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

The state of the economy at the street level

Jump to new
That's the price we pay for prioritising austere budgets over economic stimulus.

One believes the ultimate panacea will be tax reform in future budgets
 
I guess living standards rose with the mining boom, followed by the housing boom, now we look around for the next boom.
The problem with the Government recklessly spending is, it gives a sugar hit with jobs in building the infrastructure, but when it is built it usually runs at a loss.
This then means taxes have to go up to fund it, so it becomes a drag on living standards, it obviously is a difficult balancing act.
 
You would think that the price of things would have to go down from here. Unfortunately high wages, insurances, rents, electricity, etc- seems we are stuck in a dangerous position. Mass business closure would seem likely. I know a few in the building game packed their business in for a regular job as they were earning more for less stress. Their employees were then out of a job, so it snowballs from there.

I have vague memories of the lead-up to the 90s recession in which huge amounts of competition bit the dust. But it was easier to do business back then.

Feels like this boom run has held up way past what it should have. I'm probably more bearish coming from a building background. If our dollar keeps dropping we may be saved yet.
 
moXJO said:
You would think that the price of things would have to go down from here. Unfortunately high wages, insurances, rents, electricity, etc- seems we are stuck in a dangerous position.
Click to expand...
As I've noted many times, even if we just take electricity well the vast majority of businesses use at least some. It ranges from a trivial cost for someone like a self employed tradie through to around 25% of revenue for some manufacturing industries but it's there as a cost input for most.

Other utilities likewise. Most businesses will have some use of water and communication. Not all but a significant number use gas for cooking, industrial processes or simply to heat the office building. Most will have some sort of insurance for something and so on.

Go back 25 years and Australia was very much at the cheap end of the range when it came to all forms of energy. Second or third cheapest among developed countries depending on what energy source you were looking at. These days we're at the opposite end with costs being very much at the upper end of the range.
 

The real issue is, the problem is going to get worse, as the only politically palatable way ahead is the most time consuming and expensive.
 
SirRumpole said:
Could be. It's an important topic.
Click to expand...
As usual it is the way it is presented, that gets the journo's in manure,IMO.
They wouldn't be in trouble with the AFP, if they stuck to facts, rather than personal embellishment, sensationalism and bias.
 
sptrawler said:
As usual it is the way it is presented, that gets the journo's in manure,IMO.
They wouldn't be in trouble with the AFP, if they stuck to facts, rather than personal embellishment, sensationalism and bias.
Click to expand...

I think you have cocked up sp. The piece I quoted was about the economy, not the AFP.
 
SirRumpole said:
I think you have cocked up sp. The piece I quoted was about the economy, not the AFP.
Click to expand...
I was generalising, it is the same with all articles, only one side of an argument is presented, the reporters.
It wasn't that specific article.
 
Humid said:
I thought they had the go ahead for the project onshore and the big players threw in the towel for economic reasons
Click to expand...
I thought Barnett stopped fighting for onshore processing, because he was getting no backing and the press was pushing the Green/ Aboriginal heritage barrow.
The companies always wanted to process offshore, it is much cheaper, but it would have really opened up the Kimberley, if we had gas reticulated and an abundance of water.
 
I don’t think Woodside ever wanted to build it there if you pipe gas to Darwin you could of piped it to Karratha
I think Broome was Barnett’s little pet
 
Humid said:
I don’t think Woodside ever wanted to build it there if you pipe gas to Darwin you could of piped it to Karratha
I think Broome was Barnett’s little pet
Click to expand...
It was, to get gas to the Kimberley, so it could be used to pump water to irrigate the NW.
 
sptrawler said:
When the gas is gone, so are the opportunities it presented, all because of politics.
Click to expand...
Focusing on the economy aspect, the big problem in Australia is that we keep giving away opportunities.

We have a mentality akin to running a quarry for road construction gravel and deciding that it's all too hard and we just can't be bothered doing anything with those gold nuggets we keep digging up. So we crush them and the dust goes in the road along with the rest of the gravel because that's the easy way.

A ship sitting offshore extracting a non-renewable resource and simply selling it without even bringing it ashore is in much the same category really. It's turning gold into gravel sort of thinking to be doing that.

Keep giving away so much opportunity and it's no wonder the economy has ended up where it is.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

US Election 2024 : Stock and Economic Comment
7 8 9
Replies
171
Views
10K
divs4ever
The role of Private Equity
Replies
5
Views
2K
Dona Ferentes
Examples of stupidity of government at all levels
2 3
Replies
57
Views
4K
mullokintyre
The love of my life has died: How can I ever be free to live again?
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
farmerge
Ozempic: Magic Pill or Devils Bargain?
Replies
10
Views
2K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...