Iain Hall's SANDPIT

Home » Australian Politics » From accidental PM to accidental OM

From accidental PM to accidental OM

He sticks around - like a right royal bad smell.

I have no idea why former prime minister John Howard has been appointed a member of the Order of Merit by the Queen, apparently, as a special mark of honour for “exceptional distinction in the arts, learning, sciences and other areas such as public service”.

Huh?

No doubt you conservative-lovers out there and in here – you know who you are and so do I – will wax lyrical about the little nerd who sat on his hands for 11 years as PM enjoying a booming economy that was set up for him by his predecessors Paul Keating & Bob Hawke. An achievement that he never lifted a finger for and one he surely didn’t deserve to inherit given that when Hawke came to power in 1983 he was left with a whopping $9 billion deficit by the hopelessly inept Treasurer of the prior Fraser government … who was none other than John Howard himself! And $9 billion in 1983 with rising unemployment, high interest rates and a sluggish & shrinking economy is far worse than any deficit we have today. At least we have a deficit now for a reason – to support the buoyant economy, not because we’re broke like we were under Fraser & Howard’s years of nothingness.

But I reckon he did have some achievements and here they are – in their entirety. This list is finite. Howard did nothing other than:

  • Introduced a GST, after promising never to. Thanks a lot.
  • Introduced Work Choices so that 17 year olds could be paid $3 per hour and all other workers could have their wages cut. Thanks a lot.
  • Turned asylum seekers into a political issue by demonising those on the Tampa.
  • Sent us off to invade Iraq on a false premise. A premise he must have known was false. Thanks again.

And that’s it. Go on, name one other ‘achievement’ this toxic nerd could claim. There aren’t any.

But worse still is Howard’s refusal to retire gracefully and avoid the spotlight. It’s been over 4 years since he was voted out of government (and lost his own seat) yet he still can’t help chiming in with his ‘advice’, opinions and reflective interviews. He’s all over the place like a bad smell and, unlike other ex-PMs like Fraser & Keating, there’s no sailing off into the sunset for this little under-achiever. No, it’s like he thinks he’s still relevant, or that he still has something to contribute. Well, let me know when he says or does something that is really helpful to the Australian people that he once falsely represented. It’ll be a first.

Order of Merit? My arse.


160 Comments

  1. Jim says:

    He was given the honor by the Queen, partially because she doesn’t look at life through your poinonous little lefty filter.

  2. Iain Hall says:

    Quite naturally
    I disagree with your opinion here Ray, on almost every point in fact but for now I’ll restrict may response to your dot points:

    Introduced a GST, after promising never to. Thanks a lot.

    A very small sin in the light of the subsequent betrayals by the current Labor government and in his defence at least Howard took the GST to an election so that he had a mandate for it. Gillard did no such thing with the Carbon tax…

    Introduced Work Choices so that 17 year olds could be paid $3 per hour and all other workers could have their wages cut. Thanks a lot.

    Do you have any proof that 17 year old were ever offered work at $3 an hour? That said I never thought much of workchoices

    Turned asylum seekers into a political issue by demonising those on the Tampa.

    That is just not the case because unauthorised arrivals have been an issue for a long time prior to the Tampa.

    Sent us off to invade Iraq on a false premise. A premise he must have known was false. Thanks again.

    No one at the time doubted that Saddam had WMD and with the memory of Gulf war one (when Saddam fired missiles on Israel ) no one doubted his willingness to use such weapons.

    Finally on Howard ‘refusing to bow out of the limelight I have just one thing to say and that I and that is “Paul Keating” because that Ex PM has been more vocal that Howard, as Has Malcolm Fraser for that matter

  3. GD says:

    Introduced Work Choices so that 17 year olds could be paid $3 per hour and all other workers could have their wages cut. Thanks a lot.

    Once the Rudd Government introduced the Fair Work legislation, teenagers were no longer allowed to work after school jobs unless it was for a minimum of three hours. Kids didn’t want three hours’ work after school and neither did many employers, yet Labor knocked that mutually beneficial situation on the head, choosing instead to support their union buddies.

    Another case of Labor trying to fix what wasn’t broken.

  4. Richard Ryan says:

    Howard was not a leader, he was a follower, who plunged Australia into the Iraqi war——to please his mate George Bush, a leader who does not pause , before he sends his nation into war,is not fit to be a leader.Howard is a former lawyer, his words convey conviction-but I believe they have little truth. Recent examples—refugees threw their children overboard, Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. There was conviction when he refused to say Sorry to the original inhabitants 0f this continent, there was conviction, when he thought it was fair to detain Australians, Hicks and Habib without charge or trial, at America’s pleasure. There was conviction when he said there never would be a GST. AS Churchill once said: “There are a terrible lot of lies going around the world and the worst of it is half of them are true” Shalom Richard Ryan.

  5. Richard Ryan says:

    Howard is as relevant in my eyes, as fried rice without rice. As for Asians——he had a thing about them too way back in 1998——blah-blah-blah—we are not Asian, we are not part of Asia——-we are now warmonger.

  6. Leon Bertrand says:

    Ray,

    Its unfortunate that your political bias makes you unable to recognise that Howard was a good PM. Your post is unfortunately riddled with factual errors and double standards.

    Compare the Howard government with the current federal government. Only a most one-eyed observer could possibly view the Rudd-Gillard government as better than the Howard Government.

  7. JM says:

    Iain: No one at the time doubted that Saddam had WMD

    On the contrary, many people did. And some of them were in a position to know.

    Jacquaes Chirac then President of France stated categorically that Saddam did not have WMD. Jack Straw, British Foreign Secretary didn’t believe it, and gave a long speech in the Commons explaining why, referring to well known intelligence and then resigned rather than participate.

    Scott Ridder head of the UN inspection program resigned saying that Saddam did not have WMD. Hans Blick head of the UN monitoring program didn’t believe it and said so.

    There were others. The UN both in the Security Council and in the General Assembly refused to countenance action and the US and UK were forced to confect some feeble excuse based on a tortured reading of a UN resolution from 1991.

    The fact is Iain, the rationale was always bogus and was widely known as bogus at the time.

  8. Ray Dixon says:

    Jim, you still haven’t said why Howard deserved the award.

    Iain, introducing a GST was not ‘an achievement’, even if he did take it to an election (after promising never to). That’s just a new tax. On that basis you’d have to say Gillard’s carbon tax is also an achievement and that’d be plain stupid.

    As for asylum seekers, it was not the case prior to 2001 & Tampa that the issue was politicised. The issue of boat people was basically conducted on a bi-partisan basis, but we can thank Howard for turning refuggees into political footballs.

    No, I have no ‘proof’ of my $3 per hour claim. It was a throwaway line, Iain, but the point is there is no doubt that Howard (and Abbott) tried to screw down young people and ordinary wages.

    As for your ludicrous claims about Keating, where have you been since 1996? Keating pulled his head in completely after he lost government and only started to make public appearance & comment more than 10 years later, after Howard was gone. He’s entitled to have his say now because he put distance and time between his time and now. Howard hasn’t and he should shut up.

    Finally, Iain, you must be one of the more gullible members of our society if you ever believed that WMD bullshit. Come on, we all knew it was crap.

    Leon, I’m saying Howard didn’t deserve the gong and that he was a do-nothing PM. I notice that neither you, Iain, Jim or GD have met my challenge to name anything other than those so-called ‘achievements’ I listed. Says it all.

  9. GD says:

    Be patient Ray, we’re just clearly away the crap you’ve written first. So, continuing on that tack, the GST replaced a swathe of other taxes, ie sales tax @ 22% etc. The electorate agreed with the change, whether or not you personally do.

    Comparing it to the Carbon Tax is ludicrous.

  10. Jim says:

    I have absolutely no idea what the details of the award are and unlike you, Ray, I have no intention of making a guess.
    My statement still sits. Howard could have personally ended war or cured cancer and you would still find fault with him. You just can’t help it.

  11. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    I find it sadly amusing that You are willing to denounce John Howard as a “war criminal” yet you say no such thing about Saddam Hussein who ordered the use of poison gas against his own people, made war on Iran that killed millions, Yep it says heaps about your values doesn’t it?
    As for Hicks and Habib why are you defending Jihadists who would have welcomed sharia for Australia?
    What strange priorities you have my deluded friend, It must be the result of too many lattes…
    JM
    Its night time here now. Care to denounce me for that opinion as well?
    While there were some doubters at the time Saddam himself was keen to suggest that he did have such weapons and there is no doubt that he was capable of making them and very willing to use them as he did against the Kurds, Israel and the Iranians. In any case aren’t you one of those cheering when Gaddaffi was deposed? Hmm its strange how you lefties were so keen to endorse the ‘Arab spring” hoping for the removal of various dictatorial regimes in the middle east (gee that is going well in Syria isn’t it?)yet you still whine about Iraq.
    You maust be a whizz in the kitchen if you can make an omelette without cracking the eggs…

  12. Sax says:

    You labor fanatics say what you like, but howard (and his band of merry lunies), had one skill, that the entire labor party didn’t, and never will have.

    At least they knew how to balance their cheque books ?

  13. JM says:

    Iain: While there were some doubters at the time Saddam himself was keen to suggest that he did have such weapons and there is no doubt that he was capable of making them and very willing to use them as he did against the Kurds, Israel and the Iranians

    Let me take these “points” one at a time:-

    * They were more than doubters. The 4 people I mentioned had direct responsibility for their opinions and were legally obligated to make the judgements they did. They were more than doubters, they were legally obliged to make a judgement with real effect and they did:

    – Chirac kept France out of the whole mess
    – Straw refused to abide by Cabinet solidarity and vote for a war he thought unjustified. He gave his reasons quoted secret intelligence, resigned and voted against it
    – Ritter resigned and spoke out against it
    – Blix recommended against it, spoke out against it, but was overruled by the neo-con fantasists.

    * Yes Saddam was keen to fool people that he had such things, but so is the little boy down the street who reckons his “big brother” will beat me up if I tell him off for stealing candy. Doesn’t mean I have the right to pre-emptively beat up the little boy does it? I think I’m bigger than that and not at all scared of his fantasy “big brother”.

    * The weapons he used against the Kurds were supplied by the US and used with US approval

    * The missiles he fired at Israel in 1991 were inaccurate, were not armed with chemicals and he was denuded of the remainder of them during the inspections following the first Gulf War. He didn’t have any left, as Ritter and his team attested.

    * The 9 year war against Iran did include the use of chemical weapons – on both sides. That war was launched with the approval and encouragement of the US and he was armed by the US throughout. There is a very famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand during the 1980’s acting as Ronald Reagan’s emissary.

    And for the denouement: was he capable of launching WMD’s against Israel or other foreign parties in 2003?

    Well we have Straw who is first off the button (these are paraphrases, the actual statements are so well known that I can’t be bothered to track down the originals lest I hit your “more-than-3-links-and-you’re-in-the-spam-bucket” filter)

    No. Even if he has these weapons, which he doesn’t, he doesn’t have the means the deliver them

    And Chirac:

    Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction

    And Ritter:

    All his missiles and his delivery capacity have been destroyed

    And Blix:

    Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons or the capacity to manufacture them

    ie. NO

    And it was known that he had neither the weapons nor the delivery capability at the time. 100’s of thousands of people all around the world marched at the time because they could all see it as the charade it was. Why couldn’t you?

    It was all about oil and the dollar (rather than the Euro) Iain. You were a fool to believe otherwise then and you’re a fool to believe otherwise now.

  14. Ray Dixon says:

    GD, the GST increased govt revenue dramatically so please don’t suggest it was in anyway ‘revenue neutral’ – it wasn’t. I recall the idiot Costello pointing out how caviar didn’t have any sales tax on it and that GST would at least fix that anomally. Well, so would have putting a frickin’ sales tax on caviar. Look, it was just a way of increasing taxes yet you somehow laud it as an achievement – LMAO.

    Jim, if you don’t know anything about the subject why do you even bother commenting? Here’s a tip mate – speak about the issue, not about the person expressing an opinion. Get a brain.

    Sax, um …. Howard couldn’t ‘balance the cheque book’ under Fraser when he was Treasurer and the only way he did so when he was PM was to … not spend money on anything worthwhile. Sent us backwards.

  15. Angel says:

    Introduced a GST, after promising never to. Thanks a lot.
    The GST, as GD said, replaced many other taxes. The taxes were many and confusing. The GST is a simplistic tax in its nature. i.e a tax on the spending. It reduced our income tax which inturn encouraged employment and helped reduce the “in hand” supply. There are even items today which are still cheaper than they were 15 years ago due to consolidation into the GST.

    Introduced Work Choices so that 17 year olds could be paid $3 per hour and all other workers could have their wages cut. Thanks a lot.
    I have a 15 year old whom was paid $25 p/h yesterday for his work. I am an employee and didn’t lose out with work choices. I supported work choices as people who wanted a job, valued it, and worked hard were those rewarded. But then Labor does encourage those who do not want to work, do not want to contribute and belong to the “me generation” thinking this country owes them.

    Turned asylum seekers into a political issue by demonising those on the Tampa.
    A political issue. As it should be. Australia should have the right to say who enters its own country. Now instead of a political issue it is a greenie issue, a do-gooder issue, a human rights opportunist lawyer issue. Not to even count the dollar issues & the cultural issues.

    Sent us off to invade Iraq on a false premise. A premise he must have known was false. Thanks again.
    Howard did not support Saddam. The guy was a tyrant. More should have likewise stood up against him.

  16. Angel says:

    Caviar didn’t attract a sales tax, yet tampons attracted a luxury tax. The tax system was in disarray and did require a simple across the board GST Tax.
    There is no such requirement for a Carbon Tax. That just takes us backwards once again. Certain people will be taxed, others will not. Certain people will receive compensation, others will not. A mess to the tax system once again. Another mess for Liberal to fix on return once again.

  17. Ray Dixon says:

    Angel, as usual you talk rubbish. What items “are still cheaper than they were 15 years ago due to consolidation into the GST:? Name one. Some items are cheaper because they’re now made in China, but that has nothing to do with GST. If there were no GST they’d be even cheaper, or haven’t you worked that out? As for the “disarray” of sales tax, yes, it was all over the place. But it could have been fixed quite easily by, er, guess what? By reforming sales tax!

    Glad to hear your 15 yo is better off under Labor’s industrial relations policy. You really pwned yourself there.

