Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Like I said paddles, if we took control of our mineral resources, public utilities and healthcare back from corporate interests we'd be set.
Governments wouldn't need to borrow money at all because we'd be so wealthy. Many countries have done this and they're rolling in cash.
Unfortunately, Australia is captive to a narrow corporate interest that is bleeding us dry.
The true patriots amongst us see this.
The fake capitalists like TonyAbbott don't get it.
We call ourselves the Commonwealth of Australia but that's just nonsense. There's nothing common about our wealth anymore.
You have studied history have you?
Your ideas haven't worked out so well when put into practice, as about 100 million dead and billions condemned to poverty would tell you - if they weren't dead or silenced by the all knowing bureaucrats who caused their problems.
You see, developing wealth needs sensible investment.
And then sensible management.
Governments are poor at both and money has to come from somewhere.
^^ Hysterical.
I note Macquarie Wealth today even admitted the current neo-liberal capitalism is doomed.
You're confusing Marxist communism with ordinary, benign socialism. An altogether too common mistake.
I'm sure by the time this is over, we'll have heard all the neo-liberal free marketeers screeching for a last stab at a failed system, underpinned by ever increasing unsustainable debt.
In actual fact, I'm learning from history, whereas you seem to think we can continue throwing debt at a failed system and forget about it until the next even worse bust.
You know, I'm talking about nationalising our mineral wealth, our public utilities and our health care. Not manufacturing, not finance, not services.
Reading your post, a person might presume I'm talking about installing Stalinist Russia!
We shall see, when the money dries up and you're out of work, just how much of a socialist you are....
Select to expand quoteTamble said..holy guacamole said..
Like I said paddles, if we took control of our mineral resources, public utilities and healthcare back from corporate interests we'd be set.
Governments wouldn't need to borrow money at all because we'd be so wealthy. Many countries have done this and they're rolling in cash.
Unfortunately, Australia is captive to a narrow corporate interest that is bleeding us dry.
The true patriots amongst us see this.
The fake capitalists like TonyAbbott don't get it.
We call ourselves the Commonwealth of Australia but that's just nonsense. There's nothing common about our wealth anymore.
You have studied history have you?
Your ideas haven't worked out so well when put into practice, as about 100 million dead and billions condemned to poverty would tell you - if they weren't dead or silenced by the all knowing bureaucrats who caused their problems.
You see, developing wealth needs sensible investment.
And then sensible management.
Governments are poor at both and money has to come from somewhere.
Norway seems to have a fair bit of government control over the profits of its mineral resources, and it's doing well.
Australia used to have government-owned and government-run public utilities under earlier Liberal governments, and our economy was booming through much of that era.
To infer that all government ownership is Stalinism is really very, very silly and doesn't make you look much like a reasonable person to discuss issues with.
Yep. Norway has the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund. Doing OK...
I don't see how owning and running our own mineral wealth and public utilities is socialism, let alone the hysterical claim that it's the equivalent of communism.
Keeping 100% our own wealth in those sectors sounds like a utopian form of capitalism to me....
Select to expand quoteChris249 said..Tamble said..holy guacamole said..
Like I said paddles, if we took control of our mineral resources, public utilities and healthcare back from corporate interests we'd be set.
Governments wouldn't need to borrow money at all because we'd be so wealthy. Many countries have done this and they're rolling in cash.
Unfortunately, Australia is captive to a narrow corporate interest that is bleeding us dry.
The true patriots amongst us see this.
The fake capitalists like TonyAbbott don't get it.
We call ourselves the Commonwealth of Australia but that's just nonsense. There's nothing common about our wealth anymore.
You have studied history have you?
Your ideas haven't worked out so well when put into practice, as about 100 million dead and billions condemned to poverty would tell you - if they weren't dead or silenced by the all knowing bureaucrats who caused their problems.
You see, developing wealth needs sensible investment.
And then sensible management.
Governments are poor at both and money has to come from somewhere.
Norway seems to have a fair bit of government control over the profits of its mineral resources, and it's doing well.
Australia used to have government-owned and government-run public utilities under earlier Liberal governments, and our economy was booming through much of that era.
To infer that all government ownership is Stalinism is really very, very silly and doesn't make you look much like a reasonable person to discuss issues with.
