# Gina Rinehart: "spend less time drinking or smoking and socialising"



## Tyler Durden (30 August 2012)

> Treasurer Wayne Swan has slammed mining magnate Gina Rinehart for insulting Australian workers after she accused people of being jealous of the wealthy.
> 
> Mrs Rinehart, Australia's richest person, says those who are jealous of the wealthy should start working harder and cut down on drinking, smoking and socialising.
> 
> ...




http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/polit...ult-to-millions-treasurer-20120830-251u5.html

Apparently this has drawn a lot of criticism against Gina Rinehart. Any thoughts?

I don't agree with lowering minimum wage, however, I do agree with her that if people want to get wealthy, they should stop complaining, stop spending, and start learning to invest or of other ways to make money.

The government says what they say to keep everyone sheltered from how money and the world really works (could you imagine if everyone stopped spending??), and the comment about working harder than Gina Rinehart...well, people need to know that working hard does not equal wealth.


----------



## JTLP (30 August 2012)

Not sure about lowering the minimum wage. People don't really want to work for peanuts (although somebody will do it).

She's right about the rest though - people need to stop holding out their hands for a feed and learn to cook themselves. Nobody ever got rich collecting Newstart payments and buying Winnie Golds 24/7.

Sure; hard work may not equal millions...at least it will teach people the value of a $.


----------



## Tannin (30 August 2012)

The woman who inherited an unimaginably vast fortune by pure accident of birth is complaining about the people who were not born with her wealth and privelege. 

Go figure.


----------



## Tannin (30 August 2012)

PS: lowering the minimum wage will _reduce_ wealth, not create it. It won't hurt Rhinehart, but most Australians will go backwards. Not just the poor workers either, businesses across the board should fear a drop in real wages, because it is only be selling things that any of our companies make a quid. If you own shares in supermarkets, take-away foiod chains, TV stations, advertising agencies, building materials suppliers, energy companies, telcos, movie houses, retailers, transport companies, theme parks, hairderssers - in fact just about anything that relies on people buying goods or services - and Rinehart gets her way, your company goes backwards and you lose. Think it through.


----------



## doctorj (30 August 2012)

Tannin said:


> PS: lowering the minimum wage will _reduce_ wealth, not create it.  Think it through.




It’s not that simple… economics 101 says that a minimum wage above equilibrium reduces the number of people employed.  Now, in the boom times, demand for employees was fairly price inelastic so min wage was less of an issue, but as times get tougher, a higher minimum wage will reduce employment.


----------



## waimate01 (31 August 2012)

What she's saying is right, but she's the wrong person to be saying it.

(Frank Lowy, the self-made refguee, would be a better one to say it)


----------



## DB008 (31 August 2012)

Tannin said:


> The woman who inherited an unimaginably vast fortune by pure accident of birth is complaining about the people who were not born with her wealth and privelege.
> 
> Go figure.




$75 million?
Unimaginable vast fortune?
No. Someone has won that playing Oz Lotto.

The ~$20 Billion she now has is unimaginable.

You should read some of the comments on Reddit /r/Australia. The lefties are going bonkers. LOLOLOLOL


----------



## Knobby22 (31 August 2012)

doctorj said:


> It’s not that simple… economics 101 says that a minimum wage above equilibrium reduces the number of people employed.  Now, in the boom times, demand for employees was fairly price inelastic so min wage was less of an issue, but as times get tougher, a higher minimum wage will reduce employment.
> View attachment 48780




THe US has a very low minimum wage and high unemployment. Australia has a high minimum wage and low unemployment. So much for "classical economics".

What amazes me is that Gina wants to lower our wages so she can make more money. She could never spend what she has now! What is wrong with the workers getting good money working for her? They will spend it within the economy which in turn helps others survive in their businesses. I know she is upset because she is bringing in foreign workers but being forced to pay them an Australian wage.


----------



## prawn_86 (31 August 2012)

DB008 said:


> $75 million?
> Unimaginable vast fortune?
> No. Someone has won that playing Oz Lotto.
> 
> The ~$20 Billion she now has is unimaginable.




I dont doubt she has worked hard, but 75m (even more inflation adjusted) is a huge leg up. Money breeds money

Working harder doesnt make the average person wealthly, it might make them slightly richer, but not wealthy. Working smarter is what is needed. Why should i put in an 80 hour week when i can get the same money for a 35 hour week and put those extra hours to use trying to develop somehting else...?


----------



## drsmith (31 August 2012)

I don't know that Gina's the one to be handing out advice on socialising given her own family situation.

She would do better to restrict her comments to about how government regulation and taxation can be improved in relation to economic efficiency.

She did apparently employ a media manager at one point, but that only lasted 2 months because she didn't take his advice.


----------



## Happy (31 August 2012)

Truth hurts, that's why some did not take it too well.

I wander how would it go with her, if somebody said that she should eat less?  

But on the other hand by spending money on food, her consumption keeps our food industry going.


----------



## Calliope (31 August 2012)

Another Wayne Swan supportive hate Gina Rinehart thread.


----------



## Julia (31 August 2012)

waimate01 said:


> What she's saying is right, but she's the wrong person to be saying it.
> 
> (Frank Lowy, the self-made refguee, would be a better one to say it)



+1.  Just as well Ms Rinehart isn't seeking employment in the diplomatic service.


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

Tannin said:


> PS: lowering the minimum wage will _reduce_ wealth, not create it. It won't hurt Rhinehart, but most Australians will go backwards. Not just the poor workers either, businesses across the board should fear a drop in real wages, because it is only be selling things that any of our companies make a quid. If you own shares in supermarkets, take-away foiod chains, TV stations, advertising agencies, building materials suppliers, energy companies, telcos, movie houses, retailers, transport companies, theme parks, hairderssers - in fact just about anything that relies on people buying goods or services - and Rinehart gets her way, your company goes backwards and you lose. Think it through.




you have obviously never done economics, if minimum wage was increased to $100/hr would this increase employment and wealth for all?

There is no debate whatsoever in economics on whether abolishing minimum wage reduces unemployment, its only a political problem due to the bulk of people such as yourself not understanding.

Being for the minimum wage in effect makes you anti-poor and a racist.. despite whatever noble objectives it has


----------



## prawn_86 (31 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> There is no debate whatsoever in economics on whether abolishing minimum wage reduces unemployment, its only a political problem due to the bulk of people such as yourself not understanding.




In theory, with no other external (ie political) factors yes, but as others have said, the US has a low minimum wage and higher unemployment than here.

Economics works on a graph, but not always in reality due to the myriad of factors affecting everything, it's not as simple as a 2 axis graph


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> THe US has a very low minimum wage and high unemployment. Australia has a high minimum wage and low unemployment. So much for "classical economics".
> 
> What amazes me is that Gina wants to lower our wages so she can make more money. She could never spend what she has now! What is wrong with the workers getting good money working for her? They will spend it within the economy which in turn helps others survive in their businesses. I know she is upset because she is bringing in foreign workers but being forced to pay them an Australian wage.





elephants walking south in June whilst the stock market rallies does not meant elephants are the cause of stock market rallies..

show me how making the minimum wage $100/hr causes more employment...
you dont have sufficient intellectual ability to be commenting on these topics i suggest you stop


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> In theory, with no other external (ie political) factors yes, but as others have said, the US has a low minimum wage and higher unemployment than here.
> 
> Economics works on a graph, but not always in reality due to the myriad of factors affecting everything, it's not as simple as a 2 axis graph




that doesnt mean anything, is employment lower here because of a high minimum wage or despite it? what would you imagine would happen if we doubled the minimum wage? what happens to unemployment if we halved the minimum wage? what happens to the prices in the economy in both scenarios?

there is no debate on this in economic circles, price floors and ceilings and its imapcts are not up for debate, unlike all the macro issues that are hotly contested


----------



## tech/a (31 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> I dont doubt she has worked hard, but 75m (even more inflation adjusted) is a huge leg up. Money breeds money
> 
> Working harder doesnt make the average person wealthly, it might make them slightly richer, but not wealthy. Working smarter is what is needed. *Why should i put in an 80 hour week when i can get the same money for a 35 hour week and put those extra hours to use trying to develop somehting else...*?




In this passage your showing just the thing Rinehart wants to see--me too.
I see on TV kids who do nothing but play games and dole bludge.
I see the same in every shopping center---its their day out!

Rarely I see someone knock on our door for a job who actually wants one and not the business card on the desk to fill in their Centerlink Commitments.

A lot of these people have wasted so many opportunities.
Schooling
Apprenticeships
Further education
Work experience
That they are now too old and *un employable*.

Not only that but they expect top dollar for NO input.

Generally Im with Gina! and would be wether she had a well paid job or is the richest woman in Aust!


----------



## prawn_86 (31 August 2012)

tech/a said:


> In this passage your showing just the thing Rinehart wants to see--me too.




It all depends what you are doing with the spare time. Personally i would rather work a 40 hour week (as i do now), earn great money, and then use that money and excess time to try and build up another form of income stream for myself. If i was working "harder" (ie more hours for an employer) i wouldn't have that chance

I assume that is what you and Gina are talking about? Doing somehting with your life?


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> It all depends what you are doing with the spare time. Personally i would rather work a 40 hour week (as i do now), earn great money, and then use that money and excess time to try and build up another form of income stream for myself. If i was working "harder" (ie more hours for an employer) i wouldn't have that chance
> 
> I assume that is what you and Gina are talking about? Doing somehting with your life?




i think your both right, as imo your still technically working, just 40hrs in formal work


----------



## prawn_86 (31 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> i think your both right, as imo your still technically working, just 40hrs in formal work




True. Whereas Gina would rather i "work hard" for her instead of for myself


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> True. Whereas Gina would rather i "work hard" for her instead of for myself




hmm where did she ever imply that, soaking the rich seems to be in vogue, wonder why the same criticisms werent directed at steve jobs?


----------



## tech/a (31 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> True. Whereas Gina would rather i "work hard" for her instead of for myself




I think it was/is a general comment.
If you own business you want your employees pulling their weight.
In fact mine want their work mates pulling their weight.
If they're not I soon hear about it.

Personally I find that helping my people to work smarter means their out put is far better than those who work harder doing bugger all---
If you get my drift!

The trade off is fair pay--job security and a happy work place.
Sure I get the better $$s but take *ALL* the risk.

Frankly owning small business is a pain.
Staff
Clients
Tax
Personal time management.


----------



## prawn_86 (31 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> hmm where did she ever imply that, soaking the rich seems to be in vogue, wonder why the same criticisms werent directed at steve jobs?




I wasn't a big fan of Jobs either. She is saying people should work harder, when imo, they should work smarter.

I agree with what i think are her overall thoughts, just her delivery and expression are off, as always seems to be the way with Gina


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> I wasn't a big fan of Jobs either. She is saying people should work harder, when imo, they should work smarter.
> 
> I agree with what i think are her overall thoughts, just her delivery and expression are off, as always seems to be the way with Gina




its more of a definition issue, the message is good regardless... lefties reacted predictably


----------



## young-gun (31 August 2012)

Gina is absolutely right(perhaps not about everything). Everyone needs to quit whinging, get out of the pub and do something. The construction industry is a perfect example. Everyone is highly over-paid, and seem to think they are entitled to everything for nothing. Drastically extended lunch breaks, slumping around sites at snails pace, very few seem to be interested in putting in a good days work. No wonder productivity is slipping, I can only assume that if it is the attitude of some in one industry it is no doubt the same in others.

Agree with you prawn, she should have said smarter. But perhaps some need to work hard to establish enough capital to start working smarter. However prawn, money does not automatically make money there has been plenty of people with money that have gone belly up.

Whoever said she walked into a vast fortune, it take someone special to turn what she received into a multi-billion dollar empire, there is simply no point in trying to discredit what she has achieved, as it is more than a thousand will achieve in their lifetimes combined.


----------



## young-gun (31 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> hmm where did she ever imply that, soaking the rich seems to be in vogue, wonder why the same criticisms werent directed at steve jobs?




Indeed WG, in fact why not attack all entrepreneurs, I mean, they are just the building blocks of society. They only improve societys' standard of living through innovation and job creation. Oh but some can be a tad arrogant, and say the wrong things, to hell with them all


----------



## banco (31 August 2012)

Gina Rinehart is the perfect example of someone who was born on third base and thinks she hit a home run.


