Just read in this news.com.au article (sorry Trog!) that Australia's economy has grown again for the 2nd quarter in a row. Mad props to Rudd and the Labor government for getting Australia through the GFC and making this happen. Definitely did the right thing with those stimulus packages!

i got trolled

last edited by Alt_F4 at 16:49:02 28/Aug/09

OP Troll!

Something tells me if the rest of the worlds economy kept going downhill at such a rapid rate, ours would have too

heh saint

my man kevin has got the job done.

as Infi awoke he felt a great disturbance in the Force... as if millions of voices suddenly cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced. He feared something terrible had happened and raced to his pc.

I will quote from one of my favourite newsletters, Graham Dyer:

Very few can conceive now of the devastation [that] lies ahead.

I will quote from one of my favourite newsletters, Graham Dyer:

Very few can conceive now of the devastation [that] lies ahead.

deep

can i write vague, half-assed predictions and send them to people for money somehow as well?

I think the "somehow" part is why hes rich

If you think we are now headed for happy times, then you are a fool. Go pour all your money into the ASX, be my guest.

<3

Just read in this news.com.au article (sorry Trog!) that Australia's economy has grown again for the 2nd quarter in a row. Mad props to Rudd and the Labor government for getting Australia through the GFC and making this happen. Definitely did the right thing with those stimulus packages!

<3

This thread should have more lols than it does.

I think Infi would be much happier if we were in deep recession with a healthy 12.5% unemployed.

I think infi would have been happy if we didn't indebt ourself for decades to avoid what was probably going to be a mild recession at best with relatively low peak of unemployment.

If you ask me, $300bn debt is a small price to pay to avoid fitting into the technical definition of a recession.

Good thing no-one did then.

infi, rather than bore the f*** out of everyone with even more vague, half assed predictions, you'll need to post evidence to support your claims, otherwise you're just posting boring faceman-esque conspiracy end of the world theories that simple things like the OP in this thread lend zero weight to

so I vote for doing that or not posting anything, economic doomsayer threads are far less interesting than tin foil hat conspiracies

Clearly we are f***ed, so if any evidence needs to be provided, it would be that we aren't.

Here's a deep thought for you.

If all the major governments in the world did nothing, would it have been mild ?

But hey, people not going into debt did wonder in the late 20's

Don't worry, the extra $5 per pack tax on Cigarettes will get rid of that deficit in no time.

Wont be long until the top tax bracket is $50,000 again.

hooray for all the code-monkeys commenting on the economy.

Is there anything kevin rudd can't do? He even supports the Broncs so that is another great decision!

What's to laugh about with these morons at the helm. Our economy has performed relatively well because unlike the US UK EU and Japan we have been running budget surpluses for the last 12 years and have a strong vibrant export sector. Surplus is a thing of the past under Rudd and Swan.

Another news story you may care to look is speculation today that interest rates could be on the increase before the end of the year. This is because Australia is now awash with government debt and inflationary spending programs.

Edit: The second phase to the unravelling of the economy will happen soon enough... this first phase which saw our market drop 50% has come to a temporary end through a massive shot of liquidity from all central banks. Earlier this week Obama had to increase his forcast 10 year deficit up from $5.2tr to $7tr. Japan is already at debt of 80% of GDP and their government is about to be thrown out at this weekend's election.

Everywhere we turn Western governments instead of choosing to cut expenditure are choosing to keep on consuming, and then funding any shortfall through borrowings i.e. US health reform. Amazingly it seemed Australia has managed to break free of this Keynesian myth and had contained its budgetary programs within its means. The along comes Rudd and Swan.

So now we have governments all over the developed world paying each other with phony money. What will result in this second phase is a massive uncontrolled explosion in money supply and in turn, inflation. Let's hope our independent Reserve Bank, as inept as they are, are smart enough to jack up interest rates fast enough to discourage our government from resorting to the same techniques, although they have already shown a predilection for it.

Borrowing money to solves today's problems is just so easy because you can leave it till tomorrow to be someone else's problem.

last edited by infi at 17:48:18 28/Aug/09

Infi, always finds something negative to say :(

we are not out of the woods yet, not by a long shot.

if you're interested in what i've found to be a pretty intelligent commentary on Australia's situation with respect to the financial crisis, there is a great blog written by an economist and lecturer at the university of western sydney - http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/

Man the Government are choosing what they want to be rated and cherry picking data. Theres also a lag in data.

Take a read of this article and see the dark storm approaching...
http://tinyurl.com/lvgbry

THE number of people claiming unemployment benefits is rising much more rapidly than shown by the official labour market survey, with the downturn striking the resource-rich states the hardest.

Centrelink figures show an extra 22,000 people started receiving the Newstart allowance last month, almost 25 times the size of the increase in the official Australian Bureau of Statistics survey, which registered a rise in unemployment of only 900.

Since the global financial crisis struck last September, the official measure of unemployment has risen from 4.3 to 5.8 per cent, with the number of people looking for work rising by 36.1 per cent.

However, the Centrelink figures show a 50.6 per cent jump in the number of people receiving unemployment benefits.

However, the Centrelink figures show a 50.6 per cent jump in the number of people receiving unemployment benefits.

percent ffs.

This thread was entertaining until Infi ranted.

i ain't no eco-terrorist but we are all doomed (from a hand modelling perspective that is)

Better to die young and leave a good looking hand.

percent ffs.

You're so American.

I'm with Nat that http://www.debtdeflation.com/blogs/ is a great read, particularly the Debt Watch posts (unfortunately he hasn't done any in the last few months due to time commitments however the old ones are still well worth a read).

This is the reason why the world is headed to oblivion. I blame the stupid yanks for all thats wrong in the world

I think Infi would be much happier

There is no force known to man that can make infi happy while a Labor Government is in power.

So I just did an assignment on Aussie external debt.

The pitchford thesis states that since most of our external debt is in the private sector we're A-OK

But if interest rates rise (which as infis link says is at a high risk of doing so) then our external debt ($1, 134, 194 million dollars mar 09) will become problematic.

However, there are a fair amount of solutions to this and I found that tax reforms making equity investments more competitive would be the most effective.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/08/17/2658426.htm

Seriously if the stimulus package was provided by the government coffers?
The money wasn't available otherwise for other people to use. Then what happens when all that money is spent/invested/saved. Things die down again, or there never was a financial crisis and the whole thing was a mass media fear campaign. People get frightened, employers exploit this and say things are tough etc or whatever other bulls*** line comes out of their head. In some cases it might be true relevant to the business and not relevant to the "GLOBAL FEAR CRISIS" The way I see it certain businesses will always be required because they offer services which people need.

Food, haircuts, clothing stores, electronics, mechanical gear, hardware stores.
Things go up and down, they don't just suddenly die. However upon pondering while writing, one might see a crisis if certain stocks appeared in certain ways.

last edited by Corrupt at 22:55:52 28/Aug/09

Corrupt I have really no idea the point you are trying to make but the spend like there's no tomorrow attitude of Chairman Rudd just reminds me of Whitlam a little too much.

Labor just can't handle money. We are seeing the same mismanagement and debt in the State government. Debt as far as the eye can see.......

All I know is that Peter Schiff was right.

hooray for all the code-monkeys commenting on the economy.

Thread was worth the scan just for this gem. Hahaha, made me lol, even though it could be conceiveably a dig about me since I program enough to be considered a code-monkey :-P

I'm not a doom-and-gloom-sayer, but I seriously doubt whether the Rudd-buxx had anything to do with anything to do with Australia avoiding the more serious recent problems in other economies - I think it was more to do with somewhat better (read: still not good across the board!) fiscal management in general by companies such as banks and so on.

fact: australia's economy is growing
fiction: kevin rudd is to thank?

All I know is whatever infi says the opposite must be true. lol :)

so much lol ITT.

phooks, you're in highschool yeah?

that's awesome they teach the pitchford thesis in high school economics (known as the lawson doctrine internationally after british chancellor of the exchequer, Nigel Lawson, only called the pitchford thesis in australia because similar views were being argued by the aussie economist here).

you know if infi is right and you guys have a QQ thread about it down the track, i will help infi point and laugh at you all :)

you know if infi is right and you guys have a QQ thread about it down the track, i will help infi point and laugh at you all :)

At least someone will get some sort of enjoyment out of infi's doomsday. What will you do when he is proved wrong? Cry in a corner over how we didn't have a total economic melt down?

you know if infi is right and you guys have a QQ thread about it down the track, i will help infi point and laugh at you all :)

At least someone will get some sort of enjoyment out of infi's doomsday. What will you do when he is proved wrong? Cry in a corner over how we didn't have a total economic melt down?

If he is proved wrong ill go eat my own ass, hows that?

Wow trog stole my thoughts.

Someone like infi needs to tell us what they think is going to happen, using a statement like this: "Because the current government did this, we should expect this as a result to happen within this time period." Obviously, you need to change the word "this" to specific predictions.

Otherwise, your words and arguments are totally useless. It's akin to reading your astrology each morning and seeing "expect something good to happen today, but don't be alarmed if someone bad happens." Political arguments seem to be about making really vague statements that you can retrospectively rely on in a few years time to prove some completely different point.

Yeah maybe infi is guilty of being a bit to black and white about the future of the economy.

But his cynisicism is justified.

My $0.02 on what will happen - is that nothing will happen, for the next 12 months or so.
Why? Because it's been business as usual from Governments and the Private Sector is still in a daze from the smackdown it received. Although, Business is getting its act together... slowly.

I'm also with infi on the wasteful stimulus package. The cold hard truth is that we have a s***load of minerals that resource hungry China, India and Japan wants. Thats it! Thats what is keeping the economy going. Not blatant vote buying Stimulus Packages.


last edited by sLaps_Forehead at 12:51:53 29/Aug/09

oh hey - Happy Birthday for the 28th Saint :)

Clearly we are f***ed, so if any evidence needs to be provided, it would be that we aren't.