Are you talking post or pre WW11 . If post WW11 your comment is far fetched or one may say your looking through rose tinted glasses to a past obviously not in your memory bank but read from selected articles. Mind you my memory may be fading but I remember the aftermath of WW11 ,as a child , A post war boom where Australia 's agriculture and minerals was in massive demand worldwide. It was Keating / Hawke who realised Australia needed exposing to the world eg floating the dollar and Govts had no place in certain industries . The realisation really hit when Tricontinental , a subsidiary of the govt owned State Bank of Vic sent it broke and then
Govt owned State Bank of South Australia followed.
It was also Keating who realised they would have to sell off part of the Comm Bank.
Why not compare to Venezuela a lovely socialist country who nationalised everything.
Noway ,a country with a population about the same as Melbourne s and not much bigger than Victoria with massive oil reserves that they have exploited since the seventies is not a country to make a comparison with . I realise its the darling for all lefties .
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Who said anything about socialism or the government owning that stuff?
It would be owned by the people, managed by the people and make money for the people. Imagine if those rivers of gold stayed in Australia instead of making foreign corporations and their shareholders wealthy?
Then we'd be the lucky country again.
Tony you're obsessed with "socialism", The Greens and gender politics. You must have nightmares about it.
Medicare works great. Utilities used to be publicly owned. It's not socialism. It's just national pride.
Why is it OK for a few wealthy foreign corporations own all that wealth, but not OK for Australian people to own and benefit from it fully?
You need to get out more.
Yeah right..... You say not socialism then you you go on and discribe socialism
People can not share toilet paper, they are not going to all start hold hands any time soon
Australians do not want socialism, and never will, Australians choose freedom
hilarious, it's either capitalism or Stalinism.
The conservatives did an absolute doozey of a brainwashing job on the Australian population. The idea of socialism being Soviet era Stalinism in the modern world is so childish it's astounding.
Select to expand quoteBananabender said..Chris249 said..Tamble said..holy guacamole said..
Like I said paddles, if we took control of our mineral resources, public utilities and healthcare back from corporate interests we'd be set.
Governments wouldn't need to borrow money at all because we'd be so wealthy. Many countries have done this and they're rolling in cash.
Unfortunately, Australia is captive to a narrow corporate interest that is bleeding us dry.
The true patriots amongst us see this.
The fake capitalists like TonyAbbott don't get it.
We call ourselves the Commonwealth of Australia but that's just nonsense. There's nothing common about our wealth anymore.
You have studied history have you?
Your ideas haven't worked out so well when put into practice, as about 100 million dead and billions condemned to poverty would tell you - if they weren't dead or silenced by the all knowing bureaucrats who caused their problems.
You see, developing wealth needs sensible investment.
And then sensible management.
Governments are poor at both and money has to come from somewhere.
Norway seems to have a fair bit of government control over the profits of its mineral resources, and it's doing well.
Australia used to have government-owned and government-run public utilities under earlier Liberal governments, and our economy was booming through much of that era.
To infer that all government ownership is Stalinism is really very, very silly and doesn't make you look much like a reasonable person to discuss issues with.
Are you talking post or pre WW11 . If post WW11 your comment is far fetched or one may say your looking through rose tinted glasses to a past obviously not in your memory bank but read from selected articles. Mind you my memory may be fading but I remember the aftermath of WW11 ,as a child , A post war boom where Australia 's agriculture and minerals was in massive demand worldwide. It was Keating / Hawke who realised Australia needed exposing to the world eg floating the dollar and Govts had no place in certain industries . The realisation really hit when Tricontinental , a subsidiary of the govt owned State Bank of Vic sent it broke and then
Govt owned State Bank of South Australia followed.
It was also Keating who realised they would have to sell off part of the Comm Bank.
Why not compare to Venezuela a lovely socialist country who nationalised everything.
Noway ,a country with a population about the same as Melbourne s and not much bigger than Victoria with massive oil reserves that they have exploited since the seventies is not a country to make a comparison with . I realise its the darling for all lefties .
I'm talking post WW2, about 1949-1966. It was a boom era, as you say - and it happened when the governments had major stakes in power stations, transport and other businesses.
Damned if I know how you can say it's "far fetched" to comment that there was a boom during that time when you say there was a post war boom, just as I said.
Using the example of Venezuela is like using the example of Chile under Pinochet to imply that all right wing governments are fascist dictatorships. Both are unfair examples that prove nothing. Norway seems to prove that you can have a very successful sovereign wealth fund.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Bananabender said..Chris249 said..Tamble said..holy guacamole said..
Like I said paddles, if we took control of our mineral resources, public utilities and healthcare back from corporate interests we'd be set.
Governments wouldn't need to borrow money at all because we'd be so wealthy. Many countries have done this and they're rolling in cash.
Unfortunately, Australia is captive to a narrow corporate interest that is bleeding us dry.
The true patriots amongst us see this.
The fake capitalists like TonyAbbott don't get it.
We call ourselves the Commonwealth of Australia but that's just nonsense. There's nothing common about our wealth anymore.
You have studied history have you?
Your ideas haven't worked out so well when put into practice, as about 100 million dead and billions condemned to poverty would tell you - if they weren't dead or silenced by the all knowing bureaucrats who caused their problems.
You see, developing wealth needs sensible investment.
And then sensible management.
Governments are poor at both and money has to come from somewhere.
Norway seems to have a fair bit of government control over the profits of its mineral resources, and it's doing well.
Australia used to have government-owned and government-run public utilities under earlier Liberal governments, and our economy was booming through much of that era.
To infer that all government ownership is Stalinism is really very, very silly and doesn't make you look much like a reasonable person to discuss issues with.
Are you talking post or pre WW11 . If post WW11 your comment is far fetched or one may say your looking through rose tinted glasses to a past obviously not in your memory bank but read from selected articles. Mind you my memory may be fading but I remember the aftermath of WW11 ,as a child , A post war boom where Australia 's agriculture and minerals was in massive demand worldwide. It was Keating / Hawke who realised Australia needed exposing to the world eg floating the dollar and Govts had no place in certain industries . The realisation really hit when Tricontinental , a subsidiary of the govt owned State Bank of Vic sent it broke and then
Govt owned State Bank of South Australia followed.
It was also Keating who realised they would have to sell off part of the Comm Bank.
Why not compare to Venezuela a lovely socialist country who nationalised everything.
Noway ,a country with a population about the same as Melbourne s and not much bigger than Victoria with massive oil reserves that they have exploited since the seventies is not a country to make a comparison with . I realise its the darling for all lefties .
I'm talking post WW2, about 1949-1966. It was a boom era, as you say - and it happened when the governments had major stakes in power stations, transport and other businesses.
Damned if I know how you can say it's "far fetched" to comment that there was a boom during that time when you say there was a post war boom, just as I said.
Using the example of Venezuela is like using the example of Chile under Pinochet to imply that all right wing governments are fascist dictatorships. Both are unfair examples that prove nothing. Norway seems to prove that you can have a very successful sovereign wealth fund.
Your inference was that the country was booming because of the State ownership structure which is incorrect. Even blind freddie and his dog would have been a success in managing things.
Now who said that.
Venezuela is a very good example where the Govt turned to socialism as their initial intention was ,I understand , to follow Norways model both being massively rich in oil reserves . I believe that they are still seeking guidance from the Norwegians.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Yep. Norway has the world's biggest sovereign wealth fund. Doing OK...
I don't see how owning and running our own mineral wealth and public utilities is socialism, let alone the hysterical claim that it's the equivalent of communism.
Keeping 100% our own wealth in those sectors sounds like a utopian form of capitalism to me....
But is it really "our" mineral wealth? Doesn't it belong to all the world?
If you say that it should only or mainly benefit the people who happen to live in a particular area, you can't legitimately say that it should only or mainly benefit the people who happen to claim it for themselves because they own mining rights.
So a lot of people are constantly slagging off the government but we then want to nationalise mineral and mining assets and trust the government to run them. What a bunch of foolish, reckless, inconsistent and stupid opinions we have on here!
Yep, very true Chris. Nationalisation of all industry is an economic failure, we only have to look at the communism explosion after WW2 to see that, none of those countries have bothered persisting with that economic model. A good balance is the go, nationalise those industries and services that are in the national interest and then let private enterprise own and manage the rest.
Paddles is of course right, but it's always amazing how polarised many people's views are. They have some concept in their head that they simply can't shift, and are unable to realise that a mix is what would work best. Everyone has to be labelled far right, far left, communist, socialist, capitalist, facist pigs. How about this label...practical realist.
Select to expand quotePaddles B'mere said..
Yep, very true Chris. Nationalisation of all industry is an economic failure, we only have to look at the communism explosion after WW2 to see that, none of those countries have bothered persisting with that economic model. A good balance is the go, nationalise those industries and services that are in the national interest and then let private enterprise own and manage the rest.
Yes a good balance is key but I don't think Chris understands. Who's talking about nationalising all industry? Who's talking about government running anything?
When public utilities were in operation, government had almost nothing to do with their running. We had state electricity commissions for example. They were efficient and full of expertise. People were proud of their job and their service.
Now we've privatised everything, we privatise the profits and the service is outsourced to a thousand companies who don't give a rats about anything but profit. It's these inherent complexities in a privatised utilities system that leads to the massive price increases.
I made it very clear what I think. I think we should nationalise the following only:
Mining (we own the resources anyway and we rent out the mining licenses). Mining is one of our biggest income earners but most of the profit gets offshored.
Public utilities (we owned them for decades and they worked just fine). Privatisation is a failure. It's led to massive price increases, inefficiency and delapidation.
Health care (healthcare should be 100% not for profit). Making profit from healthcare is highly unethical and makes it very expensive.
Now if that equals socialism then fark me, there's a lot of socialist countries and that's a "stupid opinion", to quote Chris.
Select to expand quoteChris6791 said..
So a lot of people are constantly slagging off the government but we then want to nationalise mineral and mining assets and trust the government to run them. What a bunch of foolish, reckless, inconsistent and stupid opinions we have on here!
Maybe nationalizing is not necessary but forcing the international corporations to pay taxes and a fair share of royalties may be helpful. So far most of the benefits from digging here went overseas, only to reinforce picture of Australia as a neo-colonial entity.
^ Macro Macro Macro...the last PM who tried to do that got rolled.
Besides, it's considered un-Australian and communist to want to keep our own wealth here.
You know...common...wealth....Commonwealth Of Australia?
We're in a race to find the lowest bidder from the USA and China and that's supposed to be a good thing..
Select to expand quoteBananabender said..Chris 249 said..Bananabender said..Chris249 said..Tamble said..holy guacamole said..
Like I said paddles, if we took control of our mineral resources, public utilities and healthcare back from corporate interests we'd be set.
Governments wouldn't need to borrow money at all because we'd be so wealthy. Many countries have done this and they're rolling in cash.
Unfortunately, Australia is captive to a narrow corporate interest that is bleeding us dry.
The true patriots amongst us see this.
The fake capitalists like TonyAbbott don't get it.
We call ourselves the Commonwealth of Australia but that's just nonsense. There's nothing common about our wealth anymore.
You have studied history have you?
Your ideas haven't worked out so well when put into practice, as about 100 million dead and billions condemned to poverty would tell you - if they weren't dead or silenced by the all knowing bureaucrats who caused their problems.
You see, developing wealth needs sensible investment.
And then sensible management.
Governments are poor at both and money has to come from somewhere.
Norway seems to have a fair bit of government control over the profits of its mineral resources, and it's doing well.
Australia used to have government-owned and government-run public utilities under earlier Liberal governments, and our economy was booming through much of that era.
To infer that all government ownership is Stalinism is really very, very silly and doesn't make you look much like a reasonable person to discuss issues with.
Are you talking post or pre WW11 . If post WW11 your comment is far fetched or one may say your looking through rose tinted glasses to a past obviously not in your memory bank but read from selected articles. Mind you my memory may be fading but I remember the aftermath of WW11 ,as a child , A post war boom where Australia 's agriculture and minerals was in massive demand worldwide. It was Keating / Hawke who realised Australia needed exposing to the world eg floating the dollar and Govts had no place in certain industries . The realisation really hit when Tricontinental , a subsidiary of the govt owned State Bank of Vic sent it broke and then
Govt owned State Bank of South Australia followed.
It was also Keating who realised they would have to sell off part of the Comm Bank.
Why not compare to Venezuela a lovely socialist country who nationalised everything.
Noway ,a country with a population about the same as Melbourne s and not much bigger than Victoria with massive oil reserves that they have exploited since the seventies is not a country to make a comparison with . I realise its the darling for all lefties .
I'm talking post WW2, about 1949-1966. It was a boom era, as you say - and it happened when the governments had major stakes in power stations, transport and other businesses.
Damned if I know how you can say it's "far fetched" to comment that there was a boom during that time when you say there was a post war boom, just as I said.
Using the example of Venezuela is like using the example of Chile under Pinochet to imply that all right wing governments are fascist dictatorships. Both are unfair examples that prove nothing. Norway seems to prove that you can have a very successful sovereign wealth fund.
Your inference was that the country was booming because of the State ownership structure which is incorrect. Even blind freddie and his dog would have been a success in managing things.
Now who said that.
Venezuela is a very good example where the Govt turned to socialismis their initial intention was ,I understand , to follow Norways model both being massively rich in oil reserves . I believe that they are still seeking guidance from the Norwegians.
There was no such inference. You may choose to leap from Norway to Venezuela, but I wasn't drawing such long and flimsy straws.
The country was booming at a time when the state was heavily invoilved in ownership of vital industries and was playing a considerable part in subisidising, arranging and promoting development of various types. Menzie's speeches before the 1949 election, for example, foreshadowed the state playing a major part in development and said that the government should have maintained the cost of living subsidies that Labor had withdrawn.
As Menzies himself said " There are certain public utilities of an essentially monopoly kind, not suited to competitive enterprise and not requiring the stimulus of competitive selling, which we willingly accept as Government instruments. One has only to instance such matters as the management of harbours and of water supply. We are concerned with the public interest. That interest must prevail." So the Liberal who ran the country through that long era of prosperity was clearly and publicly in favour of Government ownership of many utilities just as HG and others have been arguing for.
In energy policy, he argued for strong state intervention in terms of creating reserves, infrastructure, giving financial assistance, wasges to be determined by the Arbitration Court, maintaining the control of the Joint Coal Board, and plan in which "a target of production for each mine, to meet current requirements and reasonable reserve. The Government will guarantee the purchase of such quota. Stability of demand thus assured, there will be full employment not only for the miner but for all industries dependent on coal". So the Great Liberal Hero was actually in favour of quotas and government involvement in energy.
Just saying that "Venezuela is a very good example" but Norway is not, without providing any proper evidence, is pretty much worthless as an attempt to create a structured discussion.
This has been interesting because it's given me the chance to remind myself how strongly people like Menzies held to the concept of state ownership and subsidies.
Oh cool, I think the kids left their Pokemon collections in the attic when they got old and moved out. We also had a full pack of toilet paper in each bathroom before C19 emerged. We've struck gold!
The lieberals lo v e privatisation, when they eventually get caught out rorting... tthey then can parachute them selves into a nice little earner , the Darwin ports , etc etc now have ex pollies who were responsible for them now being employed by them , there is a provision for this illegal activity but the Lieberals swept it away .Bishop and Pyne were the latest rorters.
As Menzies himself said " There are certain public utilities of an essentially monopoly kind, not suited to competitive enterprise and not requiring the stimulus of competitive selling, which we willingly accept as Government instruments. One has only to instance such matters as the management of harbours and of water supply. We are concerned with the public interest. That interest must prevail."
Exactly. Menzies was spot on. What a towering figure. Maybe someone should introduce the Liberal Party to him.
Yesterday's conservative, rational, responsible policy is now a neo-liberal's definition of communism and the public interest has been sold off in favour of corporate profit and greed.
It takes a crisis to remind us of what really matters and we shall see how many fake "capitalists" put their hands out for bread in the end.
Select to expand quoteChris 249 said..Bananabender said..Chris 249 said..Bananabender said..Chris249 said..Tamble said..holy guacamole said..
Like I said paddles, if we took control of our mineral resources, public utilities and healthcare back from corporate interests we'd be set.
Governments wouldn't need to borrow money at all because we'd be so wealthy. Many countries have done this and they're rolling in cash.
Unfortunately, Australia is captive to a narrow corporate interest that is bleeding us dry.
The true patriots amongst us see this.
The fake capitalists like TonyAbbott don't get it.
We call ourselves the Commonwealth of Australia but that's just nonsense. There's nothing common about our wealth anymore.
You have studied history have you?
Your ideas haven't worked out so well when put into practice, as about 100 million dead and billions condemned to poverty would tell you - if they weren't dead or silenced by the all knowing bureaucrats who caused their problems.
You see, developing wealth needs sensible investment.
And then sensible management.
Governments are poor at both and money has to come from somewhere.
Norway seems to have a fair bit of government control over the profits of its mineral resources, and it's doing well.
