The Budget - What are you looking for?

[Rafa]

More cars maybe but they won't be travelling very far without fuel.

Agree 100%... When oil becomes either extinct or prohibitively expensive, the best way for transportation is by a major electrified rail network linking cities and town in Australia.... Electricity can be generated from Coal (which we have hundreds of years of cheap supply), nuclear, solar, wind, hydro, etc, etc...

Trucks can still be used for local transportation, i.e. from the rail yard to the super markets.

We will no longer be hostage to the price of oil, and no longer feel the effects of inflation as a result of transportation costs going thru the roof...

Same thing with high speed networks, i can see a time where the CBD office block is a thing of the past... I am sure most of us could easily work from home, and maybe have face to face team meetings once/twice a week... But the key for this is high speed data networks, to allow file sharing, video conferencing, etc...

Australia is a lucky country, but this years budget to me, is nothing but dumb. Instead of future proofing us, we've just all been given more money to spend on plasma TV's.... yippee....

 

[bullmarket]

Originally Posted by Smurf1976
More cars maybe but they won't be travelling very far without fuel.

I'm not convinced that in say 10-20 years time there will not be an alternative viable fuel........could be ethanol, electricity, a combination of different sources.....who knows.

With our increasing national population I can't see the need for private transport over long distances diminishing at all from here on, so my gut feeling is that in 10-20 years time there will be more cars on the roads than there are now............especially with our ever increasing ageing population doing more and more laps around Australia

cheers

bullmarket

 

[professor_frink]

I'm not convinced that in say 10-20 years time there will not be an alternative viable fuel........could be ethanol, electricity, a combination of different sources.....who knows.

money needs to be allocated to finding a viable alternative. The govt shouldn't just sit back and assume that something will come up to solve the problem. I'm not saying the govt should be solely responsible for this, but they need to play a part in it by providing funds for research, etc.

With our increasing national population I can't see the need for private transport over long distances diminishing at all from here on, so my gut feeling is that in 10-20 years time there will be more cars on the roads than there are now............especially with our ever increasing ageing population doing more and more laps around Australia

cheers

bullmarket

Of course there will be more cars on the in the future if there isn't a viable alternative to using a car. If decent rail infrastructure was put in place, we may just find that people would use it more than their car, especially if we are still relying on increasingly expensive oil to fuel them with.

 

[bullmarket]

Hi professor_frink

re:

If decent rail infrastructure was put in place, we may just find that people would use it more than their car, especially if we are still relying on increasingly expensive oil to fuel them with.

I'm not saying that improvements to rail infrastructure can't or shouldn't be made - but even if they are, personally I still want to able to go where I want, when I want and not be totally restricted to the times and destinations available in some form of public transport - hence I seriously doubt we will ever get to the stage where people will use rail transport more than cars.

And I'm also not assuming that any new fuel technology will necessarly be first developed here in Australia - maybe it will, may be it won't...time will tell

cheers

bullmarket

 

[professor_frink]

Bullmarket,
why should we wait for someone else to do it? We are currently in a financial position where we could, so IMO we should be.
Instead of researching alternate fuels and building rail infrastructure, they are spending money upgrading highways so that baby boomers can drive around the country in their 4WDS towing caravans around chewing up more oil, and then on top of that, they give people a tax cut to help people put more fuel in their cars!

There will always be some people, like yourself, who for whatever reason choose to drive everywhere, but like smurf said before, we could be building up rail infrastructure to at least improve the way we freight goods around the country(reducing our reliance on oil somewhat). Could you imagine the improvement on our roads and air quality if there were only half as many trucks driving around?

 

[twojacks28]

the government has given money to inprove railway infrastructure. also the foreign debt is not the governments responsibility. almost all of the debt is from the rivate sector, for example the major banks and mining giants such as rio and bhp. it has nothing to do with the governemnt. the debt which labor left is now gone the government doesnt owe a cent. all 96billion is gone.

 

[rederob]

the government has given money to inprove railway infrastructure. also the foreign debt is not the governments responsibility. almost all of the debt is from the rivate sector, for example the major banks and mining giants such as rio and bhp. it has nothing to do with the governemnt. the debt which labor left is now gone the government doesnt owe a cent. all 96billion is gone.

twojacks
you forgot to tell us something else...
Costello is the tooth fairy, and...
and
....and
little Johnny is Santa

Oh, by the way, next time you look at Commonwealth Government securities, don't forget that they owe creditors around $50b.
Doesn't sit well with your

the government doesnt owe a cent

assertion, so maybe hide it so nobody will notice.