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

my friends site:

http://www.ginarinehart.info/gina-rinehart-is-our-rightful-democratic-leader/


----------



## Steve C (31 August 2012)

banco said:


> Gina Rinehart is the perfect example of someone who was born on third base and thinks she hit a home run.




Brilliant quote - what a perfect analogy.


----------



## tech/a (31 August 2012)

banco said:


> Gina Rinehart is the perfect example of someone who was born on third base and thinks she hit a home run.




Make no mistake she's hit a home run!


----------



## lusk (31 August 2012)

young-gun said:


> Whoever said she walked into a vast fortune, it take someone special to turn what she received into a multi-billion dollar empire, there is simply no point in trying to discredit what she has achieved, as it is more than a thousand will achieve in their lifetimes combined.




The old man found it and they went 50/50 with RIO who mined it, nothing special about that more like luck.


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

banco said:


> Gina Rinehart is the perfect example of someone who was born on third base and thinks she hit a home run.




so let me get this right, turning $75 MILLION into $29 BILLION, doesnt take hard work?

she makes Kerry Packer going from $100million to $8 billion seem lazy


----------



## tech/a (31 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> so let me get this right, turning $75 MILLION into $29 BILLION, doesnt take hard work?
> 
> she makes Kerry Packer going from $100million to $8 billion seem lazy




Perhaps this will put it into perspective.

Your old man gives you $75
You go and turn it into $27,000


----------



## bullet21 (31 August 2012)

a lot of very sour grapes in this thread.


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

tech/a said:


> Perhaps this will put it into perspective.
> 
> Your old man gives you $75
> You go and turn it into $27,000




or another perspective a return on capital of 36.83% per year for 2 decades


----------



## prawn_86 (31 August 2012)

tech/a said:


> Perhaps this will put it into perspective.
> 
> Your old man gives you $75
> You go and turn it into $27,000






white_goodman said:


> or another perspective a return on capital of 36.83% per year for 2 decades




I agree with both, however a lot of that value is current "open profit". I wonder if she has a stop loss in place...?


----------



## McLovin (31 August 2012)

tech/a said:


> Perhaps this will put it into perspective.
> 
> Your old man gives you $75
> You go and turn it into $27,000




She was left tenements which were worth $75m in 1992 and now because of where iron ore prices and demand are have increased in value to $20b. 

The assets did most of the heavy lifting not her.

She's obviously a smart operator but she got a pretty big helping hand from the changing demand for iron ore.


----------



## young-gun (31 August 2012)

lusk said:


> The old man found it and they went 50/50 with RIO who mined it, nothing special about that more like luck.




There's no getting through to some. There is no such thing as luck, people end up where they put themselves. Anyone given 75 mill from their father be it in the form of cash company whatever, would more likely blow it than turn themselves into one of, if not the, richest woman on earth.

Pure luck


----------



## tech/a (31 August 2012)

McLovin said:


> She was left tenements which were worth $75m in 1992 and now because of where iron ore prices and demand are have increased in value to $20b.
> 
> The assets did most of the heavy lifting not her.
> 
> She's obviously a smart operator but she got a pretty big helping hand from the changing demand for iron ore.




Yeh that's why we see so many wannabe miners who have tenements and can't turn a profit.
It's so simple anyone can do it!

She-- is ruthless.


----------



## white_goodman (31 August 2012)

McLovin said:


> She was left tenements which were worth $75m in 1992 and now because of where iron ore prices and demand are have increased in value to $20b.
> 
> The assets did most of the heavy lifting not her.
> 
> She's obviously a smart operator but she got a pretty big helping hand from the changing demand for iron ore.




thats an interesting world view


----------



## banco (31 August 2012)

white_goodman said:


> thats an interesting world view




Which part of what he said is incorrect?  The great bulk of her wealth comes from the mine leases she inherited from daddy.  Which are worth vastly more than when she inherited them because of the mining boom.


----------



## young-gun (31 August 2012)

banco said:


> Which part of what he said is incorrect?  The great bulk of her wealth comes from the mine leases she inherited from daddy.  Which are worth vastly more than when she inherited them because of the mining boom.




She did not simply 'inherit' the money from daddy. She actually spent 14 odd years in a bitter court battle fighting off her step mother, which in itself would have required alot of cash, determination, and most likely alot of risk on her part. Perhaps do some research.


----------



## Julia (31 August 2012)

prawn_86 said:


> True. Whereas Gina would rather i "work hard" for her instead of for myself



I can't see where she said or implied that.  I took her remark to mean people should understand that we get nothing for nothing, i.e. make a damned effort instead of sitting around whining.

It's perhaps a measure of how politically correct and precious we have become that she can't use some pretty blunt language without being howled down.




prawn_86 said:


> I wasn't a big fan of Jobs either. She is saying people should work harder, when imo, they should work smarter.
> 
> I agree with what i think are her overall thoughts, just her delivery and expression are off, as always seems to be the way with Gina



True.  But perhaps because we are over sensitive as above.  It's impossible to disagree with her basic message that working harder/smarter is going to reap more rewards than lying around whining, drinking and smoking.




young-gun said:


> Whoever said she walked into a vast fortune, it take someone special to turn what she received into a multi-billion dollar empire, there is simply no point in trying to discredit what she has achieved, as it is more than a thousand will achieve in their lifetimes combined.



+1.


----------



## banco (31 August 2012)

young-gun said:


> She did not simply 'inherit' the money from daddy. She actually spent 14 odd years in a bitter court battle fighting off her step mother, which in itself would have required alot of cash, determination, and most likely alot of risk on her part. Perhaps do some research.




Oh, she had to hire a top law firm and top flight barristers to fight off Daddy's trophy wife.  The horror.


----------



## Tyler Durden (31 August 2012)

Calliope said:


> Another Wayne Swan supportive hate Gina Rinehart thread.




I didn't start the thread with the aim of starting hate against Rinehart. In fact, you'll see I agreed with her basic premise.


----------



## Tyler Durden (31 August 2012)

waimate01 said:


> What she's saying is right, but she's the wrong person to be saying it.




Very true. Funny how people address/attack the author rather than the actual statement.


----------



## Muschu (31 August 2012)

I certainly would not to change places with Gina but wish her well and would particularly hope the family issues are resolved at an emotional, not financial, level.


----------



## Junior (31 August 2012)

tech/a said:


> Perhaps this will put it into perspective.
> 
> Your old man gives you $75
> You go and turn it into $27,000




That is perspective, but with $75 you're only sitting on a couple of days worth of living expenses, whereas with $75 mill you don't really have that issue.  With $75mill you have access to a completely different set of investment opportunities compared with the other 99.9% of the population.


----------



## tech/a (31 August 2012)

Yes see your point


----------



## McLovin (31 August 2012)

tech/a said:


> Yeh that's why we see so many wannabe miners who have tenements and can't turn a profit.
> It's so simple anyone can do it!
> 
> She-- is ruthless.




She owns the land, she inherited it from her father and before that the family had been farming on the same land for a few generations, well before they were even looking for iron ore in that part of Australia. Someone else mines it and she takes a cut. She's never operated a mine. Not really comparable to your average mining company.

Like I said, she's clearly a smart operator but she's been blessed with above average luck.


----------



## RandR (1 September 2012)

young-gun said:


> Drastically extended lunch breaks, slumping around sites at snails pace, very few seem to be interested in putting in a good days work. No wonder productivity is slipping, I can only assume that if it is the attitude of some in one industry it is no doubt the same in others.




Lol.

What a collection of crap. Pray tell me what is your actual relevant experience within the construction industry to come to such a conclusion ?

Gina makes some decent but poorly communicated points.

I agree with Mclovins assesment. She has done well for herself indeed, it cant be disputed that she has a ruthless talent in business and mining.

But nobody could honestly suggest she would be in the position she is now without inheriting the base from daddy. With iron ore prices in decline her wealth is more then likely quickly retreating too. She inherited an iron ore deposit when prices were  $10 or less and after prices boom to $150+ shes seen as some sort of capital genius ?


----------



## IFocus (1 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> She owns the land, she inherited it from her father and before that the family had been farming on the same land for a few generations, well before they were even looking for iron ore in that part of Australia. Someone else mines it and she takes a cut. She's never operated a mine. Not really comparable to your average mining company.
> 
> Like I said, she's clearly a smart operator but she's been blessed with above average luck.




Beyond the inheritance of the mining leases through Hancock Mining or Lang's holding company (didn't Gina turn up when Lang was on his death bed).

Gina also inherited the vast network of Lang's contacts (thats where you make the money) as before she married Rinehart she was heavily involved in the socializing of business contacts.

And didn't it all start with a blue asbestos mine?

Gina's comments show sheer arrogance and the continued dis-functional behaviour as displayed towards her own children.


----------



## young-gun (1 September 2012)

RandR said:


> Lol.
> 
> What a collection of crap. Pray tell me what is your actual relevant experience within the construction industry to come to such a conclusion ?




I've been on site in high rise construction for 6 years. Would love to hear what you think you know. Workers want all the rights and entitlements in the world and to not have to work hard for them. Productivity is slipping, wages go up, and technological advancements and innovation can only be taken so far at a time to quicken processes. People are lazy.




> But nobody could honestly suggest she would be in the position she is now without inheriting the base from daddy. With iron ore prices in decline her wealth is more then likely quickly retreating too. She inherited an iron ore deposit when prices were  $10 or less and after prices boom to $150+ shes seen as some sort of capital genius ?



This may be the stupidest thing I've read on here. By your logic Buffett isn't a genius either. I mean, all he did was buy stocks, and then they went up in value later. In fact, anyone who has ever bought any asset and then had it boom and increase in value clearly has just gotten lucky. How do you know Gina didn't see the boom coming and prepare herself for it? I look forward to seeing u on the rich list, its oh so easy.


----------



## Calliope (1 September 2012)

Tyler Durden said:


> I didn't start the thread with the aim of starting hate against Rinehart. In fact, you'll see I agreed with her basic premise.




Well I suppose that if it serves one purpose it is as a hate sink for the left leaning, class envious people who think like Wayne Swan. That idiot thought it opportune to try to smear Tony Abbott;



> The Treasurer said the comments were an insult to the millions of Australian workers who "go to work and slog it out to feed the kids and pay the bills . . . The big question is whether Tony Abbott will endorse Gina Rinehart's social policies as he's endorsed her tax, industrial relations and environmental policies."




The usual suspects like Rudd, Pilbersek and Katter and building union chief Bill Maher also joined the chorus. The Rinehart haters on this thread are in good company.

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/bus...call-to-cut-wage/story-e6frg8zx-1226462008845


----------



## McLovin (1 September 2012)

young-gun said:


> This may be the stupidest thing I've read on here. By your logic Buffett isn't a genius either. I mean, all he did was buy stocks, and then they went up in value later. In fact, anyone who has ever bought any asset and then had it boom and increase in value clearly has just gotten lucky. How do you know Gina didn't see the boom coming and prepare herself for it? I look forward to seeing u on the rich list, its oh so easy.




But that's the point, Rinehart hasn't bought anything. What she inherited has gone up in value. In all likelihood, it would have gone up regardless of who owned the assets.


----------



## banco (1 September 2012)

Rinehart is no more a business genius than the Saudi king who was lucky enough to find out in the early 20th century that his country sat on a sea of oil.


----------



## RandR (1 September 2012)

young-gun said:


> I've been on site in high rise construction for 6 years. Would love to hear what you think you know. Workers want all the rights and entitlements in the world and to not have to work hard for them. Productivity is slipping, wages go up, and technological advancements and innovation can only be taken so far at a time to quicken processes. People are lazy.




Ok. My experience is that we work 9 hour days and receive 1 20 minute break. I guess your right ... totally unreasonable. We should be able to eat lunch in 15minutes. 

The last time I was on a construction site that was shut down was the result of having no access to amenities. Do you judge this to be an unreasonable entitlement ?

If you feel productivity in your workplace is slipping, perhaps you should be more proactive and do something about it. Or maybe consider moving to a company that better matches your ambition. If youve spent alot of time in high rise developments, no doubt you've spent the majority of time on EBA Union Sites, which might shape your opinion of the industry at large in a certain way.