  18. Richard Ryan says:

    Mr Howard and his war supporter lackeys would do well to remember the most effective weapon used by the powerless against the powerful——-Terrorism, As for America, how much has Australia spent in defending USA interests, in it’s greed for oil? billions of taxpayers Aussie dollars. America supports all the great tyrants, to it’s requirements, and then spits them out, when their services are no longer required——ah yes the Aussie lackeys, tell the story to suit it’s political requirements. America is it’s own worst enemy.

  19. Richard Ryan says:

    As Ray said, “Order of Merit? My arse”. —————- What next for Howard? The f###ing Nobel Peace Prize.

  20. Sax says:

    Ah Richard.
    A simple question for you ?
    When has terrorism, in the long term, succeeded ?

  21. Richard Ryan says:

    ” Shamefully we now learn that Saddam’s torture chambers reopened under new management, US management” . — Eward Kennedy. Terrorism and War are a no-win situation. As for Howard he has the blood of thousands of innocent Iraqis on his hands, he may not have killed them directly, neither did Hitler, the only one Hitler killed was himself, his foot soldiers did his dirty work, Howard by his actions of playing in Bush’s war games, is a war criminal, as history will show. I find it humorous exporting wheat to the so-called enemy, Iraq, while this country was at war——is not that a nice state of affairs—–feed them and kill them, thanks to the AWB, 300 MILLION DOLLAR KICK-BACK—. make a great Aussie Movie. Ray maybe he can give us a post on that drama—–with the politicians telling us they knew nothing——come on, but they knew Iraq had weapons of mass destruction. What a complete f*** up. Shalom, Richard Ryan.

  22. Iain Hall says:

    Richard
    Simple question for you, Do you support the notion that despots should be removed from power by the force of arms if necessary?

    Yes or no answer please 😉

  23. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Let me take these “points” one at a time:-

    Ok and I’m respond to each of your points in turn

    * They were more than doubters. The 4 people I mentioned had direct responsibility for their opinions and were legally obligated to make the judgements they did. They were more than doubters, they were legally obliged to make a judgement with real effect and they did:

    Repeating your self does you no favours

    – Chirac kept France out of the whole mess

    The French have always been, to quote a Jezza I admire “Cheese eating surrender monkeys” who talk big but are largely irrelevent at a global level

    – Straw refused to abide by Cabinet solidarity and vote for a war he thought unjustified. He gave his reasons quoted secret intelligence, resigned and voted against it

    And therefore made himself irrelevant and impotent Yep that was a “wonderful piece of pointless posturing.

    – Ritter resigned and spoke out against it

    Just the same as Straw then

    – Blix recommended against it, spoke out against it, but was overruled by the neo-con fantasists.

    Blix was no more than an good example of just how useless the UN is was and ever will be.


    * Yes Saddam was keen to fool people that he had such things
    , but so is the little boy down the street who reckons his “big brother” will beat me up if I tell him off for stealing candy. Doesn’t mean I have the right to pre-emptively beat up the little boy does it? I think I’m bigger than that and not at all scared of his fantasy “big brother”.

    Gee JM what is the world coming to when despots can’t be taken at their word? but thanks for conceding my point that at Saddam himself was propagating the notion that he had the WMD and that he was keen to use them.

    * The weapons he used against the Kurds were supplied by the US and used with US approval

    Are you really saying that The US approved the killing of the Kurds with poison gas? Citation DEFINITELY needed fro that claim!

    * The missiles he fired at Israel in 1991 were inaccurate, were not armed with chemicals and he was denuded of the remainder of them during the inspections following the first Gulf War. He didn’t have any left, as Ritter and his team attested.

    By definition ballistic missiles are WMD and given the game of cat and mouse that Saddam played with “weapons inspectors”, a game that you acknowledged in the point above it took years and the second war to discover the truth with the benefit of hindsight.

    * The 9 year war against Iran did include the use of chemical weapons – on both sides. That war was launched with the approval and encouragement of the US and he was armed by the US throughout. There is a very famous photo of Donald Rumsfeld shaking Saddam’s hand during the 1980’s acting as Ronald Reagan’s emissary.

    Like a lot of despots and tin pot dictators Saddam was keen to buy weapons from anyone who would sell them and I seem to recall that weapons from all over the place were found in Iraq

    And for the denouement: was he capable of launching WMD’s against Israel or other foreign parties in 2003?

    Well he certainly wanted the world to believe that he did, so what is to be gained by using hindsight to suggest otherwise?

    Well we have Straw who is first off the button (these are paraphrases, the actual statements are so well known that I can’t be bothered to track down the originals lest I hit your “more-than-3-links-and-you’re-in-the-spam-bucket” filter)

    To keep you civil and on topic you are now moderated so post as many links as you please because your comments remain unpublished until Ray or I decide to let them out.

    No. Even if he has these weapons, which he doesn’t, he doesn’t have the means the deliver them

    And Chirac:

    Saddam does not have weapons of mass destruction

    And Ritter:

    All his missiles and his delivery capacity have been destroyed

    And Blix:

    Iraq does not possess nuclear weapons or the capacity to manufacture them

    ie. NO

    And there were just as many voices suggesting the opposite including Saddam himself, but aint hindsight wonderful for confusing what we are certain of now with what was doubtful then?

    And it was known that he had neither the weapons nor the delivery capability at the time. 100’s of thousands of people all around the world marched at the time because they could all see it as the charade it was. Why couldn’t you?

    Yeah lots of people believe in faeries at the bottom of the garden or man made climate change neither of which are proven by the number of believers

    It was all about oil and the dollar (rather than the Euro) Iain. You were a fool to believe otherwise then and you’re a fool to believe otherwise now.

    Every war on the planet has ultimately been about resources and treasure JM I have never doubted that only leftist fools like yourself believe other wise.
    That said I notice that you ignored may question about the removal of despots, Hmm I wonder why????

  24. Leon Bertrand says:

    Ray,

    Howard’s acheivements in nearly 12 years in office are too numerous to list. But here’s a few:

    Intoducing gun control laws
    Stopping the boats
    Privatising Telstra
    Numerous industrial relations reforms
    lowering tariffs
    ground-breaking indigenous intervention in the NT
    GST
    Lowering company tax rates
    lowering income tax rates
    acheieveing low inflation
    numerous budget surplusses
    high real wage increases
    making the waterfront more productive
    No net government debt
    Independence of the Reserve Bank

    The current federal government cannot be said to have acheived a tenth of this. Labor’s ‘acheivements’ to date:

    Stagflation
    Big budget deficits
    massive increase in boat numbers
    increase in strikes
    sluggish productivity growth
    massive debt levels
    money wasted on pink batts, school halls, set top boxes, climate change department, subsidies for car industry etc

  25. Iain Hall says:

    Gee the despots of the world will be happy to know that you endorse their undemocratic rule, The likes of Kim Jong un and Assad will be so pleased to have got your endorsement!
    So how can the people under the heal of oppressive government ever be free on planet Richard Ryan?

  26. GD says:

    One of the first tasks the incoming Howard government had to address in 1996 was the $96 billion debt left by Keating. One of the first tasks the next Liberal government will have to face is the current Labor debt of $223 billion. To use a leftist buzz word, Labor governments are simply unsustainable.

    It’s one thing to be visionary, as Keating* no doubt was; it is another thing to make change for change’ sake. Labor is good at the latter; their refugee policy is an example of dismantling a successful Howard policy and replacing it with a feel-good, and subsequently failed, Rudd policy.

    Labor also excels at symbolism, where the Howard Libs were pragmatic: contrast Rudd’s facile apology to the ‘stolen generation’ with Howard’s intervention in the NT.

    Leon’s list highlights many such practical reforms and initiatives, as opposed to the bright and shiny whims and damaging and irresponsible actions of the Rudd/Gillard government.

    *Visionary though he may have been, Keating’s reforms were built on the Campbell Report commissioned by Howard in 1981. Had Howard become the next prime minister, it follows that he would have championed similar reforms.

  27. Jim says:

    Get a brain, talk on the issues.
    Ray, your attitude towards people that don’t agree with you are well known.
    I am not a performing seal and do not take orders from every idiot that thinks his opinion is the only intellegent one.
    You don’t KNOW the reason this order was given, but that doesn’t stop you from opining.

  28. Ray Dixon says:

    My “attitude”? Jim, I told you to “get a brain” and “talk to the issues” because the only comments you have made so far are ones attacking the person, not the opinion. You’re still doing it. If you have no opinion on the issue what the hell are you doing here?

  29. Iain Hall says:

    Jim
    Play nice or you will not be welcome and I will ban you

  30. Ray Dixon says:

    Leon,

    Intoducing gun control laws – Howard banned automatic weapons after the Port Arthur massacre in 1996. Since then the number of privately owned hand guns has gone through the roof. As have the deaths by shooting , 5,000 in the decade after the ban. He didn’t go far enough. It was simply a knee jerk reaction.

    Stopping the boats – yes, by turning asylum seekers into a political football placing them on Nauru in concentration camp type conditions for years & years. Eventually they were nearly all accepted anyway but only after a long period of incarceration and mental damage. Anyone can “stop the boats” if they want to slam the doors shut to genuine refugees as Howard did.

    Privatising Telstra – oh yeah, and didn’t that work out well for the mum & dad investors? Not to mention the employees and the poor paying customers. Sol did pretty well out of it though.

    Numerous industrial relations reforms – so numerous you can’t name any. Do you mean WorkChoices?

    lowering tariffs – this started under Hawke & Keating. Howard didn’t do a lot more.

    GST – introducing a new tax to reap billions of extra dollars from the general public who, unlike Howard’s business buddies, cannot claim it back as a deduction, is not an achievement. GST favoured the rich, especially property developers. They only pay GST on the ‘margin’, not the selling price, and after input deductions they usually end up with a refund. That was convenient.

    Lowering company tax rates – Yes, giving benefits to the rich again. That’s not an achievement either, Leon.

    high real wage increases – huh? Howard opposed EVERY wage increase handed down by the arbitrators.

    lowering income tax rates – again, favouring high income earners.

    making the waterfront more productive – How, Leon? It was improvements to infrastructure by private investment and by State Govts (in Victoria at least) that achieved that.

    No net government debt – and hardly any new schools, hospitals, universities, roads, or any other major infrastructure investment. Easy to balance the books by not spending but how exactly did that help the electorate?

    Independence of the Reserve Bank – who have since played havoc with interest rates, up, down, up, down, up, up, up, up, down, down, up ….. without ever waiting to see the impact of their decisions.

    As for comparing Howard to the Rudd/Gillard governments, that’s not the point. The point is Howard does not deserve this recognition. However, we are hardly in ‘stagflation’ (high inflation & slow growth). We have the opposite.

  31. JM says:

    You know Iain, Iraq war boosters like yourself are really stuck in a jam.

    The entire argument for the war has been proven to be false, yet you have to keep on insisting that you were right and everyone who disagreed with you at the time are “lefties” or “cheese eating surrender monkeys” who were wrong.

    Unfortunately, the reverse is true. You were all absolutely wrong and all those “softheaded lefties” were really the hard nuts who were right. So to justify yourselves you have to keep on repeating the original lies just in more blurred form – ie. you say things like “no-one doubted blah blah” when in fact plenty of people did in fact doubt. And you lost no time in abusing them for those doubts. Now you’re just rewriting history.

    Must be hard to keep that cognitive dissonance going.

  32. Jim says:

    Iain, I am playing nice. I was unaware that commenting on this blog required that i do as i’m told.
    Are we not allowed to question the motives of the posters?

  33. Ray Dixon says:

    Commenting at any blog reqires you to do as you’re told, Jim. As for “questioning motives”, um, what on earth are you talking about? This is an opinion post. You obviously don’t agree with my opinion. I think we got that from the start. Since then you’ve just been whinging and wasting everyone’s time.

  34. Jim says:

    OK Ray, you win.
    Goodbye

  35. Ray Dixon says:

    I win? You didn’t even enter the debate.

  36. Sax says:

    No net government debt – and hardly any new schools, hospitals, universities, roads, or any other major infrastructure investment. Easy to balance the books by not spending but how exactly did that help the electorate?

    Nice analogy Ray, except for one thing ?
    You’re Wrong !

    All of your examples, are responsibilities of individual state governments. Federal budgets for such things can be mandated, but ultimately, all new infrastructure for the matters you mentioned, are state government responsibilities. Funnily enough Labor government responsibilities.

    Let’s not digress though, let’s look at the economic record.

    Labor inherited a strong and growing economy, a $20 billion budget surplus and had a healthy, $45 billion cushion in the bank.

    In just four years, Labor has turned the massive budget surplus (amassed by the prudent Howard-Costello government after 11 years spent restoring the funds squandered during the 13 years of the Hawke/Keating government) into a net government debt of $107 billion – Labor is accumulating debt at the rate of $100 million a day.
    http://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/opinion/we-need-a-gillard-reality-check-after-the-blizzard-of-spin-surrounding-qantas-the-queen-and-president-barack-obama/story-e6frezz0-1226200052061

    The rest needs no comment, merely the view from labor party rose coloured glasses.

  37. Ray,

    Say what you like, but any economist worth his salt would acknowledge the economic acheivements I have listed above as being good for Australia’s economy, and therefore good for jobs, wages and profits.

    I am able to recognise the Hawke/Keating government’s acheivements, and even Whitlam’s acheivements. It would be nice to see you one day move beyond being so partisan in some your views about Australia’s past governments.

  38. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Iraq war booster??? Moi?
    Surely you have a more nuanced understanding of of real life than that sort of bullshit argument,
    My position has always been that once the war was actually “on” then its rather moot as to the reasons it began, yet lefty fools like your self have endlessly tried to dig through the entrails of history to attribute “blame” to the USA so that you can feel that all of your ideology is correct. In any case what’s done is is done and it can’t be undone so what is to be gained by you trying so hard to attribute blame?
    Mistakes were certainly made after Saddam was defeated militarily but no one, not even you could possibly argue that had he not been removed that the world would in fact be a better place now not unless you are a fan of totalitarian dictators Like Richard and I will ask you the same question I asked him, do you think that it can ever be justifiable to remove a despotic regime that has clear form for killing their own people? Because all of the lefty arguments about oil and money just make no sense to me when its clear that it would have been far cheaper in lives a treasure to have just paid Saddam for the oil than to take it by force of arms. Saddam ran a most brutal and evil regime but I’m sure that his heirs will be delighted that you so mourn his passing.

  39. Iain Hall says:

    Jim
    I welcome comemnts from anyone who is prepared to be civil and to retrain any urges to attack their interlocutors personally.

  40. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, I dunno in which world you live but out here – in the real world – Federal governments do indeed provide funding for health, education and a whole lot of other infrastructure. You know, the things Howard wouldn’t spend money on. Come on, you (in past comments) have acknowledged yourself the reality that the Libs don’t build and then, when Labor gets in, it has to spend the money that the mealy-mouthed conservatives refused to. That’s just how it is – Labor is more people focussed.

    Leon, let’s face it – Howard had an easy ride, built on the back of the Hawke-Keating reforms.

  41. Sax says:

    Hawke-Keating reforms ? Are those the one putting us some 96 Billion dollars in debt Would those be the wonderful reforms you are on about ?

    a whole lot of other infrastructure wow, there’s a definitive answer.

    The libs sure don’t build, unlike labor, who do like building, especially when it is on an unlimited credit card, they know they will never have to pay back ? I think they call that in the real world, prudence ?

    Labor’s ability to “suck in” the masses is not disputed, what is disputed, is their inept management skills, and their inability to balance their finances.
    Lets face it, when you are broke, in need of a new car, you don’t go out and buy a rolls do you ? You make do with what you can afford, or perhaps us mere mortals, catch a bus ?0 That is the problem labor has had, and always will have.

    That is why they have no credibility.
    A worse scenario even still, considering their opponent is Abbott ?
    Think about that for a second and perhaps get back to us. They can’t even beat Abbott ?
    rofl

  42. Iain Hall says:

    Ray no one, least of all me, begrudges well targeted spending to improve the lot of the Australian people, the problem with Labor is that it never seems to get its sums or prioritises right. As a business man surely you must appreciate that money has to come form somewhere other than the imagination of bankers and that if you spend unwisely and deplete all reserves (as Labor have lots of form for) then you can’t keep doing the things that the nation needs doing.

  43. GD says:

    Howard had an easy ride, built on the back of the Hawke-Keating reforms.

    Ray, first Howard had to pay off Keating’s debt from the recession we didn’t need to have. You seem to regard massive debt as being of no consequence. While you state that Howard did nothing, perhaps you can indicate what Keating did with that money. It wasn’t necessary to achieve his economic reforms. In previous posts you’ve indicated that you aren’t fussed about Labor’s current growing debt, even though it is not supported by any value for money.

    Perhaps Leon is right in suggesting that you are far more partisan than perspicacious in your political analyses.

  44. Angel says:

    Im guessing he gave it all away to Asia during the time of his love affair with it.

  45. GD says:

    Seems this thread has split into two streams, the domestic political front, and Howard’s Middle Eastern politics.

    Of the latter, it’s unearthed two nutters who seem to prefer abandoning people to cruel dictatorial regimes rather than allow any Western intervention in their lives. Much like the Aborigines in Australia, these leftists would rather these people remain in their current state, cowed down by a cruel dictator, rather than have any American intervention.

    It belies belief that people in Australia can support such evil regimes, yet it seems JM and Richard Ryan do.

  46. JM says:

    Iain (and GD)

    Is the world a better place without Saddam? Let’s rephrase that, is Iraq a better place without Saddam? No. It has been destroyed and not rebuilt. 10’s of thousands of people are dead, if not 100’s of thousands.

    What has been achieved? Well apart from the very messy (and inflammatory to sections of the Islamic world) execution of Saddam on a religious holiday, nothing. Absolutely nothing.

    As for whether trawling over the entrails is “blaming the US”. Well no it isn’t, it’s trying to understand what happened so it doesn’t happen again.

    Even if you discount the Iraqi deaths and the destruction of the country, even if you discount it totally, you can’t ignore the deaths of US, British and Australian service men and women.

    They were sent to a pointless war and lost their lives for no discernible purpose. For no good at all.

  47. JM says:

    Oh and Iain you cannot lightly dismiss my point about Straw, Chirac, Ritter and Blix. Each of those men were responsible for answering certain critical questions. It was their job to answer those questions and take responsibility for their judgement.

    And every one of them got it right.

    For Straw: “Is an invasion of Iraq necessary to protect the vital interests of the UK?”. Answer: No

    For Chirac: “Is an invasion of Iraw necessary to protect the vital interests of France?”. Answer: No.

    For Ritter: “Does Iraq possess any form of WMD or have the offensive capability to deliver them?”. Answer: No.

    For Blix: “Does Iraq possess nuclear weapons or the capability to produce them?” Answer: No

    So 4 men with primary responsibility got it right. Not 4 nobodies, “lefties” or other bogey-men of the right. Four people who were paid to get it right. And who did. Four hard headed individuals who weighed the evidence and made the right call.

    As opposed to the soft-headed, mushy romantic thinkers of the right. You know who I’m talking about.

    Iain Hall’s opinion? Of absolutely no weight or interest at all.

  48. Iain Hall says:

    JM

    Is the world a better place without Saddam? Let’s rephrase that, is Iraq a better place without Saddam? No. It has been destroyed and not rebuilt. 10′s of thousands of people are dead, if not 100′s of thousands.

    NO, you don’t get a free pass to shift the goal posts on my question, especially when by doing so you conveniently ignore the number of people killed as a direct result of the Rule by Saddam, which going by the history of his regime would have been likely to have equalled or exceeded those killed during the war.

    What has been achieved? Well apart from the very messy (and inflammatory to sections of the Islamic world) execution of Saddam on a religious holiday, nothing. Absolutely nothing.

    A truly evil man was brought to justice, found guilty , humiliated and finally executed that is something.

    As for whether trawling over the entrails is “blaming the US”. Well no it isn’t, it’s trying to understand what happened so it doesn’t happen again.

    I really see no value in attributing blame when it comes to “understanding” history sadly its seems that its all you are intent on doing.

    Even if you discount the Iraqi deaths and the destruction of the country, even if you discount it totally, you can’t ignore the deaths of US, British and Australian service men and women.

    The irony here is that lefties like yourself scream blue murder If the US uses its military might and you scream blue murder when they don’t when it comes to despotic regimes that murder or exploit their own people. You can’t have it both ways

    They were sent to a pointless war and lost their lives for no discernible purpose. For no good at all.

    If you join the military you are agreeing to put your life on the line and to die for your country if it asks the question. as sad as it is when any soldier dies that is what they sign up for.

    Oh and Iain you cannot lightly dismiss my point about Straw, Chirac, Ritter and Blix. Each of those men were responsible for answering certain critical questions. It was their job to answer those questions and take responsibility for their judgement.

    I can accept or dismiss what so ever I please JM

    And every one of them got it right.

    Irrelevant,unless you are obsessed with trying to attribute blame, which explains whay they are so central to your thinking on this war.

    For Straw: “Is an invasion of Iraq necessary to protect the vital interests of the UK?”. Answer: No

    🙄

    For Chirac: “Is an invasion of Iraq necessary to protect the vital interests of France?”. Answer: No.

    Like most of his countrymen too much cheese eating…

    For Ritter: “Does Iraq possess any form of WMD or have the offensive capability to deliver them?”. Answer: No.

    Ain’t hindsight wonderful?

    For Blix: “Does Iraq possess nuclear weapons or the capability to produce them?” Answer: No

    The issue was always WMD not just the A bomb

    So 4 men with primary responsibility got it right. Not 4 nobodies, “lefties” or other bogey-men of the right. Four people who were paid to get it right. And who did. Four hard headed individuals who weighed the evidence and made the right call.

    There you go again worshipping at your favourite church of the “experts” but their opinions mean nothing because none of them had the power to do anything of substance and all had their own agendas

    As opposed to the soft-headed, mushy romantic thinkers of the right. You know who I’m talking about.

    The soft headed mushy thinkers are those students of Marx and Lenin like yourself JM who seem to think dictators as evil despots being told off by the UN will bring them into the good governance club and that their evil can be purged with out bloodshed.

    Iain Hall’s opinion? Of absolutely no weight or interest at all.

    The fact that you (and others) spend so much effort trying to counter my opinions says otherwise JM so pray tell can you explain just how a nation like the USA should react to the genocidal maniacs who get into power around the world?
    in other words do you weep for Gadaffi as much as you weep now for Saddam?

  49. Richard Ryan says:

    They say every action causes a reaction, as far a America is concerned, September 11 attack was only a practice run, another attack is on the cards—more powerful, and more deadly, Is it any wonder it fears Iran, it may dish out to America, what it dish’s out on a regular basis. Shalom.

  50. Sax says:

    My, how quickly people forget ?
    Give this a read Richard, and anyone else that has forgotten the rhetoric from Hussein, and others like him.

    http://www.au.af.mil/au/awc/awcgate/iraq/sadquots.htm

    I was surprised the yanks waited as long as they did.

  51. Iain Hall says:

    This is the sort of thing that JM and Richard want the world to ignore:

  52. damage says:

    As would T.B er…… J.S.

  53. Ray Dixon says:

    Howard had to pay off Keating’s debt from the recession we didn’t need to have.

    So you reckon that Australia could have avoided going into recession in the late 80s – early 90s following the 1987 stock market crash that sent the whole world into recession, GD? I see. We certainly did need to have that recession in order to break the boom/bust cycle that conservative govts under Menzies (and his successors) and Fraser had failed to address. Funny how you don’t mention the early 80s recession under Howard’s stewardship as Treasuer, which was actually worse. At least we had a boom before the Keating recession unlike during the Fraser years when we just steadily declined into negative growth through government inaction.

    Your obsession with debt is absurd. What is wrong with governments borrowing to keep the economy buoyant? Our debt to GDP ratio is still the lowest in the western world. Nothing wrong with borrowing if you can afford it, but here’s a way to avoid going into debt:

    Move out to some remote Mallee town (that’s in Western Victoria) like Ouyen or Skipton or Rainbow. Try Jeparit where Menzies was born. There you can either buy a house for about $30,000 or rent one out for about $1 per week. Of course you’ll be living in a depressed economy with no job prospects, no income and very little in the way of infrastructure or government services but, hey – you won’t have any debt! Is that the type of Utopia you subsrcribe to for ordinary Australians, GD? A spartan existence, living in the dust heaps with no roads, schools, water, etc. But no debt! On a somewhat parallel scale, that’s Howard’s vision too.

  54. Ray Dixon says:

    I forgot to add that the reason we “had to have” the Keating recession was because Keating had set the economy up to come out the other side. How? By freeing up the financial markets, introducing new banks, floating the dollar etc, which meant that banks kept lending and that eventually, once interest rates came down, the economy took off again, just as Howard was voted in, actually. In contrast, John Howard as Treasuer had no answers whatsover to the 81-82 recession and we actually went into a credit squeeze.

  55. Sax says:

    Did Howard leave Hawke/Keating a $96b debt to start off their reign with ?
    I think not Ray. As for government debt, nothing wrong huh ? How does that get paid back ? What about the massive interest rate payments (as these loans are generally interest only repayment loans), that have to be paid ? Where does the money come from, to build new roads, hospitals and everything else, with these loans over their heads ? Hell, labor’s last free for all has only been recently paid back. You say this is ok, good for the economy ?

    As for your boom/bust cycle c’mon man. Think about it for a minute.
    That is laissez faire economics. A basis for capitalism world wide.

    Anyone who had anything to do with stocks in the 80’s knew that the wild ride could not continue, and that an end was near. That is why the crash. Everyone was leaving/selling up out of the market, before the inevitable happened.

    As for Frasier and Menzies, the difference was that we had no substantial debt. Our currency was fixed, and we had not yet, substantially entered the volatile Asian market place. The labor party were not only spending what was left in the bank, but were going gangbusters racking up the national credit card at their whim.

    The areas you mention in Victoria are naturally low density population regions. It is the wheat belt ffs. Thousands of acres of cereal crops. Low lying land, that has been flooded on so many occasions. It is not much good for anything else. As to why you bring that up is a mystery. The houses you mention, are those vacated by the mergers of farms, or those farmers selling up and moving away from them. Their kids are not interested in farming, and want the lifestyle of the cities. That has been a major concern of primary industry for years, and still is.
    As to what this has to do with the argument who knows.

    It wasn’t government inaction, rather market inaction. Government policies at the time provided no security for not only australian manufacturing, but also due to labor’s tariff reductions, imports began to hit our shores nearly killing our local manufacturing industries.

    If you think a vast national debt is the right way to go, in an attempt to balance out the troughs and peaks of an economy, just think of the interest bill on say $10b for a year ? Think of the staggering amount of money going right out the bloody door in those interest payments. Can build a lot of schools, hospitals and even more critical, can provide a bloody lot of jobs with that dough ?
    Don’t have to look far. Look at the US perhaps ? Thank God we have the mining sector at the moment, or else labor would have sent us broke with their inaction and incompetence.

  56. Sax says:

    Yeah right,
    what happened to the lil aussie bleeder Ray ?
    Went down from $120 american, to just over fifty cents.
    A great decision that one, and what did it do for our export markets ?
    Bloody nothing !

  57. JM says:

    Iain

    There was absolutely no hindsight involved here, only foresight. Many, many people knew the Iraq war was wrong and going to be a disaster at the time, beforehand.

    They were right.

    Admit it.

  58. Angel says:

    Wow, what is going on here. Ray -” Is that the type of Utopia you subsrcribe to for ordinary Australians, GD? A spartan existence, living in the dust heaps with no roads, schools, water, etc.”

    I always though you as a supporter of asylum seeker rights, along with the suggestions of filling up the barren country towns with this influx.
    Not good enough for “ordinary Australians”. Good enough for them??? I’m giving back the racist label, its all yours Ray.

  59. Ray Dixon says:

    That doesn’t make any sense, Angel. Then again, nothing much you say makes sense.

    Sax, my Mallee example was simply an analogy for GD, re debt. If a person wants to live debt free, they can – by living in the middle of nowhere with nothing around, no jobs, no services, no infrastructure. Likewise a nation can be debt free if it is prepared to live in such conditions. For all your carry on you don’t seem to get it. This country is far better off than it was 30, 40, 50 years ago. I know you seem to think it’s all gone to the shithouse and that the country is broke and stuffed … but maybe that’s just a reflection of your own life, I dunno. For Christ’s sake man, you are living in the strongest economy and best country in the world. I suggest you stop carrying on like a pork chop on a hot barbeque and go out and get a piece of it. It’s pretty good.

