Thursday, August 13, 2009
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Tuesday, June 9, 2009
Ingsoc
UNIONS have hatched a controversial plan to turn around dwindling membership - by targeting children as young as 14 in their classrooms.
The state's peak union body Unions NSW has hired two young activists to go into public schools and lecture students on "industrial relations" as part of its UnionStart program.
The Daily Telegraph reports the lectures on workers' rights and the role of unions will be built into the curriculum in subjects such as business studies, careers education, vocational work placements and the School to Work program.
Teens are also being lured to join UnionStart for a $10-a-month fee with incentives including discounted tickets to sports events and the prospect of better-paid jobs.
To me this is truly terrifying, to build union dogma into the cirriculum of 14 year olds smacks of the modern day brainwashing in North Korea or the excesses of the Soviet era.
Is the NSW government now so corrupt that it will allow its masters in the unions the power to indoctrinate and recruit impressionable youngsters in its supposedly apolitical education system?
Or is the issue of union power in NSW now apolitical along with that of global warming, multiculturalism and black armband history?
Thursday, June 4, 2009
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
The muppets are at it again.
In my two most recent posts I've criticised the government for constantly talking the economy down. Well the negative nancy pants on the treasury benches are at it again. From the Australian: Unemployment will rise this year, Lindsay Tanner warns
Building consumer confidence is the key to domestic recovery. Australia is in a very different position to other jurisdictions like Iceland, the US and Britain were their financial systems have essentially melted down. Australia's fundamental financial frameworks are sound. Our equities markets have taken a hit, but that was only to be expected given the global nature of equities markets. But essentially our domestic enconomy is only suffering from a lack of confidence, and much of that lack in confidence isn't helped by having the Prime Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Finance continuously coming out and telling us how terrible everything is.
Enough all ready! God almighty, we all know what the forecasts say, but that doesn't make them a foregone conclusion. Indeed when the principal economic ministers of the country say things like this all it does is increase the chance that their utterances become self-fulfilling prophesy.Minister Lindsay Tanner said: "We're expecting unemployment to get worse during the course of this year." Mr Tanner's remarks were echoed by Treasurer Wayne Swan, who said: "There's still a very big employment challenge out there."
Building consumer confidence is the key to domestic recovery. Australia is in a very different position to other jurisdictions like Iceland, the US and Britain were their financial systems have essentially melted down. Australia's fundamental financial frameworks are sound. Our equities markets have taken a hit, but that was only to be expected given the global nature of equities markets. But essentially our domestic enconomy is only suffering from a lack of confidence, and much of that lack in confidence isn't helped by having the Prime Minister, Treasurer and Minister for Finance continuously coming out and telling us how terrible everything is.
Tuesday, June 2, 2009
7000 words the Monthly should have published instead of Kevin Rudd. Part 2
So what should the Government have done?
In my last instalment I discussed how the Muppets in the Rudd Government have mismanaged the Australian economy from the day they were elected. With the aid of some trusty ABS stats, a memory that lasts longer than a media cycle and some direct quotations straight from the Treasurer and Prime Minister’s mouths I outlined eighteen months of economic buffoonery.
To recap: When the economy was starting to sour, the Treasurer and Prime Minister went on an inflation busting crusade that drove up interest rates and hastened the economic slow down. Then when it finally dawned on them that there was something wrong they started their panic-merchant routine, frightening the already frightened punters which resulted in the most spectacular collapse in consumer confidence. And finally, to add insult to injury, I outlined some of the Government’s expensive and pointless debt fuelled binges, a binge that will undermine the recovery and indebt our children’s generation and probably their children’s generation as well.
But I have a saying that I constantly try to hold true to. “Don’t whinge unless you’ve got a better idea yourself”.
In the second instalment of my political-economic analysis I make some suggestions as to how the Government should have reacted, and what they should do now.
What the Government should have done.
We need to look at this problem from three different angles. Firstly, what did the Government say they were doing, and what should they have said instead? Secondly, what did the Government do, and what should it have done instead? And thirdly, why doesn’t this Government actually do what they say?
Let me deal with the last question first.
Why does this Government say one thing, then do another?
A recurring theme of this Government is its seemingly amazing ability to say one thing and then do something entirely different.
Example 1: 18 December 2007, the Treasurer:
Example 2: 10 May 2009, the Treasurer:
There are countless other examples of this Government saying one thing and doing another. 12 December 2007, The Prime Minister:
Buy why? Why is it that this Government fails to do what it says it will do. I think the answer lies, ultimately, in the office of the Prime Minister.
It is fairly well known that the Prime Minister is a micro manager. It’s also well known that he has a temper and he gets his own way or he chucks a tanty. It is also well known that he works ridiculously long hours and expects the same from his staff.
I’ve worked with, and for, people like this before, and I recognise the typology. These traits are all symptoms of “impostor syndrome”. This typology has been explored in countless psychological articles and books, so I won’t go into too much detail. In short, “impostors” are usually high performing individuals who, in their heart of hearts, believe they have achieved greatness through fraud, that they’d sufficiently “faked it” to make it and their greatest fear is that they will be exposed as the fraud that they feel themselves to be.
Impostors therefore do everything they can to reinforce and remind everyone of their status. They scream at people for making the smallest mistakes, say for example because a stewardess didn’t have a chicken sandwich on board an airplane, or because a hair dryer couldn’t be produced for a photo op. Impostors often work exceptionally long hours and demand the same from their staff, they do so for appearances to remind everyone around them that they are extremely important and busy. During these long hours they don’t necessarily achieve anything - remember its not about results, its about appearances. They’ll review and return drafts of documents time and time again making the smallest stylistic changes. They turn up to meetings late, often very late, or make people wait inordinate periods of time to keep an appointment (the Chief of the Defence Forces for example). Again this behaviour reminds everyone around them that the impostor is a very important person.
But most importantly, because they don’t trust their own judgement (remember they got their job by faking it) they will almost always avoid actually making a tough decision. Give an impostor a choice between making a tough decision, or focussing on minutiae, they’ll choose minutiae every time.
For example, the Prime Minister’s really good at reacting to issues, usually by announcing a review or a working group, or by referring a matter on to COAG. But when has he actually made a tough decision? Even his reaction to the GFC has involved a lot of talking, flying overseas, and handing out free money (which was never going to be unpopular), but when its come to difficult decisions necessary to ensure the medium to long term economic success of our Nation, the PM squibs.
Where were the billions of dollars in cuts to Australia’s much maligned “middle class welfare”?
Or taxation reform generally? It’s off in a “review”.
Our “ailing” public health system? Review pending.
Cutting “red-tape” for businesses? It’s been COAGed, to use the phrase that indicates an issue has been sent off to be discussed ad-nauseum for years before a small, watered-down, symbolic gesture is grudgingly made by the States.
Housing affordability, a huge issue during the election campaign: COAGed.
Reforming Aged Care funding? COAGed.
Japanese whaling, again a feature of the campaign, we were promised the Government would pursue the Japanese through international law. Forgotten.
2020 Summit – does anyone remember anything concrete that’s come out of that?
Fuelwatch. Lying in the bottom drawer of the PM’s office.
Underlying all of these examples is one recurring theme. When given the choice between making a tough decision or focussing on minutiae, the PM focuses on minutiae. The only decision that is ever made in his office is the decision not to make a decision. Hence the number of important issues being “reviewed” or COAGed.
Despite the fact that the PM can’t make a decision to save his life, Minister’s still need to sound like their in control and doing something. And herein lies the reason for why this government says one thing and does another. Minister’s under pressure to respond to the media cobble together some action focussed rhetoric making it sound like they are doing their job.
When the media asked about the budget (either 08 or 09, the rhetoric and results were similar), Wayne Swan had no choice but to stick with the lines agreed to during the election campaign. “The ALP is economically conservative, economic conservatives are fiscally disciplined, fiscal discipline means spending cuts, spending cuts are unpopular, the budget will contain unpopular measures.”
Meanwhile the PM spends his time berating his staff for using green coloured briefing cover sheet instead of the pink ones that he distinctly remembered telling everyone to use, AND is that a staple in the left hand corner? It’s supposed to be on the RIGHT! The advisor in question daren’t mention that CBRC’s recommendations for swingeing budget cuts are underneath the guilty green cover sheet, which of course will now have to be replaced with a pink sheet and go back to the bottom of the four foot pile of briefs awaiting procrastination on the PM’s desk. Decision effectively avoided – well done Kevvie!
I must say that this is all pure supposition. Its based solely on my own personal knowledge of the man (and men like him) and the various rumours that do the rounds within the ranks of Labor and Coalition advisors. I may in fact be completely wrong and Rudd is actually a bloody genius with an inhuman work ethic. But I doubt it.
What should the Government have said, or be saying now?
I’ll do a compare and contrast.
Scenario 1: Due to dodgy deals and poor prudential regulation, Australia’s largest trading partners have undergone a financial meltdown of epic proportions. The Treasurer, Peter Costello, is asked about impacts on Australia, 16 April 1998:
Scenario 2: Due to dodgy deals and poor prudential regulation, one of Australia’s largest trading partners has undergone a financial meltdown of epic proportions. The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, is asked about its impacts on the Federal budget, 1 May 2009:
He didn’t preach doom, he saw the opportunities for Australia to become a regional headquarters for Asian Business (and in following months and years firms like Virgin and Boeing all relocated their Asian Headquarters to Australia), but he didn’t do so recklessly. He identified the challenges and did so constructively and positively.
Wayne Swan just makes excuses. Nothing’s his fault, its all the fault of the GFC, his reckless inflation pogrom had nothing to do with the accelerated slow down. His luxury car tax had nothing to do with plummeting car sales. His bank guarantee had nothing to do with the drying up of non-bank liquidity in this country. He’s just a victim.
What the Government should have done from the very beginning was to talk the Australian economy up. You’re starting to hear some of that from the PM, and a little from the Treasurer, thank goodness. I hope they keep it up.
What should the Government have done and be doing now?
A temporary one-off cut in income tax would have provided more “stimulus” than Rudd’s spend-a-thon and it would have cost less to administer resulting in lower borrowings over the forward estimates.
Similarly a cut in company tax would have bolstered corporate bottom lines, leading to lesser pressure for executives to find cost savings throughout their organisations. Fewer cost savings means fewer job losses. Higher profits mean higher returns for shareholders and would assist in restoring confidence on equities markets (and thus credit liquidity).
A payroll tax holiday. It would have taken a bit of work to get the States to come to the table, but a pay roll tax holiday would not only shore up existing jobs, but also encourage employers who have as yet avoided the recession to put on more staff. Higher employment means more money floating through the economy, means higher demand, means higher output, means higher growth, means higher consumer confidence and the cycle goes around and around.
Start talking up the economy. I’ve mentioned this above, but it bears repeating because it is simply so important. Rudd and Swan have managed to do everything wrong and at the wrong time. When they should have been speeding the economy up, they were talking it down. When they should be out there trying to bolster consumer confidence, they were warning of catastrophe and economic holocaust. When they talked up their economic credentials and ability to run a surplus budget they came in $32.9 billion in the hole (it’s useful to note that this government has never run a surplus budget, they talked about one at budget time but when the number crunchers closed off the books they fell $40 billion short of their budgeted figures). When they warned of a “horror budget” they played around at the edges with changes to the age pension that won’t take effect until the next term of Government.
Dump the bank guarantee. Ultimately the global financial crisis, with its roots in the sub-prime crisis in the United States can be sheeted home to the fact that Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were both government backed and guaranteed. That’s why all these “dodgy derivatives” were able to be rated as investment grade securities, because ultimately the U.S. Government had said it would bail out any default. And now they are to the tune of trillions of tax payers dollars.
So one wonders why you try to fix a problem caused by government intervention in the securities market by further intervening in the financial sector?
Wind up the guarantee, got it alone if necessary. We’ve all been told repeatedly that Australia’s financial sector is stronger than elsewhere in the world, so I am sure our banking sector could cope with an orderly withdrawal of the bank guarantee.
Alternatively what will happen is what happens everywhere that government’s intervene in markets. Distortion will occur and eventually collapse. For the same reason RuddBank should be consigned to the dust bin of history.
Create incentives for fleeing global capital to find a home in Australia. The world’s biggest banks and financial institutions have been rocked to the foundations. Except in Australia. Partly this is due to our robust prudential regulation, partly because our finance sector has always been a little more conservative than other countries. Nevertheless there is a lot of scared global capital out there looking for a safe home.
Build it and they will come.
---
And that ladies and gentlemen concludes my rant until next time I hear or see those two buffoons on the Television again.
In my last instalment I discussed how the Muppets in the Rudd Government have mismanaged the Australian economy from the day they were elected. With the aid of some trusty ABS stats, a memory that lasts longer than a media cycle and some direct quotations straight from the Treasurer and Prime Minister’s mouths I outlined eighteen months of economic buffoonery.
To recap: When the economy was starting to sour, the Treasurer and Prime Minister went on an inflation busting crusade that drove up interest rates and hastened the economic slow down. Then when it finally dawned on them that there was something wrong they started their panic-merchant routine, frightening the already frightened punters which resulted in the most spectacular collapse in consumer confidence. And finally, to add insult to injury, I outlined some of the Government’s expensive and pointless debt fuelled binges, a binge that will undermine the recovery and indebt our children’s generation and probably their children’s generation as well.
But I have a saying that I constantly try to hold true to. “Don’t whinge unless you’ve got a better idea yourself”.
In the second instalment of my political-economic analysis I make some suggestions as to how the Government should have reacted, and what they should do now.
What the Government should have done.
We need to look at this problem from three different angles. Firstly, what did the Government say they were doing, and what should they have said instead? Secondly, what did the Government do, and what should it have done instead? And thirdly, why doesn’t this Government actually do what they say?
Let me deal with the last question first.
Why does this Government say one thing, then do another?
A recurring theme of this Government is its seemingly amazing ability to say one thing and then do something entirely different.
Example 1: 18 December 2007, the Treasurer:
Well there's no doubt that – as I've said yesterday – that we in this country in terms of government need a new era of fiscal discipline. Yesterday and last week I talked about the inflationary challenge. And certainly what we must do as a Government is put maximum downward pressure on inflation and maximum downwards pressure on interest rates in the long-term. That's why we need a new era of fiscal discipline.And then on 21 January 2008:
Well, we've said that we will aim for a surplus of at least 1.5 per cent (of GDP) in 08/09.The outcome: a budget deficit of $32.9 billion dollars and a new era of fiscal recklessness.
Example 2: 10 May 2009, the Treasurer:
that's why there will be in this Budget tough decisions, tough decisions which will be unpopular, but absolutely essential to return the budget to surplus over time.I think its pretty safe to say that the 2009 Budget went down with barely a whimper. The “unpopular” decisions won’t take effect for a decade, the spending cuts were measley and focussed predominately on means testing medical benefits for high earners. On the other side of the ledger, massive new spending on poorly costed infrastructure with doubtful cost-benefits and cash handouts to all and sundry.
There are countless other examples of this Government saying one thing and doing another. 12 December 2007, The Prime Minister:
…we believe that climate change represents one of the greatest moral, economic and environmental challenges of our age.The proposed emissions trading scheme has been lambasted by all sides of politics for being meaningless. The “greatest moral, economic and environmental challenge of our age” gets a couple of press releases and some half baked legislation that won’t even scratch the carbon emissions targets that Australia has committed to internationally.
Australia now stands ready to assume its responsibility in responding to this challenge – both at home and in the complex negotiations which lie ahead across the community of nations.
Buy why? Why is it that this Government fails to do what it says it will do. I think the answer lies, ultimately, in the office of the Prime Minister.
It is fairly well known that the Prime Minister is a micro manager. It’s also well known that he has a temper and he gets his own way or he chucks a tanty. It is also well known that he works ridiculously long hours and expects the same from his staff.
I’ve worked with, and for, people like this before, and I recognise the typology. These traits are all symptoms of “impostor syndrome”. This typology has been explored in countless psychological articles and books, so I won’t go into too much detail. In short, “impostors” are usually high performing individuals who, in their heart of hearts, believe they have achieved greatness through fraud, that they’d sufficiently “faked it” to make it and their greatest fear is that they will be exposed as the fraud that they feel themselves to be.
Impostors therefore do everything they can to reinforce and remind everyone of their status. They scream at people for making the smallest mistakes, say for example because a stewardess didn’t have a chicken sandwich on board an airplane, or because a hair dryer couldn’t be produced for a photo op. Impostors often work exceptionally long hours and demand the same from their staff, they do so for appearances to remind everyone around them that they are extremely important and busy. During these long hours they don’t necessarily achieve anything - remember its not about results, its about appearances. They’ll review and return drafts of documents time and time again making the smallest stylistic changes. They turn up to meetings late, often very late, or make people wait inordinate periods of time to keep an appointment (the Chief of the Defence Forces for example). Again this behaviour reminds everyone around them that the impostor is a very important person.
But most importantly, because they don’t trust their own judgement (remember they got their job by faking it) they will almost always avoid actually making a tough decision. Give an impostor a choice between making a tough decision, or focussing on minutiae, they’ll choose minutiae every time.
For example, the Prime Minister’s really good at reacting to issues, usually by announcing a review or a working group, or by referring a matter on to COAG. But when has he actually made a tough decision? Even his reaction to the GFC has involved a lot of talking, flying overseas, and handing out free money (which was never going to be unpopular), but when its come to difficult decisions necessary to ensure the medium to long term economic success of our Nation, the PM squibs.
Where were the billions of dollars in cuts to Australia’s much maligned “middle class welfare”?
Or taxation reform generally? It’s off in a “review”.
Our “ailing” public health system? Review pending.
Cutting “red-tape” for businesses? It’s been COAGed, to use the phrase that indicates an issue has been sent off to be discussed ad-nauseum for years before a small, watered-down, symbolic gesture is grudgingly made by the States.
Housing affordability, a huge issue during the election campaign: COAGed.
Reforming Aged Care funding? COAGed.
Japanese whaling, again a feature of the campaign, we were promised the Government would pursue the Japanese through international law. Forgotten.
2020 Summit – does anyone remember anything concrete that’s come out of that?
Fuelwatch. Lying in the bottom drawer of the PM’s office.
Underlying all of these examples is one recurring theme. When given the choice between making a tough decision or focussing on minutiae, the PM focuses on minutiae. The only decision that is ever made in his office is the decision not to make a decision. Hence the number of important issues being “reviewed” or COAGed.
Despite the fact that the PM can’t make a decision to save his life, Minister’s still need to sound like their in control and doing something. And herein lies the reason for why this government says one thing and does another. Minister’s under pressure to respond to the media cobble together some action focussed rhetoric making it sound like they are doing their job.
When the media asked about the budget (either 08 or 09, the rhetoric and results were similar), Wayne Swan had no choice but to stick with the lines agreed to during the election campaign. “The ALP is economically conservative, economic conservatives are fiscally disciplined, fiscal discipline means spending cuts, spending cuts are unpopular, the budget will contain unpopular measures.”
