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

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

cheers...

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.

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...

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

cheers...

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.

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

McLovin

wombat40

Tyler Durden

young-gun

numbercruncher

Beware of Dropbears

Macquack

bellenuit

sptrawler

Smurf1976

Julia

In Memoriam

Macquack

sptrawler

Ferret

Smurf1976

Ferret

young-gun

tech/a

No Ordinary Duck

Junior

tech/a

No Ordinary Duck

ParleVouFrancois

Similar threads

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

Beware of Dropbears

In Memoriam

No Ordinary Duck

No Ordinary Duck

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency