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

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
banco said:
Oh the irony. I suppose you think we should have run balanced budgets during the GFC?
Click to expand...

I am sure a Liberal Government would have done twice as much with half the money Labor wasted.....Labor just squandered the money on hare brain schemes with very little thought into how to manage them.....Labor goofed on everything project they started.

I know one thing for sure, if there had been a Liberal Government during the so called GFC , they would have managed the economy a hell of lot better than Labor......$900 cheques to everyone including dead people and people living overseas.....the majority of those $900 cheques went on the poker machines.
 

My wife and I have a friend who works at the Jupiters Hotel/Casino in Townsville

They have 500 employees, mostly full time, casino staff, bar attendants, waiters, maintenance staff, Admin., cleaners and house maids who work on rosters from 6am to 4am the next morning 7 days per week...Many have to work their 38 hours per week including Saturdays and Sundays at odd hours.....They are all on a flat rate with no penalty rates for the odd hours they have to work.

The theme of my post was how all these conditions which have been won by the unions has had an added cost to manufacturing, hence the reason why many companies have gone off shore with investments because they just cannot compete with the high costs in Australia.
 

So...basically the situation you describe would be valid for all the people you want struck off the disability pension.

I don't see reporting someone breaking the law, and doing what is basically theft from the tax payer, as being a bastard.

If you're not going to take action yourself to resolve a problem, don't complain about it. What you've done is not much different to the person holding a fag in one hand and a VB long neck in the other and complaining about how hard it is to make the budget stretch.
 
sydboy007 said:
So...basically the situation you describe would be valid for all the people you want struck off the disability pension.

.
Click to expand...

How did you interpret my post to mean that it would be valid for all the people you want to be struck off the disability pension....that is a silly statement to make.

There would obviously be some legitimate cases who genuinely need assistance and I do not begrudge those people.

I was referring to one case and there are probably more out there who are rorting the system and should be brought to justice and I sincerely hope Morrison gets to the bottom of those cheaters.

It would appear from your post that you condone the cheaters.

So please stop trying to exaggerate on the contents of my post.
 

Then why has this years budget deficit ballooned? The Govt still has more revenue this year than Labor did in their best year of revenue.

What did it matter what the $900 cheques were spent on? The idea was to get the money out into the community and for it to be spent. It certainly worked better than say giving the money to banks that then hoarded it like in the USA and Europe.

Can I suggest you had a read of the below to better inform yourself of what exactly was going on in the post GFC economy.

http://www.treasury.gov.au/Publicat...-Issue-2/Report/Part-1-Reasons-for-resilience


Money that goes into pokies:

* Keeps the hotel employees in a job
* Some of the profits go to the local community via grants from clubs
* Taxes go to the states which then is used for funding services
* Profits get taxed and go back to the federal budget.

I certainly don't understand how people can sit playing pokies for hours on end, but at the end of the day we've decided to allow them at the highest per capit rate in the world. If people want to voluntarily pay more taxes, let them.
 

I'm not sure I understand the second paragraph .... are you advocating third world conditions for first world economies ... levelling the playing field by sacrificing our achievements?

It's a bit like soccer, we suck at it, but for some obscure reason every year the Socceroos go out for some holy grail glory and have their arses handed to them. Instead those blokes could maybe play off their strengths and get a job at a casino and let the real talent pool build Australia into a prestige country rather than a replica of cost driven Kmart.
 
I mostly agree with this analysis. There's a systemic problem which leaves us with almost zero leadership options across both major parties and beyond. Abbott brings his particular flavour to the sad mix.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-12-24/dunlop-the-more-things-shuffle-more-they-stay-the-same/5985210

 
explod said:
You are not answering the questions raised noco.

And an old one to you now:- Under the Abbott Government, where are the jobs coming from?
Click to expand...

You obviously did not read my post #5292....As per my post anyone can find work if they are a little entrepreneurial.

Governments don't create jobs....only in the Public Service.

Money is provided by Governments for infrastructure projects for private enterprise to construct..
 

