PM's $4bn deal to save 50,000 jobs

[MrBurns]

Office buildings and shopping centers, so who's going to lease this unwanted crap ? Probably the Govr will pick up the leases make the developer rich and lumber the taxpayer with more debt.
I'm sick of this bloke not only is he bad at his own job but he thinks he can do other peoples jobs as well, with us footing the bill, what a tosser.

 

[knocker]

Cues? Why would the dole need to communicate to ... oh, do you mean queues?

Well, from what I gather from your extensive knowledge of grammar, and spelling - I'm going to guess that you're not a very substantial taxpayer, and that your "losses" from this expenditure will be quite minimal

Your continual negativity seems to support my theory, about you either facing hefty losses - or substantial amounts of stress. Either way, I am sorry; but these are not excuses to post pointless dribble.

P.S. Please learn to spell.

Pompous twat lol

 

[knocker]

No problem with the concept. But how about building productive industry that will benefit the country in the long term rather than shopping centres and office blocks that we've already got plenty of?

Refineries and smelters to value add to the minerals we export now. Prices may be down, but aluminium will always be worth far more than the bauxite it's made from.

All sorts of other productive industries that actually produce something of value that we can sell overseas. Built with effectively free labour (we're going to pay them anyway...) it's virtually guaranteed to be profitable.

Roads, rail, ports, power etc to support the above.

Water infrastructure. I don't think anyone could argue about the need for that. Lots of things that could be done to help and they're all labour intensive to set up.

Broadband.

Renewable energy. Labour and interest costs are what makes it unviable compared to coal. But if we're handing out money to keep people employed anyway then we could build some very cheap power generation with that. Then use that to run exporting industry (an economic strategy that's worked in the past in various places (with either fossil or renewable energy)).

Shops and offices, things we'll be needing less of not more, seems an incredible waste compared to the alternatives.

No way. This makes too much sense. Better to make a bad situation worse, that way labors union lackies are kept happy.

 

[gfresh]

I think Smurf, and even MrBurns point out exactly the main point some of us who do not approve of supporting commercial developers. There are many other things which are a probably more important, such as providing a sustainable future, and even the basics such as schools, hospitals, and a good transport network which this money should go towards.

Shopping centres, residential towers, and commercial office-space is all fine and dandy, but at the end of the day, there has to be increased demand for these items or they are wasteful. Going into a recession, these will just sit on the market, businesses will not be leasing them anyhow, and they may even help bring down the price of existing assets.

And again, these are only temporary measures, as soon enough, these projects will be completed. It may allow the companies to stay afloat, but once these existing projects end, they definitely won't be making the mistake of going into too many more similar developments for a while until conditions improve. Then those construction-workers will be laid off *anyhow*. It is just delaying the process, not providing any long-term solution.

A recession ends when falling supply can no longer meet the demand, and eventually supply rises (production, construction) and we have a return to growth. By interfering with this, we may actually be stymieing this natural process, and drawing out recovery.

As if somehow because people decided to get a credit card, or didn't save what you consider to be enough money, and instead bought a car or a house or something, that therefore they deserve to lose their jobs, house, be bankrupted, have their kids futures ruined etc etc. It really comes across as big chip on some peoples shoulders and that they are very bitter about something....

In a way, yes... It's about time people saved more, and stop consuming overtly on things that provide all sorts of longer-term consequences which are already becoming an issue as they are becoming unsustainable. This actually provides a more stable base for the economy than running up more and more debt, which is not sustainable.

We've already seen the consequence of what happens to other countries who have followed this excess debt to fund consumption model (UK and US) right now, and surely we can do better than this.

The best way to do this is not to reward those who have followed this path, by not providing subsidies to keep them afloat, and let them be aware and live the consequence of their actions. They will get through, they may suffer for a time, but they will become stronger as a result, Australia has always got through these times in the past on our own, and we will again.

 

[sinner]

Yet another action which just makes me throw up my hands in frustration.

Why wasn't the $10bn Santa handout just rolled into this: $10bn+$4bn = $14bn and spent on hospitals, water, roads, public schools, tafes and unis, public transport, old people, green subsidies and waste management!

All those industries supply jobs and those people getting paid will be putting money into the economy in a much less inflationary and fiscally idiotic manner. And they all thrive on much less $$$ than inflated commercial property!!!



Can you imagine what $2bn subsidy for schools would do? $50m for green energy? $5bn on hospitals?

 

[Mofra]

KEVIN Rudd will attempt to protect 50,000 construction jobs by creating a $4 billion partnership with the major banks to finance office buildings, shopping centres and other commercial property projects.

Taxpayers will provide $2 billion, with the remainder coming from the big four banks.

Read it from this link http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,24956236-462,00.html

Would this really save jobs?

Just a thought - yes the construction will save jobs, but surely the construction would be better focussed on large capital intensive infrastructure projects that couldn't be possible without a mixture of public & private funding anyway?

