The Australian politics thread

[superkingdave]

I have closed my Australian bank account so I'm worried Kevin Rudd won't be able to stimulate me...hopefully he will send me a cheque instead

[Matt79]

Originally Posted by howardj

The Rudd Recession

If it was inevitable, why did he waste all those billions on pointless handouts and plunge us into massive debt? He said back in December that the aim of the stimulus packages was to avoid one quarter of negative growth, but now he says a recession was inevitable anyway. Seriously, with billions of dollars of debt, skyrocketing unemployment and now a recession, I pose the rhetorical question - how could anybody have possibly does any worse? He hasn't said one positive thing about the economy since he became opposition leader let alone PM.

Two questions then:

What should he have done?
and
Has anyone else around the world done better?

This sort of stuff reminds me of the 'analysis' they had on Insiders a few weeks ago. People see Rudd saying 'these flood waters are going to keep rising and although I can't guarantee it will work I'm going to keep sandbagging as fast as I can'. Meanwhile Malcolm Turnbull is standing behind him, arms folded saying 'can you believe this - only Kevin Rudd would fills sandbag like that'

[Burgey]

Originally Posted by Clapo

AWTA

It's actually quite scary the situation the govt has put Australia in imo. The stimulus package was never really going to do anything but delay the inevitable. Now, we're about to head into a recession, but the country is in a woeful position in terms of foreign debt, and unfortunately what we've gone into debt on simply does not have anything like the capacity to pay it off now, or in the future. Nice work Kevin/Wayne/Julia

Australia's foreign debt has been growing since the year dot. It grew under every government since WW2.

[age_master]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Has anyone else around the world done better?

Labor was lucky to inherit an economy in such great shape, had they not Kevin would need to be coming up with better. As it is the payments might just keep our heads above water.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Redbacks

They set fire to it to ensure they would get taken to Australia seems the obvious answer.

Labour's attempt at doing the opposite of the Liberal party will be seen as 'great' but it's really just political manoeuvring.

I think you're probably right...as per usual the political pointscoring that goes along with this sort of thing takes precedence over wanting to find out exactly what happened. I think it's understandable they'd want to find out what happened before making too many statements. It's also understandable that the Liberal Party would want them to make a statement as quickly as possible in the hope they'll do or say something stupid so they can score points, thus ending up in the same position the Libs put themselves in with the children overboard case.

It's pretty pathetic really, but that's politics.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by age_master

Labor was lucky to inherit an economy in such great shape, had they not Kevin would need to be coming up with better. As it is the payments might just keep our heads above water.

On the other hand you could say the Liberals were lucky to be in government during a time of worldwide economic prosperity. It would be interesting to see what they would have done if they were still in power and how much better it would be. It's easy to be brilliant talking about dealing with something you don't actually have to deal with yourself.

My guess is the Libs would have spent accordingly while saying this was exactly the kind of emergency they were keeping the budget in surplus for.

[Burgey]

And they inherited low-inflation growth coming out of the 90s recession.

[Top_Cat]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

On the other hand you could say the Liberals were lucky to be in government during a time of worldwide economic prosperity. It would be interesting to see what they would have done if they were still in power and how much better it would be. It's easy to be brilliant talking about dealing with something you don't actually have to deal with yourself.

My guess is the Libs would have spent accordingly while saying this was exactly the kind of emergency they were keeping the budget in surplus for.

Fair guess, I reckon. Economic stimulus = the new black.

[howardj]

Originally Posted by Matt79

Two questions then:

What should he have done?
and
Has anyone else around the world done better?

Well, he always says 'the alternative to my policies is to do nothing'. Perhaps he should have taken his own advice and done nothing instead of turning a $22 billion surplus into a $40 billion deficit (all in the name of pink bats, school buildings (an old Labor favourite) and a $900 handout).

Besides, it's not 'what should he have done'? He is the Prime Minister, he is accountable for his policies, so it is 'what has he done'? Stop trying to turn the issue around on the Opposition. They are not in Government anymore.

What the Prime Minister has done is made the 'inevitable recession' as he now calls it, much much worse by also now giving us this great big stinking debt - with nothing to show for it but school builidings, pink bats and $900 cheques. All he has been concerned about is trying to keep the national accounts positive in order to try and avoid a technical recession. He hasn't directly invested in jobs and employers- just wild spending.

And of course not many countries around the world have done much better than Australia because, as Rudd tells everyone when he is overseas but never tells the domestic audience, Australia entered this recession in much much better shape than any other country - record low unemployment, no net Government debt, and a banking system (than to Costello when he set up APRA) which is the envy of the world.

So no, given those things which were handed to this Government on a plate, not many countries have done better.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by howardj

Well, he always says 'the alternative to my policies is to do nothing'. Perhaps he should have taken his own advice and done nothing instead of turning a $22 billion surplus into a $40 billion deficit (all in the name of pink bats, school buildings (an old Labor favourite) and a $900 handout).

Besides, it's not 'what should he have done'? He is the Prime Minister, he is accountable for his policies, so it is 'what has he done'? Stop trying to turn the issue around on the Opposition. They are not in Government anymore.

What the Prime Minister has done is made the 'inevitable recession' as he now calls it, much much worse by also now giving us this great big stinking debt - with nothing to show for it but school builidings, pink bats and $900 cheques. All he has been concerned about is trying to keep the national accounts positive in order to try and avoid a technical recession. He hasn't directly invested in jobs and employers- just wild spending.

And of course not many countries around the world have done much better than Australia because, as Rudd tells everyone when he is overseas but never tells the domestic audience, Australia entered this recession in much much better shape than any other country - record low unemployment, no net Government debt, and a banking system (than to Costello when he set up APRA) which is the envy of the world.

So no, given those things which were handed to this Government on a plate, not many countries have done better.

So can we then use this argument to tell the Opposition to sit down and shut up? If I'm overly critical of someone for something they've done then the inevitable question will always be 'well, what would you have done?'. So it stands to reason that the Opposition should have to answer in kind. I realise their job is to generally be critical of the party in power, but after a while it gets a bit tiresome when they have no solutions of their own.

As for the government being handed the surplus on a plate, could it not also be argued that the policies of the previous government played its part in handing us the inevitable recession on a plate too? Given Labor weren't in power for long before it headed downhill they hardly had time to effect something so large.

[Redbacks]

Well Australia had almost 0% influence on the recession (finance experts called the crisis two years ago, trillions of dollars invested in dud assests thanks to government intervention into the 'free market' Thats right, no actually it's left-wing GOVERNMENT intervetion, 'give everyone a home that sounds like a great idea Bill, God Bless America'). If global demand is down then the effects will be felt by all sectors. We export raw materials and the demand dropped. Under Rudd's election proposal we would be preparing the economy for when the 'mining boom' ended which would mean a technology based economy, yet Germany/Japan/Korea who develop electronics, chemicals, heavy machinery and cars have also seen a marked decrease in demand of these 'luxury/business' items. Therefore either as we are, or as we plan to become in 20 odd years, we would have had drop off in growth during the downturn. Can't see blame being attributed to either party, Labour as they just got in power in the midst of the crisis.

I don't think that the previous government could be held accountable given we have not seen any major Australian banks fail due to slackening of regulations, to aid capatilist endevours, by the former government (an opinion based on current information, still open for contradiciton as we learn more), mostly they are strong due to our interest rates being at 5+% giving them a genuine revenue scheme unlike the yanks/(poms to some degree) who relied on forcing people to live on credit cards or to sell off low interest home loans which yeild small returns each year to create better yielding assets.

We can only judge Rudd by his reactions thus far to the downturn and it would appear he is doing a very poor job in what looks like a cach splash and political opportunitism to incite class warefare with information lagging US developments being put into the media as the rationale for an attack on corporate payments, an attack on the banking system (hello, where is the Australian housing bubble?, tightening loan crieteria will probably hurt young Australians looking to buy a house suddenly needing 40k instead of 20k for a deposit), and on the Liberal ideals of letting the market sort itself out.

The policy shift has come this week from the snippets I have picked up from JJJ news, Gillard in the first time I have ever heard her speak without the sole intent of proclaiming "We are not the Liberal party", now has moved onto the youth of Australia, oh what a nice afterthought. The only hope we have for the future is that you get booted out of office and replaced by a government who has a ****ing clue what they are doing (not likely with democracy is it , but atleast the least poor of the options).

end rant//

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by Redbacks

I don't think that the previous government could be held accountable given we have not seen any major Australian banks fail due to slackening of regulations, to aid capatilist endevours, by the former government (an opinion based on current information, still open for contradiciton as we learn more), mostly they are strong due to our interest rates being at 5+% giving them a genuine revenue scheme unlike the yanks/(poms to some degree) who relied on forcing people to live on credit cards or to sell off low interest home loans which yeild small returns each year to create better yielding assets.

We can only judge Rudd by his reactions thus far to the downturn and it would appear he is doing a very poor job in what looks like a cach splash and political opportunitism to incite class warefare with information lagging US developments being put into the media as the rationale for an attack on corporate payments, an attack on the banking system (hello, where is the Australian housing bubble?, tightening loan crieteria will probably hurt young Australians looking to buy a house suddenly needing 40k instead of 20k for a deposit), and on the Liberal ideals of letting the market sort itself out.

The policy shift has come this week from the snippets I have picked up from JJJ news, Gillard in the first time I have ever heard her speak without the sole intent of proclaiming "We are not the Liberal party", now has moved onto the youth of Australia, oh what a nice afterthought. The only hope we have for the future is that you get booted out of office and replaced by a government who has a ****ing clue what they are doing (not likely with democracy is it , but atleast the least poor of the options).

end rant//

Fair enough, but personally I'd say the best time to judge Rudd on his reactions is when we see what effect they've had. Were they supposed to be immediate and we all wake up lying in our mansions in a rose-covered bed? Or will we have to wait and see?

As for the housing crisis for the young...easily-offered loans to people who couldn't afford the house in the first place surely wasn't the best path to take. It was ridiculously hard for young people to get a foot in the property market before all this started. Housing prices were ridiculously high and banks took advantage of susceptible people (i.e: those who weren't apparently aware they couldn't afford it) by making it easy for people to buy, then profiting from the foreclosure.

As far as the previous government being to blame, I was referring more to their social policies and the every man for himself approach that came along with it. It's probably drawing a long bow, but we've increasingly become a 'want it now...have it now' society. And people have gotten themselves into a lot of debt while we all celebrated our economic prosperity. You get offered a lot of credit with little initial expense or threat, and while I'm amazed that people aren't fully aware of what they can afford, it's not a good thing. So now it's harder to get credit etc...that's the way it should be. If you can't afford an extra $20,000 for a deposit on a house then guess what? You probably can't afford the house. The good news is you won't be giving it back to the bank to sell for you when you realise this a little too late.

[Son Of Coco]

Originally Posted by James90

Are people following the asylum seeker saga?

Rudd tells people smugglers to "rot in jail". Such a ****head but I guess it'll win votes. Howard won elections on border protection after all.

Everyone should watch last night's Q&A however. It's fantastic

I just watched Q and A tonight. It was a good show. That's the first time I have seen it. Found myself both agreeing and disagreeing with John Elliott, but at least he argues against both sides. Particularly enjoyed him having a go at both parties when he said they should be working together in tough times instead of political nitpicking for points. I've been thinking that myself lately.

Get sick of watching someone from either side get up and pick apart something the opposing party has done just because they can.

[Redbacks]

Originally Posted by Son Of Coco

Fair enough, but personally I'd say the best time to judge Rudd on his reactions is when we see what effect they've had. Were they supposed to be immediate and we all wake up lying in our mansions in a rose-covered bed? Or will we have to wait and see?