Australia used to have government-owned and government-run public utilities under earlier Liberal governments, and our economy was booming through much of that era.
To infer that all government ownership is Stalinism is really very, very silly and doesn't make you look much like a reasonable person to discuss issues with.
Are you talking post or pre WW11 . If post WW11 your comment is far fetched or one may say your looking through rose tinted glasses to a past obviously not in your memory bank but read from selected articles. Mind you my memory may be fading but I remember the aftermath of WW11 ,as a child , A post war boom where Australia 's agriculture and minerals was in massive demand worldwide. It was Keating / Hawke who realised Australia needed exposing to the world eg floating the dollar and Govts had no place in certain industries . The realisation really hit when Tricontinental , a subsidiary of the govt owned State Bank of Vic sent it broke and then
Govt owned State Bank of South Australia followed.
It was also Keating who realised they would have to sell off part of the Comm Bank.
Why not compare to Venezuela a lovely socialist country who nationalised everything.
Noway ,a country with a population about the same as Melbourne s and not much bigger than Victoria with massive oil reserves that they have exploited since the seventies is not a country to make a comparison with . I realise its the darling for all lefties .
I'm talking post WW2, about 1949-1966. It was a boom era, as you say - and it happened when the governments had major stakes in power stations, transport and other businesses.
Damned if I know how you can say it's "far fetched" to comment that there was a boom during that time when you say there was a post war boom, just as I said.
Using the example of Venezuela is like using the example of Chile under Pinochet to imply that all right wing governments are fascist dictatorships. Both are unfair examples that prove nothing. Norway seems to prove that you can have a very successful sovereign wealth fund.
Your inference was that the country was booming because of the State ownership structure which is incorrect. Even blind freddie and his dog would have been a success in managing things.
Now who said that.
Venezuela is a very good example where the Govt turned to socialismis their initial intention was ,I understand , to follow Norways model both being massively rich in oil reserves . I believe that they are still seeking guidance from the Norwegians.
There was no such inference. You may choose to leap from Norway to Venezuela, but I wasn't drawing such long and flimsy straws.
The country was booming at a time when the state was heavily invoilved in ownership of vital industries and was playing a considerable part in subisidising, arranging and promoting development of various types. Menzie's speeches before the 1949 election, for example, foreshadowed the state playing a major part in development and said that the government should have maintained the cost of living subsidies that Labor had withdrawn.
As Menzies himself said " There are certain public utilities of an essentially monopoly kind, not suited to competitive enterprise and not requiring the stimulus of competitive selling, which we willingly accept as Government instruments. One has only to instance such matters as the management of harbours and of water supply. We are concerned with the public interest. That interest must prevail." So the Liberal who ran the country through that long era of prosperity was clearly and publicly in favour of Government ownership of many utilities just as HG and others have been arguing for.
In energy policy, he argued for strong state intervention in terms of creating reserves, infrastructure, giving financial assistance, wasges to be determined by the Arbitration Court, maintaining the control of the Joint Coal Board, and plan in which "a target of production for each mine, to meet current requirements and reasonable reserve. The Government will guarantee the purchase of such quota. Stability of demand thus assured, there will be full employment not only for the miner but for all industries dependent on coal". So the Great Liberal Hero was actually in favour of quotas and government involvement in energy.
Just saying that "Venezuela is a very good example" but Norway is not, without providing any proper evidence, is pretty much worthless as an attempt to create a structured discussion.
This has been interesting because it's given me the chance to remind myself how strongly people like Menzies held to the concept of state ownership and subsidies.
A Great man and orator.
You of course realise things were very different after the war with mass strikes , massive housing problems due to lack of materials and the need to give the population hope and confidence . It would have been folly to take away from the mass the umberella of security and comfort knowing the captain is steering the right course and controlling the vital industries. His 1946 election speech is one everyone would benefit from reading in its entirety in these times.
electionspeeches.moadoph.gov.au/speeches/1946-robert-menzies.
I do not disagree with the government retaining ownership of vital public utilities
PROVIDED that government is not a puppet of the Unions ,such as is the case in Qld., a union state where massive over employment in non essential roles burdens the public with massive debt (As an aside the Qld govt has/ is paying every govt employee a bonus of $1250 to sign their enterprise agreement . Cost? around $300 mil. All employees have already been encouraged/ must sign up to a union. ) I will not bore you with what they have done with the electricity coys. or how our power bills are one of the highest in Aust.
