Gonski, Go.

[ColB]

Government expenditure in itself (that is in itself) is not related to the strength of the economy.

I would like to see any statistic you have about the return on investment of government spending.



I sure would like to live in the simplistic world you do.

SCM, seeing you're falling all over yourself trying to defend what a great job Labor is doing for the strength of our economy perhaps you can provide some [any?] statistics to show what positive impact Labor has actually had to back up your claim.

Failing that, I'm sure many here wonder what planet you're actually on.

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

I still reckon Gonski should go.

The whole muddled process of his appointment is very poor governance.

I am not satisfied that in the circumstances he will be able to perform the role of chairman of the Future Fund effectively.

gg

 

[Logique]

..The temptation to plunder and waste that bucket of money must be overpowering for that bunch of wasters.

Agree, this is the main game. Their eyes, glowing like ravening wolves circling the campfire, are squarely focused on the $$Future Fund.

I do understand that Labor would see Peter Costello as too political, but here's the thing, Labor know he will fight tooth and nail to maintain or grow the Future Fund.

So what's the problem? Return to paragraph 1.

 

[IFocus]

Costello is far too political to be the future fund chairman. He got a spot on the board which he should be happy with. the chairman should be as independant as possible, like the Reserve bank governor

Agree Labor botched the appointment of Gonski but the thought of having a politician as fund chairman is laughable.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

What strength?

The one sptrawler claims our economy lacks because of a small budget deficit.

SCM, seeing you're falling all over yourself trying to defend what a great job Labor is doing for the strength of our economy

I have never once said that labour has done a great job with the economy. In fact I have many times said I am extremely unhappy with the economic governance of all parties.

Failing that, I'm sure many here wonder what planet you're actually on.

I'm on Earth - but you clearly aren't as you seem disconnected from reality, demonstrated by your implication of me having said things which I never did.

 

[sptrawler]

Hang on SCM don't miss quote me.
If you read posts 14 and 17 I agreed with you that it wasn't a reflection on the strengh of the economy.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Hang on SCM don't miss quote me.
If you read posts 14 and 17 I agreed with you that it wasn't a reflection on the strengh of the economy.

We are in agreement then

 

[sptrawler]

We are in agreement then

I agree with you that the strengh of the underlying balance of trade is not affected directly by government. However consumer confidence is and this has a marked effect on the strengh of certain sectors of the economy.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

I agree with you that the strengh of the underlying balance of trade is not affected directly by government. However consumer confidence is and this has a marked effect on the strengh of certain sectors of the economy.

Consumer sentiment is bad because the Australian consumer is loaded up with mortgage debt and house prices are dropping because we are past the peak of the bubble (which was created by the precious government by the way).

It has nothing to do with the budget balance.

 

[joea]

Consumer sentiment is bad because the Australian consumer is loaded up with mortgage debt and house prices are dropping because we are past the peak of the bubble (which was created by the precious government by the way).

It appears you are attempting to make a simple comment, but you have involved 4 different topics in the one sentence.
Bit like Wayne Swan saying the economy comes good two terms after they leave office, because of policy's Labor implemented.

Just remember "Practical politics, consists of ignoring fact's"
joea

 

[Garpal Gumnut]

Interesting..... This is what I thought also but what does that say about the Future Fund board???
Former senior Liberal Party figure Nick Minchin has weighed in to the Future Fund furore, saying appointing his former colleague Peter Costello to the chairman's job would have been "most unwise".

But in a letter to The Australian, Mr Minchin says the fund was naive to think the Government "could, would, or even should appoint Peter Costello as chairman".

"The fund must be, and be seen to be, independent, professional, completely above politics and entirely apolitical," Mr Minchin writes.

"Appointing a former politician - even one of the stature of Costello - as chairman, would therefore be most unwise, something Costello himself would understand better than anyone."

Audio: Opposition maintains attack over Future Fund appointment (AM)
The former Liberal senator says while the Government's process has been "utterly shambolic" he believes Mr Gonski is a good choice.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2012-03-16/robb-blasts-future-fund-appointment/3893384

I would agree with your comments Knobby.

An-ex politician, even one of the stature of Costello, would not be an ideal choice as Chairman.