Not everyone is entrepreneurial. That's why it was much better when the government owned and ran the trams, we had conductors, State Electricity Commission, locals fixed the lines, people who are now mostly on the dole. Not many have a high IQ, we must provide for them. And the Telstra Sale at the time raised an amount that it earned in four years, just imagine the huge revenues we could be gaining if wehad not gone the way of Thatcherism/privatisation.
 

I did look it over noco, but like most of your posts they are filled with right wing anecdotal bias.

Yes things did work well in the Hawke/Keating years because there was cooperation across the board. But never with the Libs as they want the workers to be their servants. Just like the rise of the AWU, because the farmer's (Now Country Party) raddled most of the shearer's sheep.

In the 1950's the Government got this country rolling by opening up new lands and granting titles to returned servicemen to develop. But today we allow huge tracts of land and rich farms to overseas buyers. The next very big item on the world agenda is going to be food. So what great opportunities could a progressive government make of these. Involving the people provides incentives, sending them to the backblocks to pick someone elses fruit does not.

Cummoorn noco, you are way off the mark, or should I try to help you because of your IQ. In fact I give you many good leads but you just love to armchair criticise the lefties, commo's, greeniesand socialists, whatever those terms may mean today
 

Not sure of the virtues of make work jobs funded by Government.
 
banco said:
Not sure of the virtues of make work jobs funded by Government.
Click to expand...

I think on essentials such as power and water there can be no argument.

Met a bloke six weeks ago when I was in hospital. He is dieing of cancer, so a few days back paid him a visit. Was parked 50 minutes and cost $10. And this outer suburban. From a public welfare point this stinks in my view. But off topic, that was the recently outed Liberal State Govt's work.
 

Disagree strongly with the point about IQ. An engineer is an engineer and a doctor is a doctor. Whether they work for the SEC or AGL, or a public hospital versus private, is irrelevant. They need the same degree, are doing the same work, and in many cases it's the same person who simply moved from one employer to another and kept doing the same work.

As for privatisation generally, it's something I've looked into pretty seriously on various occasions and I've always reached the same conclusion. It cant work under some circumstances and it can fail miserably with others.

In order for it to work well, a few factors need to be applicable.

1. It needs to be a naturally and genuinely competitive market.
2. There needs to not be a natural or imposed barrier to entry.
3. The activity needs to be self funded by sale of whatever it produces.
4. Risk needs to be transferable to the new owners, and not remain with government.

Some examples.

1. Electricity generation in Victoria is inherently somewhat competitive. There's nothing to stop multiple companies competing to turn brown coal or natural gas into electricity.

1. In contrast, the same doesn't work in Tasmania where you've got one big system that by its' very nature requires integration to operate effectively. It's a natural monopoly to a large extent and, in the absence of major demand growth to warrant construction of something new on a large scale, always will be. That said, the high reliance on sales to heavy industry has always forced cost minimisation anyway, lest the big users get a better price somewhere else.

1. Tour buses are naturally competitive. There's little to stop anyone starting a tour bus company and running tours to wherever they like.

1. In contrast, trams in Melbourne most certainly are not competitive. If I need to get from A to B then it's impractical to have a dozen different trams running at the same time on the same route and then choose whoever has the lowest fare. There's no real competition there at all.

2. Airports have a very large natural barrier to entry due to scale and logistics. It's just not practical to have half a dozen airports in somewhere the size of Australia's cities all competing against each other. Maybe for landing a Cessna or use by helicopters, but we're never likely to have 5+ airports around Adelaide each capable of use by large passenger aircraft.

2. There's no real barrier to entry running a fish and chip shop. Buy or rent a shop, get some deep fryers, signage and a heap of fish and chips. Not much more to it really, hence it's no surprise that there's an abundance of fish and chip shops around the country.

3. Every aspect of making, selling, servicing and operating cars can be self funded apart from the roads they run on. There's no need for taxpayers to prop up car design or oil refining, for example, since they're funded by the sale of cars and petrol.

3. Repairing public roads is not self funding. Even if you "privatise" the actual work, it's still taxpayer funds that are being used and it's still a government activity as such.

4. Risk in delivery of parcels is easily transferred to the sender or receiver. There's no inherent reason why government carries the risk, unless the parcel is of a sensitive military etc nature (in which case I'm pretty sure they wouldn't be sending it via the local courier anyway).

