The Abbott Government

SirRumpole · 26 March 2014

trainspotter said:
And you turned out alright one would assume?

Naturally, but times have moved on and the knighthood thing is well and truly outdated.

trainspotter · 26 March 2014

SirRumpole said:
Naturally, but times have moved on and the knighthood thing is well and truly outdated.

So why the "SIR" in front of the moniker? Are you alluding to the anachronous nature of the Abbot's governments intent to bring back the honour system?

SirRumpole · 26 March 2014

trainspotter said:
So why the "SIR" in front of the moniker? Are you alluding to the anachronous nature of the Abbot's governments intent to bring back the honour system?

You can spot more than trains can't you ?

The "honours" given to people who accept appointments that pay well and give them recognition are absurd and anything that can be done to cheapen them is worthwhile.

Quentin Bryce said it was an "honour" to serve the nation, so why does she need another one ?

Recognition should be given to people who don't get the public attention they deserve, not to elites who accept plum jobs with good pay.

trainspotter · 26 March 2014

SirRumpole said:
You can spot more than trains can't you ?

The "honours" given to people who accept appointments that pay well and give them recognition are absurd and anything that can be done to cheapen them is worthwhile.

Quentin Bryce said it was an "honour" to serve the nation, so why does she need another one ?

Recognition should be given to people who don't get the public attention they deserve, not to elites who accept plum jobs with good pay.

Geeee ... Ta for the "honour' of the acclamation.

Well they are not called "blue bloods" for nothing. I find it delicious that Bill Shortens mother in law is going to receive one whether she wants to or not!!! Hopefully this is the only Marty McFly episode that Tones has

drsmith · 26 March 2014

SirRumpole said:
You mean apart from the PPL scheme which he didn't canvas with his party room either.

I knew you'd get to the PPL eventually.

I don't think too many though will be rushing to its defense.

SirRumpole · 26 March 2014

Government to sell Medibank private.

Watch for all the health funds competing to push up prices without the restraint of a government owned competitor.

drsmith · 26 March 2014

SirRumpole said:
Watch for all the health funds competing to push up prices without the restraint of a government owned competitor.

First post on the announced sale of Medibank Private and it's a buy recommendation.

overhang · 26 March 2014

Poor decision by a poor government (yes the last one was bad too). $300 million profit on an estimated 4 billion market capital is 7.5% which is greater than 15 year government bonds at 4.5%. The government is selling us out for short term political points to achieve a surplus, yet Medibank Private is well and truly paying for itself.

And the cycle continues, Labor getting us into debt and then all praise the coalition for their economic marvel while they sell off our last remaining public assets.

drsmith · 26 March 2014

overhang said:
Poor decision by a poor government (yes the last one was bad too). $300 million profit on an estimated 4 billion market capital is 7.5% which is greater than 15 year government bonds at 4.5%.

Second buy recommendation.

I can see this is going to be a stampede.

Given that investment markets generally demand higher returns from corporate entities (whether that be equity or debt holders) than from government bonds, doesn't the above rationale logically default to governments not selling anything ?

noco · 26 March 2014

overhang said:
Poor decision by a poor government (yes the last one was bad too). $300 million profit on an estimated 4 billion market capital is 7.5% which is greater than 15 year government bonds at 4.5%. The government is selling us out for short term political points to achieve a surplus, yet Medibank Private is well and truly paying for itself.

And the cycle continues, Labor getting us into debt and then all praise the coalition for their economic marvel while they sell off our last remaining public assets.

We need da munya to pay da chows for da interest piled up by da Laba pepels piggy bank borrowings coz da Laba pepels spent all da munya dey did'nt waise from da Minin' tax. (16 billion bickies)

overhang · 27 March 2014

drsmith said:
Second buy recommendation.

I can see this is going to be a stampede.

Given that investment markets generally demand higher returns from corporate entities (whether that be equity or debt holders) than from government bonds, doesn't the above rationale logically default to governments not selling anything ?

It's up to the government to inform us why this is the best economic decision because all signs point to it not being one. Premiums wont increase just as our electricity prices will decrease upon privatisation..... that didn't quite work out so well.

noco said:
We need da munya to pay da chows for da interest piled up by da Laba pepels piggy bank borrowings coz da Laba pepels spent all da munya dey did'nt waise from da Minin' tax. (16 billion bickies)

drsmith · 27 March 2014

overhang said:
It's up to the government to inform us why this is the best economic decision because all signs point to it not being one. Premiums wont increase just as our electricity prices will decrease upon privatisation..... that didn't quite work out so well.

All signs ??

As a general rule, governments should not sell essential service or monopoly business. This though in my view is not the case with MBP although the private health industry overall does get a lot of government support.

This one is more in the category of a Commonwealth Bank or Qantas than say electricity generation or Telstra's network.

Calliope · 27 March 2014

SirRumpole said:
The "honours" given to people who accept appointments that pay well and give them recognition are absurd and anything that can be done to cheapen them is worthwhile.

Yes, giving yourself "honours" can certainly cheapen it. We had a premier up here once, Joh Blelke-Petersen, who gave himself a knighthood. He was stripped of his "honours" when he got caught out.

overhang · 27 March 2014

drsmith said:
All signs ??

As a general rule, governments should not sell essential service or monopoly business. This though in my view is not the case with MBP although the private health industry overall does get a lot of government support.

This one is more in the category of a Commonwealth Bank or Qantas than say electricity generation or Telstra's network.

I would agree with you there. But it's still up to the government to explain why this is the best economic decision to sell a government asset that returns above the government bond rate.

drsmith · 27 March 2014

overhang said:
I would agree with you there. But it's still up to the government to explain why this is the best economic decision to sell a government asset that returns above the government bond rate.

As above,

drsmith said:
Given that investment markets generally demand higher returns from corporate entities (whether that be equity or debt holders) than from government bonds, doesn't the above rationale logically default to governments not selling anything ?

overhang · 27 March 2014

drsmith said:
As above,

Where is the rational there? The government needs to borrow money so why do it in the way of something that returns 7.5% (actually 15% if its 2 billion as estimated) when you can do it via bonds at 4.5%?

drsmith · 27 March 2014

overhang said:
Where is the rational there?

Market pricing of risk.

A sovereign is generally considered less risk than a corporate.

overhang · 27 March 2014

drsmith said:
Market pricing of risk.

A sovereign is generally considered less risk than a corporate.

Obviously but that didn't answer my question. Why doesn't the government raise the money via bonds at 4.5% than sell a golden egg returning 15-7.5%. You could argue that given the competition that that rate is unsustainable and this is the point the government needs to make, they need to explain the economic reasons to sell MP.

drsmith · 27 March 2014

overhang said:
Obviously but that didn't answer my question.

It's then simple logic that if governments expected to sell assets at a return equal or lower than the government bond rate, they wouldn't sell anything.

overhang · 27 March 2014

drsmith said:
It's then simple logic that if governments expected to sell assets at a return equal or lower than the government bond rate, they wouldn't sell anything.

In which case that is pure speculation that MP margins are unsustainable. This is up to the government to explain without you going in to bat for them.

The Abbott Government

Similar threads

Privacy & Transparency

Privacy & Transparency