However I still maintain that Gonski by his actions has disqualified himself as being capable of delivering good governance, as Chairman of the Future Fund.

gg

 

[dutchie]

I think that Costello is a smart operator when it comes to Australia's economy and he has the runs on the board. I am sure that he would have done an excellent job as the chairman. However because of political reasons it may have put him in an awkward position.
I think making Gonski the chairman is also a mistake considering his role in trying to recommend someone for the position and his consequent relationship with the current board.
It's just another ballsup in doing a job by this incompetent government.
I hope Peter stays on the board if nothing else but to ensure this current government does not raid its coffers.

 

[sptrawler]

Consumer sentiment is bad because the Australian consumer is loaded up with mortgage debt and house prices are dropping because we are past the peak of the bubble (which was created by the precious government by the way).

It has nothing to do with the budget balance.

This is getting off topic so we should probably move to another thread. The problem with your perspective and I am not meaning to be derogatory, is you are obviously young.
Older members who have lived through a couple of recessions know that, belt tightening comes after a government splurges and sends us into debt.
It is all to do with people getting there affairs in order for the resultant belt tightening that will come with the change of overnment. Only the younger inexperienced investors and home owners are in over their heads.IMO it has everything to do with government debt.
Life is a learning experience, even Peter Costello is learning, he should never have dropped the bottom lip and got out of politics. Also he will find it harder to find executive employment the longer he is out of the public spotlight, missing out on the future fund top job is going to set his plans back big time.
As can be seen by SCM coments, Costello and Howards achievements are becoming a thing of the past and carry no relevance to people who didn't work through the last post labor fallout.

 

[Julia]

This is getting off topic so we should probably move to another thread. The problem with your perspective and I am not meaning to be derogatory, is you are obviously young.
Older members who have lived through a couple of recessions know that, belt tightening comes after a government splurges and sends us into debt.
It is all to do with people getting there affairs in order for the resultant belt tightening that will come with the change of overnment. Only the younger inexperienced investors and home owners are in over their heads.IMO it has everything to do with government debt.
Life is a learning experience, even Peter Costello is learning, he should never have dropped the bottom lip and got out of politics. Also he will find it harder to find executive employment the longer he is out of the public spotlight, missing out on the future fund top job is going to set his plans back big time.
As can be seen by SCM coments, Costello and Howards achievements are becoming a thing of the past and carry no relevance to people who didn't work through the last post labor fallout.

+1. Agree on all your points.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

It appears you are attempting to make a simple comment, but you have involved 4 different topics in the one sentence.

Talk about ignorance - learn to accept the truth. The concept is simple - it's called a housing bubble, and now we are going through deleveraging.

Older members who have lived through a couple of recessions know that, belt tightening comes after a government splurges and sends us into debt.
It is all to do with people getting there affairs in order for the resultant belt tightening that will come with the change of overnment. Only the younger inexperienced investors and home owners are in over their heads.IMO it has everything to do with government debt.

Are you even serious? It has absolutely nothing to do with government debt. Our federal government debt is basically non-existent compared to other countries. And there has never been a recession like this one (certainly not in your lifetime).

You know why? Because households have never been indebted this much in mortgage debt - in Australian history. No, it has nothing to do with the government splurging - it has everything to do with the consumer splurging and sending himself into debt.

And now we're in for decades of paying back this mortgage debt.

 

[joea]

Our federal government debt is basically non-existent compared to other countries.

Obviously you are a close mate of Wayne Swan with his magic glasses.
The voters of Australia could not "two squirts of goats p###" about the rest of the world.
If Swan tried to walk across glowing embers with bare feet, would you follow him?.
Do you think the polls in Federal and State have Labor going over the cliff because they are managing the economy correctly.? I do not think so.
Read next Sunday's papers, they will give you a hint.!!
joea

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Obviously you are a close mate of Wayne Swan with his magic glasses.

What does Swan have to do with this discussion? Can you cut the partisan rhetoric? Don't you have something intelligent to contribute?

Not everything has to degenerate to "hurr durr swan BAAAAD" in this forum does it? Or at least maybe not froth at the mouth when you say that?

Do you think the polls in Federal and State have Labor going over the cliff because they are managing the economy correctly.? I do not think so.

Most people haven't a clue about economics. The poll results have a lot to do with mortgage interest rates - again, since the entire country is neck deep in mortgage debt - so that's all the care about. When the RBA raises rates, people think the government is doing a bad job, and when the RBA lowers rates, people think the government is doing a good job.

That is why most recently Labor's poll numbers have increased - because most recently the RBA has cut rates.

This is also one of the major reasons Swan is tightening the budget - to ensure the RBA does not raise rates.

For the record this is the wrong thing to do, there is no reason for Australia to have a budget surplus during a time like this as it will only make the economy worse. If both the private and public sectors are deleveraging at the same time...you get a recession. By all means, the government needs to be spending more money - preferably on more infrastructure.

 

[Knobby22]

I would agree with your comments Knobby.

An-ex politician, even one of the stature of Costello, would not be an ideal choice as Chairman.

However I still maintain that Gonski by his actions has disqualified himself as being capable of delivering good governance, as Chairman of the Future Fund.

gg

Yes, well he has politicised himself which is unfortunate as he will now not have the trust of the Liberal party.

 

[sptrawler]

Talk about ignorance - learn to accept the truth. The concept is simple - it's called a housing bubble, and now we are going through deleveraging.



Are you even serious? It has absolutely nothing to do with government debt. Our federal government debt is basically non-existent compared to other countries. And there has never been a recession like this one (certainly not in your lifetime).

You know why? Because households have never been indebted this much in mortgage debt - in Australian history. No, it has nothing to do with the government splurging - it has everything to do with the consumer splurging and sending himself into debt.

And now we're in for decades of paying back this mortgage debt.

Our federal government debt may be low in comparison to other countries. But in the psyche of the general populace they percieve it as being high when compared to historical levels. Be that right or wrong.
Households have never been indebted as much as at present. However that has to looked at in context also, compared to wages, housing is in a bubble yes. But cars have never been cheaper, goods have never been cheaper relatively e.g electronics, shoes, clothing.
Wages are rising generally costs are falling including interest rates (electricity is the elephant in the room) house prices are falling. Savings are increasing for the first time in 15 years.
Hope you don't call it wrong SCM.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Households have never been indebted as much as at present. However that has to looked at in context also, compared to wages, housing is in a bubble yes. But cars have never been cheaper, goods have never been cheaper relatively e.g electronics, shoes, clothing.

Well let's do that shall we. Households are the most in history indebted in terms of debt to GDP, so it takes into account growth. We also have 150% debt to income ratio - which is somewhat ridiculous, and that takes into account income.

Yes, a lot of other things are cheaper as you have mentioned. A lot of this is a temporary relief because our currency is temporarily high. But even as this is the case, countless Australians are still struggling to get by because their mortgages are just so damn big!

We have 25% or so public debt to GDP ratio which doesn't impact the population and over 100% household debt to GDP ratio which does impact the population.

Now which do you think is more important?

Wages are rising generally costs are falling including interest rates (electricity is the elephant in the room) house prices are falling. Savings are increasing for the first time in 15 years.
Hope you don't call it wrong SCM.

We have had pretty flat real wage growth to be honest. Take out mining and in all likelihood it has gone backwards.

House prices are falling...but they need to fall about 60% before they are normally priced. Long way to go. very long. But worst of all, falling house prices have a deeply negative impact on the sentiment of house owners with a mortgage. This should be obvious. For over a decade Australians have used their houses like ATMs - drawing equity acquired through perceived wealth growth. Now they must do the opposite - pay it off as the price of their asset goes down month after month.

General deflation in consumer goods is like I said a temporary phenomena of our high currency and the general recession we are in which forces discounts from retailers.

Savings are merely returning to their long-term average.

Call it a different perspective on the conditions facing Aussies if you will but there is one thing squarely on everyone's minds. They do not get a statement from their bank asking them to pay interest on federal debt - no. They do not take into account how big it is and try to pay it off while balancing their household budget - oh no. They do not care about the implications of a rate rise or fall on it - not at all.

No, the big issue affecting Australians is the size of their mortgage.