4. Risk with public transport, water, electricity etc in practice always sits with government. If Melbourne's tram operator goes broke tomorrow, government will be effectively forced to step in and either bail out the company or even take back the actual operation of trams. And if the operator simply runs the trams into the ground through lack of maintenance, well then government will end up paying to fix or replace them in due course.

Looking at a few examples:

Railways in Tasmania - privatisation failed miserably since risk naturally sits with government. The private operator milked every last cent of profit they could get out of the system, ran the track and trains down to the point that they could no longer run a train from one end of the state to the other even at snail's pace without it derailing, then they sold back to government which has spent an outright fortune replacing track, locos and rolling stock.

Electricity generation in Victoria - arguably good or bad. It was a disaster socially for the Latrobe Valley certainly, but overall the power stations are still running, they're running more cheaply than the SEC would likely have run them (though not necessarily running better - there's been quite a few incidents at Yallourn and Mowell mines since privatisation), and the lights are still on. It has worked well in some ways, not so well in others. It does produce cheap wholesale electricity however, that point is undeniable.

Electricity distribution - corporatisation, as distinct from necessarily privatising, shifted the focus from cost minimisation to profit maximisation. There's a difference there, and your electricity bills tell the story as to the consequences. Practically the whole economy has become less competitive as a result.

Road maintenance - I don't need to drive far to see that privatising that has failed miserably. There's just no incentive to do well when the taxpayer still foots the bill anyway. The old PWD / DMR used to build roads that were at least smooth and reasonably level, not so with the contractors whose roads roughen up or peel off almost as soon as they've left the site. I very much doubt that my taxes are being used well here, and at some future time government will spend an outright fortune fixing the neglect.

Telstra - competition in retail seems to have worked reasonably, the old days of Telecom horror stories are largely gone. But the network itself is still largely a natural monopoly, duplication of which is inherently inefficient. Sure, we've got 3 mobile networks, none of which provide universal coverage, but that's not an efficient way to do it. We could instead have a single network that covered practically everyone. Some aspects of it worked, some failed.

So far as technical things are concerned, the problem largely relates to stewardship. Have an in house works crew and if they spot a problem then they may as well fix it before the job turns into a bigger one through neglect. Self interest favours taking that approach bearing in mind that most such workers tend to assume they'll be doing it until retirement such that avoiding future problems is a wise move. In contrast, a contractor only cares about doing what they're paid to do right now. If that ends up costing a fortune down the track then so be it, it's not profitable to take a long term view if you've only got a 3 year contract and are being screwed on price. The end result is that assets are run down and at some future time government has to fund a re-build. Already happened with the railways in Tas and roads look to be going the same way judging by how quickly they deteriorate after work is done.

There are exceptions, some things have worked quite well, but overall I think we've gone too far with privatisation and outsourcing of things formerly done by government. We've passed the point of achieving genuine efficiencies and are now really just shifting costs either on to end users (the same people who pay taxes) or a few years into the future. It's not about economics these days, its pure ideology.
 
Thanks for a very good post Smurf1976

Sorry about the IQ bit. But having risen over 30 years to upper management in a large organisation I found that, regardless of opportunity, enthusiasm or incentives, some rise and some do not. We need to cater for all levels. However in education and work today we are failing in our approach by thinking of the bottom line only in my view.

latest polls out indicate Abbott falling further down the gurgler.
 

You just end up bloated inefficient utilities that the Government either explicitly subsidises or the public subsidises through high electricity prices.

You are better off delivering assistance through the welfare system.
 

May I suggest you read Alan Koler's take on the economy...if any of the Labor left wing socialist have just half a brain they will understand the economic situation the way it is....Revenue has fallen.

2015 maybe the the year of the recession we had to have and Labor is not helping....In fact while the Abbott government is trying to put out the house fire, Labor is pouring on petrol to keep to keep the house burning down...............Labor has absolutely no national interest......only self interest....They are more than happy to see economic chaos ...they are more than happy to see Australia mirror Russia....Labor is more than happy to see our living standards fall.

http://www.businessspectator.com.au...l-news/lessons-australia-russias-pain?login=1

Australia has the first of those but thankfully not the second. However we do seem to be going through a period of more than usually messy politics.