Meanwhile the PM spends his time berating his staff for using green coloured briefing cover sheet instead of the pink ones that he distinctly remembered telling everyone to use, AND is that a staple in the left hand corner? It’s supposed to be on the RIGHT! The advisor in question daren’t mention that CBRC’s recommendations for swingeing budget cuts are underneath the guilty green cover sheet, which of course will now have to be replaced with a pink sheet and go back to the bottom of the four foot pile of briefs awaiting procrastination on the PM’s desk. Decision effectively avoided – well done Kevvie!
I must say that this is all pure supposition. Its based solely on my own personal knowledge of the man (and men like him) and the various rumours that do the rounds within the ranks of Labor and Coalition advisors. I may in fact be completely wrong and Rudd is actually a bloody genius with an inhuman work ethic. But I doubt it.
What should the Government have said, or be saying now?
I’ll do a compare and contrast.
Scenario 1: Due to dodgy deals and poor prudential regulation, Australia’s largest trading partners have undergone a financial meltdown of epic proportions. The Treasurer, Peter Costello, is asked about impacts on Australia, 16 April 1998:
Well, in Australia the growth at the moment is up around four, it’s a little under probably 3 and a half to 4, somewhere around there. In the next financialI started highlighting the positive comments and gave up because almost the entire quote was bolded.
year we think it’ll be probably closer down towards, 3, than 4. But these are still quite strong growth rates. It’s on a low inflation base. We’ve got a very strong fiscal position. We’ll be coming back into a surplus in the next financial year. And although trade with Asia will take a little bit off Australian growth, the fact of the matter is that these are strong prospects. They would have been better still, had it not been for the Asian downturn. But by world terms, very strong prospects in Australia with a lot of opportunities, I think, coming out of the Asian situation. Australia is now looking very much like a good place to do business as a regional headquarters. The financial system has stood up remarkably well. It’s strongly regulated, hasn’t skipped a beat on any of the financial or stock markets. And although we, of course, would prefer a stronger position in Asia, the outcome of all of this will have some positive as well as some downward effects on the Australian economy.
Scenario 2: Due to dodgy deals and poor prudential regulation, one of Australia’s largest trading partners has undergone a financial meltdown of epic proportions. The Treasurer, Wayne Swan, is asked about its impacts on the Federal budget, 1 May 2009:
Well, certainly there's been a revenue write-down because of the global recession between the Budget last year and February of about $115 billion. That's an enormous amount of money. It's equivalent to about four years of family payments and childcare benefits, and because of slowing growth and because the global recession has got even worse, there will be further revenue write-downs in the Budget. They are very substantial, probably the largest in living memory. But we'll see those on Budget night.And then:
…Well, we have a very savage global recession which is having a brutal impact on growth globally and domestically. It certainly is going to impact on employment and it is certainly going to impact on government revenues. There's no doubt, sadly, that there will be an impact on unemployment as a result of the global recession but those forecasts will be there on Budget night.That’s the difference right there. One treasurer saw the silver lining, he talked the economy up, and by doing so he ameliorated the worst effects of the Asian Financial Crisis by bolstering domestic consumer confidence.
He didn’t preach doom, he saw the opportunities for Australia to become a regional headquarters for Asian Business (and in following months and years firms like Virgin and Boeing all relocated their Asian Headquarters to Australia), but he didn’t do so recklessly. He identified the challenges and did so constructively and positively.
Wayne Swan just makes excuses. Nothing’s his fault, its all the fault of the GFC, his reckless inflation pogrom had nothing to do with the accelerated slow down. His luxury car tax had nothing to do with plummeting car sales. His bank guarantee had nothing to do with the drying up of non-bank liquidity in this country. He’s just a victim.
What the Government should have done from the very beginning was to talk the Australian economy up. You’re starting to hear some of that from the PM, and a little from the Treasurer, thank goodness. I hope they keep it up.
What should the Government have done and be doing now?
A temporary one-off cut in income tax would have provided more “stimulus” than Rudd’s spend-a-thon and it would have cost less to administer resulting in lower borrowings over the forward estimates.
Similarly a cut in company tax would have bolstered corporate bottom lines, leading to lesser pressure for executives to find cost savings throughout their organisations. Fewer cost savings means fewer job losses. Higher profits mean higher returns for shareholders and would assist in restoring confidence on equities markets (and thus credit liquidity).
A payroll tax holiday. It would have taken a bit of work to get the States to come to the table, but a pay roll tax holiday would not only shore up existing jobs, but also encourage employers who have as yet avoided the recession to put on more staff. Higher employment means more money floating through the economy, means higher demand, means higher output, means higher growth, means higher consumer confidence and the cycle goes around and around.
Start talking up the economy. I’ve mentioned this above, but it bears repeating because it is simply so important. Rudd and Swan have managed to do everything wrong and at the wrong time. When they should have been speeding the economy up, they were talking it down. When they should be out there trying to bolster consumer confidence, they were warning of catastrophe and economic holocaust. When they talked up their economic credentials and ability to run a surplus budget they came in $32.9 billion in the hole (it’s useful to note that this government has never run a surplus budget, they talked about one at budget time but when the number crunchers closed off the books they fell $40 billion short of their budgeted figures). When they warned of a “horror budget” they played around at the edges with changes to the age pension that won’t take effect until the next term of Government.
Dump the bank guarantee. Ultimately the global financial crisis, with its roots in the sub-prime crisis in the United States can be sheeted home to the fact that Freddie Mac and Fanny Mae were both government backed and guaranteed. That’s why all these “dodgy derivatives” were able to be rated as investment grade securities, because ultimately the U.S. Government had said it would bail out any default. And now they are to the tune of trillions of tax payers dollars.
So one wonders why you try to fix a problem caused by government intervention in the securities market by further intervening in the financial sector?
Wind up the guarantee, got it alone if necessary. We’ve all been told repeatedly that Australia’s financial sector is stronger than elsewhere in the world, so I am sure our banking sector could cope with an orderly withdrawal of the bank guarantee.
Alternatively what will happen is what happens everywhere that government’s intervene in markets. Distortion will occur and eventually collapse. For the same reason RuddBank should be consigned to the dust bin of history.
Create incentives for fleeing global capital to find a home in Australia. The world’s biggest banks and financial institutions have been rocked to the foundations. Except in Australia. Partly this is due to our robust prudential regulation, partly because our finance sector has always been a little more conservative than other countries. Nevertheless there is a lot of scared global capital out there looking for a safe home.
Build it and they will come.
---
And that ladies and gentlemen concludes my rant until next time I hear or see those two buffoons on the Television again.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
7000 words that I think should be published in the Monthly
Otherwise entitled: Why Australia’s Federal Government is a danger to your grandchildren, and what should be done about it.
The election of Kevin Rudd as Australia’s 31st Prime Minister was heralded by the leaches in the media as the “Ruddslide”. The leftist commentariat in the press gallery were falling over each other to overstate the magnitude of Rudd’s win. Personally, I hope that they’re now starting to feel a little sheepish – but I wouldn’t expect journalists, whose memories would be outclassed by a retarded goldfish, to remember what they said in the aftermath of the Federal Election.
And indeed if you scour the daily broadsheets and tabloids today, you’ll not see too much detailed or thought provoking analysis going on. The parasites of the fourth estate are too busy copying and pasting from ministerial press releases and transcribing repetitious drivel recorded at doorstops to actually think about what this government is doing to our country, its economy and the future of our children and their children.
Lets look at some headline facts and figures and then take it from there shall we?
The election of Kevin Rudd as Australia’s 31st Prime Minister was heralded by the leaches in the media as the “Ruddslide”. The leftist commentariat in the press gallery were falling over each other to overstate the magnitude of Rudd’s win. Personally, I hope that they’re now starting to feel a little sheepish – but I wouldn’t expect journalists, whose memories would be outclassed by a retarded goldfish, to remember what they said in the aftermath of the Federal Election.
And indeed if you scour the daily broadsheets and tabloids today, you’ll not see too much detailed or thought provoking analysis going on. The parasites of the fourth estate are too busy copying and pasting from ministerial press releases and transcribing repetitious drivel recorded at doorstops to actually think about what this government is doing to our country, its economy and the future of our children and their children.
Lets look at some headline facts and figures and then take it from there shall we?
Figure 1: Federal Government Budgetary Position
This little table, ladies and gentlemen, is really the crux of the matter. $181.2 Billion in deficits and accrued Federal Government debt over the next four years. Add in the $32.9 Billion that they shot last financial year and we’re staring down the barrel at $214.1 Billion in debt.
But in these days of talking in billions and trillions these numbers start to lose meaning.
So let’s try to put them into some perspective. If we shut down the Federal Department of Health and Ageing for four years and sacked every one of its public servants, it would take five years to repay this debt.
If we slashed every single federal welfare benefit and left the disabled, incapacitated, aged and infirm without a brass razoo, it would take two years to pay back the debt.
Or alternatively, if we gouged the education budget, de-funded every university in the country and ceased supporting schools, TAFEs and every other educational institution, the debt would take eight years to repay.
This may seem like I’m reducing to the ridiculous here, and people could quite rightly say that no government would ever contemplate such measures, but these examples outline the scope and size of the future problem facing us all.
This government has decided to mortgage Australia’s future to support its reckless spending during an economic downturn. But the piper will have to be paid at some time in the future, probably by our children. While we continue to operate on this debt and deficit basis, government revenues will increasingly be eaten up by servicing this debt. For every dollar we’re in debt between 3%-6.5% must be paid to the holders of the bonds that finance the government’s debt.
Using the lower end of this figure, 3%, by the end of the forward estimates, the Federal Government will be paying $7.5 Billion a year in interest payments alone. Again, some perspective. That’s twice as much money, every year, than we use to fund the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, the Australian Crime Commission and Customs. Heaven help us if the Government’s credit rating gets down graded (as happened recently in Queensland) and those debt servicing figures jump.
For each and every year that the Federal Government goes on recklessly plunging us deeper into debt, these interest payments will keep on climbing, and it is inevitable that we will face decreased services or increased taxes to service it.
And that’s before we even talking about paying down the principal.
How did we get into this trouble?
It’s the $214.1 Billion question. The brain-dead, unquestioning, copy and paste commentariat would have you believe the Treasurer and Prime Minister’s various waffles about the global economic crisis. We’ve all heard about sub-prime, Lehmann Brothers, stock market train wrecks and the like. And sure, I believe that the previous Government would have gone into deficit, but not on the same scale and not so recklessly.
Instead we have a Government that has fundamentally mismanaged the Australian Economy from the second it was elected.
Again, lets look at a few facts.
This little table, ladies and gentlemen, is really the crux of the matter. $181.2 Billion in deficits and accrued Federal Government debt over the next four years. Add in the $32.9 Billion that they shot last financial year and we’re staring down the barrel at $214.1 Billion in debt.
But in these days of talking in billions and trillions these numbers start to lose meaning.
So let’s try to put them into some perspective. If we shut down the Federal Department of Health and Ageing for four years and sacked every one of its public servants, it would take five years to repay this debt.
If we slashed every single federal welfare benefit and left the disabled, incapacitated, aged and infirm without a brass razoo, it would take two years to pay back the debt.
Or alternatively, if we gouged the education budget, de-funded every university in the country and ceased supporting schools, TAFEs and every other educational institution, the debt would take eight years to repay.
This may seem like I’m reducing to the ridiculous here, and people could quite rightly say that no government would ever contemplate such measures, but these examples outline the scope and size of the future problem facing us all.
This government has decided to mortgage Australia’s future to support its reckless spending during an economic downturn. But the piper will have to be paid at some time in the future, probably by our children. While we continue to operate on this debt and deficit basis, government revenues will increasingly be eaten up by servicing this debt. For every dollar we’re in debt between 3%-6.5% must be paid to the holders of the bonds that finance the government’s debt.
Using the lower end of this figure, 3%, by the end of the forward estimates, the Federal Government will be paying $7.5 Billion a year in interest payments alone. Again, some perspective. That’s twice as much money, every year, than we use to fund the Australian Federal Police, ASIO, the Australian Crime Commission and Customs. Heaven help us if the Government’s credit rating gets down graded (as happened recently in Queensland) and those debt servicing figures jump.
For each and every year that the Federal Government goes on recklessly plunging us deeper into debt, these interest payments will keep on climbing, and it is inevitable that we will face decreased services or increased taxes to service it.
And that’s before we even talking about paying down the principal.
How did we get into this trouble?
It’s the $214.1 Billion question. The brain-dead, unquestioning, copy and paste commentariat would have you believe the Treasurer and Prime Minister’s various waffles about the global economic crisis. We’ve all heard about sub-prime, Lehmann Brothers, stock market train wrecks and the like. And sure, I believe that the previous Government would have gone into deficit, but not on the same scale and not so recklessly.