It is then a case of what is a vital public utility that should be kept in public hands.
and what industries would be better for the economy in private hands.
I can imagine if mining was nationalised we would be back to pick and shovel to create jobs.
". Labor undertook considerable reform in pursuit of international competitiveness, including the floating of the Australian dollar, reducing tariffs, and deregulating and liberalising industries such as banking and airlines.It has been argued that Labor adopted a more pragmatic position on privatisation, taking asset sales case-by-case, rather than a systemic basis. For example, key ministers claimed the question of ownership was always considered subservient to that of efficiency (Walsh 1986). The critical question or test which underpinned the Labor privatisation position was whether the private sector could perform the function. If the answer was "no", then government should continue to operate in this area; if "yes", then an analysis would be undertaken to determine whether functions should be shifted to the private sector. The result of this process was that enterprises such as Australia Post and Telecom were kept within the confines of the public sector, while the Commonwealth Bank and Qantas became prime targets for divestment (Beckett 1992)."
In the case of Norway V Venezuela my point was that not all countries that nationalised their minerals are a success . You referred to the most successful,I countered with one of the worse. In fact Venezuela in demographic terms is far more aligned to Aust. than Norway . 30 mil population in a land area of around 60% with a not far removed climate to Aust. whereas Norway, well look at a map .
Such a poor estimation of our national abilities bananabender. Why think that control of our mineral wealth would make us more like Venezuela than Norway?
It's a ridiculous notion. If anything, our small population, sound legal and political frameworks and vast resources would put us in a position to be even wealthier than Norway.
Also, by the time this virus is done I wouldn't be surprised if the national economy resembles the difficulties that Australia experienced during the post WWII economy.... which is why we're discussing this in the first place...
www.cnbc.com/2020/03/18/bill-ackman-pleads-to-trump-to-increase-closures-to-save-the-economy-shut-it-down-now.html?__source=iosappshare%7Ccom.google.Gmail.ShareExtension
this is a very good interview with Ackman.
Select to expand quoteholy guacamole said..
Such a poor estimation of our national abilities bananabender. Why think that control of our mineral wealth would make us more like Venezuela than Norway?
It's a ridiculous notion. If anything, our small population, sound legal and political frameworks and vast resources would put us in a position to be even wealthier than Norway.
Also, by the time this virus is done I wouldn't be surprised if the national economy resembles the difficulties that Australia experienced during the post WWII economy.... which is why we're discussing this in the first place...
Oh ..your probably right but then I wonder when I see the hoarding and encouragement of it on this forum and the fact for example that Sydney has had to close Bondi Beach because no one is following best practice.
I did not mean to say we would be more like V ,I pointed out the down side . I suggest that you read up previous make up of governments in Norway and who controlled who and their immigration policies over the years.
For example did you know that up until 2012 cabinet had to comprise of at least 50% persons from the Church of Norway .
Hmm perhaps scmo should appoint some from Hillsong
What difficulties are you referring to.
Commsec trading account applications are delayed due to the higher than usual number of applicants. Looks like everyone is getting ready for the starting gun.
Your assumption BB is that there is in fact, an inevitable downside to retaining our national mineral wealth domestically.
I can't see how even the most inefficient administration of the extraction of our mineral wealth could possible lead to a poorer bottom line for AUSTRALIA. That is the down side and we're living it now.
Post WW2, Australia had to think big. Menzies initiated massive investment in public infrastructure, like irrigation and Snowy Hydro schemes, investment in public utilities and allowed massive immigration to fuel that growth. Without these government initiatives, Australia would have faced a bleak short term future.
Now, in times of crisis, our imagination stretches to mere handouts - a largely unsustainable expansion of debt - and governance-on-the-fly.
Well don't know what t s happening in Trump land ...a friend has h ad his business line of credit stopped , been with bank 7 years , Texas USA, reckons the banks are worried that no one c can pay back loans .
Select to expand quotebazz61 said..
Well don't know what t s happening in Trump land ...a friend has h ad his business line of credit stopped , been with bank 7 years , Texas USA, reckons the banks are worried that no one c can pay back loans .
Offering business line of credit would have to be one of the riskiest shows in town right now, especially for certain types of businesses. What business does your friend operate?