When the commodity cycle turns, the living standards of a commodity exporter must also fall. This can either be achieved through lower real wages, government spending cuts, tax increases or a currency devaluation. They all have the same effect.

The first is almost impossible and numbers two and three are very difficult at any time, but especially when the country’s politics are mess. That’s why everyone goes for the devaluation -- it’s a cut in living standards that doesn’t get blamed on anyone.
 
banco said:
You just end up bloated inefficient utilities that the Government either explicitly subsidises or the public subsidises through high electricity prices.

You are better off delivering assistance through the welfare system.
Click to expand...

Agreed that it's silly to employ people in utilities etc for the sake of it. Employ the people who are needed, no more.

But I must point out that if you look at the utilities over the past 20 years then something stands out very clearly. Deregulation and competition has lead to higher prices, not lower, no matter what the economists with their theories might have expected to occur. The "reforms" simply haven't achieved anything other than to introduce what amounts to a private tax on practically the entire economy.

Utilities at the distribution and retail end fail in terms of what's needed to make privatisation work so it's no surprise that attempts to fit a square peg into a round hole have lead to higher prices. As per my previous post, it can under some circumstances work well upstream however.

I won't name the company (it's not energy related), but it's false to assume that private enterprise is necessarily more efficient than government. Often it is, sometimes it's not. Government had 120 people doing a certain area of work and outsourced it some time ago. The contractor doing that work now employs 145 staff to do the same work, and there's still quite a few who remained with government to administer the contract etc. So all up, output per worker has dropped around 20% with the change from public to private.

On the other hand, there are certainly examples of the opposite. Power generation in Vic is one that I mentioned earlier.

The great trouble with privatisation is that it has become an article of faith. An ideology that few question. The end result is something that had its' merits in some cases but which has now gone beyond that point.
 
noco said:
That’s why everyone goes for the devaluation -- it’s a cut in living standards that doesn’t get blamed on anyone.
Click to expand...

I'm expecting the devaluation to be greater than most seem to be thinking at present. Looking at the overall circumstances, a bit over 80 US cents still sounds more like a top than a bottom despite the recent falls.
 

But revenue was up to 6% lower for Labor than what Howard had. Corporate revenue since the GFC has tanked, especially from the resource sector.

But you still avoid the fact that the current Govt has more revenue than Labor, yet is likely to see a ballooning deficit. You argue that every Labor deficit was due to waste and mismanagement, that the GFC and hit to revenues was immaterial. Suddenly with a LN+P Government the context of why the deficit is blowing out has now become relevant.

Cuts to spending definitely need to be made, but we also have to plug the revenue leakage. We accepted tax cut bribes that were paid for by a transitory increase of corporate taxes to their highest level in Australian history. Now that these taxes are heading back to their long term average, and quite likely will go below that, the Govt has to decide if it increase current taxes, or starts to hack into our world beating tax expenditures. So far they've done pretty much nothing on this score. They removed over $7B in carbon and resource tax revenue and seemed to have no plan on how to make the shortfall up. That's not Labors fault. It wasn't Labor's fault that Abbott decided not to take back the tax cuts Labor provided as compensation for the carbon tax. It's a tax increase that would be hard to argue against.

Hockey has already distance himself from the Murray Financial System enquiry. Will he be any better when the tax white paper is finally released. Maybe he'll emulate Treasurer Howard when he received the Keith Campbell report on the Australian financial system back in 1981. It took Labor to implement many of the recommendations like floating the dollar, deregulating the banking system and allowing foreign banks to compete. Hockey has also placed the siphoning of profits out of Australia into the too hard basket as well.

Mike Smith sent a real zinger to Hockey while he was in opposition "Joe Hockey should be taking economics lessons from Peter Costello and Malcolm Turnbull instead of Hugo bloody Chavez."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Give Tony the Job!
Replies
12
Views
947
sptrawler
Tony Abbott - Indigneous envoy
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
sptrawler
Superannuation pain must extend to politicians
Replies
14
Views
6K
sptrawler
The Environmental Nazi Hunter
Replies
6
Views
4K
Glen48
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...