> This may be the stupidest thing I've read on here. By your logic Buffett isn't a genius either. I mean, all he did was buy stocks, and then they went up in value later. In fact, anyone who has ever bought any asset and then had it boom and increase in value clearly has just gotten lucky. How do you know Gina didn't see the boom coming and prepare herself for it? I look forward to seeing u on the rich list, its oh so easy




How could you possibly draw that conclusion to link my comments re Rinehart to Buffet ? 

Perhaps that assertation would be true if Warren inherited The Washington Post from his father ... 

Or Warren Buffets uncle was Colonel Sanders ?


----------



## young-gun (1 September 2012)

RandR said:


> Ok. My experience is that we work 9 hour days and receive 1 20 minute break. I guess your right ... totally unreasonable. We should be able to eat lunch in 15minutes.




I apologise, I haven't been quite clear. I am talking about HIGH RISE construction. I am not referring to smaller sites where there is small subbies and one man bands running around. These guys are able to keep track of their employees and are hard workers, and ensure their staff are.

Obviously if you stick to your correct break times, and putting in each day, you are not someone I am talking about. I too work 60 hour weeks and stick to break schedules, the problem is too many people are of the "I don't care I'm paid by the hour" mentality now. They seem to forget that if profits disappear, they won't be paid at all other than a doll cheque.



> The last time I was on a construction site that was shut down was the result of having no access to amenities. Do you judge this to be an unreasonable entitlement ?




Obviously not, you know exactly what I'm talking about. I'm in a union, they have become a joke. They strike at the drop of a hat, largely because they get a majority vote from the LAZY 70% on site, that want to go home whether they get paid or not. I go to work to work, unless there is such things as real safety issues, or problems with lack of amenities and things of this nature, then there is simply no grounds for it imo. 

Same with sham contracting, if everyone pulled their finger out the builders wouldn't need to bring in these cheap chinese blokes. Make yourself invaluable to a company if you wish to keep your job. Laboring is a different story.

The beauty of a union, I get paid the same as the guy who is useless and lazy.



> If you feel productivity in your workplace is slipping, perhaps you should be more proactive and do something about it. Or maybe consider moving to a company that better matches your ambition. If youve spent alot of time in high rise developments, no doubt you've spent the majority of time on EBA Union Sites, which might shape your opinion of the industry at large in a certain way.




How do you propose I raise such a topic with 40% of guys I work with? "Hey bill, I know your 54, and you've been doing this way longer than me, but you're useless and need to start pulling your weight." Every site I am on is an EBA site. Guys are so protected it wouldn't matter if you sat down for 5 hours of a 9 hour day, you still couldn't get sacked. 

I enjoy high rise as it's interesting, I like my job, I get along with the guys I currently work with, and there is stupid amounts of money to be made at our age. I am highly over-paid, there's no doubt about it.




> How could you possibly draw that conclusion to link my comments re Rinehart to Buffet ?
> 
> Perhaps that assertation would be true if Warren inherited The Washington Post from his father ...
> 
> Or Warren Buffets uncle was Colonel Sanders ?




I fail to see how the how that's relevant. The fact is if someone is destined for greatness and vast accumulations of wealth, they will get there regardless of how they start out. It requires a certain mindset, desire, persistence, and determination to achieve these things, Gina obviously has all. So I really don't see how she started out to be an issue. Do you honestly believe anyone given 75 mill back in the day would now be worth around 30 bill??

The conclusion drawn from buffett, gina, and your comment was quite obvious.


----------



## young-gun (1 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> But that's the point, Rinehart hasn't bought anything. What she inherited has gone up in value. In all likelihood, it would have gone up regardless of who owned the assets.




Right, I'm sure that all she has done is sat there all these years, and everything just 'happened'. I'm surprised at such a comment from you McLovin. Seems everyone needs to put their hatred for Rinehart aside and acknowledge what she has achieved.



banco said:


> Rinehart is no more a business genius than the Saudi king who was lucky enough to find out in the early 20th century that his country sat on a sea of oil.




First of all he didn't find it. The yanks were all over it from early 1930's until 1950 when he threatened to nationalise it.  Secondly, why wouldn't he want a piece of the action when the country wasn't benefiting from it? No one said to him, hey you're getting ripped off here, do you want a piece of the pie? He would of had to fight for it.

Just as Rinehart wasn't simply given her fortune.


----------



## McLovin (1 September 2012)

young-gun said:


> Right, I'm sure that all she has done is sat there all these years, and everything just 'happened'. I'm surprised at such a comment from you McLovin. Seems everyone needs to put their hatred for Rinehart aside and acknowledge what she has achieved.




From what I've read that is pretty much what happened. If I'm wrong, then I'd be happy to be corrected. When she inherited her wealth iron ore was ~$10/tonne. The higher ore price has had the double effect of both increasing yield on lower cost mines and making higher cost deposits economic. I'm not saying it just happened, but most of the heavy lifting was the result of a commodities boom and good luck.

I don't have a problem with Rinehart or her wealth, I'm indifferent to both. Similarly, she's entitled to her opinion, I pay it little attention but I doubt she loses sleep over that fact.


----------



## wombat40 (1 September 2012)

Anyone who subscribes or agrees with Gina Rineharts ramblings is either 1 of 2 things

1. A Business owner or a Boss
2 A Asshole

cheers...


----------



## Tyler Durden (1 September 2012)

wombat40 said:


> Anyone who subscribes or agrees with Gina Rineharts ramblings is either 1 of 2 things
> 
> 1. A Business owner or a Boss
> 2 A Asshole
> ...




Why is someone an a-hole just because they believe that if people want to get rich then they need to stop spending and start investing?


----------



## young-gun (1 September 2012)

Tyler Durden said:


> Why is someone an a-hole just because they believe that if people want to get rich then they need to stop spending and start investing?




You should start a separate thread tyler. Call it "whingers who hate the somewhat arrogant wealthy who have achieved more than you, and contribute far more to the economy."


----------



## numbercruncher (1 September 2012)

Clearly gina should spend much more time walking and much less time writing.


----------



## Macquack (1 September 2012)

I am sick of hearing how hard Gina Rineheartless has worked for her wealth.

Putting in any amount oof effort for massive gain *is not hard work*. Putting in massive effort for little or no gain *is hard work.*


----------



## bellenuit (1 September 2012)

McLovin said:


> From what I've read that is pretty much what happened. If I'm wrong, then I'd be happy to be corrected. When she inherited her wealth iron ore was ~$10/tonne. The higher ore price has had the double effect of both increasing yield on lower cost mines and making higher cost deposits economic. I'm not saying it just happened, but most of the heavy lifting was the result of a commodities boom and good luck.
> 
> I don't have a problem with Rinehart or her wealth, I'm indifferent to both. Similarly, she's entitled to her opinion, I pay it little attention but I doubt she loses sleep over that fact.




I very much agree with you. I don't doubt she is an astute business woman, but a lot of her wealth is due to the increase in ore prices. Although one can say that it was her smarts and her smarts only that got her where she is today and ore prices were just a side issue, then how does one reconcile that with her being the biggest wealth loser since the prices dropped.

According to today's AFR article, her personal wealth has decreased from $17.5B to $10.5B (I think they were the figures) in just the last few months due to the drop in commodity prices. So if one were to use the same logic that her fortune is purely due to her personal endeavours, she is an abysmal failure.

http://www.afr.com/p/national/rinehart_leads_list_of_heavy_losers_ImbYhzzirB9CkoI2p8A3FO

(Sorry, but I don't have access to the unlocked version. But I read the paper today and the figures quoted above are what I recall were in the article)/


----------



## sptrawler (1 September 2012)

Macquack said:


> I am sick of hearing how hard Gina Rineheartless has worked for her wealth.
> 
> Putting in any amount oof effort for massive gain *is not hard work*. Putting in massive effort for little or no gain *is hard work.*




I suppose it isn't a case of wether she has worked for her wealth or not.
If she doesn't do what she does, thousands lose their jobs and there is a lot of knock on repercusions.
If the little Aussie battler, fails to put in the massive effort for little gain, unfortunatelly doesn't register on the national stage. But his/her homelife turns to manure.

Anyway, the way comodity prices are going, everybody including Swan will have a lot more to worry about than getting Gina to pay more tax.
It will be interesting to see what Gillard and Swan's have to say about 'Fat Cat' mining billionaires, when they are shutting down mines.
One minute they are fat cats riping off the massive profits and should be taxed more, next they will be terrible for shutting down unprofitable mines. That they have made less profitable with the tax.
The Gillard government is doing more backflips than an olympic gymnast, the next twelve months will be interesting. Will the Resource Tax be the next one?
Another thing if she ran her company like the government has run the economy, she would have been out of business ages ago IMO.LOL
How much in surplus were they? and how much in debt are they now? after 6 years.
How you lot can question Gina only changing $75m to whaterever billion, is comical. What about the government changing $75m into $300Billion loss.LOL
My rant for the day.


----------



## Smurf1976 (1 September 2012)

All of this fits into the category of assuming that the future will be an extension of the recent past. It's a common situation where money is concerned, and usually happens near a turning point. 

Yes, Gina has a lot of money that is true. That money is however obtained from the extraction of a finite resource the price of which is subject to huge variation. 

Governments seem to have made the same mistake. State governments seemed to think the consumer spending and real estate bubbles and their associated GST and stamp duties would continue growing forever simply because for a number of years they did. Now the Australian Government has done essentially the same with mining, assuming ongoing growth in revenues. In both cases, fiscal reliance upon these notions emerged shortly before the circumstances changed.

If there is one life rule I have learned it is that whatever the current situation, it will end. Whatever the opportunity, make the most of it while it's here because sooner or later it will be gone. Assuming it will continue forever is where things go pear shaped...


----------



## Julia (1 September 2012)

Macquack said:


> . Putting in massive effort for little or no gain *is hard work.*



No, it's just counterproductive and stupid.


----------



## Macquack (1 September 2012)

Julia said:


> No, it's just counterproductive and stupid.




Rubbish, not all efforts are rewarded equally.

Using your logic (and crystal ball) there would be no such thing as a loss?


----------



## sptrawler (1 September 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> All of this fits into the category of assuming that the future will be an extension of the recent past. It's a common situation where money is concerned, and usually happens near a turning point.
> 
> Yes, Gina has a lot of money that is true. That money is however obtained from the extraction of a finite resource the price of which is subject to huge variation.
> 
> ...




The sad thing is politicians lifetime pensions aren't performance based. IMO
If their pension and perks were dependent on the fiscal outcome of their term in office, it may result in more prudent decisions when they are in office.


----------



## Ferret (2 September 2012)

Regardless of whether her fortune has been hard-earned or gained through birth and luck, its the hypocracy of her statement that annoys me.

Basically, she is telling the average person that they need to exercise more self control to get ahead.  This is coming from a woman who obviously doesn't apply the discipine or determination needed to tackle her own obesity.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 September 2012)

Ferret said:


> Basically, she is telling the average person that they need to exercise more self control to get ahead.  This is coming from a woman who obviously doesn't apply the discipine or determination needed to tackle her own obesity.



Perhaps Gina doesn't want to lose weight?

Seriously. It's a common human trait to assume that others really do want to be like ourselves. In reality, many don't.

Personally, I don't actually want to be a billionaire as such. There are a things I would like to do that would involve having access to that sort of money, but the money is very much in the category of being a means to an end rather than an end in itself so far as I'm concerned.

On a more practical level, I want to be able to afford a roof over my head, a car that runs and so on. Likewise I want to be able to afford holidays and so on as well. But I'm quite happy to be flying economy class and driving a 12 year old car - I don't actually _want_ a new one regardless of my finances. (And yes, I could afford to pay cash for a new car if I wanted to - but I don't _want_ a new car...).


----------



## Ferret (2 September 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> Perhaps Gina doesn't want to lose weight?




That doesn't excuse the hypocracy.  She is not making the effort required to lose weight, and yet she berates others for not making the effort to get rich.


----------



## young-gun (2 September 2012)

Ferret said:


> That doesn't excuse the hypocracy.  She is not making the effort required to lose weight, and yet she berates others for not making the effort to get rich.




She's not being hypocritical at all. Although I agree she could lsoe weight, she isn't running around whinging and saying "I want to lose weight", and not doing anything about it. Then it would be hypocritical. I imagine she is referring largely to those complaining they want/need/expect more money without doing anything about it.


----------



## tech/a (2 September 2012)

wombat40 said:


> Anyone who subscribes or agrees with Gina Rineharts ramblings is either 1 of 2 things
> 
> 1. A Business owner or a Boss
> 2 A Asshole
> ...




Totally agree
All losers see all successful people 
This way.


----------



## Junior (2 September 2012)

young-gun said:


> You should start a separate thread tyler. Call it "whingers who hate the somewhat arrogant wealthy who have achieved more than you, and contribute far more to the economy."




Contributed to the economy?  If she wasn't digging the stuff up someone else would be.

It's like Gerry Harvey, we're supposed to thank him for 'creating jobs'.  Every time the guy opened a store it would put nearby electronic stores out of business, resulting in no net gain in employment.  And he imports everything from China just like everyone else does anyway.  I don't think he's added any value.


----------



## tech/a (2 September 2012)

Junior said:


> Contributed to the economy?  If she wasn't digging the stuff up someone else would be.
> 
> It's like Gerry Harvey, we're supposed to thank him for 'creating jobs'.  Every time the guy opened a store it would put nearby electronic stores out of business, resulting in no net gain in employment.  And he imports everything from China just like everyone else does anyway.  I don't think he's added any value.




"The Good Guys"
look to open as close as possible to HVN stores.
Competion sharpens the tools in the toolbox.


----------



## ParleVouFrancois (2 September 2012)

You forget that the only reason Harvey was able to displace other local retailers was that he was able to underprice them (and thus consumers benefited). It has come full circle though and now places like ebay/catchoftheday etc underprice Harvey Norman with similar quality of goods.


----------



## Knobby22 (2 September 2012)

white_goodman said:


> elephants walking south in June whilst the stock market rallies does not meant elephants are the cause of stock market rallies..
> 
> show me how making the minimum wage $100/hr causes more employment...
> you dont have sufficient intellectual ability to be commenting on these topics i suggest you stop




I didn't say that. 
Saying we all should work harder for less money is hardly a great philosopher at work more an example of self interest
Economics 101 is simply the first semester of a degree and if you think the world is that simple you had better  check that it not yourself that is the intellectual pygmy.


----------



## Julia (2 September 2012)

young-gun said:


> She's not being hypocritical at all. Although I agree she could lsoe weight, she isn't running around whinging and saying "I want to lose weight", and not doing anything about it. Then it would be hypocritical. I imagine she is referring largely to those complaining they want/need/expect more money without doing anything about it.



Yes, as I see her remarks also.  Recently there was an article in one of the Sunday papers with the headline
"Fat and Proud of It" or words to that effect.  It was about two grossly obese women posing in various attempts at fashion and telling readers they had no interest in altering their shape at all.

I don't see Gina's weight as even slightly related to her business capacity.



tech/a said:


> Totally agree
> All losers see all successful people
> This way.


----------



## Des P (2 September 2012)

bullet21 said:


> a lot of very sour grapes in this thread.




Personally i have worked hard all my life
I find it hard to accept the fact that i like a beer  after a hard days work
is a problem
The cigarettes she has a pointed out she has a good point (struggling to give them up but i will get there one day
day)
I am sure most fly in out workers are not happy with Gina,s comments

There are are a lot of posters on this site that run very successful business,es ( and good on them i back them100%)

I myself have never begrudged a millionaire for making money and i never will! this creates employment and taxes

But to put down the average beer swilling, smoking cigarettes Australian is costing money
I have to question this

Maybe Gina should look at the fact,s that a beer drinking and smoking Dogger(yes Dogger not digger) presented her father with the Iron ore samples and told Lang where it was, that made her rich to day
( the Dogger was an amateur geologist)
In those days maybe $3000 a year was a doggers rate (guessing)

May be Gina is right the Beer swilling,smoking  West Australian Dogger working for the state government
Was not good enough
So if the State government was smart maybe the iron ore discoveries in are West Australian owned 
But a least he was honest and gave Lang a tip where the iron was
The Dogger did not have the money to lay the miners rights

But Lang did, he had a privileged family that owned the cattle station on which the iron ore was discovered

Full commendations for Lang Hancock pushing the Iron ore industry in West Australia,As the Court and previous Government at the time would not allow exports because of National interest and Lang had a big fight on his hands.He won good on him


No mention of that in history the plane flight was a furfy

Show me the flights records of bad weather that day(the records show no bad weather on the day of Lang,s discovery)As history suggest,s he flew low in his private airplane because of bad weather and his instruments went crazy because of iron ore (crap) 

And i will surely prove this one day
Cheers
Des


----------



## white_goodman (3 September 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> I didn't say that.
> Saying we all should work harder for less money is hardly a great philosopher at work more an example of self interest
> Economics 101 is simply the first semester of a degree and if you think the world is that simple you had better  check that it not yourself that is the intellectual pygmy.




im nearly finished my masters in economics, if you wanna measure credentials and economic knowledge im well and truly up for the challenge... you can go away now with the tail between your elgs


----------



## Knobby22 (3 September 2012)

white_goodman said:


> im nearly finished my masters in economics, if you wanna measure credentials and economic knowledge im well and truly up for the challenge... you can go away now with the tail between your elgs




Well I have an MBA, experience as well as some other degrees.

I hate to be the employer who hired you. he would find he had a right wing redneck with a fetish for guns and US TV and worst of all a closed mind and a huge ego.


----------



## prawn_86 (3 September 2012)

Lets lay off the personal attacks please guys.

Any further off topic posts will be removed and infractions issued


----------



## numbercruncher (3 September 2012)

And onto some absolutely fantastic news - seems Gina should be paying attention to her own finances rather than the smoking and drinking habits of others ....



> Clearly, these are only very rough estimates. But they do suggest that more than $9 billion could have been shaved from Rinehart’s valuation.




http://www.smartcompany.com.au/wealth/051545-rich-pickings-how-gina-rinehart-s-fortune-could-have-dropped-by-9-billion-2.html



I love the smell of evaporating fortunes


----------



## gav (3 September 2012)

white_goodman said:


> im nearly finished my masters in economics




I'm shocked they allow a non-Keynesian get that far! :


----------



## young-gun (3 September 2012)

Junior said:


> Contributed to the economy?  If she wasn't digging the stuff up someone else would be.
> 
> It's like Gerry Harvey, we're supposed to thank him for 'creating jobs'.  Every time the guy opened a store it would put nearby electronic stores out of business, resulting in no net gain in employment.  And he imports everything from China just like everyone else does anyway.  I don't think he's added any value.




So what happens when there is no entrepreneurs ready to take any risks?(yeah yeah I know majority on this thread seem to think she hasn't done anything, and has had everything handed on a silver platter ) Everyone just keeps assuming 'someone else will do it', but what if no one does. Then there is no jobs? Entrepreneurs and innovation drive economies. Without them it would be a very sorry looking place.

Harvey obviously had the balls to think big, and it paid off. Although hes taking a bit of a beating at the moment.

I don't know that resources and retail is the best comparison either.


----------



## white_goodman (3 September 2012)

Knobby22 said:


> Well I have an MBA, experience as well as some other degrees.
> 
> I hate to be the employer who hired you. he would find he had a right wing redneck with a fetish for guns and US TV and worst of all a closed mind and a huge ego.




they teach better economics in the run of the mill MBA program then I guess..

you win Knobby haha


----------



## Julia (3 September 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> And onto some absolutely fantastic news - seems Gina should be paying attention to her own finances rather than the smoking and drinking habits of others ....
> I love the smell of evaporating fortunes



Of course you do.  Anything that penalises someone more affluent than you makes you happy, it seems.



young-gun said:


> So what happens when there is no entrepreneurs ready to take any risks?(yeah yeah I know majority on this thread seem to think she hasn't done anything, and has had everything handed on a silver platter ) Everyone just keeps assuming 'someone else will do it', but what if no one does. Then there is no jobs? Entrepreneurs and innovation drive economies. Without them it would be a very sorry looking place.



+1.


----------



## white_goodman (3 September 2012)

gav said:


> I'm shocked they allow a non-Keynesian get that far! :


----------



## white_goodman (3 September 2012)

numbercruncher said:


> And onto some absolutely fantastic news - seems Gina should be paying attention to her own finances rather than the smoking and drinking habits of others ....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




public sector or inner city wine-o?


----------



## Junior (3 September 2012)

young-gun said:


> So what happens when there is no entrepreneurs ready to take any risks?(yeah yeah I know majority on this thread seem to think she hasn't done anything, and has had everything handed on a silver platter ) Everyone just keeps assuming 'someone else will do it', but what if no one does. Then there is no jobs? Entrepreneurs and innovation drive economies. Without them it would be a very sorry looking place.
> 
> Harvey obviously had the balls to think big, and it paid off. Although hes taking a bit of a beating at the moment.
> 
> I don't know that resources and retail is the best comparison either.




I don't have a problem with Gina or Gerry, other than the dumb comments they've made publicly in recent times.  Clearly they are astute business-people, evidenced by the empires they've built.

All I'm saying, with regards to Gina, is that I don't think we should bow down and praise her awesomeness for 'contributing to the economy'.  I think it's hard not to contribute to the economy if you're handed a gigantic inheritance, the money has to go somewhere, and it's not like she created a new and innovative product or started something from scratch.  I'd be far more impressed if she directed some energy towards philanthropic endeavours, i.e. like Buffet and Gates


----------



## young-gun (4 September 2012)

Junior said:


> I don't have a problem with Gina or Gerry, other than the dumb comments they've made publicly in recent times.  Clearly they are astute business-people, evidenced by the empires they've built.
> 
> All I'm saying, with regards to Gina, is that I don't think we should bow down and praise her awesomeness for 'contributing to the economy'.  I think it's hard not to contribute to the economy if you're handed a gigantic inheritance, the money has to go somewhere, and it's not like she created a new and innovative product or started something from scratch.  I'd be far more impressed if she directed some energy towards philanthropic endeavours, i.e. like Buffet and Gates





Fair enough. I would hope she has been putting money into increasing mining productivity. The mining-technology side of things is probably majority over-seas companies anyway. In saying that I saw a few with some good ideas on that young inventors show or whatever it's called.


----------



## numbercruncher (4 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Of course you do.  Anything that penalises someone more affluent than you makes you happy, it seems.
> 
> +1.





No just Gina Whinehart and Her ilk who are getting their just desserts ! Plenty of the worlds elite whose Morals I support , and I suspect they would be the ones you dislike. Just imagine if people like you and I agreed , it would be a boring warless world wouldnt it ?


----------



## sptrawler (4 September 2012)

Maybe Gina is refering to this group of people mentioned in the Gonski Report.



In the 1960s, only 2 per cent of Australian men aged 25 to 54 were outside the workforce: neither in a job, nor looking for one. But in the year to June 2012, on average, almost 10 per cent of Australian men of prime working age were not in work or looking for it. They're not counted in the unemployment figures, but they cost us (and themselves) a fortune

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/big-fat-zero-for-gillard-20120903-25agh.html#ixzz25YAu8K00

http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/big-fat-zero-for-gillard-20120903-25agh.html

Yet we are importing workers.


----------



## Tyler Durden (4 September 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Maybe Gina is refering to this group of people mentioned in the Gonski Report.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Wow, that is a huge number! My question is - why the hell are they not looking for work??


----------



## sptrawler (4 September 2012)

Tyler Durden said:


> Wow, that is a huge number! My question is - why the hell are they not looking for work??




Maybe that's what Gina is asking. 
Why aren't the reporters asking the government? 
Then they could ask "if there is all these employable males out there, why the hell are we importing workers"


----------



## tigerboi (5 September 2012)

white_goodman said:


> im nearly finished my masters in economics, if you wanna measure credentials and economic knowledge im well and truly up for the challenge... you can go away now with the tail between your elgs




so funny!!! knobby & goodman boys theres only one measurement that counts & it aint " i got my MBA faster than yours...

guys get the tape out & whoevers got the biggest is the winner or get the sumo suits on

& give us all a laugh........tb


----------



## Calliope (5 September 2012)

This was ratbag Wayne Swan's reaction to the speech. I think he is paranoid.:screwy:



> But Mr Swan leapt on a suggestion from Mrs Rinehart in the video that firms operating in the Gulf of Mexico could reduce costs if they used "illegal labour from Mexico and the south".
> 
> "Not only has Gina Rinehart told her paymaster Tony Abbott he should consider slashing the minimum wage, now she says a competitive way to lower labour costs is by utilising illegal labour," a spokesman for the Treasurer said.










http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...gillards-lecture/story-fn59niix-1226465156248


----------



## bellenuit (5 September 2012)

Having listened to her talk in its entirety, I can only conclude that Gina is politically inept. 

Although she didn't recommend hiring illegal foreign workers as they do in the Gulf of Mexico or paying workers just $2 per day as they do in some parts of Africa, she has left it open to interpretation that she would not be opposed to such things. Swan seized on them in the above quote and Gillard also in a speech today. If she had any political nous, she should have categorically stated that she was only using those as examples of what Australia has to compete against and was in no way advocating such practices be adopted in Australia, but instead she left it open to her opponents to suggest that that was what she was advocating. A suggestion made more plausible by her recent advocation of lowering the minimum wage

She must be aware that Labor sees her as a figurative example of the big bad cigar smoking capitalist and are using her speeches to not only attack the mining industry, but also attack the coalition by demanding they disassociate from her views. She should be a lot more careful in what she says. This was not an impromptu door stop interview that might be excused for badly thought out answers to ambush style questions, but a rehearsed pre-recorded speech that should have been vetted by people with more political nous than her.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 September 2012)

It is what she wants and believes in.
She has asked for it previously, 
that is: the mining part of Australia being granted special economic zone status where labour and environmental rules are relaxed.


----------



## Calliope (5 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Having listened to her talk in its entirety, I can only conclude that Gina is politically inept.
> ..; She should be a lot more careful in what she says. This was not an impromptu door stop interview that might be excused for badly thought out answers to ambush style questions, but a rehearsed pre-recorded speech that should have been vetted by people with more political nous than her.




In other words, she should politicians' weasel language.


----------



## drsmith (5 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> She must be aware that Labor sees her as a figurative example of the big bad cigar smoking capitalist and are using her speeches to not only attack the mining industry, but also attack the coalition by demanding they disassociate from her views. She should be a lot more careful in what she says. This was not an impromptu door stop interview that might be excused for badly thought out answers to ambush style questions, but a rehearsed pre-recorded speech that should have been vetted by people with more political nous than her.



When it comes to productivity, she should perhaps concentrate on the broader economic perspective in that lower productivity will ultimately result in a lower dollar and hence lower real wages. I do wonder how much her perspective extends beyond her own immediate business interests. If it doesn't, she would do well to avoid public comment on economic matters. She's not going to win public support for her position on productivity from the standpoint of $2 a day wages in Africa. 

She did at ont point briefly hire a media manager, but that only lasted a month. One can only assume she thought she knew more than he did.

I can see the picture Labor would try to paint. Perhaps something along the lines of a female Nasty Canasta.


----------



## Knobby22 (5 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> In other words, she should politicians' weasel language.




That should be quote of the week!


----------



## Miss Hale (5 September 2012)

Did anyone else hear that Wayne Swan has dismissed Rinehart's video as "pearl rattling"?  This coming from the party that constantly claims Abbott is being sexist and has a problem with powerful women 

http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3583308.htm

I've actually never heard this expression before but I assume it is a derrogatory comment implying Rinehart is a just a rich woman spouting forth while fiddling with her pearls.  I can't see how this expression could be applied to a man. Now who is being sexist and has a problem wih powerful women? 

(Someone please correct me if I am wrong and jumping to conclusions).


----------



## bellenuit (5 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> In other words, she should politicians' weasel language.




I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that she should tie up some loose wording in her speech so that her opponents can't twist what she is saying into something that she was not trying to convey. 

Just adding "I am not advocating such policies....." when talking about African and Gulf working conditions would have deprived Swan and Gillard of their glib responses and simplistic dismissal of her speech. Those responses will get equal footing with a brief abstract of what she said in this evening's news reports.

In regards to whose message will be heard, they will have won and she will have lost.


----------



## Calliope (5 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I'm not suggesting that at all. I'm suggesting that she should tie up some loose wording in her speech so that her opponents can't twist what she is saying into something that she was not trying to convey.
> 
> Just adding "I am not advocating such policies....." when talking about African and Gulf working conditions would have deprived Swan and Gillard of their glib responses and simplistic dismissal of her speech..




Only twisted leftist political minds could infer that she was advocating this for Australia. She was just pointing out the difficulties of competing with countries where they have cheap labour. Rinehart also has the added handicap of operating under a system controlled by Labor backed militant unions.

 I wonder why she bothers, when the country is controlled by people like Gillard,  Swan and Shorten  who have never operated or managed a business, and have no conception of the problems that Rinehart faces.


----------



## banco (5 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Having listened to her talk in its entirety, I can only conclude that Gina is politically inept.




You think?  She could have got a lot further by prefacing everything with "I've been really lucky in my life and now I want to give back by improving productivity etc.".


----------



## bellenuit (5 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Only twisted leftist political minds could infer that she was advocating this for Australia.




Which is just my point in a way.  Probably less than 1% of people will actually listen to her speech.  The rest will base their opinion on what is said on the TV and radio news. This will be the comments from Gillard and Swan and perhaps a 30 second excerpt from Gina's speech, most likely the bit where she talks about Africans just being paid $2 per day. They will use that part to tie in with Gillard's comment.

What people infer from those 3 clips will be very different from what they would infer from listening to her complete speech. That is why she should not have left an opening for Gillard and Swan to imply she was inferring something she was not.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2012)

banco said:


> You think?  She could have got a lot further by prefacing everything with "I've been really lucky in my life and now I want to give back by improving productivity etc.".




Also It's o.k for the goon show to pay out on Gina about $2/hr workers, but didn't they give her the o.k to bring in Chinese workers?


----------



## banco (5 September 2012)

sptrawler said:


> Wayne Swan could get a lot further by prefacing everything with" I'm lucky, no matter how I screw up your lives, I'll get an indexed, government gauranteed pension for the rest my life".
> Jeez get a life, I don't agree with her opinions, however she and Forrest have a lot more 'skin' in the game than Swan and Gillard.
> Also It's o.k for the goon show to pay out on Gina about $2/hr workers, but didn't they give her the o.k to bring in Chinese workers?




Unless Gina and Twiggy's accountants are complete morons the iron ore price could collapse to $10 and they would still have enough money to use what Gillard and Swan will get in a year on their parliamentary pensions for coasters.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2012)

banco said:


> Unless Gina and Twiggy's accountants are complete morons the iron ore price could collapse to $10 and they would still have enough money to use what Gillard and Swan will get in a year on their parliamentary pensions for coasters.




That's probably true however Gina and Twiggy's bad decisions and incompetence only affect those directly or indirectly involved.
The others incompetence effect everyones lives, with very little consequence to theirs.IMO


----------



## Julia (5 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Having listened to her talk in its entirety, I can only conclude that Gina is politically inept.



At least she's up for attempting to make the point to the government and anyone else who cares to listen.



Miss Hale said:


> Did anyone else hear that Wayne Swan has dismissed Rinehart's video as "pearl rattling"?  This coming from the party that constantly claims Abbott is being sexist and has a problem with powerful women
> 
> http://www.abc.net.au/worldtoday/content/2012/s3583308.htm
> 
> ...




It was my interpretation also and I've also not heard the expression before.
Another example of the double standard:  it's apparently fine for the government to make derogatory, sexist comments toward a business leader, but another matter entirely if they choose to interpret criticism of their policies as being merely mysoginistic toward the Prime Minister.



bellenuit said:


> Which is just my point in a way.  Probably less than 1% of people will actually listen to her speech.  The rest will base their opinion on what is said on the TV and radio news. This will be the comments from Gillard and Swan and perhaps a 30 second excerpt from Gina's speech, most likely the bit where she talks about Africans just being paid $2 per day. They will use that part to tie in with Gillard's comment.
> 
> What people infer from those 3 clips will be very different from what they would infer from listening to her complete speech. That is why she should not have left an opening for Gillard and Swan to imply she was inferring something she was not.



Yes, unfortunately you have a valid point.  Listening to her speech her meaning was quite clear and she was not at all suggesting a similar wage apply in Australia.
But already her remark has been taken out of context with Ms Gillard rushing to the evening news with the assertion that Gina thinks it's fine to "throw a two dollar coin" at workers.

If Ms Rinehart is going to be more active in the media, she needs to seek some advice about how to express herself, as you suggest.
As a plus, however, she has a well modulated voice, speaks clearly, and delivered a quite eloquent speech imo.
The Prime Minister and her colleagues could learn from her delivery at least.


----------



## DB008 (5 September 2012)

There is a fake Gina "Twitter account" up and running. (Gina Rinehart@FairfaxGina). Some strong language



> I paid $2.10 for a doughnut today! F**ken carbon tax






> These Labor voters are still clogging up my street! Can someone send over a bulldozer?






> I was asked how I would sell more copies of the fairfax papers and I simply said I'd buy more myself.






> I can't watch this anymore, time for my second dinner anyway. #4corners


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> There is a fake Gina "Twitter account" up and running. (Gina Rinehart@FairfaxGina). Some strong language




Well she wouldn't be an orphan, being overweight, would she.LOL What was Germaine Greer talking about.


----------



## bellenuit (5 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Probably less than 1% of people will actually listen to her speech.  The rest will base their opinion on what is said on the TV and radio news. This will be the comments from Gillard and Swan and perhaps a 30 second excerpt from Gina's speech, most likely the bit where she talks about Africans just being paid $2 per day. They will use that part to tie in with Gillard's comment.




I just watched the 9pm news on ABC 24 (Perth) and it has played out just as I expected. From Gina's 10 minute speech, there was about 10 seconds of her mentioning the special economic zone across the north of Australia, another 10 seconds of her mentioning African mining workers are being paid $2 per day followed by a clip of Gillard saying that we in Australia are not going to stoop to throwing a couple of dollars a day at our mining workers (I can't remember her exact words). While this was going on, a banner sliding across the bottom of the screen read something like "Rinehart accused of insulting Australian workers in her speech".


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> I just watched the 9pm news on ABC 24 (Perth) and it has played out just as I expected. From Gina's 10 minute speech, there was about 10 seconds of her mentioning the special economic zone across the north of Australia, another 10 seconds of her mentioning African mining workers are being paid $2 per day followed by a clip of Gillard saying that we in Australia are not going to stoop to throwing a couple of dollars a day at our mining workers (I can't remember her exact words). While this was going on, a banner sliding across the bottom of the screen read something like "Rinehart accused of insulting Australian workers in her speech".




Is there any wonder why she wants to buy a newspaper.LOL
There is no chance she will get reasonable press without owning it.


----------



## Des P (6 September 2012)

Julia i can see your point on Gina Rineharts comment's
Which in turn keeps politicians busy with bagging each other and forgetting about running the country
But i would like to say when she makes these comments it becomes a political discussion
Not because she is rich,But because she is out of touch with reality and does not understand the way average Australian's think
$2 a day does she understand why they work for this
Maybe because there governments are so corrupt they have no choice but to work for this pittance
I have worked in Africa and other parts of the world and have seen what happens
one of the companies i worked for were paying Equivilvant 57 cent an hour this was a considerable amount of
money considering the area we were working had an average wage of $1 a week to live on
The company wanted to pay more, But the country we were working in would not allow it as it would have caused a lot of unrest with the people.
I currently run a project in Indonesia my people earn from double to ten times the country's minimum wage
Enter and this is for approximation of  1/10 of the skill,s Australians have
One thing Gina must ask herself is how many people does it take to construct a mine,run a rig run a mine.
The answer is 3 to 4 times as many people more than an Australian
Jobs i work on
Mine construction Tanzania 1000 personnel same mine in Australia 250-300
Operating a drilling Rig(geothermal,oil & gas land) minimum 200 personnel, Australia may be 20 -30
I know it still works out cheaper to have these people do a hard days work
But is it cheaper, Gina is still in the dark ages thinking that most Aussie worker,s are only laborer's
Yes there are those who don,t want to work (ex wife one of them)
But at the end of the day Gina has not got a clue what she is talking about
She has lost touch with reality
And has not thought about the time the HBI plant was built in Port headland using Cheap overseas labor and structural ended up costing the company double its budget with rework
the old story goes you pay peanuts you get unskilled stuff up,s and reworks
Cheers
Des
P.S i am a swinging voter so i dont give a damn who runs the country so long as they look after Australia for our future generations of Kids ( but i get put of by politicians who back stab and make promises they cant keep,Another story in the making)


----------



## DB008 (6 September 2012)




----------



## Julia (6 September 2012)

That cartoon and other media commentary supports Bellenuit's proposition that she would be taken out of context and her comments twisted.
And the Labor party talks about "the hate media"!


----------



## MrBurns (6 September 2012)

No wonder she doesnt do interviews, I wasnt impressed by how she talked, plumb in mouth


----------



## Tannin (6 September 2012)

DB008 said:


>




Awesome! That's brilliant!


----------



## DB008 (6 September 2012)

Julia said:


> That cartoon and other media commentary supports Bellenuit's proposition that she would be taken out of context and her comments twisted.
> And the Labor party talks about "the hate media"!




Yes, I think so too, regarding Bellenuit's post earlier in this thread illustrated this clearly with the ABC clipping a few quotes. 

We live in 'here and now' society. Sadly, most news/media outlets pretty much want their 10 seconds of fame, have an attention grabbing headline to draw viewers in and up their ratings.


----------



## Julia (6 September 2012)

MrBurns said:


> No wonder she doesnt do interviews, I wasnt impressed by how she talked, plumb in mouth



Disagree.  You have become too used to the ghastly tones of the Prime Minister.


----------



## Macquack (6 September 2012)

Julia said:


> That cartoon and other media commentary supports Bellenuit's proposition that she would be taken out of context and her comments twisted.
> And the Labor party talks about "the hate media"!




She was not taken out of context, watch the video, *she has contempt for Australia's working class*.

Rinehart
"especially as we are a high wage country competing against low wage ones" 
translates to "I wish daddy had staked that claim in Africa".

Rinehart wants a special Northern Economic Zone with less (read no) regulation and lower taxes. HELLO GINA, what do you think the rest of Australia wants? Do you think we want special exemptions and conditions for you, while we have to carry the burden of greater regulation and higher taxes?


----------



## MrBurns (6 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Disagree.  You have become too used to the ghastly tones of the Prime Minister.




Hardly...No she comes across as not too smart and very affected, sort of s false affection, she's not used to public speaking I guess.


----------



## MrBurns (6 September 2012)

Macquack said:


> She was not taken out of context, watch the video, *she has contempt for Australia's working class*.
> 
> Rinehart
> "especially as we are a high wage country competing against low wage ones"
> ...




She seems out of touch with the real world, strange, makes me think she doesnt run the place she would be surrounded by people who tell her what to do.


----------



## Julia (7 September 2012)

> "especially as we are a high wage country competing against low wage ones"



It's not up to me to defend Ms Rinehart or anyone else, but the above comment is a statement of fact.

Of course anyone who dislikes the woman for whatever reason will manage to apply their own bias to it.


----------



## Calliope (7 September 2012)

Julia said:


> It's not up to me to defend Ms Rinehart or anyone else, but the above comment is a statement of fact.
> 
> Of course anyone who dislikes the woman for whatever reason will manage to apply their own bias to it.




Yes I agree. There is no doubt that issuing the video was a mistake of judgement. This is the third Gina Rinehart hate thread on this forum and anything she says or does seems to attract her lunar-left enemies like vultures to a carcase. As Terry McCrann said :

"Gillard's $2 a day smear was simply ludicrous. Yes Rinehart is an attractive hate figure. She makes a great political pinata for Gillard, her treasurer Wayne Swan and assorted cronies in the media."

Any suggestion that she was calling for wage cuts in Australia is a malicious lie.


----------



## McLovin (7 September 2012)

Calliope said:


> Any suggestion that she was calling for wage cuts in Australia is a malicious lie.




While I agree she was not calling for $2 wages/day or even maybe $9/hour wages, it's hard to call the _suggestion_ that she wants wages cut in Australia "a malicious lie".

From the horse's mouth...



> There are, of course, things the government can do to make this easier. Why not ask small and medium businesses what it would take to get them to invest more, train and hire more - and this time really listen? They've already told the government this year that cutting red tape - and green - is critical. Action, please!
> 
> *Furthermore, why not ask whether lowering the minimum wages and lowering taxes would make employers hire more people?*
> 
> *To many of Australian Resources and Investment's readers, this would just be ‘common sense 101' *- even if it's less common than it should be - but unless we keep spreading common sense 101 to more people, we will continue to see Australia replicate the problems facing Greece, Spain and other European countries that followed the socialist path of high taxes and excessive regulation and whose streets are now occupied by angry, worried protestors.




http://ipa.org.au/publications/2081/let's-get-back-to-our-roots


----------



## Tannin (7 September 2012)

The richest woman in the world, the woman who inherited her unimaginably vast fortune through *no merit* of her own, the woman *so greedy* that she takes her own children to court to stop them getting their own money, this woman wants to set up a special zone in Australia where she can import cheap African workers to make some tiny increases in her already huge wealth ... and you _defend_ her? 

_Unbeliveable._


----------



## tech/a (7 September 2012)

Why do you or I have to pay higher taxes if we better our position in life?

Why do I as an employer have to pay *PAYROLL* tax because I employ *MORE* People?

Why do I pay *Fringe benifits* tax because my staff take their company car home---at my expense?

Why cant I trade insolvently like most Govt's in the world today---and remain in business?

Why do I have to pay 100% increases on my rates because property went up 300%
and council does nothing more or differently than years ago?

Why do those who *DONT WANT TO WORK* not have to work for the dole?

Why do I have to prepay my taxes based upon last years profits?

Why indeed *HOW* do politicians get 30% wage rises---yet depress anyone who wants similar?

And your complaining because someone thinks more people should get off their Fat backside and actually be productive!

*THAT* is unbelievable.


----------



## DB008 (7 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> The richest woman in the world, the woman who inherited her unimaginably vast fortune through *no merit* of her own




I think you meant to say....
Gina inherited some $70-$75 million in cash and a few iron ore tenements when her father died (Lang Hancock). 
She signed a JV (joint-venture) between her company (Hancock Prospecting - inherited) and Rio Tinto, in 2005 to develop the Hope Down(s) mine. 
Hancock Prospecting receives 50% profit from this mine which Rio Tinto operates. 
She is now worth ~$20 billion.


1) Gina was lucky with the price of iron ore (very lucky) - commodities boom - see chart below
2) She is in a legal battle with her kids over the control of Hancock Prospecting
3) She seems to be a b!tch to a lot of people, and is outspoken
4) Not that I agree with what she says all the time, but good on her for making so much money and taking advantage of the commodities boom. Would you have not done the same?
5) Iron Ore is Australia's biggest export @21% of all exports followed by coal @15% (ANZ Research, 05.09.12)

Iron Ore Spot Price (20 year)





(Disclaimer - I could be wrong on a couple of points, I apologise in advance)


----------



## Des P (7 September 2012)

I wonder


----------



## Klogg (7 September 2012)

Des P said:


> I wonder
> View attachment 48876




As bad as his vision was, he worked wonders for the German economy...


----------



## Tannin (7 September 2012)

(For some technical reason I don't understand, the system won't let me post in one go, so please excuse the multiple posts that follow.)



			
				tech/a said:
			
		

> Why do you or I have to pay higher taxes if we better our position in life?




Your facts are wrong here, mate. Wage earners pay higher taxes when they better their incomes, billionaires pay very little. The most famous example of this is from the USA where the world's all-time most successful investor, a man worth US$44 billion confessed that he pays less tax than the secretary who types his letters. Australia's mining barons are the same - except they lack the honesty to say so. Overall, mining is responsible for 30% of corporate profits in Australia, but pays only 15% of corporate taxes.


----------



## Tannin (7 September 2012)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Why do I as an employer have to pay PAYROLL tax because I employ MORE People?




I agree. It is quite mad. State governments of both major parties have maintained our idiotic payroll taxes for many years. Why people get upset about taxes on harmful things like tobacco and carbon and alcohol but _don't_ get upset about taxes on good things like employment (state payroll tax) and wages (federal income tax) .... it beats me.


----------



## Tannin (7 September 2012)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Why do I pay Fringe benifits tax because my staff take their company car home---at my expense?




Because you are providing the car as part of their overall salary package. Fringe Benefits Tax was introduced to *stop* people like you *rorting the system* by diverting wages into tax-free benefits like company cars, free private school education, and lavish meals and entertainment allowances. If you don't like paying FBT, simply do the honest thing and pay your people with real money.



			
				tech/a said:
			
		

> Why do I have to pay 100% increases on my rates because property went up 300% and council does nothing more or differently than years ago?




Several reasons. The main one, certainly in my part of the world, is that the council is hell bent on increasing the population of the city - despite the ratepayers being strongly opposed to that on quality of life grounds -  and they need vast amounts of money to fund capital expenditure on infrastructure and services for all these extra people. But there are many other reasons which vary from place to place.


----------



## Tannin (7 September 2012)

tech/a said:
			
		

> Why cant I trade insolvently like most Govt's in the world today---and remain in business?




Wrong. Just plain wrong. No government in the world today is insolvent. Even Greece is worth vastly more than the government debt it owes. 

You are *confusing cash flow* with *net asset value*. 

You need to understand the difference between solvency and liquidity. When one is *insolvent*, the total of one's debts are larger than the total of one's assets - you owe $400,000, let's say, and the only thing you own is your house, which is worth only $300,000. When one has a cash flow or liquidity problem (which is what you are talking about), one has enough money to pay one's debts, but can't get at that money right away.  You might own your house, for example, but not have enough cash to pay your credit card bill. This is the situation the Greeks are in. They don't have the cash to pay their loans off and are unwilling or unable to take the steps required to raise that cash immediately. 

And this is just the worst case. Most governments are in vastly better shape than Greece, and the Australian government debt is so small by world standards that it counts for nothing at all in the scheme of things.







*^ National debt to GDP ratios.*

Get a sense of perspectibve. See the three little bars right up the top? One of those is Australia.


----------



## young-gun (7 September 2012)

tech/a said:


> Why do you or I have to pay higher taxes if we better our position in life?
> 
> Why do I as an employer have to pay *PAYROLL* tax because I employ *MORE* People?
> 
> ...




I have no doubt you have minimized your tax payable every year tech, but get what you're saying.

People on here have huge issues with others more successful than they are. Hence the huge amounts of attacks directed at Gina and how she originally obtained her wealth. Very few seem to know how to get rich so they make themselves feel better by ripping apart those that have made it. Saying you need money to make money is a fantastic excuse as to why someone hasn't made any

Good on ya Gina.


----------



## Calliope (7 September 2012)

young-gun said:


> I have no doubt you have minimized your tax payable every year tech, but get what you're saying.
> 
> People on here have huge issues with others more successful than they are. Hence the huge amounts of attacks directed at Gina and how she originally obtained her wealth. Very few seem to know how to get rich so they make themselves feel better by ripping apart those that have made it. Saying you need money to make money is a fantastic excuse as to why someone hasn't made any
> 
> Good on ya Gina.




Her biggest critics are all those ex-union hacks and lawyers who compose the Labor Government and have never run a business in their lives.


----------



## Ves (7 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> and the Australian government debt is so small by world standards that it counts for nothing at all in the scheme of things.



Thta is because our governments sold off a heap of public assets, which had the effect of transferring debt to the private sector.  Have a look at the CAD... Australia is a net borrower (because a lot of our major businesses are foreign owned).  Private & household debt is a big proportion of GDP because of the asset sell-off combined with stimulus (FHBG etc) to make people buy expensive houses and become further indebted.

That might seem all well and good, because you know, the government can afford to soak up budget deficits because there is very little debt, but what happens (as it is now) when the private sector are over-leveraged and spend less money and tax revenues start to decline?


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 September 2012)

So far as governments are concerned, the basic pattern seems to be:

1. Build up public assets and overall wealth (pre-1970's)
2. Commence running down public assets (1970's)
3. Run up non-productive debt (1980's) 
4. Sell off public assets to ease debts which now look like a crisis (1990's)
5. Commence running up more debts (recently)
6. Now what? The assets are gone but the debt is coming back.

To a large extent privatisation of utilities, roads etc was simply another means of running a hidden deficit and increasing taxation by stealth (ie total payment went up, it just now goes via private companies but it's still a price increase). Sure, we had a pile of debt in the past but we also had a huge pile of assets to go with it - aircraft, trains, buses, power stations, ports, water supply, and all the rest was all in public ownership.

At some point this has to end and I'm expecting that the terms "Current Account deficit" and "foreign debt" will be back in the mainstream news and politics after having been largely absent for the past 15 or so years. So far as Gina is concerned, well mining is helping address this issue to some extent although she could do 10 times as much by processing the ore in Australia instead of simply digging and loading onto ships. That's not so easy however....


----------



## Ferret (8 September 2012)

Smurf1976 said:


> To a large extent privatisation of utilities, roads etc was simply another means of running a hidden deficit and increasing taxation by stealth (ie total payment went up, it just now goes via private companies but it's still a price increase). Sure, we had a pile of debt in the past but we also had a huge pile of assets to go with it - aircraft, trains, buses, power stations, ports, water supply, and all the rest was all in public ownership.




As I understand it, most toll roads are concessions to the builder and operator.  They put up the capital and get the toll income for so many years, then the asset reverts to government ownership.  

Not such a bad system really, except many concession owners have got their sums wrong, paid too much and had to be bailed out by governments.


----------



## Calliope (8 September 2012)

"Closed Mind" is a good summation of a Rinehart hater.


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 September 2012)

Ferret said:


> As I understand it, most toll roads are concessions to the builder and operator.  They put up the capital and get the toll income for so many years, then the asset reverts to government ownership.



Maybe so, I don't know the details of how it works, but my point is that all we've really done is transfer the debt from government to private and the means of payment from tax to tolls. It's hasn't been "eliminated" as such, just moved around.


----------



## moXJO (8 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> *^ National debt to GDP ratios.*
> 
> Get a sense of perspectibve. See the three little bars right up the top? One of those is Australia.




Guess how the others started


----------



## white_goodman (9 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> Wrong. Just plain wrong. No government in the world today is insolvent. Even Greece is worth vastly more than the government debt it owes.
> 
> You are *confusing cash flow* with *net asset value*.
> 
> ...




Australia's government debt to GDP is actually around 22% and in terms of accelerating debt we shouldnt be too chuffed with ourselves.. also viewing govt debt without looking at the levels of private debt to GDP is foolish. 

But that is macroeconomic orthodoxy, I got my lecturer to admit that he said private debt levels do not matter. No surprise really considering he co-authored with Olivier Blanchard who stated in 2008 that "the state of global macro is good"


----------



## Miner (10 September 2012)

I have been reading how sensitisation played with Gina's commments with media and many of us. That includes me.

Sorry for bringing controversy here giving others the opportunity to attack me as well 

First of all Gina reacted because at one side iron price has halved and then she could see the wages have not halved. For a weathy (filthy) rich who inherrited a massive fortune without going even a Gym to reduce weight is a considerable issue. Often billionnaires and the wealthy CEOs do not want to increase wages by 50 cents so that his or her million dollar bonuses are not reduced. That is life and surely those category of people are not interested to read what we think about them or come to this forum !!!

However, I also believe many of us and media have overplayed what she said. It was a metaphor and media /public are overreacting. The bottom line is yes we Aussies in WA and Qld Mines are much overpaid compared to our own fellow country persons serving the same states and not linked with mining directly or indirectly. Then you compare how much a graduate without a mining/engineering/medical/law degree gets paid in Sydney/Melb compared to his or her counter part in Perth/Pilbara/Gladstone. Look at the house prices in Newman and Melbourne. Who pays for the rent of the expensive houses in Newman - of course employers. The employee does not want to see it but that is cost of capital. Who pays for 2.5 times to a worker on Sunday at mine site. Employee takes it as a given and employer does not want to pay for it. Why a person holding a manager position in a tyre shop prefers to be a assistant to a driller in a mine site. Folks - it is again the Money $$$. Who pays to make it attractive ? People like Gina. She and others reacted - because they were not concerned when Iron Price was $180 per ton.

Further, why in Perth, I have seen how a simple designer (they do not design but draft but glorified to call as designers) multiple a simple drawing into two drawings. Because that is 80 hours wages than making it all in one piece of drawing with 40 hours wages. Who pays it ? Client  of course. Who is the Client ??? Whose cost of capital it is ?? Client again. *(To be honest then we Aussies pay it through our taxes, reducing expenses on infrastructure, losing jobs being non competitive and finally those riches pay less taxes by creative accounting ) *

Monday morning - solid half an hour goes waste to discuss about weekend parties, girl friend/boy friend gosspis, footy result - who pays for it ? The Employer. Same story - Friday - too stressed and looking for weekend. Who pays ? Work is accumulated so work during weekend . Ha Ha

I am in Canada and working with Aussies, Canadians, Americans, English, South Americans - all. I have never heard the word stress or take SICKEY leave. I am one of the Client paid managers (yes, I chose it after working many years from the other side too). But can not complaint on labors here :  because not only the wage rate (including mine) is 60% of what we get paid in WA but productivity and work culture are (I am sorry folks for being honest) far better. You can say why US then got down. It is basically manipulation of finances at the top treasury level and giving away work to China, India and Phillipines. I am not kidding - check with Aussies working here. They will say the same thing.

*So time has come that instead of yelling at Gina or BCI Chief Mr Young, we need to be self critical and bring ourself competitive in world market before any more jobs are given to India, China .*Thanks for reading my view if you have  done so.


----------



## numbercruncher (12 September 2012)

GIna hasnt got enough digits in her bank account and wants you pesky workers to take sizeable a paycut ....

Ofcourse your bankers may not agree if they want you to maintain mortgage payments on the most expensive houses on the planet ....



> BBC WORLD NEWS NEWSREADER: Gina Rinehart, who's said to earn around $2 million an hour, said Australia should look to Africa, where they pay people on average $2 a day.


----------



## Tannin (12 September 2012)

Numbercruncher, yep. It's gone all over the world. I saw in the paper yesterday that her remarks had been reported in major media in the US, the UK, and other places as well, and in terms similar to those you cited. 

I generally dislike the term but it is certainly appropriate here: as they say, Rinehart has "damaged her brand" - not just in Australia (where she was already well-known and pretty unpopular to begin with) but overseas as well now. She will put a brave face on it and pretend she has no regrets about the speech, but she's probably smart enough to have realised this, and you'd think she will try to keep a low profile from now on, or maybe make some kind of big philanthropic splash to regain some public esteem.

Meanwhile, yet another expensive day in court today saw an outright rejection of her umpteenth attempt to stymie the action her children are taking against her to lay claim to their share of the inherited wealth.

(Why didn't I become a lawyer? The money that's being thrown around on this thing beggars belief!)


----------



## bellenuit (12 September 2012)

> BBC WORLD NEWS NEWSREADER: Gina Rinehart, who's said to earn around $2 million an hour, said Australia should look to Africa, where they pay people on average $2 a day.




Although I suggested already that Gina showed political ineptness by that speech and left herself open to gross misinterpretation by not properly qualifying her comments, if that is an accurate quote of a BBC World Newsreader, then BBC World is failing to report accurately. They have deliberately misconstrued what she said.


----------



## Tannin (12 September 2012)

Where is your problem, Bellenuit? That's what she said - people should work harder for less money. (Except for Rinehart, of course.) It is a very fair summary. And it's effectively the same summary that they ran in New York and Chicago and all over the world. Bottom line, it was really, really stupid to call for lower wages in Australia and _in the same speech_ mention that $2 figure. No sub-editor on the planet could pass up a gaffe like that one.


----------



## sails (12 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> Where is your problem, Bellenuit? That's what she said - people should work harder for less money. (Except for Rinehart, of course.) It is a very fair summary. And it's effectively the same summary that they ran in New York and Chicago and all over the world. Bottom line, it was really, really stupid to call for lower wages in Australia and _in the same speech_ mention that $2 figure. No sub-editor on the planet could pass up a gaffe like that one.




Tannin, this is what Gina actually said:



> "*Africans want to work, and its workers are willing to work for less than $2 per day. Such statistics make me worry for this country's future*."




this is what the BBc said according to Numbercruncher:



> BBC WORLD NEWS NEWSREADER: Gina Rinehart, who's said to earn around $2 million an hour, *said Australia should look to Africa, where they pay people on average $2 a day.*




Sounds like a misquote to me.


----------



## explod (12 September 2012)

sails said:


> Tannin, this is what Gina actually said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Just depends what the $2 buys.  A new car or survival or is the first needed for both.

So many conundrums


----------



## Macquack (12 September 2012)

I am with Tannin and Numbercruncher, Gina Rinehart the richest woman in the world is crying poor and we (working class Australia) are supposed to shed a tear for her. 

Watching the ABC documentary on Rinehart reinforced my view of her, particularly the lengths she went to try to frame Rose Porteous after the death of Lang Hancock. 

Rinehart is an evil money hungry bitch of the first order.


----------



## bellenuit (12 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> Where is your problem, Bellenuit? That's what she said - people should work harder for less money. (Except for Rinehart, of course.) It is a very fair summary.




Except it is not what she said. I am referring to the fact that the quote above used the words "Gina Rinehart *said*".  If they are quoting her, then they don't need to summarise. They should use the exact words she said.


----------



## moXJO (12 September 2012)

Macquack said:


> I
> 
> Rinehart is an evil money hungry bitch of the first order.




Yeah I agree, doesn't mean she isn't right from time to time though


----------



## Julia (12 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> if that is an accurate quote of a BBC World Newsreader, then BBC World is failing to report accurately. They have deliberately misconstrued what she said.






Tannin said:


> Where is your problem, Bellenuit? That's what she said



It is not what she said.  You are perpetuating the error, undoubtedly for your own narrow political purposes.



bellenuit said:


> Except it is not what she said. I am referring to the fact that the quote above used the words "Gina Rinehart *said*".  If they are quoting her, then they don't need to summarise. They should use the exact words she said.



Exactly.


----------



## Joules MM1 (12 September 2012)

moXJO said:


> Guess how the others started




just cruising thru ......

moXJO, great graph, poss to know the names of all the countries on that ?

oh, cupla tweets you might find interesting:



> Stephen Koukoulas‏@TheKouk
> 
> In 2012, Australia's GDP will be about $360 billion larger than in 2007. Just an observation of 5 great years for the economy, including GFC






> Wil Anderson‏@Wil_Anderson
> 
> Gina Rinehart is right. I don't think most average Australians are really trying hard enough to be born the daughter of a billionaire...


----------



## Macquack (12 September 2012)

What relevance has Africans working for $2 a day got to do with Australia? 

The cost of living in Africa must be a hell of a lot cheaper than Australia?

It costs two bucks if you withdraw money from the wrong ATM.

Rinehart talks about class warfare, well she should not promote it.


----------



## Julia (12 September 2012)

Macquack said:


> What relevance has Africans working for $2 a day got to do with Australia?



I'm sure the question must be rhetorical.  I can't believe you don't understand that Australian miners are competing for customers with miners in e.g. Africa where their costs are much lower so quite obviously they can offer the final product at a cheaper price.  *This is Ms Rinehart's point, fergawdsake!*


----------



## moXJO (12 September 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> Stephen Koukoulas‏@TheKouk
> 
> In 2012, Australia's GDP will be about $360 billion larger than in 2007. Just an observation of 5 great years for the economy, including GFC




Yep and yet they couldn't come up with a measly billion and slugged us with a flood levy. And also can't get the budget into the black?


----------



## Tannin (12 September 2012)

I can see it's time for English 101: quote marks are used *when you report a person's exact words*. When you are summarising or using your own words to report the person's view, you *do not  use* quote matks. There is no point in bleating about a "misquote" when the article in question does not in fact contain any quote at. Not only no point, no sense.


----------



## Tannin (12 September 2012)

Joules MM1 said:


> *moXJO*, great graph, poss to know the names of all the countries on that ?




Ahem .....




Joules, you'll find the original, together with a great deal of other useful information, here: http://www.aph.gov.au/About_Parliam...ary_Library/pubs/BriefingBook43p/nationaldebt


----------



## Macquack (12 September 2012)

Julia said:


> I'm sure the question must be rhetorical.  I can't believe you don't understand that Australian miners are competing for customers with miners in e.g. Africa where their costs are much lower so quite obviously they can offer the final product at a cheaper price.  *This is Ms Rinehart's point, fergawdsake!*




You are missing the point Julia, Gina Rinehart's mines are in Australia, NOT AFRICA.

If Gina Rinehart wants to pay workers at her mines $2 a day, then she had better move her iron ore deposits to Africa.


----------



## Julia (12 September 2012)

Macquack said:


> You are missing the point Julia, Gina Rinehart's mines are in Australia, NOT AFRICA.
> 
> If Gina Rinehart wants to pay workers at her mines $2 a day, then she had better move her iron ore deposits to Africa.



Macquack, I don't believe you are actually as stupid as you are suggesting here.
It is a question of international competitiveness when competing for international customers.


----------



## Macquack (12 September 2012)

Julia said:


> Macquack, I don't believe you are actually as stupid as you are suggesting here.
> It is a question of international competitiveness when competing for international customers.




The fact Rineharts mining tenements are in Australia and not in Africa is *her dilema *not Australian workers. 

If it was a level playing field, we would never be able to compete against a country paying $2 a day wages.

If anything, the fact Rineharts iron ore is competitive on the world market belies the truth that the various levels of government in Australia are not getting enough revenue by way of royalties and taxes.

Rinehart wants to pay peanuts for royalties, peanuts for labour and would also like to pay no taxes as well.


----------



## Tannin (12 September 2012)

Mining is a capital-intensive industry. As a determinant of production costs, wages are a fairly minor factor for most mining operations. The key factors are quality of the resource (Australia good, Africa good), political stability and safety (Australia excellent, Africa poor to very poor), soverign risk (Australia nil, Africa substantial), availability of skilled labour (Australia excellent, Africa poor), transport infrastructure (Australia good, Africa variable). Taxes and wage levels come after all those other factors. Wage levels in particular are a minor factor - In Australia, although mining accounts for *30% of corporate profits*, it accounts for a piddly *3% of employment*. Yep: 3%. Even on sky-high mining wages, 3% isn't going to hurt much.


----------



## Joules MM1 (12 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> Ahem .....
> 
> 
> 
> ...




some people have bad hair days.....mines a pair of  faux pas, so far........

Tannin, thanks .......take care of that cough


----------



## bellenuit (13 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> I can see it's time for English 101: quote marks are used *when you report a person's exact words*. When you are summarising or using your own words to report the person's view, you *do not  use* quote matks. There is no point in bleating about a "misquote" when the article in question does not in fact contain any quote at. Not only no point, no sense.




Not quite.

When you use quotes, you must quote the exact words used. When you use So and So said, but don't put what was said in quotes because it is too long or doesn't need to be quoted, then you must summarise or convey in a manner that reflects accurately what So and So actually said. Rinehart was drawing attention to the competitive situation in Africa (and the Gulf of Mexico), indicating what Australia must compete against. She did not say that Australian workers ought to be paid the same as African workers. BBC World tried to convey that that is what she said, by misleadingly implying she used words to the effect that "Australia should look to Africa, where they pay people on average $2 a day". "Look to" in the context they used implies "follow as an example", and that meaning in particular is emphasised when they prefixed it with (in relation to Gina Rinehart) "who's said to earn around $2 million an hour".

Personally I do not hold Gina Rinehart in much regard. But I do expect my news sources to act professionally and report facts, not what might make good newsbytes.


----------



## Tannin (13 September 2012)

^ Bahhh - what did you expect? The whole world reported Rinehart's gaffe in much the same sort of language as was quoted above. It was a great story, just the sort of thing newspapers have always loved since the days when they were printed on stone tablets, and quite rare in its way - most ruthless, greedy billionaires keep a low profile and have smart PR people who advise them to make any public statements as inoffensive as possible. An own-goal as prominent as this one is always going to get a lot of air time. Honestly, as a news editor, how could you resist it?


----------



## DB008 (13 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> ^ Bahhh - what did you expect? The whole world reported Rinehart's gaffe in much the same sort of language as was quoted above. It was a great story, just the sort of thing newspapers have always loved since the days when they were printed on stone tablets, and quite rare in its way - most ruthless, greedy billionaires keep a low profile and have smart PR people who advise them to make any public statements as inoffensive as possible. An own-goal as prominent as this one is always going to get a lot of air time. Honestly, as a news editor, how could you resist it?




Ok...
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2012/s3586165.htm


----------



## Julia (13 September 2012)

bellenuit said:


> Not quite.
> 
> When you use quotes, you must quote the exact words used. When you use So and So said, but don't put what was said in quotes because it is too long or doesn't need to be quoted, then you must summarise or convey in a manner that reflects accurately what So and So actually said. Rinehart was drawing attention to the competitive situation in Africa (and the Gulf of Mexico), indicating what Australia must compete against. She did not say that Australian workers ought to be paid the same as African workers. BBC World tried to convey that that is what she said, by misleadingly implying she used words to the effect that "Australia should look to Africa, where they pay people on average $2 a day". "Look to" in the context they used implies "follow as an example", and that meaning in particular is emphasised when they prefixed it with (in relation to Gina Rinehart) "who's said to earn around $2 million an hour".
> 
> Personally I do not hold Gina Rinehart in much regard. But I do expect my news sources to act professionally and report facts, not what might make good newsbytes.



+1.   Let's hope Tannin doesn't aspire to a position of media editorship.


----------



## IFocus (13 September 2012)

Gina generally stated facts only problem is the context and complete lack of detail surrounding the facts.

So much so it made Gina IMHO look hypercritical and really foolish as the world news services jump on it.

She wont hire a PR person because she wont be told what to do.


----------



## moXJO (13 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> She wont hire a PR person because she wont be told what to do.




Is it a bad thing that we can see the person without the spin


----------



## prawn_86 (14 September 2012)

moXJO said:


> Is it a bad thing that we can see the person without the spin




It is for her


----------



## DB008 (14 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> Mining is a capital-intensive industry. As a determinant of production costs, wages are a fairly minor factor for most mining operations. The key factors are quality of the resource (Australia good, Africa good), political stability and safety (Australia excellent, Africa poor to very poor), soverign risk (Australia nil, Africa substantial), availability of skilled labour (Australia excellent, Africa poor), transport infrastructure (Australia good, Africa variable). Taxes and wage levels come after all those other factors. Wage levels in particular are a minor factor - In Australia, although mining accounts for *30% of corporate profits*, it accounts for a piddly *3% of employment*. Yep: 3%. Even on sky-high mining wages, 3% isn't going to hurt much.




I think that you are arguing just for the sake of it...

How many mine-sites have you been to?

Have you been to Perth?

Iron Ore was ~21% of TOTAL exports 
Coal was ~15% of TOTAL exports

Lets zoom in on WA.



> *How big is the mining industry?*
> 
> One of the easiest and most relevant ways to look at the size of an industry is by employment. The Mining industry in WA employed 68,800 people in 2009/10. Another 15,000 or so were employed in the manufacturing of base metals, coal and petroleum – ie. refineries. Together, this represents just *7.2% of all Western Australia’s employment (5.9% for mining, and 1.3% for mining-associated manufacturing).* This doesn’t seem like a lot, for it to be considered the powerhouse of the economy. Look at the change over time though, and you see that mining employment has increased by 144% in just 10 years (since 2000), at a time when total employment in WA increased by 34%. So it certainly has been booming.
> 
> ...




And another...
http://www.dmp.wa.gov.au/documents/000194.jemma.williams.pdf



> ECONOMY
> 
> • The mining and petroleum industry is vital to the continued development and sustainability of Western Australia’s economy. In 2008, the mining and petroleum industry was worth $71.8 billion to the State. The industry accounts for 89 per cent of WA’s income from Merchandise Exports.
> 
> ...


----------



## Tannin (14 September 2012)

^ lots of bluster, very little real content here. All this trash talk about how big mining is in WA is completely pointless - you can pick ANY geographical area and there is always a significant industry. In Gippsland it's all dairy farming. On the Queensland coast, tourism is massive. In the Melbourne CBD finance is huge. In Griffith it's wine and stone fruit. And so on - every area has particular specialties. It's the total contribution which counts.

Second, the very high export values for coal and iron ore last year were at the peak of the commodity bubble. They will drop back to the field now, and make up a still large but more sustainable part of our overall economy. Those prices won't be seen again for a very, very long time. 

Third, for an industry which trumpets its "massive contribution" to the economy, why doesn't it actually _contribute?_ Mining produces 30% of the corporate profits but only pays 15% of the corporate tax. All the other productive, tax-paying industries are carrying super-rich miners like Rinehart - paying *twice as much tax* per dollar of profit. And all the other industries between them account fot *97% of employment*, mining a mere 3%.

The point here is that Rinehart and her fellows contribute much less to Australia than other people in other industries (exactly half as much, to be precise) but shout and bluster much, much more about how poor they are. People like Rinehart should do more work, pay more tax, and talk a lot less.


----------



## Calliope (14 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> People like Rinehart should do more work, pay more tax, and talk a lot less.




Also people like Tannin should do more work, pay more tax, *and talk a lot less*.


----------



## DB008 (14 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> The point here is that Rinehart *and her fellows contribute* much less to Australia than other people in other industries (*exactly half as much, to be precise*) but shout and bluster much, much more about how poor they are. People like Rinehart should do more work, pay more tax, and talk a lot less.




Really?


----------



## Tannin (14 September 2012)

DB008 said:


> Really?




Yep. As an industry, mining pays 15% of all corporate tax in Australia, but makes 30% of the total profit. Mining is an important and very valuable part of the economy but we need to stop the bloodletting in the rest of the country (or what's left of it). Miners like Rinehart need to be required to pay their fair share of tax, and the mad exchange rate (largely caused by the mining boom but now sustained by excessively high interest rates) needs to come back to somewhere near sanity so that the broad mass of the economy can get back to making profits. A healthy economy has a healthy balance between many sectors, and a healthy democracy treats the self-interested bleatings of the super-rich as just what they are - entirely predictable attempts to grab a larger slice of the economic cake.


----------



## IFocus (14 September 2012)

moXJO said:


> Is it a bad thing that we can see the person without the spin




Once you enter the public arena trying to sell ideas (political weight) that will further your own interests then words matter and presentation crucial.

Business is all about spin at the big end, Twiggy Forest one of the better exponents (I mean that in a nice way)as he build FMG using other peoples money.


----------



## IFocus (14 September 2012)

Tannin said:


> Yep. As an industry, mining pays 15% of all corporate tax in Australia, but makes 30% of the total profit. Mining is an important and very valuable part of the economy but we need to stop the bloodletting in the rest of the country (or what's left of it). Miners like Rinehart need to be required to pay their fair share of tax, and the mad exchange rate (largely caused by the mining boom but now sustained by excessively high interest rates) needs to come back to somewhere near sanity so that the broad mass of the economy can get back to making profits. A healthy economy has a healthy balance between many sectors, and a healthy democracy treats the self-interested bleatings of the super-rich as just what they are - entirely predictable attempts to grab a larger slice of the economic cake.




When the GFC hit retail hardly down sized its labour, mining dumped 19% of its work force. Had it been the other way round no amount of stimulus would have saved us.


----------



## sptrawler (15 September 2012)

IFocus said:


> When the GFC hit retail hardly down sized its labour, mining dumped 19% of its work force. Had it been the other way round no amount of stimulus would have saved us.



That's right retail are dumping them now and so are the miners?
Meanwhile we have $360b debt?
But they have homeloans from$20,000 first home grants, plasma t.v's also dodgy insulation. The only problem is we go into the recession we have to have under labor and everyone is maxed out, including the government.


----------

