This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

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

Jump to new
tech/a said:
Why cant I trade insolvently like most Govt's in the world today---and remain in business?
Click to expand...

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.
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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?
 
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....
 

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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
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.
 

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"
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...
 
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!)
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
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."
Click to expand...

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.
Click to expand...

Sounds like a misquote to me.
 
sails said:
Tannin, this is what Gina actually said:



this is what the BBc said according to Numbercruncher:



Sounds like a misquote to me.
Click to expand...

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

So many conundrums
 
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.
 
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Competency and trying to maintain standards
2
Replies
27
Views
3K
sptrawler
How valuable are two parent families?
2
Replies
28
Views
3K
Value Collector
J
Another newbie
Replies
7
Views
1K
Dona Ferentes
How three years in the UK can snare you a 30-year British pension
Replies
0
Views
1K
bigdog
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...