- Northern Australia is in a tropical climate with an abundance of water.... our foodbowl to the South is gripped by drought.
- Just speaking in Victoria, the bridge system on highways is woefully underserviced due to responsibility being passed back to (largely inefficient) councils. Construction / maintenance work available in abundance there.
- Public transport infrastructure is inadequate in every capital city in Australia, surely developing a more efficient mass transit system would be a higher priority than creating more office space at a time when corporate downsizing is a reality?

I assume the works proposed by Rudd will all be in marginal electorates?

 

[numbercruncher]

Pointless comment.

Why are people so upset about this? It's a meagre 4 billion dollars, I don't get it

The fund, due to be up and running by March, will also be able to lend up to another $26 billion for commercial property projects, if required, by government guaranteed debt

Your Government is now guaranteeing more money than it could ever repay outside of inflating away its obligations ...

 

[drsmith]

The $26b could come from the future fund or has that been spent already.

If not then it would at least increase the diversity of it's investments.

 

[shaunQ]

Yes an unfortuantely it was the mindless majority who voted him in.

Yes unfortunetly I think thats the normal case. The majority vote governments in.

If Rudd did nothing he would be crucified. The Liberals would have been absolutely worse, do you think Merchant Malcolm would be holding money back from industry? He'd be throwing a party left right and centre, passing draconian laws.

 

[MrBurns]

Yes unfortunetly I think thats the normal case. The majority vote governments in.

If Rudd did nothing he would be crucified. The Liberals would have been absolutely worse, do you think Merchant Malcolm would be holding money back from industry? He'd be throwing a party left right and centre, passing draconian laws.

You gotta be kidding Rudd knows sweet FA about the commercial property market and he 's going to prop it up ? with our money, those developers will be splitting their sides laughing, these cheating lying scum are being propped up by a dumber than dumb prime minister.......what luck.

Now I wish he would travel more at least then he can do less damage here at home.

 

[sinner]

Where is this $4bn even coming from?

Debt? Funny money? Slice of surplus?

Does anyone know? Or care?

 

[MrBurns]

Where is this $4bn even coming from?

Debt? Funny money? Slice of surplus?

Does anyone know? Or care?

Fair go he's just doing what every Labor Govt does, spend money hand over fist that they didn't earn and when it's all gone they'll hand the whole mess back to the Libs to fix.

 

[Julia]

How many billions does the gumbyment have anyhow? Seem to be handing them out like lollies at the moment. Soon the jar will be empty. Then what?

gfresh, I'm pretty sure this will move the budget into deficit.

No problem with the concept. But how about building productive industry that will benefit the country in the long term rather than shopping centres and office blocks that we've already got plenty of?

Building shopping centres in a recession doesn't seem to make much sense.
I gather, though, that the projects involved are already underway and at risk of being left half finished if (more likely when) the foreign banks pull out.
If we taxpayers are going to be funding these projects, then I think we'd like some part of the profits when the recession is over.

Refineries and smelters to value add to the minerals we export now. Prices may be down, but aluminium will always be worth far more than the bauxite it's made from.

All sorts of other productive industries that actually produce something of value that we can sell overseas. Built with effectively free labour (we're going to pay them anyway...) it's virtually guaranteed to be profitable.

Roads, rail, ports, power etc to support the above.

Water infrastructure. I don't think anyone could argue about the need for that. Lots of things that could be done to help and they're all labour intensive to set up.

Broadband.

Renewable energy. Labour and interest costs are what makes it unviable compared to coal. But if we're handing out money to keep people employed anyway then we could build some very cheap power generation with that. Then use that to run exporting industry (an economic strategy that's worked in the past in various places (with either fossil or renewable energy)).

Yes to all the above.

I think Smurf, and even MrBurns point out exactly the main point some of us who do not approve of supporting commercial developers. There are many other things which are a probably more important, such as providing a sustainable future, and even the basics such as schools, hospitals, and a good transport network which this money should go towards.

Exactly.

And again, these are only temporary measures, as soon enough, these projects will be completed. It may allow the companies to stay afloat, but once these existing projects end, they definitely won't be making the mistake of going into too many more similar developments for a while until conditions improve. Then those construction-workers will be laid off *anyhow*. It is just delaying the process, not providing any long-term solution.

Of course it is, but that's what Rudd & Co are all about - short term popularity.

A recession ends when falling supply can no longer meet the demand, and eventually supply rises (production, construction) and we have a return to growth. By interfering with this, we may actually be stymieing this natural process, and drawing out recovery.

And in addition there is this ongoing philosophy of 'the gummint will bail you out'. This doesn't encourage a 'can do' attitude but rather fosters dependence.

Then when we have a massive deficit, taxes will rise in all directions because a deficit is politically unpalatable anywhere near elections.

But, to be fair, if unemployment numbers rise exponentially, that's not good for the individuals concerned or the general mood of the country either.

In a way, yes... It's about time people saved more, and stop consuming overtly on things that provide all sorts of longer-term consequences which are already becoming an issue as they are becoming unsustainable. This actually provides a more stable base for the economy than running up more and more debt, which is not sustainable.

We've already seen the consequence of what happens to other countries who have followed this excess debt to fund consumption model (UK and US) right now, and surely we can do better than this.

I agree, but it's difficult isn't it: consumption does keep the economy ticking over. We have for too long spent irrationally on stuff we don't actually need.
Ironically, Mr Rudd's current almost daily announcement that things are really really grim and getting worse will have the effect of people spending less as they hunker down and hold on to what they have, something contrary to his exhortation pre-Christmas that people spend, spend spend.

Can you imagine what $2bn subsidy for schools would do? $50m for green energy? $5bn on hospitals?

Indeed. Instead we will get even more of Sam's Warehouse type rubbish.

 

[numbercruncher]

Fair go he's just doing what every Labor Govt does, spend money hand over fist that they didn't earn and when it's all gone they'll hand the whole mess back to the Libs to fix.

The Libs engineered most this mess at a local level - Australia would of been sitting pretty had wise choices been made prior - now unfortunately Rudd has no idea , just as the Neocons would have no idea what would "work" should they still be in power.

Dont panic, the banana repblic was always our destiny.

 

[shaunQ]

As usual the majority here harping on about Labor policy, conveniently ignoring the past 11 years which led us here. He has been tasked to try and prop the dam thing up. He was handed this basket case of an economy and without it going forward like it was it will be expensive.

Whats he to do... say, oh, the reality of the situation that the growth of the past was just imaginary? Joe publics not going to believe that? He has to try and keep it going.

$4 Billion, out of a trillion dollar economy? 4%, to help 50,000 jobs in a recession? Wow. What is this guy thinking.

 

[Julia]

As usual the majority here harping on about Labor policy, conveniently ignoring the past 11 years which led us here. He has been tasked to try and prop the dam thing up. He was handed this basket case of an economy and without it going forward like it was it will be expensive.

Whats he to do... say, oh, the reality of the situation that the growth of the past was just imaginary? Joe publics not going to believe that? He has to try and keep it going.

$4 Billion, out of a trillion dollar economy? 4%, to help 50,000 jobs in a recession? Wow. What is this guy thinking.

Aren't you rather misinterpreting the objections expressed on this thread?
Most of us are simply saying the same money would be better spent on water infrastructure, hospitals, schools, roads etc than more unnecessary shopping centres.

And as far as the past 11 years having 'led us here', aren't you forgetting the considerable surplus the Liberal government left in place?

No one is suggesting the current global situation makes for simple government decisions. But spending our tax dollars on ongoing infrastructure which will provide jobs and necessary benefit to the population would seem much smarter management than seeing it go to gambling and shopping centres.

 

[GumbyLearner]

This is another stupid economic decision by Mr. Rudd.

He is effectively propping up the over-leveraged private sector and masking it as a "keeping" jobs exercise.

If he announced a $4billion package to fill in the potholes, it would be money much better spent IMHO!

 

[MrBurns]

This is another stupid economic decision by Mr. Rudd.

He is effectively propping up the over-leveraged private sector and masking it as a "keeping" jobs exercise.

If he announced a $4billion package to fill in the potholes, it would be money much better spent IMHO!

He's out of his depth making it up as he goes, get ready for tax hikes to pay for it all.

 

[moXJO]

Yes its only $4b lets waste it (especially since the first $10b was so well spent). I propose a television show where politicians wearing a loin cloth fight steroid pumped native animals.... to the death! Not only will my show provide jobs- but I will employ 50000 people and ensure they put money into the bank and buy the latest plasmas and LCD TV's from harvey normans.

And a phone line ($2 per vote) to choose which dangerous native animal to fight a politician will also bring in revenue. And will be used to prop up the RE market. Added benefit of cutting down on public servants and there pensions. And it will also educate which steroid pumped native animals not to fight in a dark alley. Not to mention the pure nail biting spectacle of man vs beast.


Smurf's post was spot on.
Shopping malls and offices at this stage even if they are an eyesore
Why are we in such a hurry to waste $B's and rush to a deficit. I applaud Rudd for moving fast. But at the same time is it just so he can say he tried everything before the final drop?
If the proverbial is going to hit the fan, I would rather hospitals, schools, and other infrastructure is up to scratch to provide a safety net for those less fortunate.

 

[shaunQ]

Most of us are simply saying the same money would be better spent on water infrastructure, hospitals, schools, roads etc than more unnecessary shopping centres.

I disagree, most are just complaining about Rudd personally, saying he's out of depth, Labor debts etc etc blah blah. I only saw 2 posts I think that offered any sort of objective alternative solution.

No doubt there are other ideas. All with their opponents as well. He will obviously focus the money on his support base, first the public base with the stimulus, now I presume he's industrial base. Essentially, that was what he was elected to do. Just as Liberal was elected to do the opposite.

Roads, Hospitals, Schools, Water infrastructure don't get built overnight. It is completing existing projects that will otherwise fail, immediately creating massive job loss.