Instead we have a Government that has fundamentally mismanaged the Australian Economy from the second it was elected.
Again, lets look at a few facts.
Figure 2: The nebulous “Inflation Genie”. Note that inflation barely scrapes the RBA’s target band of 2%-3.5%.
In his first ever interview as Treasurer, Wayne Swan started his “The inflation genie is out of the bottle” rhetoric.
Swan and Rudd spent their first six months talking inflation up. They stressed overheating household spending and predicted an inflationary outbreak. Despite the fact that inflation remained within the target band for the Reserve Bank, the Government’s ramped up rhetoric forced the RBA to act by increasing interest rates.
The monkeys in the press gallery never questioned the rhetoric.
In his first ever interview as Treasurer, Wayne Swan started his “The inflation genie is out of the bottle” rhetoric.
“Can I say that I'm very supportive of the announcements by the Governor and the
decisions that the Governor and the Board have taken (in relation to tightening
monetary policy). We fully support the independence of the Board and the
measures they have announced today”
“Tackling inflation is our number
one priority and we have inherited inflationary pressures.”
Swan and Rudd spent their first six months talking inflation up. They stressed overheating household spending and predicted an inflationary outbreak. Despite the fact that inflation remained within the target band for the Reserve Bank, the Government’s ramped up rhetoric forced the RBA to act by increasing interest rates.
The monkeys in the press gallery never questioned the rhetoric.
Figure 3: Killing the nebulous “Inflation Genie”.
These rate rises occurred when developments in overseas credit markets were well known and some pretty dire predictions were being made. However, only two days after the abovementioned interview, Swan was downplaying events overseas:
These rate rises occurred when developments in overseas credit markets were well known and some pretty dire predictions were being made. However, only two days after the abovementioned interview, Swan was downplaying events overseas:
“Well it's certainly a concern, but all the advice that I have, all the advice
that I have is that we are well placed to cope with the fallout from all of
those issues… the outlook for us is far better than some have said in the last
few weeks…”
Compare and contrast with the public statements of the previous Treasurer, Peter Costello, while he remained at the helm:
There are big risks developing around the world and you have seen even today
volatility on the world stock markets, including the Australian stockmarket,
arising out of more fears of sub-prime default in the United States.
In fact, a warning from Goldman Sachs in the United States of more credit
downgrades for Citigroup and a sell order on shares and a warning from the CEO
of Wells Fargo, the bank Wells Fargo, John Stumpf, who claimed we have not seen
a ‘nationwide decline in housing like this since the great depression’, were the
words that he used of the US sub-prime crisis.
So there are considerable risks in the global economy – the US sub-prime risk, world record oil prices, the lingering effects of the drought. Economic management does not run itself, it takes a lot of hard work.
Rudd and Swan approached the Global Financial Crisis with their eyes wired shut. At a time when the Government should have been talking the economy up, when they should have been using their rhetoric to talk the RBA into relaxing monetary policy to keep credit flowing, to keep domestic spending high and confidence up, Rudd and Swan were squeezing the life out of the economy.
Not only were they using their public appearances to talk up inflation, but behind the scenes Julia Gillard was busily cobbling together the union movement’s wishlist for a new industrial relations system.
The Coalition’s Workchoices was good policy, if unpopular. It was probably too complex, personally I would have preferred it if they’d just torn up every single piece of industrial relations legislation and let the market rule, but nevertheless Workchoices was a move in the right direction toward greatly labour market flexibility.
Figure 4: Compare and contrast unemployment rates.
Figure 4 is pretty indicative. Workchoices only operated for a couple of years – at a time when the economy was running at full capacity – and yet it still succeeded in driving unemployment to its lowest historical rate, saw the highest levels of workforce participation in generations and gave many people a job for the first time in their lives.
Workchoices had one simple message. You should be rewarded for what you are worth and not for any other consideration.
At the lower end of the scale it allowed people who had never had a job to get their foot in the door. Companies like Spotlight created hundreds of new jobs using AWAs. Sure, these were low paying jobs, but they were new jobs taken up by people who had been previously been priced out of the labour market. As many people instinctively know, its much easier to get a better paying job with better conditions if you are already in the workforce putting runs on the board than sitting on the unemployment benches. Workchoices gave these people a chance to get their foot on the first rung of the employment ladder.
At the higher end of the scale Workchoices allowed valued employees to secure better pay and conditions in recognition of their contribution to their workplace. Workplaces previously hamstrung by one-size-fits-all awards and EBAs were suddenly able to attract and retain high performers by offering them more money and better conditions.
And in the middle Workchoices allowed ordinary people, mums and dads, to build flexibility into their jobs and their lives. Money isn’t everything for some people, especially those with young families, and sometimes flexible hours or additional leave allowances are what people are after. We hear all about “work-life balance”, and Workchoices facilitated just that by allowing individual employees to make individual agreements with their employers that reflected their own needs.
But the electorate spoke, or more precisely about 51% of Australians said they’d rather not continue having the Coalition in charge, and so Rudd Labor made one of its first priorities scrapping work choices and re-regulating the labour market.
It took a few parliamentary sessions for Labor to dismantle the “worst aspects” of Workchoices, but we immediately saw the effects. Unemployment starting creeping up (see Figure 4) even before the ink was dry on Labor’s new legislation.
At a time of global economic uncertainty and a slowing domestic economy Rudd Labor was doing everything wrong. With one hand they were pulling on the monetary policy brakes – talking up inflation, causing increasing interest rates – and with the other hand they were destroying hundreds and thousands of low paid jobs that had only been made possible because of Workchoices – throwing the most vulnerable and unskilled amongst us back on the welfare heap.
Figure 4 is pretty indicative. Workchoices only operated for a couple of years – at a time when the economy was running at full capacity – and yet it still succeeded in driving unemployment to its lowest historical rate, saw the highest levels of workforce participation in generations and gave many people a job for the first time in their lives.
Workchoices had one simple message. You should be rewarded for what you are worth and not for any other consideration.
At the lower end of the scale it allowed people who had never had a job to get their foot in the door. Companies like Spotlight created hundreds of new jobs using AWAs. Sure, these were low paying jobs, but they were new jobs taken up by people who had been previously been priced out of the labour market. As many people instinctively know, its much easier to get a better paying job with better conditions if you are already in the workforce putting runs on the board than sitting on the unemployment benches. Workchoices gave these people a chance to get their foot on the first rung of the employment ladder.
At the higher end of the scale Workchoices allowed valued employees to secure better pay and conditions in recognition of their contribution to their workplace. Workplaces previously hamstrung by one-size-fits-all awards and EBAs were suddenly able to attract and retain high performers by offering them more money and better conditions.
And in the middle Workchoices allowed ordinary people, mums and dads, to build flexibility into their jobs and their lives. Money isn’t everything for some people, especially those with young families, and sometimes flexible hours or additional leave allowances are what people are after. We hear all about “work-life balance”, and Workchoices facilitated just that by allowing individual employees to make individual agreements with their employers that reflected their own needs.
But the electorate spoke, or more precisely about 51% of Australians said they’d rather not continue having the Coalition in charge, and so Rudd Labor made one of its first priorities scrapping work choices and re-regulating the labour market.
It took a few parliamentary sessions for Labor to dismantle the “worst aspects” of Workchoices, but we immediately saw the effects. Unemployment starting creeping up (see Figure 4) even before the ink was dry on Labor’s new legislation.
At a time of global economic uncertainty and a slowing domestic economy Rudd Labor was doing everything wrong. With one hand they were pulling on the monetary policy brakes – talking up inflation, causing increasing interest rates – and with the other hand they were destroying hundreds and thousands of low paid jobs that had only been made possible because of Workchoices – throwing the most vulnerable and unskilled amongst us back on the welfare heap.
Figure 5: From worse to worse.
The damage had already been done, but Rudd and Swan soldiered on, going from worse to worse. 23 April 2008:
TREASURER:
There's a lot of people out there hurting, Clinton. People are
hurting. Why are they hurting? Because inflation is high. They're hurting
because inflation is high. The Reserve Bank has an inflation targeting regime.
The previous government didn't play its role in terms of fiscal policy; it left
all the work to the Reserve Bank. Our task in this Budget is to take pressure
off inflation.
JOURNALIST:
Treasurer, just to repeat David Speers'
question, does this figure mean you're going to have to look harder than you're
currently looking at cuts in the Budget?
TREASURER:
We will be taking
difficult decisions in this Budget when it comes to spending. And we will do
everything that we humanly can to protect the hardworking families of Australia
who are being hurt by rising inflation and rising interest rates.
By April the economy was well and truly beginning to tank. New car sales are traditionally a good indicator of economic activity. People with low consumer confidence don’t commit to new car loans, they stick to what they’ve got and defer any new purchasing decisions.
Figure 6: A tanking economy as families put off buying their next tank.
Inflation was nowhere near breaking out (See Figure 2), the leading indicators of consumer confidence were plummeting, growth was slowing and the Treasurer is talking up a “tough budget” to tackle the nebulous inflation genie.
And then one day something or someone finally got through to Wayne Swan. The economy wasn’t overheating, it was tanking. Inflation wasn’t breaking out, it never had, interest rates were going in the wrong direction and the Government had been putting its foot on the brake when it should have had it flat to the floor on the accelerator.
The economic Ferrari that Peter Costello had piloted so carefully over eleven years was now grinding gears, blowing smoke and swerving all over the road.
9 October 2008:
Inflation was nowhere near breaking out (See Figure 2), the leading indicators of consumer confidence were plummeting, growth was slowing and the Treasurer is talking up a “tough budget” to tackle the nebulous inflation genie.
And then one day something or someone finally got through to Wayne Swan. The economy wasn’t overheating, it was tanking. Inflation wasn’t breaking out, it never had, interest rates were going in the wrong direction and the Government had been putting its foot on the brake when it should have had it flat to the floor on the accelerator.
The economic Ferrari that Peter Costello had piloted so carefully over eleven years was now grinding gears, blowing smoke and swerving all over the road.
9 October 2008:
Well, there is no doubt that we are looking at a financial upheaval the likes of
which has not been seen since the Great Depression. What that means for
Australia is that we’re not immune from the fallout of those events.
14 October 2008, The Prime Minister:
The global financial crisis, as I’ve said before, is the economic equivalent of a rolling national security crisis.
…and can I just say here and now, there are going to be huge bumps in the road yet, it’s not going to be even sailing.
The Treasurer, 15 October 2008:
Nobody quite knows internationally the extent of the downturn, but the briefing
that we received in Washington on the weekend is that growth in advanced
economies is around zero and that emerging economies are slowing more markedly
than had been previously thought. Those two things combined are certainly a
sombre outlook for the future.
19 October 2008:
This is a severe global financial crisis.
You can see the new rhetoric. Gone are the inflation genie comments and references to an overheating domestic economy, wave hello to the “We’ll all be rooned!” comments.
At a time when the economy was slowing rapidly, international credit was drying up and equity markets were crashing on a daily basis, the economic leadership in this country started to scream – at the top of its lungs – about how terrible things were.
Any student of economics can tell you that an economy is merely the total output of all its productive members, and that output depends on consumer demand. If consumer demand dries up, output slumps.
Why does consumer demand usually drop – a lack of confidence.
If you’re worried about losing you job in the midst of an “economic equivalent of a rolling national security crisis”, if you forsee “huge bumps in the road” and have a “sombre outlook for the future”, what do you do?
What you don’t do is go shopping. You squirrel away every cent you can so that when your personal circumstances decline you have some surplus stashed away for a rainy day.
And that’s what happened.
The Prime Minister and the Treasurer, at a time when the Australian economy started tanking, destroyed consumer confidence and we’re just now starting to see the results as companies lay off more and more staff because demand for their products is crashing.
Things will likely get worse. Construction companies are coming to the end of projects that were commissioned during the good times. Some are falling over now. No new projects are starting because securing finance is near impossible and those investors that are out there are keeping their powder dry until the economic situation plateaus.
We all know about lay-offs and retrenchments in the finance sector, the next will be building and construction. Retail will follow.
And people will keep their wallets closed for fear that they’ll be next.
So it’s time for some Rudd-o-nomics! Refer Figure 1. When you’ve already crashed the ferrari what do you do next?
Let’s look at the economic policy prescriptions initiated by the Rudd Government to date to battle the “global financial crisis”.
1) Re-regulate the Labor market. Scrap the creation of flexible workplace agreements that encouraged employers to employ the ordinarily unemployable. Then force people on existing AWAs to revert to more expensive, less flexible and more prescriptive Awards and EBAs at the cessation of their existing agreements – leaving the employer with two options: sack the person, or pay them more and receive no increase in productivity or return.
Reintroduce invasive and archaic powers for unions to interfere in the operation of work places. Force non-unionised employees to abide by collective agreement outcomes negotiated by unionised employees – and the list goes on.
NET RESULT: Lower productivity, higher business costs, increased unemployment.
2) Commit future generations of Australian Taxpayers to bail out commercial financial institutions if they go bust. The bank guarantee: one of the single worst pieces of public policy in Australian economic history. The introduction of the bank guarantee had some immediate effects: overnight it destroyed non-bank finance firms, particularly those used to finance new cars and durable consumer goods. Those other firms that did survive immediately froze all withdrawals so that self funded retirees and other investors could no longer get access to their funds. Commercial liquidity in the non-bank sector that had already been impacted by the global environment dried up faster than a Nun’s nasty.
NET RESULT: smashed our new car industry, smashed the non-bank finance industry, dried up capital liquidity with consequent flow on effects to the building and construction industry.
3) Solution to the problems caused by Economic policy prescription 2: get the Government back into the banking game, because as we all know Governments are really good at running banks! Ruddbank: can someone please get Kevin Rudd and Wayne Swan a reader’s digest summary of the 1980’s and early 90’s please?
So you’ve destroyed the non-bank finance sector and as a consequence a whole heap of commercial property building projects are suddenly jeopardised – what to do? I know! We’ll set up a bank and fund it with borrowed money and then get bureaucrats to run it. Because we all know that bureaucrats whose job is usually ensuring form 3D is filled out properly and in triplicate can spot an attractive commercial opportunity a mile away! Funded by money borrowed for the purpose, and backed up with a government guarantee (a fancy way of saying: when it all turns pear shaped we’ll tax your children for a generation to pay for it!) Ruddbank will extend commercial credit to commercial property developers if they can’t get finance from the non-bank sector that the Bank Guarantee destroyed…
NET RESULT: I don’t even want to think about it. Can anyone say Tricontinental or BankSA?
4) Give lots of poor people free money just before Christmas! Okay, I’m going to say something controversial. There is a reason poor people are poor: because they make bad financial decisions. Give them welfare and state housing and they spend their surplus on cartons of smokes. If they have a job, do they buy their kids new school shoes and books or do they put their wage through a pokie and then wonder where their rent money went? Give them a “cash handout” and do you really think they’ll suddenly turn a new leaf, discover such concepts as “savings”, “frugality”, “efficiency” and go out there and buy energy efficient durable consumer goods? Or will they go and blow it all on a 50” plasma screen so they can watch Jerry Springer in HD? Yah…
NET RESULT: $10.4 Billion in debt and a barely recognisable blip in retail figures. The interest payments on the $10.4 handouts are enough to fund ASIO each and every year.
5) And then give everyone else some free money! Is anyone else feeling just slightly ill yet? Roughly speaking it costs the government $1.50 to spend a dollar. This is because there are costs involved in collecting the money in the first place (all those ATO folk for starters and their complex IT systems), then it costs money to keep the money (all those pointy headed nerds in treasury who would be employed in the finance sector earning ten times as much if they were actually any good at what they did), and then it costs money to spend money (all those tight fisted flops in the Department of Finance, who are too incompetent to work for Treasury). So for the $900 that I received, it probably cost the government $1350. And they borrowed that money so they’ll be paying interest on it every year that it remains unpaid. So, my two new xBox games, pair of boots and new belt will represent about $1600 worth of debt in 2012/13. I really hope I get some good replayability out of Fallout 3…
NET RESULT: Yet to be seen, but if the pre-Christmas spend-a-thon is any indicator, not much except intergenerational indebtedness.
6) Can anyone say PINK BATS! I’ve just had a wonderful idea! Lets spend taxpayers money putting insulation into the rooves of every house in Australia. Let’s forget the fact that most dwelling have a life span of 30-40 years and that we’ll have to go through it all again then. Let’s forget the fact that this unparalleled excursion into the insulation market will distort the industry for decades to come, pumping up prices in the short term and destroying long term sustainability into the longer term.
NET RESULT: We’re all a little cooler in summer and warmer in winter and I wouldn’t want to be in the insulation business in five years time. Oh and by the way, your kids and your kid’s kids will pay for it all.
NET RESULT: We’re all a little cooler in summer and warmer in winter and I wouldn’t want to be in the insulation business in five years time. Oh and by the way, your kids and your kid’s kids will pay for it all.
7) Every school deserves a multi purpose shelter, or a bike rack, or something! This is part of the “education revolution”, spending bucket loads of borrowed money on buildings in schools that DON’T ADD A SINGLE JOT TO EDUCATIONAL ATTAINMENT! How does a new sports hall improve English skills? Please someone, tell me.
NET RESULT: More debt, but at least the teachers have proper tea making facilities now.
NET RESULT: More debt, but at least the teachers have proper tea making facilities now.
8) National Broadband Network. Look, I think this is one area where the media has been a bit suspicious, so I won’t spend too much time talking about it. There’s no business case, no cost/benefit anaylsis and even a back of the envelope job indicates that subscription will be super expensive and that the network will never be commercially viable.
NET RESULT: A white elephant… But at least your kids (if they can afford it) can download high resolution porno a lot quicker.
Okay, I’m now feeling really sick. I get even sicker every time I hear the words “National Building for the Future Jobs and Infrastructure Plan” or whatever rubbish Rudd has monikered his debt fuelled binge as.
I think I can summarise his infrastructure plan as follows: Rudd Labor are indebting future generations of Australians to build unneeded, uncosted, economically dubious infrastructure just so they can say they’re doing something. Does that adequately sum up our situation? Oh, and their spending $31 million on little gold plaques just to remind us how wonderful it is that they’ve indebted our children and our children’s children so they can build a couple of school halls.
In my next instalment I plan to talk about what the Government should have done in response to the Global Financial Crisis.
NET RESULT: A white elephant… But at least your kids (if they can afford it) can download high resolution porno a lot quicker.
Okay, I’m now feeling really sick. I get even sicker every time I hear the words “National Building for the Future Jobs and Infrastructure Plan” or whatever rubbish Rudd has monikered his debt fuelled binge as.
I think I can summarise his infrastructure plan as follows: Rudd Labor are indebting future generations of Australians to build unneeded, uncosted, economically dubious infrastructure just so they can say they’re doing something. Does that adequately sum up our situation? Oh, and their spending $31 million on little gold plaques just to remind us how wonderful it is that they’ve indebted our children and our children’s children so they can build a couple of school halls.
In my next instalment I plan to talk about what the Government should have done in response to the Global Financial Crisis.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