  60. GD says:

    Angel, asylum seekers and refugees, or whatever they are, get first class accommodation, whether in cities or large regional towns. They certainly don’t live in dust heaps with no roads, and….oh I see what you’re saying…I guess Ray was just getting a bit personal in his comment to me…..

  61. Angel says:

    How could that not make sense?
    I have had the racist tag many times when all I have proposed was equality.
    You have suggested we take in many refugees and move them to populate the country areas. Those country areas that are not good enough as you state for “ordinary Australians”
    You support moving them to “living in a depressed economy with no job prospects, no income and very little in the way of infrastructure or government services..”
    Wow again. All I have said for my label is that everyone deserves the same opportunities.

  62. Ray Dixon says:

    No, not personal at all, GD. Don’t let the airhead distract you. I was merely pointing out that debt exists for a reason. And that being debt free is not all it’s cracked up to be. If Australia decided suddenly to ‘pay back all its debt’ please try to explain how we’d be better off. We’d be worse off because it would mean a great cut back on services, new infrastructure… and higher taxes. Our debt is manageable – we’re not exactly a country like Greece that doesn’t get off its own arse.

  63. Angel says:

    The “airhead”. Nice insult again Ray.

    But then your style is to attack the person when you lose an argument.

  64. Ray Dixon says:

    Angel, I have not suggested we move refugees into desolate country towns like the ones I referred to. You are making a quantum leap in logic and proving my ‘airhead’ description is spot on. Either that or you’re on the turps again. Yes, I’ll insult you if you insult me with your stupid tendency to have a crack over the slightest thing – as you’ve done here. You’re stupid.

  65. Angel says:

    OMG, you so have suggested that.
    At least this airhead doesn’t suffer from alzheimers

  66. Ray Dixon says:

    Okay, Angel, there’s an archive here (hint – it’s in the sidebar). Go back and find when & where I have suggested that refugees be moved to dust bowls towns in the Mallee with no prospects before you run off (or froth off) at the mouth, please. I haven’t said anything like that.

    In the meantime, I’m going to bed. You can carry on like a drunk as long as you like. It’s of no consequence to anyone.

  67. GD says:

    Ray, please play nice…Angel isn’t who you think she is. Of all regular commenters here she is one of the best. She just seems to get up your nose (‘cos you thought she was Brigid Gread) and then she stoops to your level to reply to you….

  68. GD says:

    Back on serious matters, you’re having a lend of us aren’t you Ray? From your title post, which Leon debunked with his succinct

    Your post is unfortunately riddled with factual errors and double standards.

    to your recent comment to me

    .

    We certainly did need to have that recession in order to break the boom/bust cycle that conservative govts under Menzies (and his successors) and Fraser had failed to address.

    You really are joking aren’t you? You can’t honestly believe that Labor rides in on a white horse and saves Australia from the perils of conservative governance.

    In that statement alone you sidestep the damage to the economy done by the Whitlam government. Certainly Whitlam engineered social advances, but thank God his lot weren’t around too much longer, and no, a good financial manager and the Whitlam government would have been an oxymoron.

    You also ignore an earlier comment I made about Howard facilitating the Campbell Report in 1981. This was the recommendation that Australia float the dollar and the blueprint that Keating finally acted on. Had Howard been able to persuade neo-lefty Fraser to act, it may have happened sooner.

    The much vaunted ‘floating of the dollar’ wasn’t the silver bullet for the economy. I grant you that Keating realised this, when in 1986 the dollar plunged to an all time low, he uttered his famous line about a banana republic. Unfortunately the Hawke government failed to instigate domestic financial changes to match our now exposed economy.

    That was the recession we had to have.

  69. Angel says:

    Comments are closed this end and (hint) not viewable, to me anyway. No need to delete Ray. Go back and have a look yourself. Very sad that what you state as your beliefs are quickly forgotten. Now that’s a person of principles. Or just a denial lie tonight maybe?
    No he gets up my nose with the personal attacks. Notice how they are one sided. You treat people with respect GD, a big difference.

  70. Angel says:

    Maybe I confused the dust bowl town of Mallee with one called Bright. Simple mistake.

  71. GD says:

    Angel, let’s wander over to Iain’s halal post. We can have some fun there, you know like, was your Xmas turkey slashed across the neck before you ate it. I think we’ve trashed Labor to death, well actually they’ve trashed themselves to death, but that’s another matter.

  72. Sax says:

    For all your carry on you don’t seem to get it
    And for all your condascension of all and sundry here, that has shot down your argument, you still haven’t put forward any FACTUAL rebuttal ?
    Hmm, I think you have that backwards Ray, as usual.

    Your analogy was a classic example of your entire “gotta luv the Labor Party, or else” rhetoric. It failed, just as your party has, and always historically has.

    Just how is the country any better off than forty sum years ago ?
    Then we had full employment, a stable currency, and people could afford to buy a home, without having to get the wife, and all the kids out in the workforce to pay the mortgage ?
    We had massive trade surpluses, as well as no debt.

    Actually, as to the rest of your unresearched dribble, and your insults to all and sundry here, that with about a minute’s research, shot down your dribble, just shows your ignorance and again your narcissism, and is classic Ray Dixon’s way of proving the loss of the argument.
    It is not worth commenting on, as everyone else above has done a great job shooting you down. No need for me to add to your pain and suffering, again !
    Sleep well !

  73. Sax says:

    If Australia decided suddenly to ‘pay back all its debt’ please try to explain how we’d be better off.

    See above, that was explained. The saving of millions of dollars in interest payments for overseas borrowings should be enough to get you thinking about it ?

  74. JM says:

    GD: You can’t honestly believe that Labor rides in on a white horse and saves Australia from the perils of conservative governance

    Well to be honest GD, Labor has actually done that a couple of times. Or would you prefer – as a conservative ratbag – to be promoting the “successes” (not) of the first Menzies government or the Fraser government, of whom Howard was a prominent member?

    If so, you’d be the first conservative commentator who thinks either of those governments were worth a tinkers cuss.

    But if you wish, have at it. What exactly were Menzies great achievements while he was ignoring the Japanese threat and swanning about London looking for a place in the war cabinet? And what did the Fraser government achieve?

    I’d love to be reminded of that, because I must be suffering some sort of amnesia.

  75. JM says:

    Sax: The saving of millions of dollars in interest payments for overseas borrowings should be enough to get you thinking about it

    You’re a fool. Did you pay cash for your house? No. Investment, which involves borrowing and interest payments, can be wise or unwise. It’s not the interest payments per se that make borrowing a bad idea. It’s only a bad idea if you invest in things with bad returns.

    That’s Ray’s point. And he’s correct.

  76. Ray Dixon says:

    GD, Angel came on here with this crank, totally unrelated and insulting comment:

    Wow, what is going on here. Ray …… I always though you as a supporter of asylum seeker rights, along with the suggestions of filling up the barren country towns with this influx. Not good enough for “ordinary Australians”. Good enough for them??? I’m giving back the racist label, its all yours Ray.

    That’s what ‘got up my nose’ and why I insulted her back. If she can have something intelligent and polite to say I’ll gladly ‘play nice’ with her. But if she comes onto one of my posts with outright crap like that she cops it. Is that okay by you?

  77. Sax says:

    Your comment is that broad in its inferences JM, you could park a semi in it, and still come out wondering wtf you were on about.
    I’m not the fool here.
    Another one looking through those fogged up lefty glasses.

    If the borrowings were for the construction of infrastructure, that actually benefitted this country in the future, perhaps I might begrudgingly agree with you, but that is not what is happening is it ? No ! These borrowings are just for the day to day running, of an inept and incompetent government. Rumours have it, up to now about $200 billion bloody dollars.

    Think about that for a second !

    Assuming that the interest rate of the borrowings is low, say five per cent, and that is pretty bloody generous. Want to go through the steps with me ?

    200,000,000,000 x 0.5 equals ?
    10 Billion Dollars Annually !
    That is for NO infrastructure either. Just more of Labor’s historically bad economic management, which we will ALL have to pay back in the many years ahead, when they do finally get the boot.

    That works out to about 22 thousand dollars, for every man, woman, and child in this country !
    That is also at 5% pa, the rate would be a bloody sight higher than that, probably around 8%

    Also, that is for interest only payments the principle still sits there, waiting for some government in the future, to attempt to figure out, how the hell they are going to pay that off ? We all know how that will be done don’t we ?
    Increased taxes and charges. Not tough to see that one coming ? And, all for what ? What has been the benefit ? A smoothing of the effect of the wfc ? This has been brought up before. We are not the US, we have more stringent banking legislation and financial controls, so the US scenario was never on here in Oz.

    But according to you guys, that’s a good thing ?

    Think of the new infrastructure that could be built with $10 billion a year ?
    Geez people, do the math, it is not that hard ffs, and wake up, and smell what your shovelling.

    I’m not the fool JM. I wish you lefties would at least think before you inflict your c*ap on the rest of the world. This is basic year 7 math ffs.

  78. Ray Dixon says:

    Angel, comments on all the posts made on this blog back to its inception in 2005 ARE viewable to anyone who knows how to use a computer mouse. Go to the archives and pick a month. Scroll through and see if I ever said that refugees should be moved to dust bowl towns – I didn’t and don’t put words in my mouth. As for your insults about me and my home town, etc, and my insults back at you, the fact is you came on here with the express intent of being insulting and personal, which is your usual MO. I’m telling you that that won’t be tolerated on my posts and any future crap like that will be placed in moderation. Now go play with GD in your anti-muslim playpen.

  79. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, you’re just living in the past and romanticising it. So you reckon Australia was a better place to live 40 years ago? Really? I was an adult then, Sax (you were a boy) and I can tell you that life was very tough under the Liberals post Menzies and Australians were nowhere near as well off as they are today. And cut it with the insults please. You sound like a real loser when you revert to your usual mud slinging.

  80. Sax says:

    Speaking of moderating people Ray, perhaps it is time Iain retook control here, and put you in moderation for a while. You are killing a good blog, with your condascension and misplaced ego. I’ll cut the insults when you do.

    You were an adult huh ?
    That would make you over seventy now.
    Want to update that picture for us then ?
    But hell, I’ll play.

    How was life tough after Menzies ?
    Our kids were being sent to Vietnam, and even with our traditional European markets drying up, we still managed to sell our goods, primary produce, and minerals to countries such as Japan and the like. We didn’t have the need to borrow beyond our means. Our annual budgets were still in surplus. Wages were sustainable, as were government fees and charges. Our housing was still affordable, on one wage.

    You haven’t explained, other than the broad statement, of exactly how we are better off again ?

    Rather than sling the sarcasm, I am interested to know exactly where you are coming from.

    please explain this theory of yours to us mere mortals ?

  81. Sax says:

    BTW ?
    You still haven’t commented on the debt, that now every man woman and child in this country has been placed in ?

    Care to do that, and also whilst your at it, again explain how this is a good thing ?
    I can’t see it myself.

  82. Iain Hall says:

    Ray its also easy to use the search function to find out what has been discussed before on asylum seekers which will make Angel’s quest a bit shorter 😉

  83. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, you are an anonymous commenter here and one who constantly laces his comments with personal attacks and insults. Highly personal when it comes to me because …. because you can. Yet you have the temerity to suggest I’m ruining Iain’s blog. Don’t put your complaints about it here though – send Iain an email if you have a request of him re my authorship here (although I’ve no doubt you do that all the time anyway). Quite frankly, you are the person who starts all the rubbish – always – and I think you do that because … well, because you can and because you have some kind of insecurity about you. Just tone it down and you’ll find I won’t give you such a hard time. Okay? How many times do you need to be told that?

    Now, as for the rest of your comment, 40 years ago (i.e. in January of 1972) I was an adult. No, that certainly does not make me “over 70” and I think you need to brush up on your arithmetic. I was old enough to drive a car, drink at a pub, enter legal contracts, buy a house (which I did, at quite a young age) and play senior football – but not old enough to vote (work that out if you can, I know it will confuse you).

    And we are certainly better off today than we were in the late 60s. On so many levels. If you’re not then I feel sorry for your negative outlook. My outlook is that life always gets better and that we are always progressing. Gee, we even have better (and relatively cheaper) cars and homes than we used to. And look, over there, what’s that? Oh, it’s a university – weren’t many of those around in the late 60s. Two, as I recall. Oh and look, the banks don’t require you to have a 3 to 4 year saving history anymore to get a 60% home loan (60% of the value that is). And guess what, they even lend to you for investment. Wow, how did that happen? Look, Sax, I really can’t be bothered explaining it to you any more than that. If you are so negative that you can’t see how much living in Australia has improved over the past 40 years, then nothing I say will convince you of that.

  84. Ray Dixon says:

    You still haven’t commented on the debt, that now every man woman and child in this country has been placed in ?

    Really, Sax? So, you personally are placed in debt by the government’s debt? So, like, when you die I guess your estate will go to pay off that debt and not to your relatives? What a shame. Better watch out for the debt collectors – they’ll be knocking on your door saying “Hey Sax, you have to pay this govt debt. Your share is $10 million, cough up”.

    To be serious, Sax, that debt is predominantly owed TO Australians, not by them. Heard of Government Bonds?

  85. Ray Dixon says:

    JM has got you on that one, GD. Labor has indeed rescued Australia from the Liberals’ economic ineptitude on several occassions, most notably in 1983, or didn’t you read the recently released cabinet papers from that era. Howard’s only idea was to have ‘a wage pause’. Yeah, like we stop paying wages! Wow.

  86. damage says:

    Ray Dixon
    Apologist for the ALP for thirty years and still going strong.

  87. Sax says:

    Give me a hard time huh ? lol

    I enjoy it when you lose it, just makes it all the more enjoyable when I know that when you lose it, it means your argument is lost.

    Anonymous huh ? Iain knows who I am, and where I am, and you have full control here, so you can access that if you like. So, maybe not so anonymous after all ?

    This country is reportedly, in $200 billion of debt, and only in less than six years ?
    You think that is funny do you ? Can’t see the joke myself.
    You think that is good management ? Reminds me of the “Pyramid” fiasco.
    You think that is a joke do you Ray ? Really ?

    That’s a lot of bloody bonds Ray. sic 😆
    No one buys bonds anymore, there is simply no money in it. That is why the share market is all over the place.
    Oh, and btw, where is the money going to come from to repay those bonds, when they mature ? Oops !

    Every time you get your arguments shot down, you start with the character assassinations. Hell, you near outright accused Angel above of being someone else, and that is only in this thread ffs.

    1983 huh ?
    What were interest rates then ?
    17.5% with housing borrowing rates of 14% ! Remember that ?
    Some bloody rescue that was !

    BTW Ray, two universities huh ? Who built those ?
    Would it have been the Victorian Liberal Government of the sixties perhaps ?
    The University of Melbourne, and Monash.
    How many have been built since ? Hmm !
    If the state governments had not incorporated Tech Colleges/Tafes and changed their accreditation to University status, there would still only be the two unis in Victoria.

    That’s enough for this foray.

  88. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, Iain only knows what you tell him about yourself and then (obviously) he keeps it to himself, as he should. And in the admin, all I can see is your email address (at gmail of course, the email of choice for cowards & stalkers) and your ever changing IP addresses. Not that I care about that but please do not deny your status here – you are anonymous … which is fine, except you misuse that position to make personal attacks on real identities. That’s why I call you for the fool and prick that you are. But if you stop it so will I.

    And stop the cheast-beating and ridiculous claims that I have “lost it” because I have “lost the argument”. Sax, your arguments re government debt are absurd. You seem to have no idea of the function and monetary role played by government. Its purpose is to raise revenue and redistribute it by providing services and infrastructure. When revenue drops it has to borrow to maintain that buoyancy it injects into the economy. Or, it could do what the Liberals advocate and not borrow at all. In fact pay all the debt back and let the country slide into recession, as it surely would have had the govt not borrowed over the past few years. Funny how they’ve managed to do that without impacting on you and I with higher taxes, Sax. Is that what you’d prefer – double the income tax rates to pay back the debt? Cut back on all govt programs and throw people on the scrap heap? The reality is we have a perfectly in-tune & functioning economic management going on. You don’t recognise it but the rest of the world does.

  89. Sax says:

    That’s why I call you for the fool and pri*k that you are. But if you stop it so will I.

    I think they call that an oxymoron don’t they ? You haven’t yet, and I don’t think I will hold my breath waiting for that one to happen !
    Naw, we have been down this road at least a dozen times before. Actually, every time your argument gets shot with holes. Don’t believe you, or your belittling rhetoric for a second.

    Give the identity cr*p a rest will you, ffs man, that is getting pretty bloody tiresome.

    But…I digress.

    You seem to have no idea of the function and monetary role played by government. Its purpose is to raise revenue and redistribute it by providing services and infrastructure.

    Wrong ! Got that backwards as usual.

    The role of monetary policy, through the RBA, is to adjust how much money is in the economy at any one time. It does that by varying interest rates. This used to be successful. But, in the last decades, with the massive interference in our economy, by the sitting governments, through the RBA, people aren’t buying it anymore. Their customary removal of cash from an economy was by increasing the bond rate, to suck people into saving money, rather than spending it, or going into debt. People aren’t buying that now either. With bond yield rates being so low for all those years, people don’t bother with bonds anymore. Add to that the deregulation of the banking industry in Australia, has seen the influx of overseas banks, and with time new products and increased competition. Even with that, the massive collusion occurring between the banks, to not only corner, but manipulate monetary policy in this country, has had the effect of cancelling out any policy decisions from the RBA. To get proof of that, how long did it take for the banks to forward the latest RBA increase rate drops ffs ? Some banks haven’t done that yet !

    So, the only other way it can achieve the same result is to increase the prime interest rate that banks borrow at. We saw, over the last twenty or so years, the damage that can be done with that sort of management ? Nearly brought the country to it’s knees.

    In fact pay all the debt back and let the country slide into recession, as it surely would have had the govt not borrowed over the past few years. Funny how they’ve managed to do that without impacting on you and I with higher taxes

    Got news for you Ray, we are in a recession, although they are not admitting to it.
    What have got to show for it ?
    A recession (or whatever Dullard and her little mate want to call it), and a massive debt bill of $200 billion ! But hey, we have low inflation now, aren’t we clever ? You still haven’t stated just how that is going to be repaid yet either btw ?

    The only reason we are in a better fiscal position that the rest of the western world, is again, the massive resource sell off that is occurring. i.e. The mining boom. The effects of that have been mentioned on these pages previously as well.

    What do I suggest ?
    The government lives by the same rules as it expects its citizens to do.
    live within its bloody budget !

  90. Sax says:

    Anyway, have fun with it. Pick on my couple of spelling mistakes, and will return later for your whimzical and qualified reply.

  91. Ray Dixon says:

    Got news for you Ray, we are in a recession, although they are not admitting to it

    It’s a conspiracy, huh? A big secret known only to economic geniuses like you?

    And I was not referring to RBA monetary policy. I was referring to the government’s monetary role (ie. the raising & spending of revenue, i.e. money, i.e. monetary policy). The RBA plays one minor role and has but one lever at its disposal – interest rates. The govt has almost endless means by which it can control the flow of money throughout the economy. Including borrowing when necessary. Paying back the debt? Gee, I dunno, Sax, maybe you could come up with a debt repayment schedule, seeing that you’re so obsessed with it and such an economic genius.

    I’m going out. For the last time – stop the personal crap and I’ll treat you with more respect. But carry on like you have been and I’ll load shit back on you.

  92. Craigy says:

    Hi all, Happy New Year.

    I have done a lot of reading over the break and have some views on what we should be debating, now that we are staring down the barrel of the total collapse of the capitalist (endless growth) economic theory on the back of the GFC. This year we are likely to reap the ‘benefits’ of the ending of the era of ‘greed is good’ and the ‘free market is the answer’ view of the world.

    Clearly the conservative, capitalist line the Labour movement and Neo-cons have taken us down has failed. We will be lucky if by the end of the year the US and European economies haven’t failed completely, as their government’s runs out of tax payer funds to bail out failing corporations. It is still likely that Asia will slow as well and then, finally, the chooks will come home to roost for us as well.

    The hypocrisy of corporations taking tax hand-outs while complaining about taxes is the elephant in the room the ALP and Lib/Nat supporters seem blind too. The system is f*cked and we need to look beyond it.

    Ray seems to think that the conservative ALP are the hero’s of the last thirty years, based on the muddle headed theory that by getting richer we will all be happier and have a better life. Continuing to want to get richer and richer, at the expense of others, is no guarantee of this. A simpler more humble material life, with a strong community of family and friends, according to all research, is in fact the best way to live a happy life. Ignoring the plight of those suffering in other countries we do at our peril, if history is to be believed. Higher taxes on non-productive city jobs, and on the sale of non-renewable resources, spent supporting the development of country towns populated with the desperately poor and persecuted from around the world is something I would support, if that is what Ray is suggesting.

    If we are to roll back taxation for those who earn the most, as Tony Abbott and his supporters here seem to want to do, if we stop doing anything to help those worse off around the world as Angel would do, and if we continue to support war as the only answer to despots and dictators as Iain does, how are we going to stop the imminent economic collapse from creating chaos?

    We need a big dose of humanity and we all need to get use to living with less, a lot less. Who knows we may all be much happier for it. I for one am ready to share what we have, including the land I own and have some limited rights over, although the current system makes this very hard.

    If we are going to stop the boats for good, we need to address the crushing poverty around the world that we have the power to deal with……Those who think 20 million homeless people in the US, and the possible election of conservatives at the next election is a sign of the good times to come, need to lift their heads out of the sand. If we continue to ignore the suffering of others and continue to demand our own high standard of living be maintained forever, regardless of what is happening elsewhere, our children will reap the results of our folly.

    I don’t have the answers of course, but if we had half a brain, we would be looking beyond arguments about one conservative government vs. another conservative government and focusing on providing for everyone and looking after the desperate before buying or building our new McMansion with a flat screen in every room.

    And yes, my heart bleeds……Watch this from last night;

    http://www.sbs.com.au/ondemand/video/2183292414/Explore-Ep4-Manila-to-Mindanao

    …especially the bit about the 10 thousand people living in the local cemetery….

  93. JM says:

    Sax, first your numbers are wrong. You appear to be referring to gross debt not net debt which is the relevant figure. The result of that is that it’s only $9,000 per person.

    Secondly, so what? So long as it is put to good use it’s fine.

    Thirdly, it’s long term debt and is paid off over many years, and in any case Australia has a very low level of debt by the standards of other developed countries.

    Fourthly, if this is the level of your financial understanding then I’m sure glad you’re not running a business for me and I’m not taking advice from you. Nor am I going to bother debating any further with you as if past experience is any guide you’re incapable of assembling an organized thought, nor holding it straight in your head long enough to actually engage in a serious or sensible debate.

  94. Sax says:

    Where’s my spray Craigy ? I am feeling hurt, and left out ?

    And yet more condascension.
    Keep loading Ray. I have big shoulders to carry the massive load.
    To your latest ?

    As an independent central bank, the Reserve Bank is accountable to the Parliament for its actions. There are requirements in the Reserve Bank Act 1959 for the Bank to consult with the Australian Government. In terms of the Commonwealth Authorities and Companies Act 1997, the Reserve Bank Board arranges for its annual report to be tabled in the Commonwealth Parliament.
    http://www.rba.gov.au/about-rba/accountability.html

    and further perhaps ?

    The Reserve Bank of Australia is responsible for formulating and implementing monetary policy. For countries like Australia with floating exchange rates, monetary policy involves the management of short-term interest rates to achieve domestic policy objectives.
    http://www.rba.gov.au/education/monetary-policy.html

    In other words, the RBA inflicts the current formulated government monetary policies on the population at large. It passes down its edicts through the banking system, to the other Australian banks through that policy. It is the “instrument” of fiscal policy directives of government treasuries, or parliament directives.

    The government has only one way to add, or release money into the economy. Through interest rate shifts, enacted by the RBA.
    Hell, I’m no genius, this is first year Micro and Macro economics ffs.

    I was referring to the government’s monetary role (ie. the raising & spending of revenue, i.e. money, i.e. monetary policy)
    That’s not monetary policy that’s budgetary policy , and hasn’t your wonderful labor party been a crash hot success in that department ?
    How long they been in power, four sum years, and what do they have to show for it ?
    200 billion bloody dollars in the red ?
    what a wonderful success story that is.

  95. Angel says:

    I don’t think I have said we should stop helping those in need. No money should be going to fund the activities of the despots you speak of. How much aid actually hits the target people, or is there an amount that goes to fund more persecution of such people in need.
    Tax non-productive city jobs. Where did you read that. Would have to be a hippy author with no idea on how the world operates. The agricultural and industrial revolutions are over. We are in the information era. Many jobs deal with the intangible. What your hippy author is spruking would be an end to centrelink workers, oh my how would they then survive if not for the dole payments. But then without the bankers there would be no account for the centrelink payment to be deposited into. I really get a laugh out of how the hippies are against everything modern and mainstream yet participate without any hyprocracy mentioned. I wouldn’t count growing and selling dope as a socially acceptable occupation.

  96. JM says:

    Sax: No one buys bonds anymore, there is simply no money in it.

    Ummm Sax have you heard of the bond markets? People buy and sell bonds every minute of every day and they make (and lose) just as much money doing that as anyone in the share market.

    As for the rest of your incoherent ranting about the RBA and monetary policy, you’ve only succeeded in demonstrating that you know absolutely nothing about it. For example, your complaint that the RBA only has the instrument of the “prime” (sic) rate. What would you prefer? A currency pegged at a fixed rate, say to the USD?

  97. Craigy says:

    Hi Angel….

    “I don’t think I have said we should stop helping those in need.

    Earlier:

    “Turned asylum seekers into a political issue by demonising those on the Tampa.
    A political issue. As it should be. Australia should have the right to say who enters its own country. Now instead of a political issue it is a greenie issue, a do-gooder issue, a human rights opportunist lawyer issue. Not to even count the dollar issues & the cultural issues.”

    ……………

    ‘Tax non-productive city jobs’…….A broad statement I know and made to get us talking. In my view, we need to reduce our reliance on the financial sector and the markets and reassess what is valuable employment, many of us (me included) are paid way too much right now, while others suffer homelessness and destitution or persecution and war. The only way we can really start to turn this around, now that the free market has shown us how shallow and fragile it is, is to be prepared to live with less and share what we do have with other. Otherwise I fear the shear weight of numbers will create future chaos for our kids.

    Hippy I’m not, but I can see we have many things arse about and no real answer to the collapse of the system that has brought us this far. Governments are in paralysis at the moment because no one wants to talk about giving up the golden goose or any alternative to the concept of endless growth. I’m not paranoid or a conspiracy theorist but this year looks very uncertain.

    I’m staring down the barrel of a freeze on my super fund and they are talking about its possible collapse, and I’m a Government employee……If this starts to happen for real this year, Australia could be a very different place in a few years time and no one’s middle class lifestyle will be safe. Better to try and think of what we can do, the current circus is out of answers.

  98. JM says:

    Sax: That’s not monetary policy that’s budgetary policy

    Actually it isn’t. It’s fiscal policy and is what Ray is referring to. IMHO he is misusing the term “monetary” but I think it’s pretty clear from context what he’s referring to. I also think it’s particularly telling that you’re dancing around like Warnie taking a hat trick over such a minor mistake.

    Ray’s right, only a very insecure person takes their delight in such small wins. But then I guess you don’t get many, so you gotta party with the small stuff hey?

    You’re not one of those people who obsess over the use of apostrophes are you?

    Oh and I wouldn’t be thinking I was a financial genius if I was the person who wrote this gibberish:


    In other words, the RBA inflicts the current formulated government monetary policies[1] on the population at large. It passes down its edicts[2] through the banking system, to the other Australian banks through that policy. It is the “instrument” of fiscal policy [3] directives of government treasuries [4], or parliament directives.[5]

    [1] The RBA is independent of government and sets monetary policy, not the government. You’re actually contradicting yourself here.

    [2] Apart from compliance measures the RBA does not issue “edicts”, it sets baseline interest rates once a month. That’s it.

    [3] The budget is the instrument of fiscal policy, the RBA has nothing to do with it.

    [4] Treasuries don’t issue “directives”. Unless you’re talking about taxation and the rulings of the ATO

    [5] Parliaments don’t issue “directives” either. They pass laws.

    You’re very confused Sax.

  99. Iain Hall says:

    Hi Craigy
    welcome back and I hope that you had a good break
    I will try to do justice to your comment

    I have done a lot of reading over the break and have some views on what we should be debating, now that we are staring down the barrel of the total collapse of the capitalist (endless growth) economic theory on the back of the GFC. This year we are likely to reap the ‘benefits’ of the ending of the era of ‘greed is good’ and the ‘free market is the answer’ view of the world.

    While I agree that nothing can grow forever I think that your pessimism may be just a little premature.

    Clearly the conservative, capitalist line the Labour movement and Neo-cons have taken us down has failed. We will be lucky if by the end of the year the US and European economies haven’t failed completely, as their government’s runs out of tax payer funds to bail out failing corporations. It is still likely that Asia will slow as well and then, finally, the chooks will come home to roost for us as well.

    I agree that a great deal of the rhetoric about “markets” has been a bit over the top I don’t think that there is any vible alternative to a world where all countries trade what they make and do this country is still travelling rather well compared to many and I see no reason to expect any sudden change in that.

    The hypocrisy of corporations taking tax hand-outs while complaining about taxes is the elephant in the room the ALP and Lib/Nat supporters seem blind too. The system is f*cked and we need to look beyond it.

    Have you ever run a business Craigy? Anything at all???
    No???
    Hmm that is obvious.

    Ray seems to think that the conservative ALP are the hero’s of the last thirty years, based on the muddle headed theory that by getting richer we will all be happier and have a better life. Continuing to want to get richer and richer, at the expense of others, is no guarantee of this. A simpler more humble material life, with a strong community of family and friends, according to all research, is in fact the best way to live a happy life. Ignoring the plight of those suffering in other countries we do at our peril, if history is to be believed. Higher taxes on non-productive city jobs, and on the sale of non-renewable resources, spent supporting the development of country towns populated with the desperately poor and persecuted from around the world is something I would support, if that is what Ray is suggesting.

    No country can be expected to do that much for other nations who are too bloody useless to run a decent administration nor are we obliged to accept their people here as immigrants for the sake of the human species and societies we just can’t save them all and trying too hard to do so creates a rather perverse disincentive for those we pity to do better themselves.

    If we are to roll back taxation for those who earn the most, as Tony Abbott and his supporters here seem to want to do, if we stop doing anything to help those worse off around the world as Angel would do, and if we continue to support war as the only answer to despots and dictators as Iain does, how are we going to stop the imminent economic collapse from creating chaos?

    Taxation is a strange beast Craigy because you have to get the right balance between raising enough revenue and not de-incentivising people so they get no benefit form extra effort, frankly both Labor and The Libs know this and they may tinker but neither will be to radical to change the status quo. As for the use of force to remove despots and dictators what is your alternative?

    We need a big dose of humanity and we all need to get use to living with less, a lot less. Who knows we may all be much happier for it. I for one am ready to share what we have, including the land I own and have some limited rights over, although the current system makes this very hard.

    Its always a big ask mate and on many levels I agree with you on the virtues of simplicity in our lives but don’t forget that this was the dream of Pol Pot and look how that turned into a nightmare very quickly indeed when coupled with the idology of teh far left and they let lose their totalitarian tendencies, the sme tendencies that are very evident to me amoung the Greens and their supporters.

    If we are going to stop the boats for good, we need to address the crushing poverty around the world that we have the power to deal with……Those who think 20 million homeless people in the US, and the possible election of conservatives at the next election is a sign of the good times to come, need to lift their heads out of the sand. If we continue to ignore the suffering of others and continue to demand our own high standard of living be maintained forever, regardless of what is happening elsewhere, our children will reap the results of our folly.

    Ultimately those in poverty have to drag themselves up by their own efforts and they can’t expect those of us in the functional societies to do it for them. As for the boats denying all self selecting arrivals permanent residency is the bets way of stopping them and I don’t think it will be long before this happens.

    I don’t have the answers of course, but if we had half a brain, we would be looking beyond arguments about one conservative government vs. another conservative government and focusing on providing for everyone and looking after the desperate before buying or building our new McMansion with a flat screen in every room.

    Well you know that I live in a modest residence and we only have two flat screens in the house but you will just have to accept that the poor can never all be saved nor will buying indulgences with our aid budgets solve anything either.

    …especially the bit about the 10 thousand people living in the local cemetery….

    Nah I watch so little broadcast TV these days that I did not watch it.

  100. Angel says:

    Ray Dixon on May 12, 2011 at 8:32 pm said:

    “… I agree we need to develop regional Australia but it’s not the refugees fault that no government, Liberal or Labor has worked out how to do it. We do have plenty of habitable land here, all we need is to get people in the city to relocate. That’s a whole different issue which I’ve previously blogged about. It can happen. As for how many refugees we should take, I reckon we can easily accommodate what’s coming in now. Don’t forget, about half of them are rejected as not genuine anyway.”

    Mmmm My memory serves me well. And your comeback? Try it without abuse.

  101. Angel says:

    Sax – Don’t pay much attention to the ever changing IP address statement. A static IP address will remain the same. A dynamic IP will seek a new IP address every time the modem is reset or the power goes out. My kids reset the modem every time they have trouble connecting to the wireless. I run on both a static and dynamic so that would confuse someone who uses this information to research an anonymous blogger. All new fixed connections are automatically set up on a dynamic IP address, unless requested otherwise. That being said, you are the same as the general majority of the population.
    And no Ray I do not know this information cause I am some other identity. I work in the telecommunications industry.

  102. Sax says:

    JM
    [1] The RBA is independent of government and sets monetary policy, not the government. You’re actually contradicting yourself here.

    The RBA is the government’s bank. As such, it doesn’t set monetary policy, the sitting government does that, through the budget. The RBA merely directs that policy into the private banking system. Interest rates is one, LCD levels another. Heard of that term perhaps ? Another way the government can influence the level of cash in an economy. Not used much these days admittedly, due to the wide availability and use of credit, it has little effect on banks, nor its customers. That is why this country has such a high proportion of personal debt levels.

    [2] Apart from compliance measures the RBA does not issue “edicts”, it sets baseline interest rates once a month. That’s it.

    It also applies sitting government budgetary changes down through the banking system. That is why it is there. See also [1] Remember such things as FID and BAD taxes perhaps ?

    [3] The budget is the instrument of fiscal policy, the RBA has nothing to do with it.
    Again, the budget is the policy directive of the sitting government/parliament.
    The RBA is the way that policy is enacted through the private finance industry.

    [4] Treasuries don’t issue “directives”. Unless you’re talking about taxation and the rulings of the ATO
    I have no idea as to what you are referring to here. The directives are issued by parliament, then treasury, then the RBA, then down through to the banks. Once budgetary policy is formulated, and passed, it is then the job of the treasury, then through the RBA, to inflict that policy on us mere mortals. Parliament is a law making organisation, it has no direct power to enact, police, nor apply punitive measures in its own right.

    [5] Parliaments don’t issue “directives” either. They pass laws.
    Hmm, I thought they were one and the same ? As we have been discussing the refugee situation in the preceeding weeks, perhaps a rethink may be warranted for that statement ?

    I am not the one who is confused JM. This is pretty basic stuff, and not meaning to sound condascending, but easily found on the net.

  103. Sax says:

    I am not concerned Angel, but thanks for the support.
    I don’t host a web page, at least not on this mode. So, as such I don’t need a fixed ip address. You are also correct. With every power outage, or every time I turn the modem on and off again, I get a new ip address.
    To make it easy for Ray, I am sort of part of Tasmania, but not on the island itself. So, that should help relieve his paranoia for a while. Although somehow I doubt it. Iain has known my direct location since the beginning when Ray started the same routine all those months ago.
    So for his protestations ho hum. Just another way he uses to shift away from another failed argument.
    For me ? Better than a victory lap !

  104. Angel says:

    I run a static for an secure intranet connection, not a blog. Another Tasmanian well well…

  105. GD says:

    I’ve heard that Tasmanians have two heads and marry their sisters….is this true?

  106. Angel says:

    Sax could well be my uncle????

  107. JM says:

    Sax, you are very badly wrong and obviously in need of an education. And I can’t think of anyone better to do it than Paddy Hirsch on “The difference between monetary and fiscal policy” [Warning HD video]

    Now watch Paddy’s whiteboard and notice what you see listed on the right hand side under fiscal policy – taxes, spending and debt. Everything Ray’s been talking about (and you too if you only knew it)

    Then look at what’s on the left hand side under monetary policy – interest rates, reserve requirements, etc

    Listen to Paddy describe the difference, AND who is responsible for each:

    * the government (and parliament, or Congress) for fiscal policy
    * the central bank (ie. RBA or the Fed) for monetary policy

    Listen also to him describe how the central bank is completely independent of government. Now while he is actually talking about the US situation the situation in Australia is identical – in fact some people think the RBA is even more independent of the government and the parliament than the Fed.

    And who set up the RBA for that? Keating.

    You’re seriously misinformed and way out of your depth. Ray has made a minor semantic mistake but is correct in what he says.

    You’re on the lunatic fringe.

    And you’re also back to incoherent ranting:


    The directives are issued by parliament, then treasury,


    No Treasury is part of the Executive, ie. Cabinet, not parliament. Parliament does not instruct Treasury.

    then the RBA,

    No Treasurey does not “instruct” the RBA

    then down through to the banks.

    No the RBA does not “instruct” the banks. It sets the base price for money by setting interest rates (and the banks are free to set their own interest rates over the top of that base rate if they choose to do so

    Once budgetary policy is formulated, and passed, it is then the job of the treasury, then through the RBA, to inflict that policy on us mere mortals.

    Horseshit. See above. Parliament enacts the budget. Treasury is only concerned with raising money (taxes) and parcelling it out (appropriations) and advising on how to fund those activities. It has no say in what is done only where the money comes from and how funding is arranged.


    Parliament is a law making organisation, it has no direct power to enact, police, nor apply punitive measures in its own right.

    Bollocks. Tell it to the judge next time he imposes a fine or jail term set by parliament on you. Or better still tell it to a parliamentary committee that jails you for contempt.

    You really are quite ignorant Sax.

  108. Sax says:

    Steady on guys ? 😉
    I don’t have two heads……..speak for yourself …… No wonder I get a sore neck all the time ?
    Maybe I’m growing one ?

    Wasn’t born here, just settled here, to get the space needed for the a/craft hoohah, for my second career.
    Couldn’t do it on the mainland, nor could I get the permits to do it in Tassy. The local cockies thought I would curdle their milk !
    So there’s a hint perhaps ? (there you go, for the gang at s***kwatch, that should get your paranoia at fever pitch now)

    The picture on google earth is so old, it doesn’t even show the house, let along the strip or hangar, and they stick out like dogs ……

  109. Richard Ryan says:

    Have you noticed: No fanfare for Ray, from Sax when Ray reaches a 100 comments——remember the carry on from Sax when Iain reaches his 100 replies—-too much inbreeding—I dare to say.

  110. Richard Ryan says:

    AS for Pol Pot——–America supported him—what’s new? The USA supported all the great tyrants of the world. The Shah——Marcos——–Saddam——Hitler—–etc-etc—–and of course Satan.

  111. Sax says:

    Look at that, never even realised.
    congrats on the 100 Ray.
    Where’s yours Richard ?

    Your rhetoric re the US, is typical but not specific ?
    As for ? :
    Iraq ?
    At the time from memory, the Shah had just died, and the country was taken over by Khomeiny. I guess you weren’t around to remember what that tool was like, with the standard threats of setting fire to the oil fields, and the war with Iraq ? Certainly, Hussein is the US’ fault, they annointed him in the first place. Probably the reason why they were hell bent on getting rid of him ?

    Marcos ?
    Vietnam war was still raging on, and the US had the base at Subic Bay. They needed that to keep the supply routes open.

    Hitler ?
    You will have to remind me of that support. I know the yanks, as well as the brits supported anything that may stabalise the Eu economic situation. Remember the pictures, of German workers, carrying home their weekly pay in wheel barrows, due to massive stagflation in the thirties et al ?

    As for Satan ? , well he is a given. He just hangs around and stirs the pot.

  112. Iain Hall says:

    Richard, Richard, Richard,
    You need to get out more and to get away form your rather blinkered approach to history, because the most pertinent fact that you ignore is the changing nature of both tyrants and the government of the United States. Neither are immutable and all are subject to change. International politics has never been an arena where mistakes have not been made or a an arena where larger players don’t decide to support the lesser of the evils if it suits their agenda.

    So I pose this hypothetical to you:
    You are walking down the main street of Newcastle and a bloke comes up to you and after some chit chat he convinces you to give him some money and he subsequently uses that cash to buy grog. While he is pissed he beats up his wife and murders his children. To what extent are you, who gave him the money, responsible for his crimes?

    According to your line about the USA you are just as culpable as the killer in my scenario above do you think otherwise?

  113. Sax says:

    speaking of in breeding, ffs !

  114. Sax says:

    Its all “lesser of two evils” stuff.
    At least that was the books told us

  115. Sax says:

    sorry Iain, didn’t see that you also said that.

  116. Sax says:

    Didn’t see JM’s ?

    * the government (and parliament, or Congress) for fiscal policy
    * the central bank (ie. RBA or the Fed) for monetary policy

    The parliament is responsible for ALL monetary and fiscal (same bloody thing when it comes down to it, whatever you want to call it at this early stage) policies.

    It enacts these policies through legislation, and then further through the banking/finance industry through its financial arm the RBA.
    Do they call money bills fiscal bills JM ? Don’t think so.
    Not hard JM

    Its controls are strict, and one of the reasons for the recent massive deregulation of the banking industry in Australia. The controls were too strict. But, on the reverse side of that coin, that toughness is needed to prevent a similar situation occurring here, as to what happened, re the Fanny May/Mac disaster in the US.

    As for this ?

    Tell it to the judge next time he imposes a fine or jail term set by parliament on you. Or better still tell it to a parliamentary committee that jails you for contempt.

    The law that you broke, (which is obviously the reason why you are up before the judge in the first place ?) was written by who ? Parliament !
    Sure you aren’t talking about a Judicial Inquiry perhaps ? Also, its not contempt of court, its contempt of parliament, totally different ballgame, although the end result may be similar.