 

[bullmarket]

Hi rederob

re:

Oh, by the way, next time you look at Commonwealth Government securities, don't forget that they owe creditors around $50b.
Doesn't sit well with your

Quote:

the government doesnt owe a cent

assertion, so maybe hide it so nobody will notice.

you seem to have extracted only part of a sentence out of context from 2jacks28's post and twisted it into saying something he didn't.

Imo he was clearly referring to the $96b foreign debt left over from Labor which incurred interest payments and was not referring to money owed to creditors which I assume does not incur interest especially if paid on time.

It appears to me that you are implying that Costello's claim that the gov't is foreign debt free is not true.

So in order to verify whether your implication is correct or not I have forwarded a screen dump of your posts along with your name you included in an email to me some time ago to my uncle at the ATO who can then either verify your implication himself or pass your concerns over to one of his mates over at Treasury for verification. Maybe someone will contact you to confirm that the gov't is in fact debt free

cheers

bullmarket

 

[Rafa]

Bullmarket,
Could you imagine the improvement on our roads and air quality if there were only half as many trucks driving around?

Exactly, get the big trucks off the road, then the roads we have will be more than adqueate to service our private transport needs, and cost lot less to maintain due to the reduction of the weight of traffic... plus arguably some safety improvements.

 

[bullmarket]

Hi rafa

yes agree

I'm all for spending on infrastructure for the reasons you posted and reducing the number of trucks on the roads and the pollution they create but I'm still not convinced that spending on infrastrucure will ever lead to a situation where the general public will use rail, for example, more than their cars.

As I said earlier I will always want to travel where I want when I want and not be totally restricted to the limitations of any public transport

cheers

bullmarket

 

[Rafa]

fully agree Bullmarket...
the Car, and private transport is simply not going to go away...

so how about having the best of both worlds... if you permit me to indulge in a bit of fantasy here...

I drive a lot around country due to work, and I have been thinking of this a fair while...

Imagine instead of the intercity highways, we had intercity railways, dual track, drop off and entry (via diversion) point at every town the rail goes thru... (or every 30kms or so)

Then, you place single carriage electrified rail carts (fully automatic offcourse) and you drive your car onto them, say in Adelaide, pick the destination drop off point, (say Port Pirie) and it joins onto the main rail network, takes you to the town you want to go, and you drive off...

so still have the car, but your journey has been made lot less tiring and hell of a lot safer, in your private rail cart...

whilst i admit, this is pie in the sky stuff for the private user, i can see this work quite well in the goods transport industry...

anyway, just a random idea i had...
feel free to tell me i'm an idiot for my silly idea...

 

[professor_frink]

that sounds good rafa, but I'd prefer to wait for a few more years until the back to the future flying car that runs on banana peels and cans of pepsi

And I don't wanna hear anyone tell me that it was just a movie and will never happen. WE WILL HAVE THOSE CARS SOON!!!

 

[Rafa]

i'm waiting for the teleporters...!

 

[professor_frink]

hmmmmmmmm- flying car or teleporter? tough question. Think I'll stick with the back to the future car, but only if it has the time travelling capabilities.
That way I could travel back in time and benefit from bronte's perfect hindsight calls from her 'trading the spi' thread- I'd be rich!

 

[Rafa]

thats a dangerous move Prof.... meddling around with history and time line...

u know, pararell universe, action and reaction, cause and effect... Dr Who won't be too happy with you...

 

[rederob]

Hi rederob
So in order to verify whether your implication is correct or not I have forwarded a screen dump of your posts along with your name you included in an email to me some time ago to my uncle at the ATO who can then either verify your implication himself or pass your concerns over to one of his mates over at Treasury for verification. Maybe someone will contact you to confirm that the gov't is in fact debt free

I look forward to the reply.
The fact is that Treasury notes and bonds are on issue, are in the tens of billions, and attract interest/yield payments.
The Labor debt legacy - ie when Howard was elected 10 years ago - is mired in accounting controversy. I tell my accountant that we can't make a profit, and he makes that happen. Mysteriously all that money I have now turns into debts of various descriptions - like magic.
Folk are very confused about economic terms.
The government (Costello yesterday) said we have no foreign debt.
I suspect he meant we have some foreign debt, but that we also have credits that outweigh the debt.
I can't see that "debt" is bad. We all seem to have debt.
The question of "risk" is more important, and that implies ability to repay the debt.
The US does this by printing more money, then lending more of it out, over and over again.
We don't.
Our dollar will continue to rise against the greenback.
Non-government foreign debt continues to increase, and the Coalition has not been able to turn the tide.
Moreover, a large part of our debt will be due to energy (oil) import costs in future years, and this quantum will increase every year for the foreseeable future.
As I posted earlier, we have no national energy policy that makes sense. The budget should have upped the ante on renewable energy purchasing mandates - 2% of total is not good enough.
The Budget missed many opportunities to make its mark on our nation, and has only superannuation reforms as a redeeming feature on my score card.

 

[twojacks28]

rednob you obviously cant read as i was talking about the debt that the labor government left to the liberal government. renob you ovbiously have something against the liberal party and im guessing you are a member of the labor party. as i said foreign debt has nothing to do with the federal government. it is the private sector who runs a up the debt amount each year!

 

[bullmarket]

no problem rederob

The feedback I have received confirms the gov't is debt free as stated by Peter Costello

They have your name that you gave me and a copy of your posts and if you think Costello has been lying then that is fine by me but then again I'm not the one you need to convince

good luck

bullmarket

 

[Julia]

If I can be forgiven for diverting the thread from its current focus on government and private debt, I'd be really interested to get some feedback on the following view of the budget.

Talking about the Budget with a group of friends today, we all agreed that we would have preferred to have done without the tax cuts and seen that total amount (how many billion?) put into, e.g. development of new water infrastructure which is one of the greatest problems facing at least Qld and NSW today, aged care, the training of new doctors and nurses, and expansion of the hospital system. (Yes, I know hospitals and health generally are supposed to be the responsibility of the States, but in view of the stuff up at least Qld has made in this regard, there seems to be a case for the Federal government at least taking some sort of proprietary interest in the running of Health).

For most of us the tax cuts don't represent a huge improvement to our basic budget, but just think what a difference that total amount could make to something for the common good.

To be fair, none of us coming to this conclusion are in the position of still having a mortgage to pay off, or for even younger people, trying to save for a deposit for a house, so our attitudes may be quite correctly seen as rather arrogant from the point of view of a younger person. This is definitely not intended, and I'm immensely sympathetic towards young people trying to pay off HECS fees, save for a home and do all the other things like travel and generally just have a life.

I'm just wondering if any others share the view that the budget was politically expedient but just so focused on individuals rather than on building a better and more inclusive society. I feel particularly for the really poor, the unemployed, disabled and sick. There is no concern shown for them.

Julia

 

[rederob]

rednob you obviously cant read as i was talking about the debt that the labor government left to the liberal government. renob you ovbiously have something against the liberal party and im guessing you are a member of the labor party. as i said foreign debt has nothing to do with the federal government. it is the private sector who runs a up the debt amount each year!

twojacks
The present government sold major assets to the tune of $46b to retire debt, and taxed us the rest to reduce the government component of debt.
Is that clever?
Is that good economic management?
Maybe.
The average net debt to GDP ratio of the countries in the OECD for 2006 is estimated to be 47.5 per cent, and I don't see OECD nations going down the gurgler.
A fallacy of selling major assets to reduce national debt is that they actually contribute to national revenues: So selling them off means we forego those revenue streams forever.
But government debt has only ever been a component of total debt.
And decisions of government impact significantly on how our private sector operates.
If you are suggesting that government policy has no impact on foreign debt then you should read early speeches from Howard and Costello that suggest the opposite.
You should be asking what the government is doing to reduce foreign debt: What policies is it putting in place, apart from forced savings via superannuation, or the Future Fund?
Or you should be wondering what is giving rise to ever increasing levels of foreign debt, and how that impacts on our economy.
Are you at all curious as to why our foreign debt is increasing markedly despite the best performance of our commodities sector in history?
Or are you suggesting the government should not worry about non-government debt at all?
It is a curious dichotomy that the Treasurer is so keen to have no government debt, but does nothing about foreign debt.

btw, not only am I not a member of the Labor Party, I don't think they have had my first preference for about 20 years - at federal or state levels