What?

last edited by dynamite at 18:23:48 30/Aug/09

No point discussing politics with infi.
He is one of the reasons Australian politics sucks. One eyed partisian politics ... YAY


He could not look at a policy labor puts foward and critically judge it, he will simply say its wrong even if the policy is "The sky is blue"

He could not look at a policy labor puts foward and critically judge it, he will simply say its wrong even if the policy is "The sky is blue"

I hear theres a vacancy coming up in the Opposition soon.
Maybe he could run in Nelsons old seat.

"The sky is blue" is not an example of a policy. "We will make the sky blue" is an example of a policy.

Australian politics doesn't suck at all. Look at every country and tell me a country that has a better political system.

What's to laugh about with these morons at the helm. Our economy has performed relatively well because unlike the US UK EU and Japan we have been running budget surpluses for the last 12 years and have a strong vibrant export sector. Surplus is a thing of the past under Rudd and Swan.

Another news story you may care to look is speculation today that interest rates could be on the increase before the end of the year. This is because Australia is now awash with government debt and inflationary spending programs.

Edit: The second phase to the unravelling of the economy will happen soon enough... this first phase which saw our market drop 50% has come to a temporary end through a massive shot of liquidity from all central banks. Earlier this week Obama had to increase his forcast 10 year deficit up from $5.2tr to $7tr. Japan is already at debt of 80% of GDP and their government is about to be thrown out at this weekend's election.

Everywhere we turn Western governments instead of choosing to cut expenditure are choosing to keep on consuming, and then funding any shortfall through borrowings i.e. US health reform. Amazingly it seemed Australia has managed to break free of this Keynesian myth and had contained its budgetary programs within its means. The along comes Rudd and Swan.

So now we have governments all over the developed world paying each other with phony money. What will result in this second phase is a massive uncontrolled explosion in money supply and in turn, inflation. Let's hope our independent Reserve Bank, as inept as they are, are smart enough to jack up interest rates fast enough to discourage our government from resorting to the same techniques, although they have already shown a predilection for it.

Borrowing money to solves today's problems is just so easy because you can leave it till tomorrow to be someone else's problem.last edited by infi at 17:48:18 28/Aug/09

you have managed to write an entire long post that still doesn't really provide us critical thinkers with any evidence about whether what you're saying is remotely accurate! not a single link!?!

in conclusion, saint is still winning and Rudd is awesome. In as much as anyone can trust a news.com.au link anyway (which I guess is zero )

Don't get me wrong, I didn't vote for him and think the stimulus package was retaaaaaaarded

I dunno, it looks like he gave you plenty of stuff to go research

had contained its budgetary programs within its means.

Yeah, during a huge resources boom, which took a little bit of a downturn recently if you hadnt heard.

so what? you just keep on spending?

what happens when one person loses their job in a two income household?

so what? you just keep on spending?

dunno do you? tell us what you would have done?

and im pretty sure the economy of a whole country is slightly more complicated than a 2 income household.

Look at every country and tell me a country that has a better political system.

I hear Japan is some form of libertarian wonderland...

Mussolini made the trains run on time ?

America had the best system until the people allowed it to be raped.

yeah sorry for not linking to wikipedia trog. common sense and logic just don't cut it these days i guess. people don't think about things, they rely on others to validate their POV.

have a listen to peter schiff: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jFZQoxmT78c

this guy doesn't link to anything either, he just speaks common sense.

You didnt answer my question infi, what would you have done? It seems to be a common theme among liberals, bag out the opposition but then when asked what specific funding they would have cut or what they would have done, they seem light on the details.

i am not bagging just the government, i am bagging that entire approach to problem solving. that spending will make the pain go away, spending on anything - cash handouts, painting schools, digging holes and filling them back in, pink batts for houses.

as schiff states in his prolific interviews and webcasts, don't bail out anything. let things that are failing fail, to allow more efficient operators to shine through. don't go into debt. debt begets more debt and weakens your economy/currency to foreign invaders (ie in this day commercial competitors).

schiff speaks more recently of asia's decoupling from the US economy and reliance on the $USD as a standard.

australia is lucky simply because it hasn't been raped for 20 years with successive budget deficits like the US (bar 2 years under clinton), and it has big holes in the ground which the government taxes and pays for all its programs with.

Bush was terrible at managing money but Obama is far worse, Rudd is simply subscribing to the Obama playbook lock stock and barrel - that a government can spend its way out of trouble.

Gillard just tried to fool the media that their latest $1.5b blowout in the the Building the Education Revolution was just a bump in the road.

Well as Christopher Pyne put it, if this is a bump in the road, I would hate to see the road. The Government is seriously flailing about spending money wherever they can because they don't know what else to do. They need to be seen to be doing something.

The Government asked what would be the price of inaction? Well I may ask the reverse, what is the price of their actions? We know that price. $310b.

and another thing about growth which the media is too dumb to understand. GDP numbers are based on all national spending no matter how wasteful or inefficient. the statistic doesn't bother to measure whether the spending was worthwhile.

so if the government thinks the country is verging on a recession, they just spend a whole bunch of money. for example, you could build a bridge for $500m but you know what would increase the GDP even further? blowing up the bridge for $50m. because you have to engage a contractor to demolish to the bridge.

The measure of GDP doesn't worry that in engaging the $50m demolition contractor you are actually destroying a $500m asset. there is no interpretation, it only cares that both actions are creating economic activity.

so while on the surface the government program of building bridges and then blowing them up again could lead to extraordinary strength in GDP numbers and create employment in the construction and demolition industries, is the country any better off? this is completely analogous to the handouts and school programs, or the cash for clunkers in the US or the pink batts for houses that don't need them.

it's all total waste that doesn't create assets to the country, it is consumption merely for the sake of fudging the numbers to cheat a technical definition. and all the meanwhile certain interest groups are getting rich off the government's tit at the expense of the taxpayer.

You didnt answer my question infi, what would you have done? It seems to be a common theme among liberals, bag out the opposition but then when asked what specific funding they would have cut or what they would have done, they seem light on the details.

We can argue all day about whether stimulus was or wasn't needed.

One major problem I have with the Rudd government's course of action was how little debate and discussion was placed on the stimulus. Both packages were pushed out extremely quickly, and the reports coming out just now are suggesting that many areas of the stimulus were inefficient and not thought out well.

Their strategy has been to throw as much cash as they can afford at whatever they can throw it at and hope it fixes our problems. Sure, you can say that "we are in a GFC!! the government had to act fast!!!"... but surely anyone with sense (even hardcore Labor supporters) would think that it would be worth spending a short amount of time investigating and discussing the best channels for the stimulus rather than taking a "pray and spray" approach.

Edit: I completely agree with infi. $300bn is in essence what the government was prepared to pay to be able to say "we are not in a recession". GDP is a gross measurement, and as infi points out, has its limitations. Much of the media seems to equate GDP to some kind of quality of life index, when in reality. They make a big deal of negative GDP growth no matter how small, even though in reality, there would be little to no noticeable day-to-day difference if we had 0.3% GDP growth or -0.1% GDP growth in these circumstances.


last edited by Alt_F4 at 15:03:25 31/Aug/09

You guys both have made interesting arguments. infi - I like your bridge example. So I'm curious, when will the negative consequences of the current government's poor handling of money be made evident?

building bridges and then blowing them up again

Maybe I dumb, but what exactly are they building that they are going to "blow up" I know its a metafore, but what for?

pink batts for houses that don't need them.

If a house doesnt have batts, why wouldnt it need them?, decreases heating and cooling costs, reduces carbon pollution for the country, sounds like a pretty good idea to me, also directly creates jobs. I can see why you dont like the direct cash payouts, but things like the free batts seem like a pretty straight forward good idea to me.

Also I still dont think you answered my question, exactly what spending would you have cut, or are you saying none of it should have been spent. Obviously money was set aside for alot of things before the GFC, are u saying we should have cut whatever spending was needed to make a balanced budget, and if so what would you have cut?

What current spending is having a detrimental impact on the country (like destruction of assets) but a positive impact on GDP?

free pink batts and free paint jobs for school buildings are not a good idea. just like with the cash for clunkers in the US, if the private consumer has not valued that good/service enough to save and buy it themself, then why should the government buy it for them.

the government is encouraging the private economy to consume things it simply does not need at this time.

the school building will not collapse if it is not painted, the school will not close if they extra hall is not built. the person's home will not stop providing shelter if the pink batts are not installed.

but if we do manage to wait until future years and future budgets to fund these things (even if they are worth funding at all which for pink batts i would argue no, it is a private consumer expenditure), then we are saving on paying interest to bankers and other private financiers (bond holders etc). why should the taxpayer, pay interest on borrowings??? how is that serving anyone?

paying interest on the debt incurred to give everyone $900, doesn't anyone find that just a little outrageous? sheesh louise.

Essentially in times of economic trouble, people learn to go without. For example when petrol prices went up, we drove less.

Rudd and Obama and Co. are trying to create a new culture where in times of economic trouble we do not have to go without, it's business as usual, we will ride it out and in fact here's a little more spending to offset the fact that you may be going without.

I would have cut a lot of advertising, I would have cut back on a lot of capital expenditure, I would have frozen public servants wage rises, and public service hiring and maybe even thrown in a few redundancies as well.

I would have ploughed on with infrastructure building, building real assets that will last 100 years and enable us to export more or get around faster.

I would not be persisting with a nation destroying ETS, I would have stopped reregulating the workforce just at the time people are going into an employment slump.

I sure as s*** would not have wheeled out barrows of cash into the street.

last edited by infi at 15:46:20 31/Aug/09

if the private consumer has not valued that good/service enough to save and buy it themself, then why should the government buy it for them

It seems like you are not disputing the fact that technically batts are a good idea to have in a house, and that buy getting the government to fund the installation, it will create jobs and lower peoples electricity bills and carbon pollution, but the fact that the government should ever fund such things, that they should always be a private purchase, am I right?

I sure as s*** would not have wheeled out barrows of cash into the street.

I realy hate this kind of one-lining that gets done by you and policitians on both sides, reducing things down to little news grab type things, its not needed.

I would have ploughed on with infrastructure building, building real assets that will last 100 years and enable us to export more or get around faster.

This, i always found it odd that they cut back on infrastructure funding (such as upgrading ballymore which was intended to be the home of water polo and several other sports, not just rugby) stuff that would've helped the community for years to come, but felt the need to just dole out $900 to people living in switzerland.

So infi, specific predictions for the future as a direct result of a the current government's poor handling of money?

free pink batts and free paint jobs for school buildings are not a good idea. just like with the cash for clunkers in the US, if the private consumer has not valued that good/service enough to save and buy it themself, then why should the government buy it for them.

I would agree with you in some cases, but not all cases. I think the government sponsored insulation thing is a good idea - sometimes they need to show leadership to help people make the right decision. Home insulation will (or should, I guess, I haven't read any studies) help lower overall energy requirements in summer, which is a Big Deal for Australians (particularly QLDers!) as anyone that has copped rolling blackouts because in summer will know.

I think the Cash for Clunkers idea is stupid because it just panders to the useless American car industry which I think is directly responsible for a lot of the US problems.

I would have cut a lot of advertising, I would have cut back on a lot of capital expenditure, I would have frozen public servants wage rises, and public service hiring and maybe even thrown in a few redundancies as well.

I would have ploughed on with infrastructure building, building real assets that will last 100 years and enable us to export more or get around faster.

Totally agree with this. I think the best thing they could have done is throw all those $$$ into infrastructure. It would have created jobs and given us something useful that would, as you say, last for a long time. WTB metro system for Brisbane.

that they should always be a private purchase, am I right?

correct. a private individual could argue that the government should buy them a new pair of sneakers or a bicycle as this would enable them to travel by foot or ride instead of using a car. it could be argued that these are far more environmentally friendly modes of transport and therefore government should fund the mass purchase of sneakers and bicycles, but we know this is a ridiculous suggestion. so why are pink batts not ridiculous?

if the government wants private consumers to install pink batts they can either raise the cost of electricity so that consumers appreciate the value of pinks batts as being able to generate them a bigger saving, or we wait until the production of pink batts gets so cheap that the private person feels they would be mad not to get them installed.

this pushes aside the other issue that happened with water tanks a few years back - government subsidy of this newest fad simply creates a bubble in the market, rorting, dummy invoices and kickbacks. it is just sick. plenty of people are slowly installing this stuff as they realise the benefits. why create a boom/bust scenario?

I think the $900 was in indirect way of boosting the retail trade, whereas infrastructure are obviously a more specific way.

I imagine the retail trade would have significant impact on the economy in areas such as employment and tax (income tax for employees & businesses, gst etc) and the flow on effects of the increased retail sales to suppliers etc.

I'm not saying this should have been done as it's indirect and therefore lacks control, but I beleive that was the idea behind it.

In regards to the other spending such as school buildings etc I don't really see the problem? You're building assets that will be there for the long term, hardly things that will go unused and they'll better the education system in the long term.

So if you don't spend the money to keep work ticking over and just sit on your hands unemployment will go through the roof as companies go bust, then the govt will be dishing out the cash through welfare.

I really don't think there's a right or wrong answer on what action should or shouldn't be taken because there is significant downsides and opportunity costs associated with any financial decision.

I really don't think there's a right or wrong answer on what action should or shouldn't be taken because there is significant downsides and opportunity costs associated with any financial decision.

Thats just the kind of thinking that will make everyone just get along, thats not what we do round here.

So mission, the question then is: who can decide better? the private market or the government? has the government ever been known to do anything with efficiency?

billy: in relation to specific predictions, the major predictions are

1. that for any country which persists with running protracted deficits to experience a devaluation in its currency against other countries which manage to run tighter fiscal policy.

2.inflation at higher than normal (i.e. >3%) rates as extraordinary amounts of liquidity continues to flow into the system; and

3. higher interest rates as independent central banks try to put the brakes on inflation and attract capital which may have fled to sounder economies.

4. higher taxes, if the government is planning on reducing the deficit it has 3 options: pray for an economic recovery, reduce expenditure, increase taxes. it's own estimates show there is no recovery for some time, it has been increasing expenditure not cutting it so that leaves tax increases. if it does not of the above, total borrowings increase and the country becomes a slave to its financiers like the US is now to China.

5. I think Australia will remain reasonably resilient though because we are quite closely linked to Asia now and if the US does collapse we will shift even more of our trade to Asia. So we should be pretty right but if the government doesn't stop partying we are gonna have a massive headache at some point.

last edited by infi at 16:25:42 31/Aug/09

It's just too easy to sit back and argue 'Should have done this, should have done that' without even contemplating, or even worse, acknowledging the downsides that occur because you took that alternate path.

So the argument is pointless. You're fantasising about a course of action that hasn't been taken and therefore the negative impacts of this course haven't been realised.

That makes arguing against the course of action that has been taken and the negative impacts have been realised so much easier and convincing.

BTW not directing this at anyone. Just my thought for the day.


last edited by mission at 16:29:23 31/Aug/09

no more rhetoric about future headaches n inflation n taxes n bulls*** plz. we just need an accurate prediction of when to buy up on illegal firearms n start feasting on the brains of the less fortunate... THAT'S ALL INFI !@#!
dates n times man.

by the time you think it's necessary demon it will be too late.

that's not an accurate prediction :[

be always prepared. is that more accurate?

When the Howard government was paying off the debt of the previous Labor governments (a debt much small than this one, even in real terms), the income tax rates were 47c/dollar for income above $50,000-$60,000. No doubt we will see some drastic changes to the current taxation scheme within 5-10 years.

no more rhetoric about future headaches n inflation n taxes n bulls*** plz. we just need an accurate prediction of when to buy up on illegal firearms n start feasting on the brains of the less fortunate... THAT'S ALL INFI !@#!
dates n times man.

ahahah

I'd like to know a few months before so I can start investing in tinned food companies, then use the phatlewts from that to help pay for said firearms and seasoning for brains

be always prepared. is that more accurate?

not really.. that's more of a scout's motto.

ive spent my last government hand out already, when will it be time for the next one?

someone tell me that plz

We can always print more money if things get worse.

i hope that was a troll faceman

we can always export paves mum lmao

Well if other countries can do it why cant we ?
That doesnt seem very fair.

why is this thread still alive!

sheesh louise.

Oh get f***ed.

I have to say I disagree with you on the $900 handout infi. The reality is the end result is a much smaller number then what they gave out simply due to how much every dollar in the economy is taxed. They'd get back at least a third of every dollar they gave out simply through tax channels. There is little doubt it has helped the economy and I don't think the end bill will be any where near as high as some seem to think.

I agree on the batts though. Like the incandescent light bulbs and solar panels it has less to do with the environment and more to do with our growing population vs our stagnant power supply. I'd much rather they spent that money on building a nuclear power plant or two and make a real difference to limit pollution.

The Govt is already pushing up taxes through more excises while claiming it's for "health reasons" and not "we're broker then s***" and they will likely raise taxes on petrol claiming it's for the "environment". The real win fall will be when they finally push through their air tax though. It's one thing for a corporation to take advantage of peoples fear and ignorance over the environment for profit but it's quite another for a government to do it. At the end of the day we will be paying a lot more under the hood taxes in the years to come without our income taxes rising. That's always the way it is though regardless of who is in power.

They'd get back at least a third of every dollar they gave out simply through tax channels.

lol, wat?

Well GST is 10% and most likely people that spent the $900 would have purchased goods and services subjected to GST.

Then the retailer pays 30% of their net profit in tax, employees that stay in work from increased sales pay income tax etc....

33% of every dollar may be a stretch but they'd certainly get a reasonable portion back.

and the proportion that was saved? remittance flows? online overseas transactions that aren't taxed here? tax-free consumption etc? ah well, i bet they get a reasonable amount back though, right? how much is reasonable?

when a person borrows money to consume you'd generally say they're pretty stupid.

when a country does it..?

Hells yeah. I just threw a third out there based on the same idea as mission, not a number I'd hold to if given real data. But I also factored in the likelihood that the majority of punters would have spent it on... punting. Gambolling, Alcohol, Tobacco and Fuel would be my guess at the top 4 things people spent their $900 on, all of which are highly taxed.

I'd also guess that only a small minority would have spent the money overseas or on paying off debt and based on the amount the stimulus package stimulated, I'd say my guess would be about right.

So what? Just remember that 100% of it was taken from some hard worker's wages or the profits of some shopkeeper.

We always forget that taxes destroy hard work and profit only to be used as the government's tool to manipulate GDP stats to avoid a technical recession.

How about: don't take the taxes from the workers and business owners and let them sort themselves out.

Self Regulation ?
isnt that what got us into this mess ?

A governments core focus needs to be on the staples of society. They need to raise the bar on the minimums of our country and create a higher standard of living for everyone.

What drives people like infi nuts is when a government comes into power with this purpose. While I am sure he has the same emotional involvement as everyone has regarding the less fortunate standing next to him, once detached and put into numbers his tolerance feigns and the inner a****** emerges.

the government creates a higher standard of living by regulating our lives and wasting taxpayers' money on make-work projects and self-aggrandisement?

how enlightened.

Faceman I find your opinion contradictory. On one hand the government is full of Illuminists and other New World Order types yet on on the other hand you are implying that self-regulation i.e. taking power away from the government is a bad thing.

last edited by infi at 06:05:49 01/Sep/09

the government creates a higher standard of living by regulating our lives and wasting taxpayers' money on make-work projects and self-aggrandisement?

What a stupid statement. The intent of any rational democratic government (and I include every Australian government regardless of party in that) is to improve the lives of the people it governs.

Just how you do that is obviously very complicated and open to endless debate, but just because you personally disagree with the mechanics of the current government does not in any way change the overall intent.

What I don't get is that infi's prediction is that nothing bad will happen as a result of the current government's spending, yet he continues to whinge and complain???

which part of my 5 point prediction did you not read? all 5 points?

Hey infi, why did inflation and interest rates go up at the end of the liberals reign? they must have been doing something wrong I guess? in that case, interest rates and inflation have come down under labour, so they must be doing it right then ?

inflation and interest rates went up in 2007 as a result of an expanding credit bubble in the residential real estate market fuelled by lower deposit requirements of banks for lending eg. 105% homes loans, and the collaterilisation of debt in the finance derivatives market. This is a well established fact.

if anything, the disciplined fiscal management and deregulated workplace relations policy at the time helped to keep a lid on interest rates and wages breaking out which would have converted into much higher inflation.

swan was still raising interest rates to "crush the inflationary monster" long after the Global Financial Crisis had started. he is such an amateur in so many ways, he truly frightens me.

which part of my 5 point prediction did you not read? all 5 points?

I certainly read point 5:

5. I think Australia will remain reasonably resilient though because we are quite closely linked to Asia now and if the US does collapse we will shift even more of our trade to Asia. So we should be pretty right but if the government doesn't stop partying we are gonna have a massive headache at some point.

but if the government doesn't stop partying we are gonna have a massive headache at some point

Right, so you're saying nothing that they have done up to this point is going to have detrimental effects on the country. It's only if the government continues to "party" that we will have a problem.

detrimental?
what, incurring stupid future debt and creating a larger problem down the line instead of letting things take their arguably required course isn't detrimental enough for you?

Like turning an ocean liner around or starting/stopping a locomotive coal train, fiscal policy decisions of a government have a lagging effect.

The decisions one takes today will not have immediate effect but at some time in the future. This is the whole problem with the concept of "stimulus". There is simply no way to inject stimulus into the economy immediately without waste because major spending requires planning and competitive tendering. And by the time the lion's share of the $42b is into the economy, the hump of the crisis as it was then perceived i.e. Feb 2009 will be ancient history.

This is just random flailing of Treasury bureaucrats to devise make-work schemes which appear to stimulate the economy but instead just make for a shortage of construction contractors when otherwise there should be plenty of them.

Can I amend my statement as quoted to state that we already have a headache on our hands but it is yet to be evidenced in the balance sheet, it simply exists in Treasury's forward estimates at the moment to the tune of $310b.

How much worse that gets depends on how much more waste Rudd is going to permit.

If the economy continues to recover, growth is experienced but the budget remains in the red I will agree with infi and hateface Rudd at the ballot box.

infi, I appreciate the replies because I am genuinely clueless when it comes to this sort of thing. I am still wondering though, what time frame should we expect these things to become a problem? For example, if, at the next election, the Liberals come back into power and THEN problems become much more apparent, can we still blame the current Labor government? What about if it happens in 10 years time? At what point can we say, "Well actually, nothing bad really resulted from that..."

What I am asking is, how can I, a fairly naive voter but concerned citizen, sift through all the bulls*** that both parties spout, to know which parties are really to "blame" for which problems. If you say that Labor's choices will hurt us for years to come, then I assume that past Liberal choices could be currently hurting us today.

You can blame everything bad on the labor government, and everything good from the liberals. God.

Not to mention Labor is spelled incorrectly and they're all butt f***ing trade unionists as well.

last edited by casa at 16:56:16 01/Sep/09

Economics is mostly comprised of voodoo, spin and hyperbole. Each person has to make up their own mind, based on their own life experiences.

edit: the question you pose about when does accountability start and stop for a government? this is an interesting question and one that covers the pages of newspapers ad nauseum. The honeymoon for me is around 18 months. it is heightened further in the present case because the Labor government was quite happy to receive 2008's $20b surplus but still sought to shift blame onto the previous government for the next years $32b deficit.

I just find that a little duplicitous. In the 1997 the government slashed expenditure, in 2008 and 2009 the government have increased expenditure for all their chest-beating as a % of GDP spending went up. It's these sort of inconsistencies that really cut through the spin. And now this week the School stimulus blows out $1.5b - and the spin that results is: "It's just another $1.5b of stimulus that we so desperately need, so we are quite lucky it blew out."

This is the attitude of the people in charge presently.

last edited by infi at 17:07:42 01/Sep/09

labor will get a few years at the helm until the opposition find a leader who doesnt suck balls (maybe joe hockey, he seemed like a standup guy on sunrise a while back)

Economics is mostly comprised of voodoo, spin and hyperbole. Each person has to make up their own mind, based on their own life experiences.

don't you mean politics ?

Yes, I believe that was a slip of the keyboard.

labor will get a few years at the helm until the opposition find a leader who doesnt suck balls (maybe joe hockey, he seemed like a standup guy on sunrise a while back)

exactly, while malcolm turball is head of liberals, they will never win, you do realise this dont you infi? not saying he is not a smart guy or anything, he's just not the type of leader that will win an election, and definatly not the next one.

yeah i get that vibe from him too.

Im diehard Labor supporter but not of New Labor. Its just Liberal-Lite
I like Malcolm Turnball and hes a very smart man.
But he is too good a person for the snake pit of Politics.
I'd vote for him.

The great miracle of Krudds government is that him and Jules put on a great team show but behind the scenes seriously dislike each other.
Thats politics though. Friends close, enemies closer.

Black September began today.
Its going to be an interesting month for the world.

can we get a puff of smoke to go with that faceman?

http://brianseay.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/arrested_development_gob_magic.jpg

s*** i better not quit my job then :(

I drank the Krudd Koolaid and thought I was getting "Howard-Lite" but instead all I got was this spend-thrift d*******.

From an Elliot Wave trading perspective, the third wave has just commenced signaling a far larger contraction in the market than the first 50% correction.

There is nothing any politician can do to prevent what is about to happen. We will be like tourists standing on a beach as the tsunami approaches. Grab an esky lid!

Faceman: you never answered my observation before about deregulation and the institution of government being full of Illuminists, according to your theories.

last edited by infi at 23:47:38 01/Sep/09

The financially meek shall inherit the earth.

What happens if none of your predictions happen infi?

infi is exactly like a doomsday cultist.

Make a wild prediction about when the world will end then when the date passes, make up more bulls*** about why the world didn't end: we saved the world, a specific event didn't happen, its been moved to this date but never ever I was wrong.

don't get me wrong, i love a good bull market as much as the next investor, but this ain't one. you will recall that in july 2007 i predicted a serious market crash and it happened over the course of the following year.

don't say i didn't warn ya.

ah that thread contained so much gold, i love reminiscing when i am right.



last edited by infi at 00:41:15 02/Sep/09

If you throw a dart enough times, you'll hit the bullseye. Fortunately the way human memory generally works is that people will remember the time you hit the bullseye, and forget the 50 throws that missed the board.

I could make a bunch of predictions about economics or politics, two things I know nothing about, and likely one will come to fruition. In fact, before the last election, I said to my friends, "I don't think it'll matter which party gets elected, there's tough times ahead." What do I win?

The financially meek shall inherit the earth.

Lol, twist the quote.

Matthew 5:5 Blessed are the meek: for they shall inherit the earth.

There is nothing financial about it.


Anyway, I think this sums up predictions:

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/psychic.png

you only win as much as you bet with real money, like those invested in the stock market.

Well we gambled out Surplass and a ton of debt and we won a 0.5% increase in GDP.
Now all we need to do is Gamble our Surplass and a ton of debt again and we can get another 0.5% increase in GDP.

Wait a minute !
we dont have a surplass anymore just a ton of debt.
We didnt win anything !

surplus

how'd that get past my spellchecker.

How'd you spell it wrong to begin with?

spending to stimulate is a bit of a gamble...

but so is not spending.

Really not sure which option was/is the best.

i think its pretty obvious from the OP that Australian economy is booming, so spending up is looking like a pretty good option

spending to stimulate is a bit of a gamble...

but so is not spending.

Really not sure which option was/is the best.

There's only one way to find out. Massive government investment in time machine technology.

Everyone needs to go hire out the movie "Dog Soldiers". It has nothing to do with anything in this thread, but it's a kick arse flick!

http://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/psychic.png

I'm pretty sure the author of this comic doesn't quite grasp probability theory.

i'm starting to regret voting for rudd. but there was no way i could vote for costello, so i'll definately be voting liberal next election - hopefully it'll be joe hockey then

but not when it comes to the nsw state government. they're pulling chicks!

god i love state politics, i can't think of a better job than being a state minister..

why are you starting to regret this exactly. what hasn't he done that you expected he would do?

A Mr. James from CommSec.

"When you consider that we've just gone through the global financial crisis, this is a remarkable performance."

Government stimulus appears to have played a big role in maintaining growth, with Treasurer Wayne Swan today claiming credit for the figures, and rightly so, economists say.

"I think that the Government can rightly claim credit for the fact that the economy is continuing to grow," Mr James said.

What a bunch of liberal fan boys. Go read Cannery row or something.

Most of you still have your jobs (unless you were working overseas).
Most of you are still in your houses (unless you were overseas).
Woe is you ?
Our balance of trade has gone in the right direction for an extended period of time.

"In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing." Theodore Roosevelt

My problem with Rudd is he talks a lot but does little. Here something got done and at least in the short term it seems to have worked.

Malcolm Turnball and hes a very smart man. But he is too good a person

wtf ? good person ?
That Auscar/ute/Gretcht thing. There wasn't any greater good at play there. Just gutter politics. And it turns out it was all faked.


ps. Billy I would not listen to infi he is going to give you at best a partisan version of economics.


"The things that will destroy America are prosperity-at-any-price, peace-at-any-price, safety-first instead of duty-first, the love of soft living, and the get-rich-quick theory of life." Theodore Roosevelt

But infi probably dislikes Teddy, a pro-union, pro nationalised health care republican.

craig james is the chief economist at commsec. or cheif equities economist, one or the other.

he's often on the nightly news. also comes under fire from time to time for being overly politicised. make of that what you will.

Craig James, Bitch!

^ he wasn't the only one making positive comments attributed to the Government's handling of the economy and the stimulus package. He was the only one I quoted from the article.

"In a moment of decision the best thing you can do is the right thing. The worst thing you can do is nothing." Theodore Roosevelt

i disagree. there are times when doing nothing is exactly the right option. the value of further information can outweigh the value of taking immediate, yet inappropriate action.

also known as the value of optionality. this is well recognised in economics/finance/business circles.

yeah, i read the article SFB there were 2 other economists. when quoting something it's usually a good idea to link to the source: http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2009/s2674778.htm

i'm not saying i agree or disagree, but finding 3 economists who will support a particular government's policy (no matter which side of the fence they're on) isn't exactly hard.

couldn't agree more on the 2nd teddy quote though.

last edited by taggs at 09:59:56 03/Sep/09

We should let scientists run the country... only one decision would be made every 20 years, but at least we can be 95% confident of it!

The problem Taggs is whenever anyone introduces a comment supporting their view you will always get others knocking it. It's all Swings and Roundabouts.

yeah, sort of exactly the point i was making :)

lol billy.

hmmm, something interesting was said to me the other day by my neighbour who is a landscaper.

he said as a small business he found all governements very similar, but what really hurts his business is elections.

people are affraid to spend money with an election coming up.

if it was up to him, governments would get 5 year terms minimum

plenty of economists argue that the political cycle and business cycle are a bit out of whack here in aus.

they reckon that 4 year terms would be better (some argue for longer), as it gives the government better incentives to produce policies which provide benefits over the long-term, instead of focusing on the extreme short-term to get re-elected. also means that business cycles (boom -> trough on avg every 7-8 years in OECD) and political cycles (currently 3-6, but 4-8 under proposed changes) would be more in sync, possibly meaning less incentives for pork-barrel spending.

of course it wouldn't be a magic fix, and the idea certainly has its opponents.

wait, what's the current term length?

3 years isn't it!?

edit: yeah it's 3 for lower, 6 for upper. freaked me out trog, thought i was wrong for a second ><. i say 3-6 years currently because it's very unusual for a government in aus not to serve 2 terms.

last edited by taggs at 10:18:18 03/Sep/09

I remember the recession back in the early 90s when I was a kid. Now I was only about 8 or so so I was pretty confused about what a recession actually was, and why all of a sudden my parents seemed stressed, why they couldn't buy me whatever I wanted anymore (well I never did get whatever I wanted but now I got less!) and stuff like that. I used to spend a fair amount of time at my grandparents house, sleeping over and such, and I guess being older people they like to be more vocal to whoever will listen and they told me about the recession.

Basically what I heard from them all those years ago was the same bulls*** rhetoric that infi rants and f***ing raves about here. That 'Chairman Rudd' (f*** give this guy a job at Current Affair) wants only to pander to the asians needs (grandparents said this about Keating) that we are all screwed, run to the hills the national debt will destroy us all (this is infi's favourite line. I think he likes this one because not only does it make him sound smart and political, it also makes him sound benevolent and selfless when it is quite obvious he is a f***ing self-centered prick). Are you spouting all this rhetoric because it makes you look smart infi? Or is it so in 3 months time you can point back to your vague little comments and go 'look at what I predicted I am teh smartest!'

last edited by fpot at 10:28:32 03/Sep/09

Yet get-rich-quick is exactly what Obama is doing, especially for the banks and insurers with the trillions in taxpapyer bailouts.

The skyrocketing deficits of UK US AUS represent the exact prosperity at any price mentality Roosevelt and other wise patriots despised.

I am certainly pro-union (well pro freedom of association) and don't mind universal healthcare, but choose private instead because I don't like to wait.

Your own hero seems to have been betrayed by the new socialists Obes... Don't hiss at me.

i warn of those perils fpot because debt is incidious and before you know it you are owned entirely by someone else. debt is a claim of ownership by another person. would you like to be owned by someone else?

People seem to believe that while private consumer debt is bad, government consumer debt is good. the thing is fpot i give reasons for all of my opinions - They are not religious, they are based on economic priciples.

You on the other hand say nothing bad has happened yet so it's all good, and that's the extent of your insight. rightio, fine then haha

People seem to believe that while private consumer debt is bad,

They do? Im pretty sure private debt for things like buying a house is pretty good, and isnt the majority of the stimulus going into infrastructure projects?

[The ABS] always gets its GDP estimate by averaging three sets of data on incomes, production and expenditure. Usually they're pretty close. Now they are polar opposites.

In the year to June, the production data showed GDP fell 0.7 per cent. On the income data, it fell 0.3 per cent. Yet on the expenditure measure, GDP growth accelerated despite the recession to 2.9 per cent. And it is the average of these three that gives us the official figure of 0.6 per cent.

Something is very wrong, and there's an obvious suspect. The bureau reports that between December and June the value of our exports plunged 22 per cent. Yet it says exports actually grew, and the slump was due solely to a 24 per cent plunge in prices for everything we sell.

Sorry, I don't buy that. I predict it will be revised, and take the GDP down with it.

http://business.theage.com.au/business/the-gdp-numbers-dont-add-up-20090902-f8fc.html

again, not saying i agree or disagree - haven't even checked the data myself, but it does raise some questions.

As someone alluded to earlier, there is an inherent flaw in the former Roosevelt quote - what if doing nothing its the correct thing?


Talk about massive generalisation obes. I am, unashambly Liberal. But that is both social and economically. Unions are, in my opinion antiquated, and that is why I will not join them/wouldn't want them to bargain for me. If others want to associate, then be my guest.

Universal healthcare is a required instution.

While, the private sector will generally perform better (efficency, quality, competition, etc), You can't just leave people without public health care, it's too important.

My major bone with Labor, apart from their bastard spelling, is their spending. Government spending means higher taxes. Higher taxes means more of my money going to schemes that I don't have any imput on.

last edited by fade at 10:55:27 03/Sep/09

Well... nothing bad has happened yet. So it is all good. I am not such a pretentious f***wit that I will post bulls*** vague comments and then point at them 3 months later claiming to be some sort of wiz. I am not here to offer any insight into the financial crisis. Economics is incredibly boring and politics is what people with incredibly mundane lives and no hobbies discuss. I try and keep abridged just enough to make some sort of decision come voting time. Last state election I donkey voted, for the first time ever.

However reading your white noise comments hurt my brain. You fill up threads with comments ranging from carefully worded doctrine you have copied from somewhere else, to outlandish almost mentally ill comments like we should be able to arm ourselves in case the government become tyrannical (I still lol everytime I say that). It was about time other people called you out on this (trog did in this thread I believe). I could almost hear google working overtime after he did that - you quickly had to find something someone else had said that sort of related to the comments you made, and stat!

You're pathetic dude. Here I got a question for you. I never see any thread about you going out with mates or having a good time or anything like that. It's always about your boring little aged care life and the liberal party blah blah blah. Are you that much of a detestable wanker in real life that you have no mates or something?

Tell us what you realy think Fpot!

Ill give infi one thing though, he believes what he believes and doesnt change his mind for anyone or anything, not sure if thats a good thing though, being open minded is usually better,

fpot - Could it also be submitted that making threads about going out with mates on QGL is also indicia that you have a less than ample social life?

you have such a poison personality. Does personally insulting people make you feel bigger?

Not changing your mind for anyone or anything is a true sign of ignorance. Good job infi!

I wasn't literally calling him out on not having started threads about going out - 16 year olds do that. But never in his comments does he mention he was at the pub, or a game of something or anything like that. It is ALWAYS the same boring bulls*** ALL the time. I really suspect he is just as unlikeable irl as on the forum which is a rare thing (the only other people I suspect of this are Kat and typo)

edit: Debating with you is worthless because you are completely indoctrinated and ignorant. Now go get a f***ing tissue dude because you just soaked this thread in tears.

last edited by fpot at 11:12:10 03/Sep/09

And our resident conspiracy theorist, Faceman.

But never in his comments does he mention he was at the pub, or a game of something or anything like that. It is ALWAYS the same boring bulls*** ALL the time.

I don't know infi but i seem to recall him mentioning going out on the cans with his cricket team a few times.

fpot, time to go back in your hole.

some commentary on the effectiveness of the fiscal stimulus packages:

Andrew Leigh from ANU estimates that the 1st quarter aggregate marginal propensity to consume in response to the 2nd stimulus package was 0.41-0.42. in english, this (very roughly) means that on average australian consumers spent $0.41-$0.42 out of every dollar recieved in Q1 as a result of the 2nd stimulus stimulus ($12b from mar-may 09).

this result is based on survey data however, and wasn't overly rigorous imo.

http://econrsss.anu.edu.au/~aleigh/pdf/FiscalStimulus.pdf

also, a graph taken from an economics blog that Leigh co-authors shows household expenditure and income plotted along with the stimulus payments.

http://economics.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/image1.png

the graph would suggest that the dec '08 stimulus seems to have a much greater effect on houshold expenditure than the mar '09 package.

dimishing returns, perhaps?

http://economics.com.au/?p=4219

edit: i met infi at the empire so he must go out at least sometimes. i don't always agree with his opinions but on plenty of issues he's on the money imo.

last edited by taggs at 11:42:41 03/Sep/09

He also mentioned the time when he woke up naked in bed with a black dude.

A typically worthless comment from you ara awesome.

who gives a s*** fpot, we are talking about the economy. i party plenty, drink plenty of bacardi and talks plenty of s*** with my mates and gf etc.


economy is the topic of this thread and then you come in and decide to take a big s***, and make some other worthless throwaway comments. sheesh dude give it a rest.

f***pot is a little upset and cranky atm, due to oasis finally splitting up and beatles rockband not being out yet

Pretty much spot f***ing on about oasis spook.

let em go matey, let em go:

after wonderwall it was all bad

http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/be4aa82cd8cf7f07ca2570d60018da27/e9a06b6b37d6251aca256f5c007bce18/Body/0.4666!OpenElement&FieldElemFormat=gif

this graph shows real net national disposable income plotted against GDP. it was taken from ABS official data (5206.0 - Australian National Accounts: National Income, Expenditure and Product - found: pg10 http://www.ausstats.abs.gov.au/ausstats/meisubs.nsf/0/B89B7AEDD5C0EC1CCA257624001C1D3B/$File/52060_jun%202009.pdf)

essentially what the graph is showing that that real net national disposable income has been historically very highly correlated with GDP (which makes obvious sense intiutively when you think about it).

yet the latest quarter of GDP data shows a massive decoupling of this relationship. some are arguing that this is evidence of a problem with this quarter's GDP data. particularly how the income and production measures of GDP can be so drastically different from the expenditure figures.

still not sure what to think myself yet, but again it does raise some very serious questions.

last edited by taggs at 12:22:35 03/Sep/09

john howard: core/non-core promises.

now we have kevin rudd with his objectives vs. guarantees.

This thread is pretty funny. People talking and discussing about real-life stuff, then f***stain chimes in from buttf*** idaho... "LOL U DONT DRINK UR A FAGET WHO DUZENT NOE ANYTHING"

riiiiiiight...weren't you trying to give me s*** the other day about obsolete internet slander? Pretty sure you just came up with the oldest one in the book, CHAMP.

john howard: core/non-core promises.
now we have kevin rudd with his objectives vs. guarantees.

heh. a lie by any other name will smell as stinky. call 'em 'failed election promise' or 'a failed objective' or 'a core promise that slid off the radar' or whatever... it's obvious even from this thread that pollies n economics types just pull thier predictions out of thier arse n hope for the best! :P

No, there’s no way that a GST will ever be part of our policy.

remember that old clunka? ;D it really proves nothing pointing out that one political party have lied when all political parties lie. or at least... aren't always correct in thier predictions :P~

everyone knows the sleight of hand used by Howard with those definitions (and with the GST I'm not denying that), but there are still some out there that think Rudd is as white as the freshly driven snow.

I think the Stimulus was a great Idea.
I think the Stimulus was also a bad Idea.
If Labor owned the SURPLUS then they now own the debt.

I know one thing though.
A lot of people got some free money from the government.
The next Election no party will be giving away free money again.
They will need to raise Taxes because of declining revenue.
Id hate to be the Libs trying to convince people that they wont need to raise Taxes higher than Labor.

Has anyone here been part of a Political Party or been on a Board elected by members ? Everyone should do it once so they can learn how Politics works.
There are no Nice people in Politics.
Its Backstabbing, Manipulation, Lies, Betrayal, Dealing with people you dont like. And thats just with your closest allies !

I think Turnbul is dead man walking.
Joe Hockey is looking the goods lately.
His Achilles heal is Work Choices though.

ok so now does anyone have any data (and preferably analysis), to the same quality that taggs has provided, that suggests wayne swann is an economic genius?

being in psych you'd be big on stats, billy.

His Achilles heal is Work Choices though.

Yeah for retards who don't know a thing about politics (which unfortunately is 99% of the .au public)

His Achilles heal is Work Choices though.

Yeah for retards who don't know a thing about politics (which unfortunately is 99% of the .au public)

but they are all opinionated ...

AFAIK Lindsay Tanner was first choice for Treasurer but Swanny got the job because thats how politics works. Factions.

Fpot vs Infi, i haven't seen this match up before.

Who's side would you take? it's a tough choice i tell ya, especially since they're both gronks in their own way.

edit: Ahh fk it, I don't know what I'm talking about.

He is finished if the opposition can get a decent leader, in all of Australian population there must be one??



last edited by Tollaz0r! at 20:29:41 03/Sep/09

http://www.victoriantourismconference.com.au/web_images/Speakers_/Jeff_Kennett_approved_high_res2.jpg

i doubt kennett would ever re-enter politics. he is made now, why would he go back to the s*** job? i don't really see him as a power junkie like howard or rudd are.

Kennett is busy running the Hawthorn Football Club. He won't reenter.

The man who would be Treasurer having a bit to say about our Economy...
http://business.theage.com.au/business/tanner-decries-chronic-weaknesses-in-economy-20090903-f9yx.html

i would have thought labor politicians would have learned from the last time they cried wolf about the CAD.

Keating was so sure we were going to become a 'banana republic' if we didn't reduce the deficit, contributing to the recession 'we had to have'.

in march this year the CAD was even more in the red than when Keating was getting it wrong. it has since fallen to a little under ~$10b (trend figure).

there are different ways of interpreting a CAD. back in the day economists/policy makers argued that CADs are bad because it means a country is living beyond its means. basically what Tanner is alluding to. this mindset implies that this is a problem that the government should do something about, stop those pesky citizens and businesses from borrowing/lending more money than we want them to... because the government knows best!

another view is that CADs are the residual result of private savings and investment decisions across the country. if our country as a whole is borrowing more money than it is saving, that would be an indication that it is very attractive for foreign investment and is attracting large capital inflows. with a developed financial sector this is a very good thing. it means business has the capital it needs to expand, because without this foreign capital coming into the country - business wouldn't get enough from domestic savings. it can have a lot to do with demographics. for example, japan has a very high domestic savings rate because their population is on average quite old. people in that stage of their life tend to be net savers, while younger people are net borrowers. so a country with a lower average age like ours will tend to borrow more.

essentially, if a CAD isn't negatively affecting any other economic variables then trying to reduce the deficit is attempting to fix a problem that doesn't exist. CADs can definitely cause issues, they lead to speculative attacks/capital flight if the country's ability to repay the debt comes into question. if the debt is largely public, not private that is also a cause for alarm.

but neither of those things are happening in australia, so at the moment the CAD isn't anything to worry about imo. always worth keeping an eye on it, though.

edit: google the lawson doctrine/pitchford thesis. someone mentioned that in a different thread, it perfectly describes this situation.

last edited by taggs at 11:01:42 04/Sep/09

Things were good back in the mid 90's.

* Fuel was cheap
* Food was cheap
* Houses were affordable
* People didnt need daycare centres for their kids because mum could afford to stay at home.

Nowerdays its the other way around all the non essential items like Computers, Plasma TV's and Electronics are really cheap.

Maybe we can eat our ipods and live in our Plasma TV and get a donkey to pull our cars around when we cant afford to fill them up.

So glad I had that Vasectomy.

^ alot of that had a lot to do with people being more high maintenance these days. If you're happy to eat steak + 3 vege every night and live in forest lake, life is affordable on 1 income.

i wish i had of got rudd money :(

had have

If you're happy to eat steak + 3 vege every night and live in forest lake, life is affordable on 1 income.

It might be affordable now but down the track, come retirement time, you may be in a world of pain.

what do you mean, mission? I've already calculated that if the only thing i retire with at 60 is my house, my super will be sufficient to see me through quite comfortably for the next 30+ years. And that's not taking into account my wife's assets or super.
I feel very sorry for anyone who requires dual incomes. I believe it is a failure as a man to not be able to provide sufficiently for your family and to need your wife to pick up where you lack. I don't have a problem with people who choose to have dual incomes so they can experience luxuries they otherwise would not, but to require just for normal living is a failure.

last edited by Mr Hardware at 12:46:08 04/Sep/09

Not everyone can earn 100k a yr just to support wifey and 2 kids. Also do you realize that to buy an entry level home nowerdays to start a family requires 6-7 times the average income to service the loan?

I would have agreed with your statement pre 2002.

yeah i think you've got your wording a bit mixed up there slaps
an income 25% greater than the average should be sufficient to service an average housing loan in its infancy, obviously this will lessen with time
and an average house is now 6-7 times that of the average wage, yes.
I still stand by my statements.
And yes, i understand that there are some people, no matter how hard they try, will never get close to $100k until it becomes the average wage. And thats why i say i feel sorry for them.

At 60 I'm retiring, selling the house and buying a 2 bedroom unit either North Coast Queensland or Far Northern Coast NSW. Add to that a 4WD, camper trailer and tinny and you won't see me for dust except for the occasional stay in our unit. Kids can use the unit when we're not there.

Other than super + a little extra I'm happy as Larry.

That's a bloody good way to be SFB, too many people retire and also retire from life at the same time. 60 acutally aint that old if you are in reasonable health, you can still do 95% of the things someone half your age can do.

i make wifey work, so i can afford to by the nice boxes of wine

It costs a heck of a lot for kids so it's not uncommon for a 2 income family when you've got kids around. If you want your kids to have an opportunity at anything it costs extra. Add that to feeding, clothing, health and education and multiply the number of people in the household. For us 5 in my house 2 incomes aren't absolutely necessary but it sure does cut us some slack. Especially for rainy days.

I've worked so hard in my time I intend to quit work at 60 (11.5 years away) and enjoy the relaxation and recreation when I am still more than able to fully enjoy it.

last edited by Some Fat Bastard at 13:46:26 04/Sep/09

i understand that there are some people,

Um, I would extend that some people, to probably most of the population of australia.

Well take a one income family for starters.

Say the guy earns on average 100k through his working life and his employer pays 9% pa Super. That's $9,000 over say 40 (20 to 60) years is $360,000. Obviously this isn't adjusted up for the investment growth nor is it adjusted down for inflation.

At 5% growth rate that may be worth $1.1m in today's dollars. Live to say 85 and that leaves about $46k pa in todays dollars for both of you to live off.

I don't know what 100k pa works out to be per week, maybe around $1,200 after tax?

The average mortage of say $250,000 soaks up about $430 per week in repayments leaving around $750 for everything else.... car, fuel, rego, food, rates, coke, insurance, phones, hookers, internet, booze, school, clothes, gifts, holidays etc etc.

Sure you can do it the short term of say 6 years while the wife knocks a couple out but long term I'm not so sure.

(obviously you won't be paying off the mortgage for the full 40 years so that will probably free up some extra cash closer to retirement)

Also that doesn't include and Rudd Bux (centrelink family assistance).

Say the guy earns on average 100k

Average income For a Male in Australia is way below that.

The average mortage of say $250,000

I would like to buy one of these magical $250,000 houses, even a crappy house in a crappy neighbourhood is more than that.

Unless you are saying that they should save 100k or something as a deposit, while renting, which im not gonna bother doing the sums on, but seems pretty impossible to me.

Theres gonna be heaps of people jump in and say "oh but my family does it, you must be doing something wrong if u cant", thats just means

A: Your single income is alot higher than an average Australian income
B: You bought your current house or got into the housing market a fair few years ago.
C: Someone gave you alot of money for a deposit.

that doesnt leave very much cash for coke mission

That's what I'm saying Viper!

And that's why the wife must work spook.

D: you diligently save, invest and build wealth over an extended period of time which is then used to obtain a servicable loan.

not saying it's as easy as it used to be. but i think this generation's copout mentality isn't helping either.

edit: i'm not saying i think a family can live on 1 average aus income (~45k), have kids AND purchase their own home. owning your own home takes a fair amount of sacrifice, it just seems to me that my generation have forgotten that.

last edited by taggs at 14:49:47 04/Sep/09

I believe it is a failure as a man to not be able to provide sufficiently for your family and to need your wife to pick up where you lack.

Its Myopic views like that that drive men to suicide.

but i think this generation's copout mentality isn't helping either.

QUOTED FOR TRUTH.
All you nay-sayers. 'Its all too hard, the world has made it impossible for me'. BULLs***. You pick one magic point in 1999 where wages were avg $40k and houses were average $200k and see that wages have only gone up by 20% and houses by 80% and say it's all too hard. What you don't realise is that the tax rates have changed HUGELY since then and what you got after tax in 1999 on an average wage is almost half of what you get today after tax on an average wage.

Faceman, you do have a good point there. It does take a certain amount of strength of character to break through the average wage setup. Suicide recipe for me was the thought of having only $8.45 in my pocket at the end of the week cos my whole life expenses drained my income.
Resigning yourself to mediocrity is not something i think people should do.

any man who cant provide for his family by earning enough should drive taxi's for a second job or die

D: you diligently save, invest and build wealth over an extended period of time which is then used to obtain a servicable loan.

So if u earn an average wage of say 60k, you save 20k a year somehow and then buy a 350k house for 250k?

So obviously your are doing this before you have kids, cause you aint living on 40k a year, renting with even 1 kid.

Also, in that 5 years, that 350k house has probably gone up to at least 375k.

So yeah, if you earn at least 60k from a young age, dont have kids, and save for at least 5-7 years you might be able to do it.

Im 28, have 2 kids, earn a decent wage, but not quite enough to not have my wife work. Hopefully before im 30 She wont have to work anymore, which ironicaly is when both kids will be in school, and she'll probably want to work then, but at least she wont have to do it fulltime. I probably didnt time it right having kids and buying houses etc, but thats life.

I work, wifey doesn't.

We have two kids, one is in private school and the other is just noisy.
We manage to travel interstate year or two, and are paying off a 280k mortgage.
All of our s*** is fully insured, the bills are paid.
We put 75 dollars a month into each kidlets bank account.
I drink piss most weekends.
Our cars are 5 and 10 years old and we own them outright.
We have no debts other than the house.
Our income varies a lot as its business related, but we only occassionally clear six figures.

Our accountant advised us on a tax-effective strategy that wipes about 10-15k off our annual tax bill. I reckon its this that is the big difference for us, the benefits of running a business cf. being an employee.

I also avoid consumer debt like the f***ing plague. If you can't afford it today, then you can't afford it period. Its a boring, conservative 1920s outlook on financial life but its working well for us.

If you can't afford it today, then you can't afford it period. Its a boring, conservative 1920s outlook on financial life but its working well for us.

Apart from your mortgage, i fully agree. Life is so ridiculously long, there's not much of a hurry for anything material.

Yeh, I don't count the family home as 'consumer debt'.

Depending on how likely you are to be in a crash a new car is possibly a good idea if you're worred abaout safety, but a late-model well maintained second hander will do. In any case, that doesn't mean taking a 40k loan in the neck like my sister-in-law is planning to ffs!

viper, no offence but that is bulls*** imo. your circumstances might be different, but so say that EVERYONE who owns their own home on a single income either had money given to them, earns more than the avg or entered the market at some arbitary point in the past is pretty deluded. sounds like a little bit of a persecution complex going on there.

typically in previous generations they would take 10, 20 or even 30 years to pay off a mortgage. it takes serious sacrifice. if you are telling me that you can't afford to put away enough money over that timeframe to own a modest dwelling then you need to see a financial advisor pronto!

it is simply that property prices since 2001 have blown out in comparison to pre-2001 relativities. i bought my own home in 2002 just as the boom was starting. i could not afford to buy my home now for what it would sell.

things have just gone all weird due to the current 8 year long real estate bubble and have not remained relative to average salaries.

if you are telling me that you can't afford to put away enough money over that timeframe to own a modest dwelling then you need to see a financial advisor pronto!

good advice. So many people just see money as something that will always slip between their fingers. I say do something about it - i know i've done a good bit of reading and listening when it comes to money tricks, but boy, good financial advisers have some schemes that you'd be surprised are legal or doable.

viper, no offence but that is bulls*** imo. your circumstances might be different, but so say that EVERYONE who owns their own home on a single income either had money given to them, earns more than the avg or entered the market at some arbitary point in the past is pretty deluded. sounds like a little bit of a persecution complex going on there.

I started to do the sums of a 65k a year worker paying of a 300k loan (which is more than alot of people earn and less than what you can realy buy a house for these days), and even then its $500 for the mortgage and you take home $975, not much room for everything else.

Im not saying it cant be done, Im just saying that a single income earner with a wife and a kid with a mortgage you would have for buying a house these days, which is realisticaly at least 350k, would have to be making at least 75k, which is more than the average wage. Its not a wage thats out of reach, its just above what alot of people earn

$10k a year extra gross income can be had pretty darn easily if you're keen enough

yeah, probably not do-able on 1x avg income + kids, edited my post above to include that in case it was misleading.

takes significant sacrifice though, maybe wifey needs to head back part-time, maybe holidays or other discretionary spending needs a 2nd look. i don't mean to come across as a douche but if you want it bad enough i reckon you'll find a way to manage it :).

taggs speaks the truth
its just a pity the truth often comes across as a punch to the guts

why is it such a bad thing for our wives to work?

petal loves working, loves her current job, and we think its healthy for spook jnr to mingle with other like minded kids at kiddy care

f*** what hardware thinks, women should work, this isnt 1930 anymore

property prices since 2001 have blown out in comparison to pre-2001 relativities

They were very low pre 2001 so its more an over correction.
And that problem really is only in the major centers.

Which really makes you ask if our society has this whole megacity thing right ?
It seemingly leads to housing and infrastructure problems.

But how do you encourage industry to set up in (or in some cases return to) regional centers ?

Saint, for a troll thread you've done exceptionally well.

Well trolled sir

wherever the infrastructure goes, business and development will follow. or in the case of qld, no infrastructure was built since 2001 (or earlier) so business and development go no where, they just stay in the capital.

a great example of infrastructure leading to sprawl is the gold coast corridor. yatala et al did not fully take off until the pacific motorway was completed and now it is THE place for industry to be because it is so close to logan motorway too.

springfield will only properly take off once they finish the ipswich and centenary highway upgrade and roll out the train line beattie promised 10 years ago.

recent upgrades to the pacific highway south of the qld border have really opened up the nsw north coast but real estate there is still pretty expensive.

housing west of toowoomba is still very affordable, but in essence it is a quality of life matter. my sister lives out there but they are fair dinkum country folk. it's an acquired (or raised) taste.

i would like to see further urbanisation north of noosa in that gympie to hervey bay area and inland to kingaroy biloela etc.

last edited by infi at 16:07:24 04/Sep/09

i would like to see further urbanisation north of noosa in that gympie to hervey bay area and inland to kingaroy biloela etc

thats not going to happen until there are decent roads out there

hence the first line of infi's post:

wherever the infrastructure goes, business and development will follow.

yeah, probably not do-able on 1x avg income + kids, edited my post above to include that in case it was misleading.

Bingo, thats what I was getting at.

It just means you have to have either an above average Single wage or 2 Incomes to have a House and Kids these days.

haha i knew i'd ruffle some feathers, not surprised it was spook

because im so forward thinking and pro-women?

no cos you like free money

its one of my favourite kinds

my favourite kind is the one earnt with my brain, ie investment
free money is just disadvantaging others, especially ruddbux

Suffice to say I can't think of one good reason to have an unaffordable housing market?

i'll bite.

because then property owners have assets which are worth very large sums of money, increasing aggregate net household wealth across the country. there would obviously be serious social issues with the distrbution of that wealth, though.

too many people look at economic issues with one-sided glasses; it's all about me!

when interest rates go up the papers will be full of stories about how the banks are deliberately destroying the lives of aussie battlers, not about how investors are receiving higher rates on deposits, or how higher interest rates attract increased foreign capital flows, or how the exchange rate will appreciate making travel and imports cheaper, etc. economic occurences/actions always have two (or many more) sides to the story.

never forget about the law of unintended consequences :)

because then property owners have assets which are worth very large sums of money

Most of whom fall into the generation who will need expensive care in the next 10-20 years.

I've thought for a while that the Government's blatant agenda to inflate land prices in AU was designed to transfer money from the young to the old. Why? (woo KRudd rhetoric question!) - to pay for the retirement of a generation who can't otherwise afford their own care.

Beats a massive tax hike I guess.

well if what you are suggesting is true then it would essentially be equivalent to a tax hike which is then redistributed. :)

though i'm not sure it's a blatent agenda so much as the result of various (mostly populist) economic policies which haven't been particularly well thought out. or where politics has trumped economics.

besides, governments would have absolutely no incentives to do that. that action would carry some serious political/PR risk and would really offer the government no benefit. the government governs for 3-6 years, maybe more if they're lucky/good. that action would "benefit" the nation over a much longer time frame.

Yup - its a wealth transfer from young to old. Its probably a little Faceman-esque to suggest that the policy is a quiet bi-partisan issue that the beurocracy executes regardless of Government, but I do wonder sometimes :)

There's a few issues (like capital punishment) that both sides of politics seem to agree on for the apparent common good of the country, and voters don't get a look in.

the perils of a two-party system i suppose.

uh-oh... England (bankrupt) and unified Germany (the Fourth Reich) are fighting over what to do.

China is the first customer for the IMFs phantom currency = $50 Billion.

Wayne Swan is advising the world what to do about the Financial Crisis. 0.0

The only good news from America is the amount of people losing jobs was less than last month.

Black September has arrived.
Only another 9/11 can save the world !
(next Saturday: our time)

Oh look there he is. Now I feel like much less of a nutter wondering if there is an underlying agenda in the buerocracy, it looks entirely sane coming before that drivel.

it is not as elaborate as either of you have suggested. it is like turning up morphine on a cancerous patient, instead of operating/chemo.

it is a quiet simple way to treat the patient. the patient feels good, and there is no need to operate or incur further pain and cost. and in the end the patient dies silently.

that is exactly how bernanke and before him greenspan kept the respective governments in power. right now in the US, americans actually think they are on the road to recovery. they are in fact on the road to obliteration.

our bumbling reserve, equally as incompetent, did the exact reverse and hit the interest rate brakes hard just as we were entering depression.

interest rates are a velvet sledgehammer, but make no mistake they pack a punch.

flooding an economy with liquidity is just as dangerous as hiking rates because investors cannot plan for the future.

last edited by infi at 12:05:26 05/Sep/09

it is not as elaborate as either of you have suggested.

eh? are you referring to mine/hoggy's posts about land/property prices in aus?

yes, you suggested that the government was trying to maintain asset prices for property owners. hogfather suggested that it could be some kind of subtle wealth transfer strategy.

it's neither of those things. it is the reserve bank's failure to keep interest rates in a stable range. the most beneficial side effect of lower interest rates, is the inflationary effect to relatively lower wages, thus keeping unemployment low.

everything else as you stated are unintended (but nonetheless dangerous) consequences.

ITT: INFI KNOWS MORE THAN THE RESERVE BANK - HE SAID SO HIMSELF

last edited by Mr Hardware at 13:32:15 05/Sep/09

it is the reserve bank's failure to keep interest rates in a stable range

And here was me thinking that the real problem with housing costs was land prices because of artificial scarcity!

that too^

And here was me thinking that the real problem with housing costs was land prices because of artificial scarcity!

exactly, out here in jimboomba, my Wifes dad has 7 Acres, but he cant do s*** with it cause he cant subdivide, yet less than 1km away there is estates of 1 acre blocks.

yes, you suggested that the government was trying to maintain asset prices for property owners.

i don't remember suggesting that?

last edited by taggs at 16:39:45 05/Sep/09

Come on infi admit it.
Its The Illuminati.

but he cant do s*** with it cause he cant subdivide

why?

taggs: you said

because then property owners have assets which are worth very large sums of money, increasing aggregate net household wealth across the country.

in response to statement about making housing more affordable. edit: sorry, i misinterpreted you.

Faceman: You still haven't responded to a question I put to you in another thread, where I advocated deregulation. You stated this was how we got into this mess.

So Faceman, if the government is full of New World Order stooges, why do you oppose regulation i.e. taking power away from the government?

last edited by infi at 14:44:31 05/Sep/09

i edited this into my last post but i think i edited it slightly after you posted so you didn't catch it. anyway, reposting as a sort of a bump.

it's neither of those things. it is the reserve bank's failure to keep interest rates in a stable range. the most beneficial side effect of lower interest rates, is the inflationary effect to relatively lower wages, thus keeping unemployment low.

some questions:

1) how do you suppose the RBA goes about maintaining inflation targetting while keeping interest rates in a stable range?

2) first you say a stable range of interest rates, then you say lower interest rates. which do you mean?

3) how do lower interest rates lead to lower inflation? that relationship is essentially negatively correlated. i've never seen/read/heard anyone argue that interest rates and inflation are positively correlated?

edit: 3) is worded badly. nominal interest rates and inflation are often positively correlated because nominal rates are raised to combat high inflation. what i should have asked is "how do you suppose low interest rates leads to low inflation?" particularly as you of all people would know that inflation is a purely monetary phenomenon over the long-run.

last edited by taggs at 18:00:31 05/Sep/09

i said lower interest rates lead to inflation and the lower the power of wages.

oh i misunderstood, my mistake.

the other 2 q's? not having a go/being a c***, genuine questions.

but he cant do s*** with it cause he cant subdivide
why?

Becuase of the south east queensland regional plan, it basically locked a whole bunch of land up and said this cant be subdivided.

Developers either had approval before the regional plan came into effect or get the land rezoned?

yeah they had been pretty tough about what can and can't be developed mainly with relation to environmental impacts i think

so it's not open slather to just develop everything and anything

sucks for the people who want to i guess, but good for the environment

gonna buy a 3 bed apartment in downtown chile for 100k ty

So Faceman, if the government is full of New World Order stooges, why do you oppose regulation i.e. taking power away from the government?

Is that one question or two ?

I think government is very good with regulating some things but money is very different.
I find it amusing when our banks claim to be better than overseas banking institutions. It was luck alone that they didnt suffer as badly. They had low exposure to the sub prime crisis but they are paying the same penalty as every other bank when they have to go to markets to source lending.
Political Influence/Regulation (in regards to the Financial Crisis) did not really come in to it.
Twas pure dumb Luck.

There was a G20 meeting yesterday.
Do you think the political leaders discussed the Financial Crisis ?
or did their minions discuss it ?
Who are those minions ?
JFK knew...

FaceMan: if you think the government is corrupt and against us why is all you do post on the internet about it? You a coward or something?

I'm sorry so international communism caused the global financial crisis AND killed Kennedy?

I'll raise you +1 Face

I find it amusing when our banks claim to be better than overseas banking institutions. It was luck alone that they didnt suffer as badly.

or it may have had something to do with their (relatively) very strong balance sheets, healthy capital adequecy ratios and a relatively low exposure to bad assets. all due to, at least in part, our comprehensive financial regulatory system. go have a look at the regulatory system the US has in place and tell me you can't see some serious differences.

but hey, people have been attributing things they don't understand to 'luck' since before fire was invented.

They had low exposure to the sub prime crisis but they are paying the same penalty as every other bank when they have to go to markets to source lending. Political Influence/Regulation (in regards to the Financial Crisis) did not really come in to it.

again, this is where the aussie banks had an advantage. typically aussie banks sourced a much smaller proportion of their funds from money markets. this meant that when liquidity in short-term money markets dried up, the aussie banks were in a much better position to deal with it than many of their international counterparts. go read up on northern rock and their funding model.

haha holy s***, did you ever consider that JFK is talking about communism/USSR and not the jewminatti, UFOs or international banking conspiracies? a little context goes a long way my poor misguided friend.

how do you not get embarressed being so obviously wrong and retarded?

taggs with the superslam

That was a good vid.
I like what that lady caller at the end said.

I'm sorry so international communism caused the global financial crisis AND killed Kennedy?

It doesnt matter if its Capitalism Communism Fascism Socialism whatever...
Its just control of the masses to serve the masters.
The Financial Whip is cracked on all of us and if you dont play along you can live in a cardboard box on the street.

We are not becoming more Free.
We are becoming more enslaved.

FaceMan: if you think the government is corrupt and against us why is all you do post on the internet about it? You a coward or something?

You dont think corruption occurs ?
The government is ALWAYS against the people.
The government is not your friend.

You are a deranged simpleton.

this thread rapes, 100% full of fagots, like me.

more financial bigwigs saying krudd and swanny on the money
http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,27753,26114516-462,00.html

wait a minute, you're saying that the treasury secretary reckons the stimulus packages designed by the treasury department were pretty good?

f*** spook, you can do better than that :P

*bleat*



*bleeeeeat*

The government is ALWAYS against the people.

Why? That doesn't seem to be the truth Mr Faceman, if that is your real name. Maybe, just maybe there are bunch of people doing what they think is best for the people, it might not agree with you though. Sure some of them are bad apples, but what industry doesn't have bad apples eh?

fyi: ken henry was the guy who thought the plan up. of course he is gonna slap his own back.

earlier this week there was an article stating the senate was advised each job saved by the stimulus cost roughly $1.5m.

this is blatant waste of taxpayer money for the next 30 years plus to maintain employment rates over the last 12 months.

hard to argue with that graph ladies
http://members.iinet.net.au/~davidbroughton/graph.jpg

yeah i see what you mean. see how everything is sailing along very nicely until just shortly after november 2007?

oh spook, segwaying from economic fundamentals to the stock market is even more retarded.

i like you, but you need to read a book or two buddy.

i dont need to read books, i read news.com.au

labor voter^

yeah you walked into that

I work in the print media industry and from what I can see there is no recovery in this sector.

print media will be last to pick up. if ever.

classifieds revenue is massively down due to the internet. murdoch is right when he says they need to start charging for online content or else shareholder value is gonna tank.

Crashing the stock market won't cause a recession. It will simply get a few rich investors pissed off. To crash the economy good and proper and cause a recession all the central bank has to do is refuse loans to refinance old loans, which is basically what every capitalist organisation in the western world does to run business. Stupid system? Yes. Designed this way? f*** yes. The central banks know how to have every man, woman and child permanently in debt, and they have been doing it for hundreds of years.

Australia is lucky, because of such massive investments from China in both our soil and our natural resources. It had nothing to do with "banks being good", or "governments running in surplus". Government surplus is a joke anyway. It's simply a gimmick to ensure confidence in monetary policy by the sheeple so they get roasted the next time the banks come around to take your property.

oh hey, another face-tard. they're multiplying!!!

dazed don't use any logic here.

Most everyone is angry red neck right wingers. John Howard was godly and anything labor is dumb and s***.

Infact Kevin Rudd caused the GFC.

yes, because global central banking conspiracies are the epitome of logic. god you're getting s*** these days, obes.

How about you actually read about central banking and the history of the bank before you speak taggs. Obviously you haven't, so shut it.

edit: haha, nah f*** it. i'm done trying to argue with retards.

last edited by taggs at 19:13:11 27/Sep/09

im pretty sure taggs is coming down off a few pingas so hes good to go right now