    The judge is a member of the judiciary, set up by who ? Parliament !
    Might the judiciary also be totally independent of parliament perhaps ?
    Remember how Whitlam got rid of Murhpy in an attempt to get control of the senate ?
    Promoted him straight to the bench.
    Remember how Murphy got him back, in nearly every case brought before him by that government ? Wasn’t pretty !

    Man, speaking of ignorance. Now you really are reaching

  117. Iain Hall says:

    Sax JM is now moderated so his comments won’t appear to you until I let them out of the filter

  118. Richard Ryan says:

    AH YES: Subic Bay visited that place over thirty years ago—-would not let me inside the base—–but from the outside, it looked like a Yankee Brothel, with all the girls coming and going—-I bet those Yankee sailors were coming also,—–on a daily basis.

  119. Ray Dixon says:

    Thanks for finding that quote of mine that you completely misrepresented, Angel. I knew that’s what you were referring to, I just wanted you to find the exact words, which I’ll repeat:

    “… I agree we need to develop regional Australia but it’s not the refugees fault that no government, Liberal or Labor has worked out how to do it. We do have plenty of habitable land here, all we need is to get people in the city to relocate. That’s a whole different issue which I’ve previously blogged about. It can happen. As for how many refugees we should take, I reckon we can easily accommodate what’s coming in now. Don’t forget, about half of them are rejected as not genuine anyway.”

    So where in that quote do I suggest that we should move refugees to dust bowl towns in the Mallee like Rainbow or Ouyen? Towns without jobs, services and no economy? Advocating regional relocation is not about sticking people out in the middle of nowhere, it’s about encouraging relocation to regional centres like Albury-Wodonga, Ballarat, Bendigo and even Wangaratta or Shepparton. Or at least within close proximity of those viable rural cities. This benefits (a) the regional city (b) the person relocating (c) the capital city they’ve just left. I didn’t make that suggestion exclusive to refugees either and I advocate it for everyone including “ordinary Australians”. I would not advocate relocation to dust bowl towns in the Mallee though and I have not (except to Sax, so he can be ‘debt free”).

    Abuse you? No, if you do the right thing and apologise for misquoting me and labelling me a racist for wanting to send refugeees to towns not fit for ordinary Australians, then we’ll leave it at that. Go on, be a man and apologise.

  120. Angel says:

    Ray, whilst what you just said does make a lot of sense and I am partly argeeable to, I will not apologise as you did say it wasn’t good enough for “ordinary Australians”. Just what would be an ordinary Australian, don’t think you mean refugees and the habitable land?
    You are right I would have loved to throw back the racist tag to you as you so often to to me (unwarranted I must add). Apologise for calling me a racist and I shall return the favour, balls in your court. I am also missing some parts that would class me as male. Dont be sexist.

  121. JM says:

    Sax, your rantings are becoming increasingly incoherent, so I’ll just ask you this:

    What is it about the words “The RBA is independent and responsible for monetary policy, which is different from fiscal policy” that you don’t or won’t understand?

  122. Ray Dixon says:

    you did say it wasn’t good enough for “ordinary Australians”. Just what would be an ordinary Australian, don’t think you mean refugees and the habitable land?

    Yes, I said relocating to small, dust bowl towns in the Mallee with no jobs and no services etc is not something I would advocate for “ordinary Australians”. That does not mean I advocate it for refugees. I didn’t mention refugees, you did. I didn’t mention them because I was simply talking about the population in general, which (believe it or not) includes refugees who have been admitted to Australia. I know you see them as “unAustralians” but I don’t. Ergo, I include refugees in the term “ordinary Australians”.

    Now take your time to digest that because I realise you have a hard time swallowing clear thoughts. Just like you have a hard time swallowing your own words and apologising.

    As for me calling you a racist in the past, go back and find those quotes too before you say that please. I look forward to that and to explaining how apt the description was in the context. Don’t forget “context”, Angel – i.e. find my quote AND find the words you said that led to me to suggest you have racist tendencies. Okay?

  123. Ray Dixon says:

    I agree, JM. I’m not bothering with Sax any more. I just scrolled back through the comments here to see where it got off the rails and where and who turned it nasty. No prizes for guessing who – Sax of course. Then he blames others. Then he claims victory. I have said before that I think he’s posting comment from the rec room at the asylum. I think I was right.

    Craigy: “Ray seems to think that the conservative ALP are the hero’s of the last thirty years, based on the muddle headed theory that by getting richer we will all be happier and have a better life. Continuing to want to get richer and richer, at the expense of others, is no guarantee of this. A simpler more humble material life, with a strong community of family and friends, according to all research, is in fact the best way to live a happy life”

    Hi Craigy and happy new year. Could I interest in you in a neat little 3-bed weatherboard going in the Mallee for $30,000? You’ll be happy there.

  124. Sax says:

    Ah Ray,
    Don’t think mate, you simply don’t have the standard equipment required for the task !

    You know what ? I really don’t care. If you mean blame others, by shooting down their arguments, including yours ? Then yep, guilty as charged.

    By you throwing more insults my way, (and Angel’s as well btw), just proves again, that your argument is lost, and that is ALWAYS your final resort to change the subject away from your childish embarrassment. It is becoming tiresome, nearly every thread here the same thing.
    Get over it man ffs ! Grow a pair !

    You will never be right. You are another one, who is a lazy researcher, and when found out, cries foul, starts challenging identities, and starts throwing around the sarcasm, insults and razor (cough) wit.

    Every time, every bloody time the argument gets in the slightest technical, or requires some research, you skulk off. Only have to look at your long absence above to prove that !

    Your condascension is touching, and again misplaced.
    I think you also now owe an apology to all those people, living in our regional small towns, like Minyip, Marnoo, Charton and the like, on the edge of the wheat belt, for your arrogant and insulting behaviour ?
    Btw ? All those towns have power, sewerage, sealed roads, schools, shopping centres and the like. Parks and gardens and so on.

    I am sure, like myself, the question to you then becomes, what’s wrong with them ?
    I think you owe them an apology for your condascension and churlish arrogance ?

  125. Sax says:

    Btw, not unlike Bright perhaps ?

  126. Ray Dixon says:

    You are totally loony, Sax.

  127. Angel says:

    What am I Ray, your secretary?

  128. Sax says:

    Iain
    Doesn’t matter to me whether or not JM is in moderation or not. My worry is your mate.
    He is ten times worse, but nothing that common sense, and perhaps five minutes research can usually attend to, even with his childish schoolyard insults.

    JM
    What part of the RBA’s charter, that it is the government’s bank don’t you understand ?
    What part of the RBA’s charter, that it implements the government’s fiscal/monetary policy don’t you understand ?

    from http://www.dictionary.com

    fiscal policy
    The policy of a government in controlling its own expenditures and taxation, which together make up the budget.

    monetary policy
    An attempt to achieve broad economic goals by the regulation of the supply of money.
    ( Compare fiscal policy.)

    And guess what, the RBA is the final instrument of both ?
    And how is the regulation of the supply of moneyimplemented ?
    Would interest rates be the answer ? Through the budget, then implemented through the RBA.

    Ray
    Another mind blowing, well researched rebuttal. I thought you weren’t going to bother with me anymore ? Bugger, I was looking forward to that.
    Nice try at attempting to pass the buck.
    What’s the matter, no else to sling your razor wit at ?
    Even after getting your wild premises shot down, you repeat them as you have above, claiming a victory when no one is perhaps looking ? Failed again btw. Where’s that apology to the hard working people who have spent their whole lives, and money investing in their local regions, including Bright perhaps ?

    Welcome to the looney club sunshine.

  129. JM says:

    Sax: Don’t think mate, you simply don’t have the standard equipment required for the task !

    Hmmmm, I think this is definitely a pot-kettle-black moment. Although in this case it’s more like the “pot” accusing the milk jug of being black.

    Sax. Sit down, I know this is going to be hard for you.

    You. Can’t. Think. Straight. In fact, I’m of the opinion that you aren’t really capable of thought at all because your mind isn’t fully formed.

    You sound more like a teenager sitting on King Is. daydreaming of his great future as a heroic pilot operating a magnificent start up company worth 100M and heading straight for a massive world-altering IPO than an actual adult with any real world experience.

    You know why I think you’re a teenager? Because you don’t know any history. Ray, myself, Craigy and others (including Iain who wasn’t in the country for some of it) all clearly have a shared memory of the events of the past few decades. We may disagree about their meaning, and often we do, but we rarely dispute the basic facts of Australian political and economic history.

    You on the other hand obviously have no knowledge of them at all. You only pretend.

    Go back to the Playstation boyo.

    Sorry JM but this is by no stretch of the imagination on topic and I will not allow it
    Cheers Iain

  130. Sax says:

    Ray Dixon on January 4, 2012 at 10:23 pm said:
    That doesn’t make any sense, Angel. Then again, nothing much you say makes sense.

    Ray Dixon on January 5, 2012 at 9:10 am said:
    That’s why I call you for the fool and p*ick that you are. But if you stop it so will I.

    Ray Dixon on January 6, 2012 at 12:56 pm said:
    You are totally loony, Sax.

    I’m pretty certain Angel will come up with a few more for your denial ?

    Ho hum, that is only three instances, and all on this thread.
    Really man, get a grip. The above is your standard tactic to everyone here.
    The solution is simple. Man, if you can’t hack it, don’t ffs dish it in the first place ?
    All the above were rebuttals to having your argument shot down.
    Grow up ! Please !

  131. JM says:

    Sax, I suggest you read the RBA’s own view of its role


    The Reserve Bank of Australia is Australia’s central bank. It conducts monetary policy [1], works to maintain a strong financial system and issues the nation’s currency. As well as being a policy-making body, the Reserve Bank provides selected banking and registry services to a range of Australian government agencies and to a number of overseas central banks and official institutions. It also manages Australia’s gold and foreign exchange reserves.

    The role and functions of the Reserve Bank are underpinned by various pieces of legislation. The Bank is a statutory authority [2], established by an Act of Parliament, the Reserve Bank Act 1959, which gives it specific powers and obligations. In terms of the Act, there are two Boards: the Reserve Bank Board and the Payments System Board.

    …..

    ‘It is the duty of the Reserve Bank Board, within the limits of its powers, to ensure that the monetary and banking policy of the Bank is directed to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia …..

    [1] ie. not fiscal policy

    [2] ie. it is independent of government

    Once you’ve done that I suggest you go back and review your comments on this thread and try to match them up to this statement.

    You will find that your statements are totally at odds with it. That’s when they can be understood at all, because you’ve made such a mess of them.

    Face it Sax. You don’t have a clue and know absolutely nothing about this topic.

  132. JM says:

    Oh Sax, I forgot to reference this part of the RBA’s role:

    As well as being a policy-making body,

    In other words, the RBA is Australia’s monetary policy maker – NOT THE GOVERNMENT.

    That’s what the phrase “independent central bank” means.

    Just get that into your head.

    You can confirm it nearly every day by reading the newspapers, particularly the finance and business sections. Not one commentator in this country believes that the government sets monetary policy.

    In fact, I think you’re probably the only Australian who holds that view.

    You are wrong.

  133. Sax says:

    Obviously you didn’t read my comment Sax on January 5, 2012 at 12:50 pm said:

    I directly quoted from the same article ffs ?
    😆

    You can rehash it, reword it, and twist it anyway you like, but you will still be wrong !

  134. Sax says:

    See what I mean about lazy researchers folks ?
    He stole my own research and quote ffs.
    No wonder you have no credit.
    You claim to work in the science field ? No research facility I have ever known would accept such a premise, based on such sloppy research. That is not being condascending, rather fact !

  135. JM says:

    Sax: He stole my own research and quote ffs.

    The difference is that I understand what I’m reading. You don’t.

    You think that just finding a link justifies your view. Never mind that the link contradicts you.

    You. Can’t. Think. Straight.

  136. JM says:

    Sax: What part of the RBA’s charter, that it implements the government’s fiscal … policy

    Does the RBA raise and collect taxes? No. The ATO (part of Treasury) does that.
    Does the RBA decide where to spend the money raised? No. The Parliament does that.
    Does the RBA determine what an appropriate mix of tax, debt and spending is? No. Treasury does that.

    Those three elements are the totality of fiscal policy. The RBA has nothing to do with any of them.

    So tell me Sax, oh great guru, what role does the RBA have in fiscal policy? In your own view and your own words of course.

    I await enlightenment as I’m obviously in the presence of a superior intellect.

  137. Ray Dixon says:

    What am I Ray, your secretary?

    No, Angel, but if you’re going to quote me then do so correctly. And if you misquote me and misreresent my views to label me something I’m not (as proved) then for Christ’s sake be gracious enough to back down and apologise. Otherwise you’re just pissing in the wind, which is exactly what you were doing with your first irrelevant and totally unfounded comment in this thread.

    Now, the topic is about something other than your obsession with refugees so I suggest that if you wish to continue you comment to the issue from now on. I’ll give up on expecting you to apologise – an apology from you is worthless anyway.

  138. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax: “All the (below) were rebuttals to having your argument shot down.”

    Ray Dixon on January 4, 2012 at 10:23 pm said:
    That doesn’t make any sense, Angel. Then again, nothing much you say makes sense.

    No, that’s a rebuttal to Angel’s first and non-sensical comment and conclusion, which has since been proven to be incorrect, presumptuous and totally illogical. She was out to cause trouble and got shot down. Like what happens with you. Do try to keep up with the thread, Sax.

    Ray Dixon on January 5, 2012 at 9:10 am said:
    That’s why I call you for the fool and p*ick that you are. But if you stop it so will I.

    No again, Sax. That’s a retort to your unprovoked abuse. You lost it and started the personal crap, as you usually do. Sax, I seriously believe you have deep personal issues surrounding your self esteem. So much so that you hide behind an alias and fiercely protect your identity while taking umbrage at the slightest thing others say about you .. about an anonymous person! You then launch into a tirade of almost Touertte like abuse of others under their real names. It’s very cowardly stuff and you should seek help for that. Try the duty officer at the institution you’re being kept in – maybe he or she could up your dosage?

    Ray Dixon on January 6, 2012 at 12:56 pm said:
    You are totally loony, Sax.

    Speaks for itself . You are.