Well you could be a hard nosed and try to judge him now by looking at the treasury statistics of where the money was spent from the first injection. Indications were that it went on savings for people who manage money as they realise it's time to pay down debt (helped by gloom from the PM), and the pokies for those who are volatile not to 'Stimulate'. $20 billion you would have to question. He said that it was to boost the economy and by objective criteria the first injection has failed and the only reasoning we are offered is "well doing nothing would have been worse", something ambiguous enough to sell to the public. Given the Liberals pathetic poll status it doesn't seem the media care what they think and would rather pour fire on the leadership issue, whilst Labour attack and claim they only oppose by default.

As for the housing crisis for the young...easily-offered loans to people who couldn't afford the house in the first place surely wasn't the best path to take. It was ridiculously hard for young people to get a foot in the property market before all this started. Housing prices were ridiculously high and banks took advantage of susceptible people (i.e: those who weren't apparently aware they couldn't afford it) by making it easy for people to buy, then profiting from the foreclosure.

agreed, it's just that we didn't have a government telling banks to give a home to anyone who asked, you still needed to show some credibility. The defaults we may see now would be due to the rise in unemployment however our housing market doesn't look like it will crash, otherwise we will need a bailout. The home loan honeymoon from Labour sounds a decent idea in principle although I don't know if it has been brought in. 12 months where only interest is paid off to ease pressure should the owner lose their job.
Some of the blame of rising house prices is attributed to the introduction of the first home owners grant by the Liberals as this lead to a $32,000 increase in median house pricing over the year of its inception by increasing demand and really helping the wealthy more than first home owners.
Tell the banks to clean up their risky derivative trading processes, and bonuses to be regulated more effectively (America and England's job IMO). Unfortunately we might move the goal posts but a reasonable structure and the absence of government ideology is essential in the free market.

Marx predicted there will be a cycle of boom and bust inevitable with capatilism, as times are good then increased competion will reduce profit margins on services towards zero, the weak companies then fail leading to the strong to survive and the cycle repeats itself all over again as confidence returns and the competitors pounce. If this cycle takes 20-40 years then it will be generational and that is a long enough time for us to deal with 2-4 years of tough times given the gay abandon of the gimmie gimmie stage

Although I think this situation is slightly different and more attatched to human nature/arrogance, (studying the predator-prey model which is cyclic like his theory as we speak , there is a location for a stable soultion however). Things were so good we start to believe that old regulations from the great depression were no longer needed, in 1999 the Glass Steagall act from 1933 preventing banks from conducting both investment and commercial activities was overturned, and a few years later we are ****ed.

A little summary
hows this for a quote:

Many argued that allowing banks to diversify in moderation offers the banking industry the potential to reduce risk, so the restrictions of the GSA could have actually had an adverse effect, making the banking industry riskier rather than safer. Furthermore, big banks of the post-Enron market are likely to be more transparent, lessening the possibility of assuming too much risk or masking unsound investment decisions. As such, reputation has come to mean everything in today's market, and that could be enough to motivate banks to regulate themselves.

If you can't afford an extra $20,000 for a deposit on a house then guess what? You probably can't afford the house. The good news is you won't be giving it back to the bank to sell for you when you realise this a little too late.

come on though, its probably another year spent at home for those fortunate but what about people who rent or are unable to gain family support whilst they attempt to save?


Here is a good article on the issue I recommend, offers a reasonable view on the crisis and how the actions of the current government don't seem to match up with the previous facts and the outlook in China.
Global Financial Crisis in Australia

finishes with a bang

The American crisis started with cheap money, rampant debt and unrestrained spending. For its own self-interested reasons, the government took over where the American financial system had left off.

apologies for assuming people care about my ramblings/thoughts

[Pothas]

Out of interest what is Peter Costello up to at the moment? When I was in Australia he was on the news all the time, with stories about him either retiring or mounting a leadership bid,Is he still sitting on the backbench anoying everyone?
Also does everyone dislike him as much as the people I talked to? I certainly didn't warm to him at all but then I wouldn't really expect to given his politcal ideology.