for this country would be a hell of a lot worse. 

And with the major superannuation schemes that are happening this year less than 30% have actually done anything about it.

In the end, the major people who are going to loss a lot with the wok place relation laws, are the same people that said investing in the share market and real estate were to risky, when all the time relying entirely on your job as your only source of income, was by far the most riskiest investment of all.

In the end all I will say is "stop whinging', a large reason to most peoples financial problems today, are due to their own laziness, just imagine if you had spent all those year's you spent watching TV and reading about celebrities who live in a country you more than likely won't ever visit in your life time, just imagine if you spent even a quarter of that time tring to help your own financial future, where in god's name would you be today??

SPARTN

:viking:


----------



## chops_a_must (20 May 2007)

spartn said:


> John Howard said one year after he came into power that he would more than likely change the work place relations law, *people have had ‘10’ fricken’ years to try and help their financial situations, and in those ten years look what has happened, 2 stock market booms and 1 massive real estate boom, if people had bothered to notice these things happening earlier on with some research, they most definitely would not be complaining about the money they are losing with the work place relations laws today.*
> 
> And anyway where would most people be for their retirement years now if it wasn’t for the superannuation in 1996 which I think Paul Keating was responsible, the outlook financially for this country would be a hell of a lot worse.



But what if you are one of the many people like me who have come into the workforce during that time, with no ability to get ahead or adjust as you have suggested?

What if you have seen the education opportunities you favoured, taken away from you? Like has happened to my generation. What if the only way you feel you can be educated in the way you want is to go overseas, to get a job related to your education and natural skill set? 

It seems a natural disgrace to me that education is almost scorned upon, where labourers and tradies are paid more than the educated elite in society. Where mid level public servants, the cogs of our society, with university degrees are being paid less than the average wage. 

The education system has been utterly destroyed by this government whilst capitalising on the wave of anti-intellectualism this country has been engilfed in. /rant

But I agree with you, Paul Keating to me is the main reason for the substantial long term gains people have had in the share market.

Cheers,
Chops.


----------



## Julia (20 May 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> But what if you are one of the many people like me who have come into the workforce during that time, with no ability to get ahead or adjust as you have suggested?
> 
> What if you have seen the education opportunities you favoured, taken away from you? Like has happened to my generation. What if the only way you feel you can be educated in the way you want is to go overseas, to get a job related to your education and natural skill set?
> 
> ...




Chops, perhaps you have chosen a type of education which doesn't allow for as much financial reward as in other areas.  (I think I recall your saying you were a massage therapist or something like that?  Apologies if I have that wrong).
I can really understand the frustration of people who have chosen years of study instead of, say, a trade.  The latter appears to bring substantial incomes in a fairly short time.  
But education is of value simply for its own sake, isn't it?  It's something you will have as part of you long after that plumber can no longer crawl down drains or that painter climb over a roof.


----------



## Julia (20 May 2007)

spartn said:


> And with the major superannuation schemes that are happening this year less than 30% have actually done anything about it.
> 
> In the end, the major people who are going to loss a lot with the wok place relation laws, are the same people that said investing in the share market and real estate were to risky, when all the time relying entirely on your job as your only source of income, was by far the most riskiest investment of all.
> 
> ...




Yep, agreed entirely.  A couple who are friends of mine are high earners (psychologist and education consultant), no children, in their mid 50's.
Apart from their home (which they have as a result of an inheritance), they have no savings, and even now are not salary sacrificing into Super.  They simply prefer not to think about retirement and just spend what they earn.

Re the comment above that "investing in the share market and real estate were too risky", again, agreed.  I remember when I bought my first investment property all the doom merchants telling me I'd have trouble with tenants, maintenance would ruin my profits, I could lose some of my capital etc etc.  Yes, I suppose any of that could have happened.  But it didn't and I doubled my money in two years.  There will always be a "reason" not to do something.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 May 2007)

Julia said:


> Chops, perhaps you have chosen a type of education which doesn't allow for as much financial reward as in other areas.  (I think I recall your saying you were a massage therapist or something like that?  Apologies if I have that wrong).
> I can really understand the frustration of people who have chosen years of study instead of, say, a trade.  The latter appears to bring substantial incomes in a fairly short time.



Yus, you are correct. But my first choice of occupations would be one in academia eventually (not a good choice if you live in Australia) aside from my present work. 


			
				Julia said:
			
		

> But education is of value simply for its own sake, isn't it?  It's something you will have as part of you long after that plumber can no longer crawl down drains or that painter climb over a roof.



You are spot on there Julia. It's just in Australia, the prevailing attitude is against this. The "Why are you studying that?" voice is in charge. Unfortunately, education seems not to be something emphasised in Australia, which is sad, and certainly, because of this attitude, the rewards for being intelligent, knowledgeable and educated just aren't here in Australia (at least not in classically important areas).


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 May 2007)

I wouldn't want any politician handling my investments. Not one cent of it. They sold gold and financial assets before the boom to repay debt at a time of rampant asset price inflation and low nominal interest rates. That's been a dud investment strategy by any definition and yet that's exactly what they've done. 

It's anything but good economic management unless losing money was somehow the objective. 

The winners under these conditions have been those who did the exact opposite of what the government itself has been doing. Those who increased debt and aquired assets have gained. Those who sold assets (such as the government) and repaid debt have gone backwards in real terms - their cash wouldn't buy back anywhere near what they sold. 

A very significant point that is conveniently ignored whilst extolling their economic credentials. Our leaders are themselves failed investors.

At least they're good for one thing though. They make a truly wonderful contrarian indicator. 

They said oil won't stay over $30 for long and petrol prices will drop. Thankfully I invested in oil stocks.

They sold the gold at the bottom of the market. Just as well I bought gold stocks.

They keep going on and on about low interest rates. I pity anyone who didn't fix their massive mortgage before rates went up.

In the event that Labor gets elected, at least there's a job in investment newsletter writing waiting for Howard and Costello. They say sell - so you buy. They say it's going up - so you sell. Their track record is close to 100% as long as you do the exact opposite of what they're saying.

I'll give them credit where it's due though. At least they admit they don't know much about business and ought not be running one. They're spot on about that one unless it's a business with the objective of making dud investment calls.

I'm not wanting to be anti-Liberal here though. Labor would likely have done no better and may even do worse (if that's possible). Strangely enough, the Greens have got it right in the past about commodity prices but I doubt very much that was anything more than a convenient coincidence that suited their objectives at the time since they haven't reversed position now that commodity prices have been rising. Politicians in general are not good with money.


----------



## moXJO (21 May 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It seems a natural disgrace to me that education is almost scorned upon, where labourers and tradies are paid more than the educated elite in society. Where mid level public servants, the cogs of our society, with university degrees are being paid less than the average wage.
> 
> Chops.




Given that laborers and tradies are destroying their bodies, get exposed to all types of dangers and liability problems, and for the most have the risk of going without work for sometimes months this is a stupid thing to say. The work is seasonal at best and a few years of good times make the job worth doing and for some not by much. Considering the family house is usually on the line, you have clients that don’t pay or builders going bankrupt the one thing that gets you through is enough workload which we were lucky to get in the boom. All this is one of the reasons all the tradesmen have run to the mines, consistency of work and liability is someone else’s problem.

Why is someone that has spent years learning their trade through hard work, less then someone that sat on their ass for a few years and got a uni degree in something with limited work opportunities? Either do it for the love or the money.


----------



## greggy (21 May 2007)

Julia said:


> I would question that union representation is no more dominant in the labour party than in society in general.  I don't have the figures, but I understand union membership is consistently falling.
> 
> Nioka,  You appear to have made up your mind about voting Labor.
> How do you reconcile the concern about the country being wall to wall Labor with both Federal and all the State governments?  Doesn't seem too balanced to me.  Why are you so sure the Unions would not dominate under a scenario like this?  You will have Greg Combet actually in the government.
> ...




Hi Julia,

The last figure I saw was that 15% of employees were union members. As I've said before, I'm still on the fence, but any party having control of all the state govts plus the fed govt is a bit of a worry.  But the polls are still indicating that Rudd is still well ahead.  The Howard govt will need to pull something out of the hat if it wants to win another term.  Economically we are in a good position yet the voters don't seem to be listening.  Presumably many feel that Mr Rudd, not being like Latham or Whitlam, will be a safe pair of hands. Only time will tell.


----------



## trading_rookie (22 May 2007)

> Originally Posted by chops_a_must
> It seems a natural disgrace to me that education is almost scorned upon, where labourers and tradies are paid more than the educated elite in society. Where mid level public servants, the cogs of our society, with university degrees are being paid less than the average wage.
> 
> Chops.




Another reason why I'm not impressed with federal labor, 
which seems to be more and more a front for former ACTU secretaries who love(d) nothing more than ramping up the salaries of paid up affilliates the MUA, CFMEU, etc etc...


----------



## Sprinter79 (22 May 2007)

GOD DAMN, there are some dick brained statements on here....

Unfortumately, to most people, the unions are just the big fat pricks you see manning picket lines (mostly from the CFMEU). That's not the case. I am a union delegate, in a sector that has above average union representation. When the **** hits the fan, and the employer tries to take away conditions in the agreed to Award, you have to rely on employee representation. As a non-unionised workforce, you have no bargaining power whatsoever, despite all the 'assurances' given. Only with collective bargaining can you be duely rewarded for the work you do for the company. 

At the moment, the pendulum has swung dangerously to the right hand side, and anyone who argues otherwise has their head up their ****. The Workchoices legislation (which has now been revealed as a mistake by Howard http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=268676 ) was pretty much the end of the line. 

Taking away basic rights such as free association is bordering on a Dictatorship. If you think I'm overeacting, by pressuring people to not become members of Unions, you are doing just that. By refusing entry to Union officials, and Delegates (like myself) for official union business you are denying employees representation, and the right to associate with whom you wish. I will be the first to admit however, that certain elements of the union movt make the rest of us look pretty bad, and have taken advantage of this in the past.

BUT, I don't think that the future Labor govt will let the pendulum swing dangerously to the left (yes there is a dangerous side on the left), there is too much at stake. I have had a copy of the Federal Labor IR policy paper for a year or so, and there are still some things to be made public from this, so I can't share it with you all. One thing that is frustrating me is that they are struggling with the compromise with the mining industry, particularly here in WA. If they had stuck to what was written in the policy paper, it would have been sorted by now..

At the end of the day, the party in power won't make much difference to the markets. There may be a shift in the sectors which grow strongly (as has been mentioned previously), but on the whole, there won't be significant change. 

Union donations to the Labor party are more than matched by big business donations to the Libs.

As someone who deals with employers and employees all the time, I do have an idea of what is going on. The 'new system' is just as confusing as the previous one, with unfair dismissals being an exception (but that's another story). Since their introduction, there have been less calls to our helpline across our department, due to the fact that people are scared for their job. When people are scared for their job, and have no job security, production levels fall, and that is one thing that should get through all your skulls.


----------



## trading_rookie (22 May 2007)

> As a non-unionised workforce, you have no bargaining power whatsoever, despite all the 'assurances' given. Only with collective bargaining can you be duely rewarded for the work you do for the company




That's right, why only a union like the MUA could guarantee a salary of 75K in the late 80's for working an 8 hour day...where do I sign up!

Fancy the CFMEU wanting it's members to be paid while on strike...please where do I sign up!



> Taking away basic rights such as free association is bordering on a Dictatorship




When did the coalition say they would abolish this right? You have the choice of either individual contract or if you prefer have a union representative bargain on your behalf - difference is the ALP might even charge you for this 'right', we won't know until after the election since they won't reveal much. There you go, some more 'dick-brained' food for thought.

ps - no need to get back to me asap, I understand the workers are getting ready to strike over the toilet chain being too short, or did that only happen in the bad old days...


----------



## CanOz (22 May 2007)

> GOD DAMN, there are some dick brained statements on here....




And here are a few:



> Only with collective bargaining can you be duely rewarded for the work you do for the company.






> Taking away basic rights such as free association is bordering on a Dictatorship.






> If you think I'm overeacting, by pressuring people to not become members of Unions, you are doing just that.






> Since their introduction, there have been less calls to our helpline across our department, due to the fact that people are scared for their job. When people are scared for their job, and have no job security, production levels fall, and that is one thing that should get through all your skulls




Spoken like a true Union Rep.


----------



## trading_rookie (22 May 2007)

> That's right, why only a union like the MUA could guarantee a salary of 75K in the late 80's for working an 8 hour day...where do I sign up!




That should have read 8 hours a week not day...for some reason I can't edit my posts no more.


----------



## Broadside (22 May 2007)

Workplace reform should be about finding balance.  As a lifelong Lib voter I have to say the pendulum has swung too far to the right and into the hands of employers...there are unscrupulous ones out there you know!  Sure the same can be said for employees, hence the need for _balance_.

The thing is, these are boom times for Australia, full employment, high wages....when the economy hits a rough patch, as it inevitably will, a lot of workers are going to be treated very very badly.  Not necessarily out of economic necessity by the boss - but simply because the boss is in a position to do so.  

I don't want to see the bad days of strikes and secondary boycotts etc, but there has to be a happy medium.


----------



## The Mint Man (22 May 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Since their introduction, there have been less calls to our helpline across our department, due to the fact that people are scared for their job. When people are scared for their job, and have no job security, production levels fall, and that is one thing that should get through all your skulls.



Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the most recent productivity statistics showed an increase 

While I agree that unions are good for some workplace issues, IMO unions are a bunch of trouble making mugs 90% of the time.... I speak not just from my own experience but others as well. The CFMEU would have to be at the top of my mug list.
heres an example:







> The politics of the moment and union self interest makes it tempting for union officials to take any and every hardship or tragedy that occurs in Australian workplaces and try to pin it on WorkChoices. It might be expedient to do so, but it is both opportunistic and wrong. It weakens the credibility of other criticisms that unions make about WorkChoices.
> Two regrettable examples of this have recently arisen in the construction industry:
> On 3 July the CFMEU issued a public statement following a fatality on a Canberra building site announcing that it “will attempt to enter the site to investigate the circumstances” to determine whether the Prime Minister and Minister Andrews “have blood on their hands.”
> That union officials are deeply concerned at a fatality is entirely proper, but such language serves to politicise a tragedy, especially when ACT Federal Police, the Coroner and WorkCover investigators had attended the site and the Federal Safety Commissioner was already liaising with WorkCover and the principal contractor.
> ...



I just cant support a party that supports the unions like labor does


----------



## Sprinter79 (22 May 2007)

I didn't expect you all to agree with me 

To tell you the truth, if we could get rid of CFMEU blokes like Joe McDonald and Kevin Reynolds (over here in WA) the Union movt would be much better off.

Thanks for bringing up the ABCC. The stuff they do is nasty..... Regulator they are, independant they are not.

As for Workchoices bringing about improvements in OHS, that is bollocks. As I mentioned earlier, the reduction in calls to our helpline has reduced since the introduction of these laws. That is fact. The states are also refusing to work with ComCare (the Commonwealth OHS regulator) until the Feds fund it properly. WA's regional ComCare office in is Adelaide ffs.

You only get the choice of a Collective Bargaining Agreement if your employer chooses to offer one. This is ok (at the moment, but things WILL change) if you're in the mining industry and can earn big bucks sitting on your **** all day, but for the poor 16 year old girl working on the checkout at Coles, you get what you're given (ie minimum wage). There are already examples of IGA here in Perth being caught out for doing the wrong thing. They only got found because they were tipped off by another agency.

The minimum wage argument is another issue..... If the CCI got their way, workers would be getting paid in sticks to bring down the bottom line. As it stands, even with the ACTU arguing for higher increases, the minimum wage continues to fall behind. In industries with higher union representation, wages are generally higher, ie mining and construction, and lower in those industries without high union representation, ie hospitality, retail and childcare (remember, generally).


----------



## waza1960 (22 May 2007)

Two comments on unions: 1/ Why are union reps continually on TV commenting on OH &S I thought that was the job of Workcover ? Are they properly qualified to comment? I assume its for free publicity and try and show they are relevent.     2/ I think its a disgrace to our society that we  let the unions have public ballots all these years using intimidation to get their way and labour makes a big deal out of introducing a secret ballot in 2007.


----------



## Shane Baker (22 May 2007)

So what is the LHMWU doing for these poor oppressed people. 2/5 of5/8th of f *** all as usual. The LHMWU actually sided with the QLD Govt recently against Radiographers...their own members, advising that the Radiographers by considering resigning on mass might be acting illegally. If the unions ac tually did something for their members they might actually have a decent constituency.  

It makes me sick in the stomach to see this bullsh*t rhetoric. I was actually asked to be the public face of that campaign by the Radiographers as I had left the profession and wasn't susceptible to retribution by the LHMWU or Qld Health. I refused because I didn't want my family opened to media scrutiny and speculation. 

I am much happier making my own money trading for a living than dealing with this bull***t. I truly feel sorry for those who don't have the same opportunity to remove themselves from the situation where neither the union or the QLD Govt have their or the public's interests at heart.

Thankfully self employed and happy to be so,

Shane.


----------



## YELNATS (22 May 2007)

moXJO said:


> ....less then someone that sat on their ass for a few years and got a uni degree in something with limited work opportunities? Either do it for the love or the money.




I can tell you that getting a degree is no easy task. You don't get it by just showing up and looking pretty. It's hard work, mentally and physically, trying to balance a fulltime job, long hours, family commitments and travelling long distances to/from work, uni and home. I know, I did it for 7 years and I'm bl**dy proud of it! regards YN


----------



## Shane Baker (22 May 2007)

I agree totally. I wouldn't let the bastards grind me down either  
I have several tertiary qualifications including Masters Degrees. Nothing worth doing comes easy and the sooner Rudd and his union mates learnt that the better off all of Australia would be.


----------



## Sprinter79 (22 May 2007)

waza1960 said:


> Two comments on unions: 1/ Why are union reps continually on TV commenting on OH &S I thought that was the job of Workcover ? Are they properly qualified to comment? I assume its for free publicity and try and show they are relevent.     2/ I think its a disgrace to our society that we  let the unions have public ballots all these years using intimidation to get their way and labour makes a big deal out of introducing a secret ballot in 2007.




1) In WA, the WorkSafe commission was formed by a tripartite committee of UnionsWA (the TLC in former days) the CCI and the govt. This committee is still in operation today. If it wasn't for the unions, there would be no such thing as WorkSafe/WorkCover. There are OHS professionals within each union, and yes, they know what they're talking about. They will put their own spin on things, with their own agendas, BUT they still represent their members on OHS issues (where they can).

2) In 2006, the CPSU/CSA in WA had a secret ballot, and I have run secret ballots in my electorate. The ballots to elect Union Reps are also secret in the CPSU/CSA


----------



## Sprinter79 (22 May 2007)

Shane Baker said:


> So what is the LHMWU doing for these poor oppressed people. 2/5 of5/8th of f *** all as usual. The LHMWU actually sided with the QLD Govt recently against Radiographers...their own members, advising that the Radiographers by considering resigning on mass might be acting illegally. If the unions ac tually did something for their members they might actually have a decent constituency.
> 
> I am much happier making my own money trading for a living than dealing with this bull***t. I truly feel sorry for those who don't have the same opportunity to remove themselves from the situation where neither the union or the QLD Govt have their or the public's interests at heart.




I can't comment on this specific example, but what I can say is that the LHMWU is battling a continuing move to casualisation and general apathy amoungst the workers in those industries. Workers in this industry tend(yes tend) to be younger, and as such less educated about their rights and responsibilities.


----------



## Sprinter79 (22 May 2007)

YELNATS said:


> I can tell you that getting a degree is no easy task. You don't get it by just showing up and looking pretty. It's hard work, mentally and physically, trying to balance a fulltime job, long hours, family commitments and travelling long distances to/from work, uni and home. I know, I did it for 7 years and I'm bl**dy proud of it! regards YN




Yep agree there. A BSc and two PGD, but I did that before I had all the responsibilities a family brings on. Kudos to you sir!!

As for "showing up and looking pretty" try telling that to the Commerce students hehehehehe


----------



## Shane Baker (22 May 2007)

*apathy amoungst the workers in those industries*

Perhaps instead of deluding ourselves we might ask why the workers are just not interested???

Pehaps because the union is is just not relevant to their life?

Just what is the trend for overall union membership over the last 30 years ??

Don't worry its rhetorical.


----------



## Sprinter79 (22 May 2007)

Shane Baker said:


> *apathy amoungst the workers in those industries*
> 
> Perhaps instead of deluding ourselves we might ask why the workers are just not interested???
> 
> ...




I wasn't just saying that they are apathetic to the union, but to the job as a whole. All they want is to get in, get out, until they finish studying (or whatever) and something better comes along. Again, this is a generalisation. I agree that the union is struggling to find relevance in certain industries at the moment.


----------



## moXJO (23 May 2007)

YELNATS said:


> I can tell you that getting a degree is no easy task. You don't get it by just showing up and looking pretty. It's hard work, mentally and physically, trying to balance a fulltime job, long hours, family commitments and travelling long distances to/from work, uni and home. I know, I did it for 7 years and I'm bl**dy proud of it! regards YN




A lot of my friends are currently doing a degree atm. One is a mother of 4 girls whose husband is in the last stages of his cancer treatment and she is holding down a full time job. Yes it’s hard to balance for her.And we try to encourage and help her in any way we can when she needs it.

Another completed his biotech and marketing degree he admittedly told me he was so lazy he was surprised he made it through. He once told his lecturer a spider had bit him then had to go to hospital to get a shot and a doctor’s certificate so he could dodge a test and pub crawl that day. He is currently in the US working in neither of the fields he studied in.

So different strokes for different folks. My point in the previous post was just because you did a degree in something with limited work opportunities does not mean you will instantly run out and find a job or you should compare your bloody wages. Then complain you should make more then the next guy by sitting in a job while someone else has to run a SE Business, yes great thinking.
You have a right to be proud, but being jealous of what you think tradies earn with no knowledge of what they have to do to make it. Maybe you should actually find out what half of them do make or have to put on the line to make it.

A friend of mine that owns a lot of business through out Aust once told me "Uni students , ahh that’s what us dumb people like to call *U*r *N*ext *I*mployee".If your not earning enough in your job then find another source of income, not the I have a degree life owes me mentality. And a side note don’t whine about the next guy damnit concentrate on yourself.


----------



## Rafa (23 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Correct me if I’m wrong but I thought the most recent productivity statistics showed an increase




Most of the stuff i have heard is that productivity in Oz is at record lows... (happy to have someone correct me on this too)

Tho I am not sure if this is a result of people not working as hard... or people working against more obstacles... as a result of infrastructure bottlenecks, be it in poor trasport infrastructure or poor broadband, etc, etc...

be interesting to find out more about this...

regardless, holding someone to ransom to make them work longer hours doesn't seem right, we can boost productivity significantly by allowing people to work smarter and faster.

i would like to see us go back to a pre workchoices system (i.e. before 2006) BUT with a single IR Desk, and with unfair dismissal allowed for all small businesses (whatever the definition of small business is... eg turnover < 10mill)


----------



## Rafa (23 May 2007)

The Australian's Peter Laylor once again....



> Joe Hockey and John Howard are now saying they never intended for Work Choices to diminish the work conditions of Australians.
> 
> You may choose to believe them, but what they are really saying is they never intended for Work Choices to cost them an election - remember the Prime Minister’s refusal to guarantee there would be no disadvantage to workers under the new system?
> 
> ...


----------



## Rafa (23 May 2007)

Peter Laylor said:
			
		

> I note that the Daily Telegraph has a story today about hotels stripping away almost all award conditions and paying people $13.47 an hour as compensation. The best bit is that the rules for the new underclass include not adjusting your bra strap or hair while at work. And Joe Hockey says the crux of the debate is that Julia Gillard is prettier than him!




http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/story/0,22049,21778739-5001021,00.


----------



## greggy (23 May 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> GOD DAMN, there are some dick brained statements on here....
> 
> Unfortumately, to most people, the unions are just the big fat pricks you see manning picket lines (mostly from the CFMEU). That's not the case. I am a union delegate, in a sector that has above average union representation. When the **** hits the fan, and the employer tries to take away conditions in the agreed to Award, you have to rely on employee representation. As a non-unionised workforce, you have no bargaining power whatsoever, despite all the 'assurances' given. Only with collective bargaining can you be duely rewarded for the work you do for the company.
> 
> ...



Hi Sprinter79,

"There are some dick brained statements on here" you say.  Being a union delegate you are clearly passionate about IR, but please try to use less colourful language.  Everyone is entitled to their own views.  I have commented myself on my take on the IR Laws. Some employers have used the IR Laws to reduce their employees wages, no doubt about that.  Its obviously also easier to get the sack. But its also not one way traffic either. There are many good employers out there who reward their staff.  But Sprinter79 I worry about what's going to happen when the economy turns sour.  Hard working employees need greater protection.


----------



## trading_rookie (23 May 2007)

I have no problem with salary reductions if the cost of living is also reduced. This is the only way to make Oz more competitive in a global market and stop offshoring.

What's the point of fighting for a few more dollars if the company decides to relocate your job or itself overseas? 
What will the almighty unions do?? Nothing, what can they do except whinge about boycotting the product or service...doubt it would even cross their minds to refund members fully paid up memberships 

I read in a business rag not long ago about BMW planning to offshore production to Poland but the German unions were able to convince them to build a new plant in Leipzig, East Germany where unemployment was very high. 

The deal clincher? Workers work on Saturdays without pay and a loss of some conditions - can't recall exactly.

Seems to me this is where Oz will be heading if our mentality doesn't change. Case of two steps forward and one back when we realise the high wage bubble will bust and we too will be happy to accept working on a Saturday for nothing. Unless of course we act proactively rather then reactively...


----------



## Rafa (23 May 2007)

i think history will record the years from 1950 - 2020 as a golden age where prosperity spread beyond the 'old' rich.

but i doubt a race to the bottom in wages is going to bring down the cost of living... we are already seeing prices of goods go up, not becuase of increases in local demand, but becuase wealtheir people in asia are willing to pay more for Australian produce than what they can get in Australian markets...

there are 6 billion people in the world at present...
we need to decide how we want be compete, on lowest wages, or by having the smartest employees and the best infrastructure.


(far out, i sound like Rudd!!!...  this was not the intention, i can assure you... but this IR issue is certainly driving me more towards labor at present)


----------



## trading_rookie (23 May 2007)

> we need to decide how we want be compete, on lowest wages, or by having the smartest employees and the best infrastructure.




What exactly is a smart employee? One that can adapt to change (change!?!?! we can’t even contemplate a change to IR!) or a well educated employee?

The above quote reminds me of an ‘offshore’ recruiter who said Australians were too smart to be doing manual and processing work. We should be concentrating on being innovative! Nearly fell off my chair in hysterics. 

Not everyone is cut out to come up with brilliant ideas, and most ideas are just that, they never eventuate into fruition. Probably explains why so many look to see what’s happening in the US and try and bring it here. Maybe we can classify John Sydmonds  as innovative for going abroad to the US and ‘borrowing;’ their mortgage model he used for Aussie Home Loans. 

Innovation is only half the problem, there are countless examples of lack of confidence from governments and private backers that has seen Aussie ingenuity end up filling the pockets of foreigners…black box recorder and the photocopier are in the legend status. Not that long ago, two Aussie writers came up with a screenplay for a low-budget slasher flick called ‘Saw’. Private backers of the film industry weren’t interested in this ‘sleeper’ that ended up offshore in Hollywood making it’s producers and backers a huge profit.

If by smart employee Rudd means a well educated one, well I don’t think that’s really going to sway a board of directors remaining here in Australia if the bottom line is being affected. Reduction in head count and cost cutting have more weight on an exec’s bonus being paid than say hiring the ‘smartest from the smart’ 

Maybe Kev forgot about Singapore. From third world nation to first world and a country of ‘smart’ lower paid workers in comparison to Australia. Singaporeans do enjoy paying lower tax, pay no bank fees and can use their nest eggs (super) long before they hit 60.

ps - Not having a go at you Rafa, comments are all directed at Rudd.


----------



## Rafa (23 May 2007)

trading_rookie said:


> ps - Not having a go at you Rafa, comments are all directed at Rudd.




   Nice one...
I agree with most of your statements...
But where do you see this race towards the smart low paid workers ending?

Does anyone know about Scadinavian countries... They seem to have it all, the socialist backbone, yet a highly productive, highly innovative workforce.... 

Are they all that they are cranked up to be? Is there anything we can learn from them, or did they just fluke it...


----------



## Spaghetti (23 May 2007)

Singapore is not a great example.


----------



## Spaghetti (23 May 2007)

Norway is a great example. Living off a resource boom like us, however everyone benefits and they have the highest standard of living in the world.


----------



## Julia (23 May 2007)

Spaghetti said:


> Norway is a great example. Living off a resource boom like us, however everyone benefits and they have the highest standard of living in the world.



Don't they also have one of the highest rates of taxation?


----------



## Sprinter79 (23 May 2007)

greggy said:


> Hi Sprinter79,
> 
> "There are some dick brained statements on here" you say.  Being a union delegate you are clearly passionate about IR, but please try to use less colourful language.  Everyone is entitled to their own views.  I have commented myself on my take on the IR Laws. Some employers have used the IR Laws to reduce their employees wages, no doubt about that.  Its obviously also easier to get the sack. But its also not one way traffic either. There are many good employers out there who reward their staff.  But Sprinter79 I worry about what's going to happen when the economy turns sour.  Hard working employees need greater protection.




Pfft, I can use colourful language if I want, you **** ***** ****** **** ******** hehehehe

Don't forget, I'm entitled to my opinion too, and can choose to express this opinion in a way I see fit : 

Yes there are nasty employers out there who take it to the extreme, and there are great employers too, however, when you MUST offer an AWA (such as WA TAFE's, if they didn't they would loose Federal funding) it makes it damn hard to do the right thing.
When the economy turns, those who are without the protection of an organisation like the Union will cop it in the neck. Like I've said previously, the minimum wage and the various OHS legislators around the country wouldn't exist without unions.

Anyone remember Court's rein in WA? Or are we all suffering from a "Short memory, must have a shooooooooorrrrrrrrtttttttt memory"


----------



## Sprinter79 (23 May 2007)

Julia said:


> Don't they also have one of the highest rates of taxation?




I'd have no probs paying more tax if it was spent on health and education


----------



## moXJO (23 May 2007)

Sprinter79 , Probably obvious that I'm not thrilled at the prospects of Unions getting their hands on anything. But I would be interested in your opinions on small business and unfair dismissal laws ,or at least a union perspective. Sorry for being off topic.


----------



## Sprinter79 (23 May 2007)

moXJO said:


> Sprinter79 , Probably obvious that I'm not thrilled at the prospects of Unions getting their hands on anything. But I would be interested in your opinions on small business and unfair dismissal laws ,or at least a union perspective. Sorry for being off topic.





No probs, for a start, I'm nothing like the militant union guys you see literally throwing their weight around haha. I work in the public service, and represent white collar workers, generally with a blue collar background, so I get the best of both worlds. Blue flu with white cholera is a nasty combo : 

Anyway, unfair dismissal is a touchy subject and does cause division in the union movement. I can't give you a 'whole of union' take on it, but I can give you mine. Personally, i see the need for protections to be built in, but you can't have it so that it is impossible to sack someone if they aren't doing the job properly or meeting expectations. I personally, and professionally, know of cases where a fired employee has brought frivolous claims on the employer. Its a huge waste of money and time, and that does act as a HUGE deterant (sp??) to firing someone. 

Soooooo, in essence, I definately believe that a happy medium can found on this issue. The way the Feds made the distinction was problematic, and allowed for huge companies to take advantage of the cut off point. That wasn't the intention, but ended up being the reality. But, where do you draw the line in the sand? 100 employees? 50 employees? 20 employees? What about using cashflow, or even assets? How do you stop big business from finding loopholes? So many questions....

At the end of the day, things HAD to change in that regard. I'm fine with that. I don't think it was done well, but i don't necesarily think Labor has the answer atm either (from their IR policy paper I have locked away). It will take some time to find that balance, but the pendulum has nearly swung off its hinges on the right side :


----------



## The Mint Man (23 May 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> When the economy turns, those who are without the protection of an organisation like the Union will cop it in the neck.



Mate, they will 'cop it in the neck' either way, some will lose their jobs because of it and theres nothing the union can do about that and they shouldnt act like they can!
In a situation like that I would take a pay cut instead of losing my job if I had to.
But you union guys dont have to worry about that do you? you can cause trouble while the workers lose pay (or their jobs in some cases) all the while your still getting paid through those very workers membership fees.

I find it funny that most of your 18 posts have been in this thread alone, how many other forums have you joined lately just to push the union/labor movement?

Cheers


----------



## Sprinter79 (23 May 2007)

The Mint Man said:


> Mate, they will 'cop it in the neck' either way, some will lose their jobs because of it and theres nothing the union can do about that and they shouldnt act like they can!
> In a situation like that I would take a pay cut instead of losing my job if I had to.
> But you union guys dont have to worry about that do you? you can cause trouble while the workers lose pay (or their jobs in some cases) all the while your still getting paid through those very workers membership fees.
> 
> ...




If you read my posts closely, you'll find that I don't actually work for the union. There's plenty a union can do when things go south, like looking after employees entitlements so that greedy shareholders can't get them if a business closes down 
I know your last comment was just a bait, but I don't even vote Labor, so I don't have a barrow to push


----------



## Smurf1976 (23 May 2007)

Rafa said:


> i think history will record the years from 1950 - 2020 as a golden age where prosperity spread beyond the 'old' rich.
> 
> but i doubt a race to the bottom in wages is going to bring down the cost of living... we are already seeing prices of goods go up, not becuase of increases in local demand, but becuase wealtheir people in asia are willing to pay more for Australian produce than what they can get in Australian markets...
> 
> ...



Surely it ought to be the aim of all sides of politics to increase, not decrease, the wellbeing of all Australians willing (whether able or not) to work.

The question is how to do it. Third World exploitation of the natural environment in every possible manner (mining, tourism, forestry, agriculture etc) or First World innovation and value adding. The former creates a lot of physical work, the latter brings economic wealth.:

Agreed about the 1950 - 2020 bit. Technological leadership, cheap energy, resource abundance, rising population, ability to increase debt. All have given the industrialised countries a massive advantage during recent decades and all are either presently under threat or ulitmately unsustainable in one way or another. 

I'm not convinced about the 2020 date though - do some research into world oil production over the past two years and you'll see what I'm worried about. A massive issue that all sides of politics are effectively ignoring. For those not aware, it's falling. At best that means present prices are way too cheap to sustain production. At worst...


----------



## arminius (23 May 2007)

norway, denmark etc pay a lot of tax but health and education are first class and free. (im sure a native could correct if im wrong). was only there a few weeks. 
we cannot compete in the world market on price. the only way is quality. we cant make cheap cars, but we could make damn good ones. how many of you drive exy euro cars, when a hyundai is half the price? 

actually we dont make much any more do we...

how do we create quality in the future? education. what has the govt done for education in the last ten years? bugger all. 

i look around my uni and see hundreds of intrernational students. they will take back home a good whack of our intellectual capital. the following generations will be far less able to compete on quality because other parts of the world would have caught up. if they are smart AND cheap, where does that lead us?

why are there so many internationals here? because its the only way our unis can cope financially...because they have been massively underinvested!

personally, i struggle to get by financially but i accept that. i just wonder though if students had more time to study, and not work 3 days a week, how much intellectual capital would our students have. our science student is not finding the cure for cancer because he is stacking shelves at woolies. (for 8 bucks an hour-take it or leave it)  more austudy isnt going to happen- just a thought though. 
our universities should have enough cash to maintain standards, and not force lecturers to pass dodgy essays etc in order to ensure fee paying students keep coming over. its a travesty for all our kids and grandkids. 
i hate the govt with a passion. bring on the election. if you are gonna vote lib, take a good hard look at yourself. the economy will be fine. no one is gonna come and take all your cars and plasma screens away. dont let the politics of fear get you. have some guts.
cheerio


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 May 2007)

Huzzah!!!

Well said.

I can give you a real life example of quality vs quantity. Do many of you guys know much about the plastic manufacturing industry?

A few years back, we did a significant amount of work in that industry, and basically, what was happening was that most of the plastic work was heading overseas. Where this industry was still doing well was in the actual design and manufacture of the steel dies used to make the plastics products. Depending on the size of the die, it can cost 10s even 100s of thousands of dollars to make, and with an investment that big, companies are still willing to pay a bit more for the quality, and the extra quality will pay for itself. That won't last unfortunately, and the cheaper asian countries will be sourced for this kind of thing (bottom line, bottom line).

Another example.... At a metal manufacturing shop, a few weeks ago... company A contracted company B in China to build some conveyor belt wheels, marginally cheaper than company C. Company B's wheels subsequently broke, and company A contracted company C to fix the wheels, at a MASSIVE cost, would have been cheaper doing them from scratch, but time frames were an issue.

On another tangent, if i had kids leaving school at the moment, i wouldn't be encouraging them to go to uni... Get a trade, earn some dough, then figure out what you want to do. BUT, get a qual in something, anything.


----------



## chops_a_must (24 May 2007)

trading_rookie said:


> What exactly is a smart employee? One that can adapt to change (change!?!?! we can’t even contemplate a change to IR!) or a well educated employee?
> 
> The above quote reminds me of an ‘offshore’ recruiter who said Australians were too smart to be doing manual and processing work. We should be concentrating on being innovative! Nearly fell off my chair in hysterics.
> 
> ...



Firstly, to answer the quote in bold: Research indicates that education plays a crucial role as to where businesses will locate themselves. At the end of the day, wages play a small role in locations for head offices. If wages were an issue, head offices wouldn't have moved from Perth and Adelaide to Melbourne and Sydney in the 90s and early 00s. Wages were undeniably higher there (Sydney and Melbourne) then. So why did they move? Because that is where the most highly educated graduates are located. 

Why do you think just about every major tech company in the world has their head office near Austin or in Silicon Vallley? It certainly isn't because, "wages are lower" but it is where the suitable graduates for the companies are located. If anything, I'd say Austin has some of the wealthiest paid workers in the world, so to me, wages are a furfy. Business head to where they can get abundant staff for the appropriate field.

The rest of your post ties in with my rant earlier about education levels not correlating with pay levels. In general terms, higher education = higher intelligence = higher creativity and innovation levels, which should in turn = higher pay. The fact that so many academically successful people have to go overseas to market products, to me shows the continual shunning of educated types in Australia. Maybe if Australian Unis were funded properly, they could help to market products that have largely been developed on their grounds ala Stanford, Yahoo and S.U.N. (Stanford University Network) Microsystems.

Someone saying you should only study something that gives you a job, is total crap. You can't help your natural skill set, be it language or science based. A lot of people who have studied something "practical" in high tech industries for instance, struggle to get adequate employment here in Australia. So I fail to understand that argument.


----------



## The Mint Man (24 May 2007)

Well Im sure most of you have already heared so I wont post it here as its quite long but heres the link: http://au.news.yahoo.com/070423/2/137md.html
Its about Kevin Rudds missus who is apparently ripping her workers off, how ironic


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 May 2007)

ooo yeah. Doesn't look good huh. I'm not going to defend her actions except to say that she would have received advice from somewhere.


----------



## somesortoftrader (24 May 2007)

Expect to see alot more on this story.. I'm tipping Joe Hockey will go after her company.  Cant wait to here Rudd on this issue, Wheezle!!


----------



## The Mint Man (24 May 2007)

somesortoftrader said:


> Expect to see alot more on this story.. I'm tipping Joe Hockey will go after her company.  Cant wait to here Rudd on this issue, Wheezle!!



I'll be watching question time at 2pm today on ABC just to see if it is mentioned, dunno if it will as there will be a investigation into this.

Also, I heared on 2GB earlier that the contracts in question were pre 'Work Choices'. That will make things interesting. 
It will prove that IR reforms are just that, a reform to what was already in place.
Click here for reform http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/reform

Cheers


----------



## Joe Blow (24 May 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Pfft, I can use colourful language if I want, you **** ***** ****** **** ******** hehehehe
> 
> Don't forget, I'm entitled to my opinion too, and can choose to express this opinion in a way I see fit :




Sprinter, just a reminder that although you are most definitely entitled to your opinion, at ASF we expect it be to expressed in a way that is respectful towards others. Please note the following section of the code of conduct:



> All members will treat other members with the utmost respect at all times. This means insults, name calling, personal attacks and the abuse of other members in any way are strictly forbidden. Please, treat other members as you yourself would wish to be treated.




Lets keep it civil please.


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 May 2007)

Duely noted, and ftr, there were no actual letters under those (*) in that post, it was just for effect


----------



## Joe Blow (24 May 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> Duely noted, and ftr, there were no actual letters under those (*) in that post, it was just for effect




I suspected you were being a bit tongue in cheek there but thought it was a good opportunity for a general reminder to all ASF members who pass through this thread, particularly the new ones.

Carry on!


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 May 2007)

:bowdown:


----------



## Sprinter79 (24 May 2007)

You reckon Labor party funding is dodgy? Check this out then...........

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=122475

Could just as easily belong in the "Is there a God?" thread :


----------



## wayneL (24 May 2007)

Sprinter79 said:


> You reckon Labor party funding is dodgy? Check this out then...........
> 
> http://news.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=122475
> 
> Could just as easily belong in the "Is there a God?" thread :



Oooooh I've had business dealings with a company these clowns run.

Let's just say it was highly unsatisfactory and leave it at that. (I didn't know it was run by freaks until too late  )


----------



## Kimosabi (25 May 2007)

Talking about Political Donation, here's the Chaser's take on Political Donations...


----------



## mime (20 June 2007)

*Labor and the stockmarket*

Does anyone think that if Kevin Rudd wins the election he'll increase tax on the the stock market similar to what the Labor states have done to property?


----------



## chops_a_must (20 June 2007)

*Re: Labor and the stockmarket*



mime said:


> Does anyone think that if Kevin Rudd wins the election he'll increase tax on the the stock market similar to what the Labor states have done to property?




No. It would adversely affect his wife's insider trading.


----------



## sharechaser (20 June 2007)

*Re: Labor and the stockmarket*



chops_a_must said:


> No. It would adversely affect his wife's insider trading.




Lol nice one chops. I don't know much about the influence of politics on the sharemarket, but if Labor were elected and reversed some of Howard's industrial relations policies, would that have much of an effect on shareprices of labour intensive industries such as resource/mining shares?


----------



## Rafa (20 June 2007)

*Re: Labor and the stockmarket*

theres already an old thread called Rudd and the Stockmarket...

This topic has been done to death, please find that thread and post comments there if you so wish.
And Mime, you already know about that thread, you've posted in it before, why start another one???


----------



## mime (20 June 2007)

*Re: Labor and the stockmarket*

I posted that old thread but I feel that this issue deserves a new thread.


----------



## Joe Blow (20 June 2007)

*Re: Labor and the stockmarket*



mime said:


> I posted that old thread but I feel that this issue deserves a new thread.




mime,

I don't see enough of a reason to have two separate threads on what are essentially the same issue - i.e. Rudd/Labor party effect on the stockmarket.

No reason why this question can't be discussed in this thread also.


----------



## Rafa (20 June 2007)

Thanks Joe...

And to answer your question mime... NO!


----------



## sharechaser (20 June 2007)

*Re: Labor and the stockmarket*



Rafa said:


> theres already an old thread called Rudd and the Stockmarket...
> 
> This topic has been done to death, please find that thread and post comments there if you so wish.
> And Mime, you already know about that thread, you've posted in it before, why start another one???




Didn't see this thread so posted in the new one, my bad. Thanks for the re-direction.


----------



## DB008 (20 June 2007)

The problem with the unions is that they price themselves out of the market. I have moved over here to WA because of the mining boom. I have heard so many stories about what the unions get upto. Like a bunch of school kids to be honest. 
And to think that they might be running to ecomony is very scary to be honest. 
Going on strike because there are only 2 flavours instead of 3 on the minesite. The truck for food is delayed because of heavy rain some 500kms away, roads r washed out, and the other flavour of ice cream can't arrive for another week. Woohoo, strike for another week! You've got to be kidding me!!!!
That's just one of 100's of stories l've heard. It's a wonder anything gets done over here. Then again, WA is like 20 years behind the rest of Oz. I know, l have lived almost all over Oz and been around the world several times. 
Just my 2 cents worth though.


----------



## Rafa (21 June 2007)

no worries sharechaser...

See article below from todays Australian... (a paper that generally supports the Libs)...

*Scare tactics ignore history*
by *Mike Steketee* - The Australian’s national affairs editor. 
Thursday, June 21, 2007


GREG Combet said it only once but the Howard Government has replayed it countless times: “I recall we used to run the country, and it wouldn’t be a bad thing if we did again.”

It was a year ago at a union rally and the ACTU secretary raised a laugh, which was the idea. But it was not the humour that tickled the Government’s fancy but rather the comment’s potential to feed straight into the mother of all scare campaigns against Labor.

Admittedly, the Combet scenario is pretty frightening. Look at what happened when unions previously ran the country. This bleak period started in 1983, with the election of union boss Bob Hawke as prime minister. The horrors that were visited on us included slashing tariffs that were protecting manufacturing jobs; floating the dollar; deregulating the financial system, including allowing foreign banks into the country to compete with home-grown ones; and, to add insult to injury, privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, together with other icons such as Qantas.

The unions, or most of them, opposed all of these measures, but don’t be fooled by that. They wielded real power when the government made them partners in the Accord. And guess what they did with it? They slowed wages growth by accepting rises in the “social wage” - tax cuts, superannuation and government spending in areas such as health and welfare - as a substitute for part of their wage claims.

It was a successful prescription, given there was a centralised industrial relations system that had allowed wages and inflation under the Fraser government - with John Howard as treasurer - to rise rapidly as successful claims in one industry flowed to others. The Accord allowed profit levels to recover, encouraging investment, faster growth and ultimately higher employment.

These days, Howard delights in contrasting the higher real wages growth under his Government with that under Labor. The reason for the difference is that by the time he was elected in 1996, the profit share had risen, giving scope for wages to start increasing again. They are still rising after inflation but not as fast as profits, which are at record levels.

Of course, we know there are some nasty union leaders just waiting for Labor to get back into power before they run rampant. Just look at what happened when union bosses such as Norm Gallagher, secretary of the Builders Labourers’ Federation, were given their heads. If you haven’t heard much about the BLF for a while, that is because it was put out of business in 1986 - by the Hawke government in Canberra and the Cain Labor government in Victoria.

Gallagher and the boys were famous for the ways in which they made employers sit up and take notice, by walking off the job in the middle of concrete pours, which did not do wonders for productivity, let alone profits.

Gallagher was an ardent communist (Maoist wing) but he was broadminded enough to stick his hand out for some fat developers’ commissions that allowed him to build a nice little beach house. When police had the effrontery to charge him, solidarity demanded the BLF slap bans on Melbourne building sites to force the state government to drop the charges. It didn’t, Gallagher went to jail and the Hawke and Cain governments legislated to deregister the BLF, meaning it could no longer represent its members before industrial tribunals. For good measure, the Cain government ordered police to raid BLF headquarters and seize its assets.

It was the Hawke government, too, which in 1989 broke the domestic pilots strike and destroyed their union by using military aircraft, foreign pilots and international airlines to carry passengers. Some claimed Hawke was doing the bidding of his friend Peter Abeles of Ansett. But that could not be right, because Hawke was a union boss.

Former Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees’ Union junior official Paul Keating was in thrall to the union bosses as well. Just look at what he cooked up, once he became prime minister, with then ACTU secretary Bill Kelty. They introduced enterprise bargaining, which sounded the death knell for centralised wage fixing. It also led to a substantial increase in labour productivity, more than the Howard Government’s favoured Australian Workplace Agreements are likely to produce. That is because there is more scope to find ways to work more efficiently when an employer negotiates collectively with employees than when he or she reaches agreements with individual workers.

What accounts for such unfriendly behaviour by union bosses-turned-politicians? Believe it or not, once they have managed to claw their way in to office, they want to get re-elected, and being seen to govern for only one part of the community is not the best way to do it.

That is not to say Rudd government legislation would not be more favourable to unions. Given the Howard Government has stripped them of most of their rights, it could hardly be tougher on them. But as someone who did not come up through the unions, Rudd is even less likely to see eye-to-eye with them on many issues than did Labor leaders of the past. He would have the authority of an election win to stand up to rogue unions.

Sure, Combet and former ACTU presidents Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean would play a part in his government, but they would be no more successful in wrecking the economy than was Hawke.

When the Prime Minister says, as he did last week, that Rudd is the “patsy, the proxy, the delegate, the surrogate of the union movement”, you’d better believe it. And that goes for his Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey as well when he asks, as he did on Sunday: “Does anyone seriously think that the Labor Party is going to stand up to the trade union bosses when it comes to the construction industry? They’ve got no history of doing it.”

Doubting these assertions would require looking back over a longer period than the past three months, and there’s no time for that in an election year.


----------



## arminius (21 June 2007)

a succinct article.
the howard government indeed lives by one strategy...the politics of fear.

it is a shame that so many intelligent aussies will succumb, as evidenced by these threads, in this 'information age'. im sorry, but if they get back in i will regard my fellow punters cowardly fools. 

this is the most important election in a looong time. please get the facts before you vote fellas.
hooroo.


----------



## trading_rookie (12 July 2007)

Apologies for the late replies…have been very busy of late. 



> I agree with most of your statements...
> But where do you see this race towards the smart low paid workers ending?



Hey Rafa, you mean the end? The bitter end? Who knows, undercutting is out of the question, could you imagine our almost defunct rag trade trying to undercut 15c or less an hour.

Maybe sacrificing part of your salary with a bonus scheme in place could entice at least some of the Australian companies to shelve overseas contracts. Meet your targets and get up to 15-30% of your salary paid as a bonus. But that’s not working ‘smarter’ that’s smart people working harder ;-)

At the end of the day, it’s not only national but international companies that we have to convince to keep a footprint here in Australia – I work for a global player who had no problem relocating almost 75% of a smart workforce offshore. Biggest factor was the strong value of the dollar – it was cheaper to setup business here initially, but now they can get 3 engineers for the cost of one here.


> Singapore is not a great example.



How come? Is it because of their political climate? Singapore is a great example of a country that went from a back water to a major player. 


> norway, denmark etc pay a lot of tax but health and education are first class and free



You can thank the abolishment of free education to former ACTU president/ Labor PM Bob Hawke for the introduction of HECS. Hawke got a free ride while many of us had to pay. 



> we cannot compete in the world market on price. the only way is quality. we cant make cheap cars, but we could make damn good ones. how many of you drive exy euro cars, when a hyundai is half the price?



We can continue our Coaliton of the Willing theme and go off and liberate and bring democracy to those who ‘need’ it and them lock them into long term reconstruction and trade agreements ;-)


> At the other end, movie location sets and special effects might be cheaper but the other clincher to get a Hollywood production made in Melbourne was our IR laws.



So the Coalition is right, their new IR laws means more work downunder ;-)



> personally, i struggle to get by financially but i accept that. i just wonder though if students had more time to study, and not work 3 days a week, how much intellectual capital would our students have. our science student is not finding the cure for cancer because he is stacking shelves at woolies. (for 8 bucks an hour-take it or leave it) more austudy isnt going to happen- just a thought though.



If uni students weren’t stacking shelves at Woolies they’d be at the pub pissing it up not studying. Staying up all night to complete assignments while having to get up in the morning to complete a work shift is fine tuning your time management skills, a great skill for corporate jobs ;-) 



> Firstly, to answer the quote in bold: Research indicates that education plays a crucial role as to where businesses will locate themselves. At the end of the day, wages play a small role in locations for head offices. If wages were an issue, head offices wouldn't have moved from Perth and Adelaide to Melbourne and Sydney in the 90s and early 00s. Wages were undeniably higher there (Sydney and Melbourne) then. So why did they move? Because that is where the most highly educated graduates are located.



Chops, I was referring to the actual workers (office and/or floor) not Head Office. It’s not difficult to employ cheap middle management to look after your cheap labour be it factory floor or back office duties that report back to a Sydney or Melbourne based HQ. A cost cutting exercise that most execs have already executed to cut expenditure.


> Why do you think just about every major tech company in the world has their head office near Austin or in Silicon Vallley? It certainly isn't because, "wages are lower" but it is where the suitable graduates for the companies are located. If anything, I'd say Austin has some of the wealthiest paid workers in the world, so to me, wages are a furfy. Business head to where they can get abundant staff for the appropriate field.



Ask yourself how many of those tech companies located in either Austin or in the Silicon Valley haven’t either toyed with the idea or done a feasibility study re: offshoring. Better still, list all the companies in these two cities…including the big one in Seattle and see how many already have a large footprint in India. It’s a competitve market out there and execs know their customers want to reduce the costs’ for the services they pay; cost cutting to increase margins is the only option. 

NAB here in Australia are already starting to shift application maintenance and project work to India. Seems the NAB has an interest in low-cost, high-skilled labour in India. (Source: my monthly subscription to MIS June 2007 pg 14) 

So chops you’re right, MNC’s want good skilled labour…the cheaper the better! ;-)


----------



## trading_rookie (18 July 2007)

> a succinct article.
> the howard government indeed lives by one strategy...the politics of fear.
> 
> it is a shame that so many intelligent aussies will succumb, as evidenced by these threads, in this 'information age'. im sorry, but if they get back in i will regard my fellow punters cowardly fools.



Mind boggling indeed. Somehow if one votes for the Coalition at the next elections, they’re labelled cowardly fools. On what assumption Arminus? 

I see you as a fool for believing the article was concise in it’s look back at the history of the ALP and somehow trying to win favour over the reader that the current ALP leader has the right stuff to carry the torch.

Infact, let me explain…


> GREG Combet said it only once but the Howard Government has replayed it countless times: “I recall we used to run the country, and it wouldn’t be a bad thing if we did again.”
> 
> It was a year ago at a union rally and the ACTU secretary raised a laugh, which was the idea. But it was not the humour that tickled the Government’s fancy but rather the comment’s potential to feed straight into the mother of all scare campaigns against Labor.



The thought of Burrows or anyone else from the ACTU running the country will be a ‘scare’. Reminiscing about the good ole’ days would make most of the 85% or so Australians who aren’t part of a union tremble in fear if they get a chance to run the country again. Come to think of it, with every federal ALP MP a member of a trade union, that could again become a reality…not a Combet ‘joke’.

Reminds me of QLD Premier Beattie. Not only Premier but also top honcho with the QLD Railway Union, the very union dragging it’s feet to help speed up coal exports. 
I mean who really cares if we’ve pee’d off a customer from Korea who like Aus is losing money over this ‘bludging’ attitude, unions and the worker first right?


> Admittedly, the Combet scenario is pretty frightening. Look at what happened when unions previously ran the country. This bleak period started in 1983, with the election of union boss Bob Hawke as prime minister. The horrors that were visited on us included slashing tariffs that were protecting manufacturing jobs; floating the dollar; deregulating the financial system, including allowing foreign banks into the country to compete with home-grown ones; and, to add insult to injury, privatisation of the Commonwealth Bank, together with other icons such as Qantas.



Oh love the journo’s sarcasm!, but he’s having a lend of himself if he thinks he can compare the past with the present, That is,  I-want-everyone-to-love-me cardboard cutout Rudd who needs advisors to inform him what side of the bed to get out of in the morning to a Hawke or Keating. 


> The unions, or most of them, opposed all of these measures, but don’t be fooled by that. They wielded real power when the government made them partners in the Accord. And guess what they did with it? They slowed wages growth by accepting rises in the “social wage” - tax cuts, superannuation and government spending in areas such as health and welfare - as a substitute for part of their wage claims.



If that’s the case, then why aren’t they happy with the Coalition? Afterall, superannuation has never been so good, and the tax cuts, so many that Swan still hasn’t had time to update the ALP’s tax reforms. That would be because they’re sensing they’re day in the sun now. Rudd is weak compared to Keating who had no problem getting the unions in a ‘headlock’ until they agreed with him. 


> It was a successful prescription, given there was a centralised industrial relations system that had allowed wages and inflation under the Fraser government - with John Howard as treasurer - to rise rapidly as successful claims in one industry flowed to others. The Accord allowed profit levels to recover, encouraging investment, faster growth and ultimately higher employment.
> 
> These days, Howard delights in contrasting the higher real wages growth under his Government with that under Labor. The reason for the difference is that by the time he was elected in 1996, the profit share had risen, giving scope for wages to start increasing again. They are still rising after inflation but not as fast as profits, which are at record levels.



Yeah, yeah, yeah the jury is still out on that one…


> Of course, we know there are some nasty union leaders just waiting for Labor to get back into power before they run rampant. Just look at what happened when union bosses such as Norm Gallagher, secretary of the Builders Labourers’ Federation, were given their heads. If you haven’t heard much about the BLF for a while, that is because it was put out of business in 1986 - by the Hawke government in Canberra and the Cain Labor government in Victoria.
> 
> Gallagher and the boys were famous for the ways in which they made employers sit up and take notice, by walking off the job in the middle of concrete pours, which did not do wonders for productivity, let alone profits.
> 
> Gallagher was an ardent communist (Maoist wing) but he was broadminded enough to stick his hand out for some fat developers’ commissions that allowed him to build a nice little beach house. When police had the effrontery to charge him, solidarity demanded the BLF slap bans on Melbourne building sites to force the state government to drop the charges. It didn’t, Gallagher went to jail and the Hawke and Cain governments legislated to deregister the BLF, meaning it could no longer represent its members before industrial tribunals. For good measure, the Cain government ordered police to raid BLF headquarters and seize its assets.



The BLF put out of business? Don’t think so, the QLD branch still exists, and I’m pretty sure that’s the noisy former BLF branches of NSW and VIC we see dictating and harassing all and sundry, not to mention demanding their ‘comrades’ be paid for striking of all things under the CFMEU banner. 

How’s that saying go…oh yes, the more things change, the more they stay the same.


> It was the Hawke government, too, which in 1989 broke the domestic pilots strike and destroyed their union by using military aircraft, foreign pilots and international airlines to carry passengers. Some claimed Hawke was doing the bidding of his friend Peter Abeles of Ansett. But that could not be right, because Hawke was a union boss.



To borrow this journo’s style of sarcasm…Hawke was voted in via the radical left because he was a communist, ‘but that could not be right, because Hawke said he wasn’t a communist’. 

Again, he’s having a lend of himself if he thinks Hawke didn’t help out a mate. Maybe he should have watched Air Australia that was recently aired on the ABC before putting his foot in it. If there’s one thing that the late Abeles learnt from the late Ansett it was making sure you had the right friends in the right places. Like Ansett’s connections with the Victorian Premier who made sure ‘northern’ shareholders like the late Abeles couldn’t take control of Ansett Airlines…the first time around ;-)

What did Hawke achieve? He brought in foreign pilots to replace ‘seasoned’ Australian ones who got paid a yearly wage to renew their license once a year while going back to their farms or businesses. He got them to sign an agreement that was six pages long as opposed to being something the thickness of the yellow pages.

Kinda like what Howard did with the MUA and what he’s proposing now, but Hawke is the hero, Howard the villain…doesn’t make sense.


> Former Federated Municipal and Shire Council Employees’ Union junior official Paul Keating was in thrall to the union bosses as well. Just look at what he cooked up, once he became prime minister, with then ACTU secretary Bill Kelty. They introduced enterprise bargaining, which sounded the death knell for centralised wage fixing. It also led to a substantial increase in labour productivity, more than the Howard Government’s favoured Australian Workplace Agreements are likely to produce. That is because there is more scope to find ways to work more efficiently when an employer negotiates collectively with employees than when he or she reaches agreements with individual workers.



Let’s ask the miners of WA if enterprise bargaining is better than an AWA ;-) And the nerve to mention ‘productivity’! not one of Rudd’s strong points is it ;-)


> What accounts for such unfriendly behaviour by union bosses-turned-politicians? Believe it or not, once they have managed to claw their way in to office, they want to get re-elected, and being seen to govern for only one part of the community is not the best way to do it.
> 
> That is not to say Rudd government legislation would not be more favourable to unions. Given the Howard Government has stripped them of most of their rights, it could hardly be tougher on them. But as someone who did not come up through the unions, Rudd is even less likely to see eye-to-eye with them on many issues than did Labor leaders of the past. He would have the authority of an election win to stand up to rogue unions.



Hahahaha, the ACTU have him so wrapped around their finger he can’t speak without their permission! Look at him squirm, he so wants to support the AWA’s afforded to miners but he’ll end up with a slap on the wrist. Well that’s what the ALP get for outsourcing Industrial Relations to the ACTU. 

To think, the ‘fiscal conservative’ ala Rudd thought he was so smug when he appointed Sir Rod Eddington (the one Gillard refers to as just another voice) to chair the federal ALP’s council of business advisers, and every ALP MP has flatly rejected. Seems they’re more interested in keeping the trade unions they’re member of happy rather than Australian businesses. So much for ALP being for productivity ;-)


----------



## trading_rookie (18 July 2007)

Apparently, I exceeded the text length, so I've had to break my post into two parts... 



> Sure, Combet and former ACTU presidents Martin Ferguson and Simon Crean would play a part in his government, but they would be no more successful in wrecking the economy than was Hawke.



Ferguson and Crean are practically hanging onto their seats in the Upper House – literally, on the outer. They’re definitely not part of Rudd’s dream team. No not like the ‘human sound effects man’ Albanese who no doubt thinks he’s at a union rally with all that noise he makes and walking up and down the floor.

At least Crean had the common sense to realise the ALP was on the outer with the Australian people because of their heavy trade union influence. He was on a good thing when he proposed reducing their influence from a staggering 60% to what was it? 50-40%. That’s why he finds himself having to battle pre-selection.

Face facts, most Australians workers don’t want to go back to the bad old days of not only being bullied by bosses but also by their union reps who demanded a fee for the ‘privilege’. Would probably explain why Tony Blair and his party is streets ahead of the Tories, fiscal conservatives with a social conscience and minimal union influence.


> When the Prime Minister says, as he did last week, that Rudd is the “patsy, the proxy, the delegate, the surrogate of the union movement”, you’d better believe it. And that goes for his Workplace Relations Minister Joe Hockey as well when he asks, as he did on Sunday: “Does anyone seriously think that the Labor Party is going to stand up to the trade union bosses when it comes to the construction industry? They’ve got no history of doing it.”
> 
> Doubting these assertions would require looking back over a longer period than the past three months, and there’s no time for that in an election year.



And that’s the problem with this article, it fixates too much on the past when the ALP had leaders of the calibre of Hawke and Keating…Rudd is a ‘patsy and proxy’ who jumps on any bandwagon, be it global warming, carbon trading, or housing affordability’, once the policy is no longer flavour of the week, he’s onto something else that might strike a chord with the public. Too busy wanting to be popular rather than standing by his convictions. That’s the kind of leader we need, not someone who’s going to dazzle us with his fluency of Mandarin.

Before I forget, speaking of housing affordability, maybe Rudd should get his state premier mates to abolish stamp duties and start using all those billions of dollars in GST they’ve collected for (as this journo puts it) the social wage – you know, health and welfare, that way pensioners, like those of NSW won’t have to lose those privileges the Iemma government is talking about.


----------



## Julia (20 July 2007)

Somewhat reassuring article from Aireview regarding minimal difference in the stock market whichever party is in power.

http://www.aireview.com.au/index.php?act=view&catid=8&id=6418&setSub=1


----------



## ideaforlife (20 July 2007)

I really don't understand people who want Labour simply becasue want to have a change when Liberal has been in power for too long. Why the hell do people want to leave this wonderful economy, lowest employment and plenty of others? Use sense!!! 

Apart from the integrity of Rudd - let's not talk about it, for God's sake, they are politicians, Rudd wants to appear to be intelligent and capable and different but I read one of the articles he wrote on Christianity actually it's full of cliche and cut & paste of others' works. Although Rudd might be the best in Labour, look at the state governments, whole bunch of imbecils having no sense of whatsoever. Ok, if you believe Labour is more environment conscious than liberal, let's' not talk about environment has to be backed by prosperous economy, just look at the decision of desalination plants - it consumes chemicals, energy, damages the oceanic environment. It still gets go ahead despite the fact that NSW just had its biggest rainfall. The reason? the investment in rain tank installed in each household, as suggested by Howard, doesn't generate revenue to the local government. Do Labour stick to what they claim they believe? NO! What I see is simple, more people go to work, bring income home, so our consumption ability is increasing, more and mroe luxury goods are coming to Australia and people get to enjoy more good things from the world. 

ps. (what it would be like when you don't have a work while still have to pay for high energy bills because all renewable energy cost much more than traditional energy. but don't wrong me that I don't care about environment. Global warming is more of a politically manipulated lie that fact. The correlation between temperature and CO2 emossion is too fragile to be tested given a reasonable lengthy time frame. This cold winter across eastern coast here gives global warming abother laughter)


----------



## Warren Buffet II (20 July 2007)

Kevin Rudd is a union puppet and that says it all. 

I do not want to say that he is an idiot or an imbecil.

Go Johnny, keep the good work and bring more prosperity to this country.

WBII


----------



## Rafa (20 July 2007)

Julia said:


> Somewhat reassuring article from Aireview regarding minimal difference in the stock market whichever party is in power.
> 
> http://www.aireview.com.au/index.php?act=view&catid=8&id=6418&setSub=1




yeah, i saw that... it obviously doens't matter who is in charge.


ideaforlife...
its for that very reason, i am not voting howard...

the economy doesnt care whose in power, the stockmarket doesnt care whose in power, the unions are not going to end the mining boom  if labor gets elected...

its all a scare campaign to prevent people from voting howard out for all the morally irrephrensible things he has done... 

this election, its time to vote on whats morally right.... the economy can well take care of its self now given that its pretty much completely de-regulated.


----------



## ideaforlife (20 July 2007)

My goodness, Rafa, i can't believe that you don't care whose hands you entrust your country in! Are you saying that it doesn't matter how they spend the money or make a budget (not saying Howard is perfect)? It's like saying it doesn't matter whether its Greenspan or who in the position of Chairman of US federal reserver. It does make a difference!!

Ok, coming back to morality, would you trust Rudd's integrity more than Howard when the former lied about even his meeting Burk? and how many times they met?!! Rudd's wife allegedlly and unknowlingly underpaid her staff? Given more spotlight more of lies would be exposed to the public. 

It doesn't matter whether Howards have had private dinner with Costellos as long as they make right and consensus decisions for the country!


----------



## chops_a_must (20 July 2007)

ideaforlife said:


> It doesn't matter whether Howards have had private dinner with Costellos as long as they make right and consensus decisions for the country!



Just like he did for Iraq?


----------



## ideaforlife (20 July 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> Just like he did for Iraq?




You see, I do think it's a mistake to go into the war in Iraq but many people don't see the strategic implications in this involvement. Oh, well, I'm not a political commetator, just to express my opinions here or vent my spleen, no need to defend myself. Stop here. 

Cheers


----------



## chops_a_must (20 July 2007)

ideaforlife said:


> You see, I do think it's a mistake to go into the war in Iraq but many people don't see the strategic implications in this involvement. Oh, well, I'm not a political commetator, just to express my opinions here or vent my spleen, no need to defend myself. Stop here.
> 
> Cheers



The premise of the argument for war had nothing to do with "strategic involvement". How many intellectual classifications or literary works can we assign to the shenanigans that are being employed right now?

"We were never at war with them." "Or for that reason." Geez. 

We truly are living in an Idiocracy, and Howard knows how to play the majority of Australians like the idiots they are. He's got what morons crave! Yeah, he's got sophistry.


----------



## ideaforlife (20 July 2007)

Rafa, I just saw your ealier post with a paste from the Australian. Yes, it used to support Howard. But don't you know Murdoch has recently expressed his support for Rudd? Murdoch is renowned for his manipulations of sayings in his papers. And I guess in this case you have again been manipulated by media or you chose to be biased by this particular media. But pasting a commentator article from a newpaper is not convincing enough.


There is a saying: three things not to be talked about: sexuality, drugs and politics.


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> We truly are living in an Idiocracy, and Howard knows how to play the majority of Australians like the idiots they are. He's got what morons crave! Yeah, he's got sophistry.



"Idiocracy"... lol, you've nailed it.


----------



## mime (20 July 2007)

I think it does matter who is in power. If the unions get their way and cause a spike in inflation followed by a handful of interest rate rises the people will default on debt and the economy will go backwards. Down goes consumer confidence and with it the stock market.


----------



## chops_a_must (20 July 2007)

wayneL said:


> "Idiocracy"... lol, you've nailed it.



It's actually a movie, but it is a very apt description of people in the contemporary world. I think a person like you would absolutely love it, check it out. The clip where my piss pull is taken from is no longer on youtube, but this gives you the general idea of the movie:


----------



## chops_a_must (20 July 2007)

mime said:


> I think it does matter who is in power. If the unions get their way and cause a spike in inflation followed by a handful of interest rate rises the people will default on debt and the economy will go backwards. Down goes consumer confidence and with it the stock market.




As opposed to what? Howard doing the same thing in the last few years?


----------



## Rafa (20 July 2007)

uh... unions getting into power is not going to stop the chinese boom...

and ideaforlife...
its one thing to defend his economic record, thats ok (even tho i think a lot of its to do with external factors)... but you cannot seriously be defending howards morality.... !

and for the record...
Greenspan (are whoever is incharge of the FED) *DOES* MATTER... cause they control the world economy.

The prime minister of Australia, with its grand population of 22m DOES NOT! 

If you beleive any different, well then i suggest you go and read some books.


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2007)

mime said:


> I think it does matter who is in power. If the unions get their way and cause a spike in inflation followed by a handful of interest rate rises the people will default on debt and the economy will go backwards. Down goes consumer confidence and with it the stock market.



It won't matter who gets in, the economic agenda is now global. Consider the comparison of the UK and OZ... VERY similar trends economically and sociologically, yet on has had a conservative government in power for over a decade and one has had a labour government for over a decade.

The truth is, "real inflation (not the fraudulent headline figures) is increasing, interest rates are trending up, asset prices and debt are in bubble territory. The Anglo world is on an economic precipice.

Whoever gets in will have to deal with this reality, and it won't be pretty... and they will be blamed.

Folks who are liberal supporters should hope Rudd gets in, because labour will then cop the flak and spend the next decade in opposition again.

I'm voting for X


----------



## Shane Baker (20 July 2007)

Tipping Point


http://online.wsj.com/public/resources/documents/iea20070707.pdf


----------



## Rafa (20 July 2007)

wayneL said:


> Folks who are liberal supporters should hope Rudd gets in, because labour will then cop the flak and spend the next decade in opposition again.




that is the only consolation of another liberal win...

thats why i was glad when Bush won again... he created the mess, he should fix it... tho i think they should change the constitution to give him another two terms ... cause its gonna take a while...


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2007)

chops_a_must said:


> It's actually a movie, but it is a very apt description of people in the contemporary world. I think a person like you would absolutely love it, check it out. The clip where my piss pull is taken from is no longer on youtube, but this gives you the general idea of the movie:




Ahhaaha. That did hit my humour spot.  I'll try and get it out.

Cheers


----------



## mime (20 July 2007)

Rafa said:


> uh... unions getting into power is not going to stop the chinese boom...




Do you understand the concepts of inflation and interest rates? Higher wages=higher inflation. To curb inflation the fed must lift interest rates. The union will cause higher wages and set the motion for a rate rise.

If anything the mining boom should be rising inflation but it hasn't(which has baffled economist) I know a couple of rate rises in Sydney would be catastrophic for NSW because people how have highly geared mortgages and unlike WA and QLD don't have the resource labor boom to prop up their economy.


----------



## ideaforlife (20 July 2007)

Rafa said:


> uh... unions getting into power is not going to stop the chinese boom...
> 
> and ideaforlife...
> its one thing to defend his economic record, thats ok (even tho i think a lot of its to do with external factors)... but you cannot seriously be defending howards morality.... !
> ...



I wanted to stop, but here again Rafa, i'm afraid you've made another mistake on macroeconomics administration. Talking an econony scale with 22mio people doesn't need sound management is like talking a household can be handed to hands of a bunch of kids - exactly the analogy used by Costello describing the financial accounts situation when Lib took over. Certainly economy developments require both external and internal forces, it's totally ignorance to believe chinese boom only underpins the australian economy boom.


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2007)

ideaforlife said:


> Certainly economy developments require both external and internal forces, it's totally ignorance to believe chinese boom only underpins the australian economy boom.



LOL No. A global credit bubble helps too.


----------



## Rafa (20 July 2007)

exactly...

if you read what i said again, ideaforlife...
i said it doesn't matter what howard does, what matter is who is in charge of the FED... for that, read the who in charge of creating global credit!

and mime

yes, i agree, somehow inflation is low...
well, the reason for that is not sound economic management, but a pegged chinese currency against the USD! you give china's currency its true value, and then you re measure inflation...

no drama's for me tho... whilst consumer goods remain cheap to purchase... the value of assets is appreciating uncontrollably...

yup, we certainly are in a low inflation environment 


anyway, this should be in the labor liberal thread... 
Julia's link shows quite clearly the stock market is unaffected by who is in power...
and after what i have said above in relation to the FED, that is indeed what is to be expected!


----------



## Awesomandy (21 July 2007)

If the unions are in power, wages might go up. But if Howard remains in power, he'll continue to give away money to voters, which would have pretty much the same effect has higher wages. So, in the end, it's going to be about the same.


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2007)

Rafa said:


> no drama's for me tho... whilst consumer goods remain cheap to purchase...




CPI = Chinese Products Index


----------



## trading_rookie (21 July 2007)

> the economy doesnt care whose in power, the stockmarket doesnt care whose in power, the unions are not going to end the mining boom



No, but the unions will sure do their damn best to disrupt it. I’ve already mentioned the coal and Korea incident. How many coal-carrying ships are there out at sea waiting to export our coal yet ALP Premier/QLD Railway union boss Beattie couldn’t care less. Couldn’t care less that Aus is losing millions of dollars a day on coal exports. Lucky I don’t own ‘shares’ in Macarthur Coal. 

Speaking of Macarthur coal, any coal exporter for that matter, you must be kidding yourself if you think they’re not sweating over Rudd’s climate change and carbon trading policies.


> Just like he did for Iraq?



What has Iraq got to do with the economy of this country? Has going to oust a brutal regime affected our economy? Has the civil war that’s escalating in Iraq affected our economy? Australia’s contribution to the Coalition of the Willing is peanuts compared to the what the US and Britain have contributed, but it’s gesture enough to see us in better light. As Rafa puts it (someone on your side of debate) _Greenspan (are whoever is incharge of the FED) DOES MATTER... cause they control the world economy._

Anyone know what Rudd's stand is on Iraq? I recall he was
a supporter. Just wondering if any of his advisors have 
informed him it's better to chance his postion to oppose.


> We truly are living in an Idiocracy, and Howard knows how to play the majority of Australians like the idiots they are. He's got what morons crave! Yeah, he's got sophistry.



When it comes to de-evolution/idiocracy, the idiots you will find are those who think they're in on the joke, without realising they are the joke. Fancy getting all hot under the collar for not seeing Howard for what he really is, a fear-mongerer.!!! Fearmongering? Isn’t that what communist and socialist regimes have been exercising on their people for decades? I guess they’re excused ‘cause their health and education systems are second to none. 

It ‘devolves’ further, recall all those nuclear disarmenant demo’s and gigs in the late 80’s. The now defunct USSR footed the bill for most of them without the radical left  even being aware of it. Guess the radical-left didn’t get the ‘joke’. ;-) See the USSR’s hidden agenda was to make the nuclear weapon carrying countries in the west look evil amongst the youth and hence pay no attention to them. I guess their ‘sophistry’ worked as most of the commentary was reserved for the US. 

If the two examples above aren’t clear enough of ‘devo’ amongst our supposed left ‘intelligencia’, I’m pretty sure I can dig out some more ;-)


> It won't matter who gets in, the economic agenda is now global. Consider the comparison of the UK and OZ... VERY similar trends economically and sociologically, yet on has had a conservative government in power for over a decade and one has had a labour government for over a decade.



Think you're wrong, both countries have a conservative party in power, since both have little if any union influence in any of the decisions they make. The difference being one is centre-left and the other centre-right.

If the ALP under Rudd/Gilard’s leadership were to model themselves on British Labour, they'd end up with a landslide at the elections.


> Julia's link shows quite clearly the stock market is unaffected by who is in power...



Reading that article, the first thing I did was laugh at who the authour was. Oliver is the type of bull who in Oct ’97 would be telling you everything’s fine, top up! 

I also laughed when reading the paragraph ‘Over the period of 1945 to 2006, the average return from Aus shares under Coalition and Labor governments has not been that differenet’. Average?!?!?! Reminds me of the superfund that tried to sell me their product based on average return of 20 years during a bearish period. How about a house doubles in price on average every seven years…wish I’d bought back in the 60’s-70’s to take advantage of that one!

The sharemarket may or may not change, but I’d be worried about owning shares in construction companies if the CFMEU are allowed to carry on like the BLF. Can we expect mass strikes blowing out budgets of major projects and possibly causing construction to decrease? What about demands for yearly wage increases? The ETU have made no secret of bleeding the companies out of more money. 

Not sure I’d invest in Toll Holdings if the MUA are allowed to run riot like they used to when they were paid by Patrick.

Is Rudd being too diligent in his quest to reduce greenhouse gases? As Oliver himself stated, this could effect energy stocks.


----------



## chops_a_must (21 July 2007)

trading_rookie said:


> What has Iraq got to do with the economy of this country? Has going to oust a brutal regime affected our economy? Has the civil war that’s escalating in Iraq affected our economy? Australia’s contribution to the Coalition of the Willing is peanuts compared to the what the US and Britain have contributed, but it’s gesture enough to see us in better light. As Rafa puts it (someone on your side of debate) _Greenspan (are whoever is incharge of the FED) DOES MATTER... cause they control the world economy._
> 
> When it comes to de-evolution/idiocracy, the idiots you will find are those who think they're in on the joke, without realising they are the joke. Fancy getting all hot under the collar for not seeing Howard for what he really is, a fear-mongerer.!!! Fearmongering? Isn’t that what communist and socialist regimes have been exercising on their people for decades? I guess they’re excused ‘cause their health and education systems are second to none.
> 
> If the two examples above aren’t clear enough of ‘devo’ amongst our supposed left ‘intelligencia’, I’m pretty sure I can dig out some more ;-)



It was a statement on decision making, nothing to do with the economy...

So is Howard keeping interest rates low? I seem to remember him saying something...

Why is fear mongering an exclusive quality of far left wing regimes?

And why are "left" and "intelligencia" used as mutually exclusive terms? Kind of damning when the opponents of such are essentially admitting their position of argument is not based on one of intelligencia.

And yeah, I'd like to hear more attacks on the left intelligencia. I'd especially like to know what people are attacking the intelligencia _with_, considering the etymology.


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2007)

trading_rookie said:


> Has going to oust a brutal regime affected our economy?



Point of Order!

The sycophancy of the willing did not go to "oust a brutal regime". That was an afterthought when the supposed WMD,s were exposed as an outright fraud and a ruse to invade for purposes of "energy security".

If our remit is to oust brutal regimes, we better start conscripting NOW because there is a lot of work to do.

Sheesh! The power of propaganda!


----------



## trading_rookie (21 July 2007)

> It was a statement on decision making, nothing to do with the economy...




So what was wrong with the decision making process from Australia's perspective and interests? I'd see your point if we were in the US but we're not.



> So is Howard keeping interest rates low? I seem to remember him saying something...




The ALP opposed, but the Coalition made the RBA independant, so no Howard personally can't keep interest rates low....having said that, they're still lower than what they were under the ALP ;-)


> Why is fear mongering an exclusive quality of far left wing regimes?




I didn't say it was...what I said was the left were quick to expose those on the right while ignoring there own 'bad experiments'.


> And why are "left" and "intelligencia" used as mutually exclusive terms? Kind of damning when the opponents of such are essentially admitting their position of argument is not based on one of intelligencia.




It seems 'intelligencia' isn't exclusive to all on the left if my 'intelligencia' was lost on you ;-)



> And yeah, I'd like to hear more attacks on the left intelligencia. I'd especially like to know what people are attacking the intelligencia with, considering the etymology.




The simple fact that the radical left oppose just about everything the west stands for...it's this ignorance and belief that their smarter than the right. The nukes/USSR example is one of many that follow a similar pattern of being used for someone else's agenda.



> Point of Order!




Point of order on a point of order...Removal of Hussein and finding WMD (code for we're taking over your oil reserves) were the agenda.

Harbouring terrorists and al-Queda is what the CotW used after no WMD were found...


----------



## spartn (21 July 2007)

*Here is what I think.*

*A.* If you cant afford a deposit you cant buy a house.

*B.* The government never forced you to get a creit card, not only will they charge you big time with interest, it puts presure on interest rates.

*C.* If you are not good with money, don't give advice to your children, otherwise the chain will continue to get even bigger.

*D.* 250 Billion budget, 100 Billion was from Company Tax, why do you think we are having surplus when overall the PAYG tax is getting lower.

*E.* So the Labor government wants to help people in there mid to late 30's buy there first house, 'this is the reason I will never vote for them'.

*F.* John Howard said 8 years ago that he more than likely would change the work place laws, why are people so shocked when he finally changed them???

*G.* The stockmarket will continue to do well as long as the dumb money stays out, 'in other words, get the hell out of the sharemarket when people who have no idea about it start to get involved, the internet boom attracted alot of this dumb money at the start of 1998, look what happened to the Nasdaq once that occured.

Spartn

:viking:


----------



## zt3000 (21 July 2007)

spartn said:


> *Here is what I think.*
> 
> *A.* If you cant afford a deposit you cant buy a house.
> 
> ...




Well said spartan!

If your stupid enough to default on your loan as a consequence of rising rates then you really are a " dumb **** " for not managing your money and asking yourself the "what if this happens or what will happen in this scenario" questions. I really have no sympathy for you.

Yes we should try help people own thier own home but when the majority of people are not "financially educated" then what are we to do?

Send everyone to do a economics/commerce degree? ... Probably not a bad idea

Or introduce tighter lending regulations for the banks


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2007)

zt3000 said:


> Well said spartan!
> 
> If your stupid enough to default on your loan as a consequence of rising rates then you really are a " dumb **** " for not managing your money and asking yourself the "what if this happens or what will happen in this scenario" questions. I really have no sympathy for you.



Marketing is pretty powerful. I agree that people should examine all contingencies, but the "experts" (using the term very loosely, vested interests would be a better term) are leading the people who put their trust in them a merry dance.

In the UK, the "experts" stated categorically that base rates would peak at 5%. LOOOOOOOOL Here we are at 5.75% and no sign of stopping. They said energy prices would fall in the latter half of this year, yet we are nearing all time highs.

People have been trained to trust doctors, priests, financial advisers etc as absolute authorities so they put way too much stock into what they say, yet these people are F$$$wits just like the rest of us. We live in the age of the sound-bite and marketers of credit and investment utilize this with effect.

Ironically, (and getting back on topic) this is exactly how political parties are chosen and elected into office; those with the most effective sound-bite (which the media has usually ordained, hence the most judiciously chosen sound-bites) wins.

Actual analysis of anything without ridiculous cognitive biases, scarcely exist anymore.

The people are sheeple. (All present company excepted of course  )


----------