  139. Sax says:

    Huh ?
    You’re just repeating what I have been trying to tell you for the last week JM.
    Finding a link ? You quoted the same article I did, some three days before, plagiarised it, and still stuffed it up.
    You couldn’t even come up with your own research, you stole mine ffs. 😆 and still got it wrong.
    C’mon man.

    You obviously don’t understand it, that’s your problem.
    I am no micro or macro economic genius. I passed like everyone else with a slight distinction. big deal, I had great tutors’. Its not that hard c’mon man geez.

    Parliament has no DIRECT control/responsibility for cash, how it is dispensed. That is the RBA’s responsibility through directions through Treasury, through parliament. It attempts to control the amount of cash in the economy through interest rates. We discussed that above. It doesn’t work anymore, due to the availability of credit cards. Remember that by any chance ?

    Does the RBA raise and collect taxes? No. The ATO (part of Treasury) does that.
    Does the RBA decide where to spend the money raised? No. The Parliament does that.
    Does the RBA determine what an appropriate mix of tax, debt and spending is? No. Treasury does that.

    This wouldn’t be also be classified as enactment of Budetary Policy by some chance would it ? One of it’s primary roles as the government’s bank ?

    Again, what do you call BAD’s, GST, Excises and Duties et al. Who collects those, and on whose behalf. It is through the banking hierarchy, through to the RBA, and straight into treasury ?
    By the way, what is the name of the bank on your tax return cheques ?

  140. Sax says:

    Sorry about the bold Iain.

    Ray, oh poor picked on bullied Ray.
    To save space, read again your last, and I sling it all back at ya, with all respect, a great piece of self analysis there.

    You got shot down (by everybody), and started the abuse, so stop passing the buck in your embarrassment. If you think I am not going to defend myself, or other polite commentors here, against your immature tirades, your dreaming. If you want us to play nice, try playing nice yourself. You never know, it might even improve your dwindling reputation perhaps ?

  141. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, the simple fact is that it is the Government of the day that has THE MOST CONTROL over the flow of money throughout the economy. You have got so far off track (and down a rabbit hole) that it isn’t funny anymore. The point revolves around the government borrowing money to inject into the economy, remember? The thing you think is so bad. Does the RBA do that for instance? And that’s just one control, one lever the government has at its disposal.

  142. Sax says:

    I am not the one who has varied their premise here Ray. My main point still stands.
    It is the main lever. Interest rates.

    You guys have all danced around the issue. John Howard’s government, and their performance. Everything I have presented has been in that regard. You guys have danced around the issue, branching off to God knows where in an attempt to sidetrack the same result. That is ?
    Labor have the standard historical credibility problem. They simply can’t add up !
    You guys have put up all sorts of arguments, and still have not put a dent in that premise, let alone destroy it ?

    What puts pressures on interest rates.
    Borrowings do. How ?
    Depends on who is doing the borrowing.
    If it is the government, then it has to compete for funds in an economy the same way we do, as consumers. It all comes down to supply and demand. If a government cannot balance its budget, it has to resort to borrowing to cover the gap. That puts it in the same market place as the average Joe looking for funds. What happens when two people start competing for the same thing in a market place. The price goes up, and the one with the highest bid wins. Same here. Only difference is, it is not the price that goes up, rather interest rates.
    In my example of 96 odd billion dollars, that shortfall has to be covered somehow. The government has to borrow that money. That means, that $96 Billion is taken out of loans that were probably pointed towards new housing construction, new industry expansion, and many other private investment proposals perhaps.

    The problem nowadays, is that the government cannot control the borrowings, as they used to. Why and how ? The advent of private credit providers outside the reserve banks control. i.e credit cards, credit unions, access to overseas money/credit providers, etc et al. The government (whether labor or liberal), is frightened every time the RBA meets, along with probably a few million mortgage holders as well. They know that there is where the longevity of their tenure resides.

    So, every three months, they sweat, and await Stevens’ announcement in terror, hoping to hell nothing changes.

    The whole situation would be different if the sitting government would just stop spending money it didn’t have. The more it goes into debt, the more it is taking loanable funds out of the economy. Simple demand/supply. The more people demanding money, the higher price we are going to pay for it. The RBA are desperate to reduce this demand, and they only way they can do that is by increasing interest rates. The only problem with that is, the economy is on such tenderhooks, that if it pulls the trigger, the blossoming economy will come to a bloody screaming halt. Look what happened after the last increase. Remember the outcry ?

  143. JM says:

    Sax: [The RBA] attempts to control the amount of cash in the economy through interest rates. We discussed that above. It doesn’t work anymore, due to the availability of credit cards

    You are hugely out of your depth.

    No definition of “money” in use by the RBA includes credit cards


    The Reserve Bank of Australia defines the monetary aggregates as[29]:

    M1: currency bank + current deposits of the private non-bank sector
    M3: M1 + all other bank deposits of the private non-bank sector
    Broad Money: M3 + borrowings from the private sector by NBFIs, less the latter’s holdings of currency and bank deposits
    Money Base: holdings of notes and coins by the private sector plus deposits of banks with the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and other RBA liabilities to the private non-bank sector

    Face it Sax, you’re a fool who doesn’t know a thing but who insists on the right to insult and abuse people who are adults and are prepared to discuss and debate things in a reasonable manner. And also to learn things from other people.

  144. JM says:

    Sax: This wouldn’t be also be classified as enactment of Budetary Policy

    It’s classified as fiscal policy. Which is NOT monetary policy. The two are quite different things. The government runs fiscal policy and the RBA runs monetary policy.

    You might be slowly coming to this realisation, and if you are then the polite thing to do would be to admit you were wrong and get back to the point.

  145. Ray Dixon says:

    You got shot down (by everybody), and started the abuse

    Sax, no one else here is agreeing with your mind blowing economic arguments, or hadn’t you noticed?. You are ranting, and your economic theories are, er, amusing to say the least. What the hell is wrong with you, man? You are anonymous yet you sound like someone who has had their name & reputation so disgraced that you have to lash out at everyone. Get a grip yourself and start behaving like a decent, self-respecting person … if you can.

    An example of your loopiness, right here:

    The whole situation would be different if the sitting government would just stop spending money it didn’t have. The more it goes into debt, the more it is taking loanable funds out of the economy. Simple demand/supply. The more people demanding money, the higher price we are going to pay for it. The RBA are desperate to reduce this demand, and they only way they can do that is by increasing interest rates.

    Sax, the RBA has reduced rates two months running. How does that sit with your theory? Do you seriously believe that by the govt borrowing money it makes it harder for consumers to do so? That’s what you said. Man, you are right out there!

  146. Sax says:

    Speaking of people out of their depth.

    JM
    So now you are a PhD in Economics ? Hmm, about as legit as your scientific credentials, which Iain is still waiting for by the way ?

    In your quote, where is the RBA’s control over c/c’s ? Deposits et al you mentioned, are LCD’s, bonds, credit notes et al.
    You are talking absolute cr*p JM, about [edit – cut the abuse, Sax]

    The Reserve Bank has cut interest rates for the first time in more than 2½ years, bringing relief to households and corporate borrowers.

    As widely tipped by economists, the central bank today lowered its key cash rate by 25 basis points to 4.5 per cent. The move reversed the increase imposed on Melbourne Cup Day last year, the most recent time the RBA has shifted rates.
    http://www.smh.com.au/business/rba-rate-cut-sparks-commercial-response-20111101-1mte4.html

    Half a bloody per cent total. whoop de fing do !
    Doesn’t start to alieviate the damage, by the RBA by sitting on its ar*e for the previous three and half odd years, and doing nothing ?

    You honestly think people are going to change their spending habits based on a total of half a per cent ?
    C’mon man, have a think about it ffs.

    As for credit cards, what did the RBA do, when the banks, in their greed, introduced their annual fees ? Remember that folks ?
    Bloody nothing, that is what they did !
    That shows the control they have over that market.
    Forget all about that JM ?
    Aw but, aw but …..

    Ray
    [edit – that’s way over the top, Sax. Cut it out. Enough!]
    Leave both you dills with this last thought.
    Just who do you think is going to pay back labor’s 96 Billion dollar debt ?

    See if you still have the smiles on your faces once labor loses, and the reality of that little situation begins to bite your hip pocket. Bet you won’t be laughing, or as cocky then ?

  147. JM says:

    Sax: what do you call BAD’s, GST, Excises and Duties et al. Who collects those, and on whose behalf. It is through the banking hierarchy, through to the RBA, and straight into treasury ?

    Well firstly BAD has been abolished. Secondly GST is paid by business’s direct to the Treasury, no RBA involvement – a fact no-one who runs a business and has to write the regular cheque along with their Business Activity Statement, is under any illusions about. Excises and Duties are collected by Customs and paid directly to the Treasury, again no RBA involvement.

    Sax, you really don’t know what you’re talking about.

  148. JM says:

    Sax: In your quote, where is the RBA’s control over c/c’s ?
    Deposits et al you mentioned, are LCD’s, bonds, credit notes et al.

    You condemn yourself. You claimed credit card accounts were “money”, not me. Bonds and “credit notes” (sic) aren’t money either*.

    You honestly think people are going to change their spending habits based on a total of half a per cent ?

    Ahhhhh yes I do. That would be 50 basis points and no matter if you’re a trader or hold a mortgage, 50 basis points is really a big, big deal.

    For a home owner on a mortgage of a few hundred thousand it can add up to 50-150 dollars a month. Yes I do think people change their behaviour in response to that sort of change in their income.

    What’s the matter Sax? Don’t you read the Herald-Sun (or Bolt)? Who regularly feature page 1 stories on such changes in interest rates.

    You don’t live in the real world.

    * Although the relationship is a little complex, far too complex for you and therefore something I’m not willing to enter into discussion about.

  149. […] my esteemed blogging college Ray may well rail against John Howard’s continued affection from the public and him being awarded a well deserved accolade from the Monarch for his good government. We […]

  150. Ray Dixon says:

    Sax, your latest comment has been edited. Your abuse is over-the-top. That’ll do. And don’t complain about it either.

  151. Ray Dixon says:

    And your last two whinging and abusive complaints about that are now in moderation, Sax. You can read my response to you there.

  152. Craigy says:

    Hi Iain, I’m still on holidays for another week….tis good tis good….

    Thanks for your comments, like I said, I don’t have the answers and we will see how the economy plays out this year.

    BTW. I had part owned and managed a large-ish company and my own small business for many years before taking up my position in education. We had to let many people go during the early 90’s downturn, so I know what can happen if you don’t plan for tough times. I don’t feel any of our major party politicos are really keen to look at what might end this crazy cycle of boom and bust and increasing wealth gap. It’s all about trying to preserve what we have for us, and when you see the poverty and desperation around the world you have to wonder what the future holds should the system collapse beyond the current disaster. What’s your background?

  153. Ray Dixon says:

    this crazy cycle of boom and bust

    That cycle was broken more than 20 years ago, Craigy, and we haven’t had a ‘bust’ (that is, a recession) since. As for the ‘booms’, we haven’t really had those either – just steady economic growth and the odd spike, corrected by overseas influences and interest rate adjustments along the way. I think you’ve been reading too many ‘doom & gloom’ forecasts. What are your sources for all this misery you’re predicting here in Australia? By what authority do these authors speak?

  154. Craigy says:

    Hi Ray, Happy New Year,

    You don’t consider the GFC a bust??? And Australia isn’t in a mining boom??

    Anyway….I have been avoiding doom and gloom over the holidays……But the poor and destitute are still there…. and we are very, very lucky.

  155. Iain Hall says:

    agree that we are very Lucky Craigy…

  156. Ray Dixon says:

    The GFC was certainly not a ‘bust’ in Australia, Craigy. That’s what you were talking about wasn’t it, the boom & bust cycle in Australia? And the mining boom is only occurring in one sector. One sector of many. We are not having a general boom.

  157. Craigy says:

    I think the fact that the mining states are leading the pack by a long way is a key indicator Ray.

    Our economy is holding up for now ….why?

    Is an international ‘Bust’ going to effect us…..In can’t see why not.

    Is a big ‘bust’ on the cards….yes sir.

  158. JM says:

    Craigy (and Sax)

    Do you remember the 2007 election when the RBA raised interest rates during the election campaign? That was unthinkable previously. In fact back in the days when the RBA was NOT independent and the government exercised the sort of control that Sax deludes himself that it still does, raising interest rates in an election year, never mind the campaign, was unthinkable and never happened.

    What happened instead was that the government would (typically) cut interest rates at the start of the election year which would boost the economy in a mini-boom. This also would get inflation going a bit but while the good times were rolling no-one would really notice.

    The government was then re-elected and then immediately would slam on the brakes and hike interest rates leading to a bust.

    This played a large role, over decades, in the boom-n-bust cycle of the Australian economy and was extraordinarily damaging.

    It was all put to rest by Keating who granted the RBA independence and now the RBA does what it flaming well wants to – the necessary in other words.

    The result has been a significant breaking of political influence over monetary policy and the disappearance of the 2-3 year boom-bust cycle synchronized with the electoral cycle.

    It’s this well known fact that drives me to distraction with Sax’s claims. No-one who’s picked up a newspaper in the last 20 years could have missed this salient fact. Yet it seems Sax has. Maybe he can’t read.

  159. Ray Dixon says:

    A key indicator of what, Craigy? That we are still in a boom-bust cycle? As for the mining States (being WA & Queensland) I dunno about WA – it’s like another country over there and they’ve always been economic cowboys – but I wouldn’t say Queensland is exactly booming, generally speaking – ie it’s overall economy is just running along okay. And I think you’ll find the economies of NSW & Victoria, where more than half Australia’s population resides, are not in any boom-bust cycle either.

    As for the international bust that’s threatening/looming, well that’s mainly in Europe and it’s got to do with money not being available. A credit squeeze, sort of thing. Similar situation in the US, although they appear to be coming out of recession and into a period of growth & rising employment.

    Here in Australia we don’t have the credit problems bought on by the US sub prime crisis of a few years ago and transferred to Europe by way of toxic bonds. We avoided that – well, our banks got their hands a bit dirty but absorbed their losses and are doing pretty well.

    I’m sorry, Craigy, but you’d need to come up with something more directly related to Australia to convince me that the economic sky is about to fall in on us.

Comments are closed.

Welcome to the Sandpit

I love a good argument so please leave a comment

Please support the Sandpit

Please support the Sandpit

Do you feel lucky?

Do you feel lucky?

%d bloggers like this: