FrangaR33
-
Posts
1,484 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Feedback
0%
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Gallery
Media Demo
Store
Posts posted by FrangaR33
-
-
So we should have pre-emptively given Poland to the Germans, as a buffer zone, circa 1939? Putin doesn't want "buffer zones", he wants what all tyrannical leaders want - power and more of it, and to save face when being put in their place. Problem right now is, he doesn't know how to do the latter without looking like a Russian terrier backed into a corner by an American bulldog in front of the whole world.
What was wrong with the status quo? Seemed to work fine for the last couple decades...
I knew the Hitler comparison was coming.
I realise that geopolitics is incredibly complex and its not easy to meat out foreign policy without appearing either weak or overly agressive. That being said a balanced foreign policy is necessary thing in a multi super power world.
Russia has been backed into a corner by the CIA masterfully backing the uprising to remove Ukraines former government. However we are not talking about putting Iraq or North Korea in the corner, despite post cold war cutbacks the Russian military machine is still capable of inflicting major damage especially on Eastern Europe.
The last time the U.S gave a superpower no means of desirable escape the Japanese started WW2 in the Pacific. Even the Cuban missile crisis was a joint backdown despite American protestations to the contrary.
The status quo was fine when no one could dream of challenging the United States economically or militarily. That will no longer be the case in the coming years and decades and US foreign policy must change to reflect that.
Let the Russian execute a dignified backdown, come to a mutually acceptable settlement just like Kennedy and Kruschev did during the Cuban missile crisis.
-
So you're blaming the Russian's wanting to annex part of Ukraine, a sovereign state, on the US because the US didn't let them have it even though it's the non US-backed Ukraine forces fighting the Russian backed separatist movement with largely Russian built hardware on both sides?
Riiiiiiight.....
Buffer zones my backside. Putin want's the USSR back and is doing it by proxy, using pro-Russian militias who have not only killed lots of Ukraine and Georgian citizens but have now shot down a passenger airliner with likely Russian supplied SAMs.
Its the reality of geopolitics its not morally or legally right but its the way of the world. Its been this way for millennia, from client states in the Middle-East between the Roman and Parthian empires to the European powers dividing up the world between themselves while maintaining relative peace with each other.
The very idea of a "sovereign" state is dubious at best, the idea that a state has sole control over its destiny without being manipulated or forced into actions on behalf of a more powerful state is laughable and has quite frankly almost never been the case throughout history.
Look at Australia for example we are apparently a sovereign state capable of exercising our own will, master of our own destiny. Yet we have followed the United States into every retarded war they have had no matter whether it was legally or morally wrong. Our politicians (on both sides of politics) are about to sign away our access to cheaper pharmaceuticals through the TPP and allow American companies to sue Australian filesharers using draconian laws. And that is how a relatively "free" and relatively irrelevant nation behaves let alone one at a crossroads of strategic and geopolitical importance.
As for the Ukraine, the CIA backed the coup that removed the democratically elected all be it corrupt former Ukranian government. For that reason the Americans are just as responsible for the shitfight that is today's Ukraine. Without the coup there would be no crisis and the Ukraine would be relatively peaceful and democratic.
The Americans are playing politics just as much as the Russian's there just better at it and better at manipulating public opinion.
-
2
-
-
What the flamin mongreling f**k are you on about? How is Russia's attempts to basically rebuild the USSR by force the fault of the US?
In the history of world geopolitics a nations status as a great power allowed it a certain sphere of influence or at the very least neutrality. It was this idea that maintained peace in Europe for decades during the 18th century leading to the Pax Britannica.
In the post cold war world there were no super powers, there was only a single hyper power the United States. The U,S used this peroid over the next decade to systematically dominate the world through spheres of influence that ranged from banking and finance to military bases in all 4 corners of the Earth.
Now instead of granting China and Russia there little spheres of influence to keep them happy and keep their populations from revolting the Americans continually want to maintain their worldwide dominance both economically and politically.
For example letting the Chinese have North Korea as their buffer zone allows them to sleep at night knowing they don't have American troops on their border. For Russia Ukraine is their buffer state and it has been ever since the end of the cold war, taking that away and having the potential of EU and American troops on their doorstep was never going to work.
There are several things that in my mind would instantly create potential for WW3 with Russia and they are 1. An effective missile shield against a Russian nuclear first strike 2. Russia losing the Ukraine as its buffer zone between itself and the West.
What we in the West need to realise is that Putin has already made huge geopolitical concessions, he has effectively given up any hope of retaining the Western Ukraine as part of Russia's sphere of influence however in exchange he wants the Eastern Ukraine as a buffer zone.
Instead of giving Putin his buffer zone we have all this ridiculous war mongering from the U.S, they talk peace yet prepare for war. Arms are being stockpiled in Poland for a potential war with the Russians and U.S military "advisors" are being sent to help the Ukrainian military with the rebels (as always the first step for any U.S military involvement just like in Vietnam).
Giving these great powers their buffer zones may not be the morally or legally right thing to do but its what prevents young men being sent half way around the world to die.
-
1
-
-
Once asked a high ranking US officer what the armament capability of his ship was...he said one of their destroyers could take out every ship and plane in the Australian fleet, before they even got off the ground. Not sure if patriotic exaggeration, but he looked pretty serious when he said it!
Then there's this
Throw in a spend:population ratio and it looks even worse. This is a country who made it a constitutional right to possess a gun. If the carrier fleets don't get the Russians, the year 9 kids will.
Good ally...
That is some pretty crazy nationalistic rhetoric, sure it could take on probably 2-4 Australian Anzac class frigates but eventually sheer weight of numbers would see his ship at the bottom of the sea. Also with dozens of fire and forget anti-ship missiles from the RAAF they could easily overwhelm a single U.S destroyers anti-missile capabilities.
As for the possibility of a major war over the Ukraine while the United States does have by far the largest navy and airforce in the world they don't have the manpower to win a land war in Russia (Marching into Moscow). They barely had enough troops to adaquately maintain their current activities in addition to occupying Iraq and Afghanistan a couple of years ago. American national guardsman were being sent to Iraq completely ill equipped (no bullet proof vest etc) just to make up the numbers they needed.
It was realised during the Cold war that the only way to stop the Soviet armoured divisions from rolling all the way through Europe was to tactically nuke the Soviet armoured columns and then fall back to defensible positions till further help arrived. While the Russian military machine is not as capable as the Soviet one they still have around twice as many tanks as the U.S, with modern air defences added to Russian armoured divisions they would be tough to stop in Eastern Europe without overwhelming fire power especially in the face of a Russian suprise attack.
While Russia has no hope of defeating the U.S, it does have the ability to defend its borders and potentially defeat most of the armies of Western Europe before suffecient American help arrives.
That being said the call on Kim Kardashian distracting the world with something is definetly the likely outcome.
-
Yep fair call there. The election did absolutely nothing. I guess it was squashed by the Americans and EU reluctant to give up Crimea and Russian access to the black sea.
You gotta admit the Russians aren't doing themselves any favours by shooting down choppers. Even if it was 'pro Russian militia' and not Russian military themselves; any violent action only exacerbates a call for invasion rather then diplomacy.
The Russian's have been painted into a corner by the events in the Ukraine and in my opinion its not as clear cut as the Western media would lead us to believe.
The "democratically" elected Ukrainian government was removed in what basically amounts to a coup, whether or not the coup had the backing of the majority is irrelevant it is still the unlawful removal of a "democratically" elected government.
If the Russian's sponsored this sort of unrest in a country with a Western friendly government it would be assured that there would be extensive retailiation by the United States.
That really is the crux of the argument, its all politics, its all about each side attempting to get the best possible outcome for their nation regardless of the moral, legal or ehtical ramifications.
In my opinion this current crisis is similar to the relations between Imperial Japan and the U.S during the late 1930's and pre-war 1940's. Except in this case its Russian's instead of the Japanese who will be hit with empire crippling sanctions.
A senior Russian academic pointed out that with the current domestic internal political problems and economic slowdown Putin and the obligarchs are being pushed into an invasion/war they don't desire. The Russian eltie once again find themselves at a crossroads for the third time in the past century, will they risk their own lives and positions of power and hope that somehow everything works out for the best for Russia or will they chose war so the ills of the Russian people can be targeted against Ukraine and the problems arising domestically can safely be blamed on the West.
-
1
-
-
I still don't think this goes to the crux of the issue itself!
Which is the issue of corporate bail outs.
In my opinion corporate bail outs have there place in business. Sometimes external shocks require some sort of government intervention that ultimately ends up being a net benefit to the tax payer and government in the long run.
For example the low interest loans given to U.S airlines post 9/11 saved the U.S airlines along with hundreds of thousands of jobs and in the end the government actually ended up making a tidy profit on the loans. Add to that the additional tax revenue from the airlines going under its well and truly win-win.
That being said the best thing the government can do in this country is take steps to make our business's more competitive whether it be removing red tape or looking at issues like land/rent costs that hamper productive economic growth.
-
The right to free speech only applies if you agree with what the media are on about this week, and if you don't not only are you wrong, you're a criminal and a pig.
I keep my mouth shut because intelligent discussions died out many years ago
/\ This
Anecdotally its not the actual minority groups causing the controversy, a great deal of the time its people/groups who claim to be speaking on their behalf. Many asylum seekers/gays/insert other minority groups just want to be left alone and not have the media constantly shining the light on their lives, but the hardcore do gooders won't let them be instead creating controversy every chance they get.
While these issues do deserve the publics attention, the media and indeed the general populace should not demonise individuals for having an opinion that is contrary to which way popular opinion is blowing on any given day.
-
Whilst you make some valid points, you also miss a few things to consider. For starters rent (as previously discussed). The cost of running a warehouse in this country is huge. A decent wholesaler who keeps enough stock to meet demand is going to need a bloody big shed, and it's going to cost a lot in rent, power, etc. I know companies that would be paying rent (or loan repayments if they have bought the property) in the hundreds of thousands, up to millions of dollars a year. Then there is the staff. The wholesalers I deal with generally have a few office/admin staff, a few sales staff and then warehouse staff. Then there's a good chance they will have a sales rep in each state who gets a company car, travel, accommodation, etc paid by the company. Of course some companies don't actually have a warehouse and they pay warehousing companies to store their products, and then pay a fee for each order that they have to pack. But it still adds up, and if they don't have a minimum order value, they can lose money on a small order. Then there's transport. Most companies, in the bike industry at least, subsidise the cost of freight. We generally pay about $20 a bike in freight. It costs about double that for the wholesaler, who only charges is $20. However their cost per bike is less if we order lots of bikes, but we still pay the same per bike, so it all balances out as it's only really at the start of the season where we will order bikes by the pallet load. The rest of the year we just order them in small numbers to top up stock.
Then there is the fees that some parent companies charge the Australian companies for distributorship rights.
Not to mention interest they may have to pay on borrowed funds.
And all of this in a large country with a small population, so all of these costs are spread out over less sales.
Long story short, they would never survive making a 10 - 15% profit margin. And if you take out the middle man then you are left with retailers dealing with overseas manufactures to buy stock, deal with returns/warranties, etc. It would get very messy very quickly, especially with some totally different time zones and languages.
When I refer to the middle man, its more the agency-esque company or individual between the manufacturer and the wholesaler rather than the wholesaler themself jacking up the price unecessarily.
There is little doubt that high rents are killing this countries competitiveness, instead of companies spending money on expanding the business or hiring more staff they are often crippled by high rents and/or land costs. This is yet another facet of the land price bubble here in Australia that is driving capital toward unproductive ends.
The high cost of business borrowing is also caused by the housing/land bubble, if a bank can lend for a house then in the eyes of the finance world its a win-win loan, but its also most of the time a completely unproductive exercise because it doesnt improve the economy or help create jobs. On the other hand business lending creates jobs but banks are unwilling to lend to many without charging exorbidant interest rates compared with a mortgage.
For that reason business borrowing has declined substantially from being the largest consumer of borrowed capital to less than half the proportion of total credit it was in 1990.
-
While economies of scale and high input costs are definetly issues the elephant in the room is the middle man. While the manufacturer and retailer's margins may be small compared with the large outlay involved in both retailing and manufacturing the actual product the middle man's outlay is practically nill.
For example the business's that own the import rights for the European car manufacturers (well most of the non-budget car makers to be honest) here in Australia, the cars cost bugger all in the grand scheme of things for the importers, the dealers get their share but the lions share of the profit ends up in the hands of the middle man.
Over the last 12 months many companies have retained the same equipment level of specific models yet the prices have fallen by over $10-15k in some cases. And you can be sure that most of that money isn't coming out of the dealers pockets.
Its not that the middle man is a uniquely Australian phenomenon its the fact that Australian's are far more willing to pay ridiculous prices for goods that cost a fraction of the price elsewhere in the world. Instead of the middle men taking their 10-15% their margins on many goods is well above that.
I work with both exporters and wholesalers in different industries and the difference between the landed price (price of an item + Shipping + Duty + GST) and the wholesale price is enormous with the agent in the middle of the transaction making by far the largest profit.
Edit: I realise this a generalisation and it varies by industry and importer, however this has been my experience with most industries I have personally worked in.
-
In my opinion despite high wages and an uncompetitely high currency a major cause of the end of Australian car manufacturing is Ford USA, GM and the United States government.
Now before i'm accused of having on my tin foil hat on, Ford and Holden both had massive export opportunities for their vehicles in the USA. Not long ago it looked like the XR8 and the XR6 Turbo was going to become the new workhorse of Police and Sheriff departments across the United States, it was big, powerful, rear wheel drive, all the things that are desirable features for cops on the beat.
However politicians in the government werent to happy about this and were worried that if Ford Australia took over a hundred thousand orders (the estimate of potential sales over a number of years) it would cost jobs in Detroit and Ford was lobbied both externally and internally to instead continue the production of the old Crown Vic until a bastardised Tauraus police car could be developed. This one instance cost Ford Australia its future, if the Falcon had of been the only choice for a Ford based police car brand loyalty would of lead most of the departments to purchase Falcons and save not only the Falcon/Territory but also Ford Australia's manufacturing base.
As for GM they never wanted the Pontiac G8 or Chevy SS to succeed, not when they continue to make piece of shit cars like the Impala or the Malibu. While they are reasonable cars, compared with a VF Commodore they are absolutely in the stone age.
Of course most of this took place with the GFC as a backdrop and it was all about American jobs for Americans, while Australia obviously manufactured superior cars it was about the shit they could turn out in the Detriot not making great cars.
Holden you shall be sorely missed.
-
Maybe Ash could step in, I'll do the moderating in his absence.
/\
This. Ash would do a great job representing the community to our benefit.
-
Wow, so they have already started in on Muir. I have no idea of his education or intelligence....but I know he likes getting in sh1t fights with friends and has some interesting views on the US. LOL, so what does a sitting member of the senate earn these days? I am guessing he has just lucked into a job that will pay over 150k a year.
At the risk of flying off the hook a little prematurely it seems that a good idea has already had its hearth ripped out with a fella who is probably a great lad, but maybe not the right person to speak on behalf of the people that voted for him.
I checked the account for the tweet I posted and its from a fake twitter account, however reading some of his facebook posts it doesn't seem far from the truth.
A Senator gets about 190k a year, throw in all the travel perks, free housing in Canberra and its a freaking sweet job.
However I will say that in all likely hood many Aussies will identify with Muir as a regular bloke in a position of power for a change rather than career politicians who temper every word and never say what they mean.
Its likely only a matter of time before he makes a big gaffe or fly's off the handle in parliament and to be quite honest I welcome it. We need a more honest discourse about where Australia is really at and where its going. These suits in Parliament don't represent the average Australian, nor do they really act in the best interests of the average Australian, they merely just do what they have to keep their job and make the public think the other guy would do a worse job.
The senate situation gives Muir amazing power until the next election, Abbott need's 6 independents votes out of 8 on every piece of legislation, if Muir has any political acumen (or decent advisers to tell him what to do) what so ever he is going to wring some great concessions out of Abbott for the benefit of the entire motoring community.
-
The future senate might prove to be a bigger clown house that the previous and current government.
Hold on to your hats ppl.
An ironically good piece of policy discussion from the Motor enthusiast party.
@hollyjoycejones Anything that goes “vroom” counts as motoring and has our support. Asylum seekers do not go “vroom”. RM— Senator Ricky Muir (@SenRickyMuir)
-
So it looks like Victoria may have an Australian Motoring Enthusiasts Party candidate in the senate, thanks to preferences. We reslly need representation at a state level, but this could be the start of something good, particularly with regard to federal issues like the overpowering EPA.
Ricky Muir is his name and he seems like a good bloke.
Here is some of his Facebook status's from a few years ago.
Edit:
Here is a graph showing the percentage of the vote that went to the minor parties (including the Greens). If the trend continues we could continue to see governments relatively powerless to pass legislation without making concessions to minor parties and independents in the senate.
Even with the senate as its currently projected to turn out the Abbott government will require 6 votes from the minor parties/independents to pass any legislation. This puts Abbott squarely up shit creek because there's no way that the Greens or Labor will be of any help.
Edit 2:
The likely makeup the senate illustrating how difficult it will be for the Abbott government.
-
-
Don't be offended, I think your concerns are valid.
I laugh because Birds tends to label anyone left of the religious right as a communist... Myself included
I'm not offended this is part of the wasteland after all
-
Lol Birds that didn't take long.... Leave the comrade alone, his concerns are valid.
If opposing super tax breaks for the wealthy and a hugely expensive government paid parental leave scheme makes me a communist then so be it.
The welfare system should be the same for everyone and means tested so those who need government assitance get it and those who don't need it don't get it.
I think that spending $5.5 billion a year on paid parental leave beyond what Labor has already put in place is ludicrous, we have many other much more worthy things to do with that money. Fix existing infrastructure or build new roads or railways and fix the atrocious health system in some parts of the country like parts of Sydney.
I am not against the wealthy I aspire to one day be one of them, however they shouldn't be recieving welfare benefits they don't need.
If the Liberal party wants to fund an unemployment scheme which gives a person say 60% of their previous wage for 12 months through a wage levy (like in Canada) then that would be great because they have essentially funded their own benefits directly.
-
Yeap, it is great to see that some people like yourself remember him for what he was/is though.
My prediction for the election and the next term of office is that:
If the Liberals win there will be a lot of broken promises and massive spending cuts in order to reduce the national debt. Abbott will be a sacrificial lamb for the following election. Turnbull leads the opposition in the campaign selling the reduced national debt and blaming the broken promises on Abbott.
If my predicition is correct (and I will be the first to point out that it is merely a prediction) then the coming election comes with a rather important question. What do Australians want from the next term of office - a reduced debt with reduced spending probably affecting services. Or continued spending with an uncertain debt. This is of course a gross oversimplification of the issues but still it is something to think about.
Honestly I am in two minds about what Abbott and a LNP government will do.
Abbott has backed away from the whole surplus at all costs promise and is now not promising a surplus till 2016 and that's provided the economy begins to grow strongly between now and then.
I think we will likely get a combination of both defecits and reduced spending/services. Despite Abbott's promises and rhetoric there simply isn't enough money to fund all his policies and give out all these tax cuts.
We will see a tightening of welfare availabilty, a return to work for the dole. All in time for great masses of people to become unemployed. Yet we will see Abbott's pet policies like the insane paid parental leave scheme instituted despite millions of others being worse off.
One thing I predict that I feel is almost certain is that the country will continue to become even more divided than ever. Millions of people will be affected by rising underemployment/unemployment and/or tougher economic conditions meanwhile Abbott is defending the super tax breaks for the wealthy and giving out $75k for ultra wealthy women to have children. Already we have entire generations priced out of home ownership and with the LNP's help the wealthy policies even more Australian's will become disenfranchised with both our government and our society in general.
-
So basically they think they can continue to tax the shit out of something that's already been overtaxed in the first place, so that some old ladies have a choice about what time of day their shopping bus arrives to take them out. Gotta love the mentality of "there's plenty of money here, there should be plenty of tax there too". They really are a Labor party with trees growing out of their arses. No wonder cost of living is turning to shit!
Indeed, the Greens have these brilliant feel good messages but have almost nothing to back it up. There are some excepetions for example the bank bailout levy, but for the most part its equal parts pie in the sky policys and utter hypocrisy.
Their policy on immigration is completely against their message of reigning in carbon emissions, are all these new migrants expected to ride bicycles everywhere and live in shoe box sized homes with no electricity?
The Greens don't want larger urban growth boundaries (expanding the area of major cities zoned for housing), yet they want to let in every punter who wants to come to Australia for a better life. Where are we going to put them all?
To me it boils down to the fact that the Greens will never have to be held accountable for these insane policies. The average greens voter gets a big kick out of doing the "morally" right thing knowing full welll they will never have to deal with the consequences of the policys they so vehemently support.
If the European Green movement is anything to go by if the Australian greens actually begin to become a real major alternative and starts to get 15-20% of the vote we will see these feel good policys go out the window as the reality of implementing these policys sinks in and they actually have to get on with the business of real governing.
Although based on the current polls thats something we won't have to worry about for many many years if ever. The Greens alliance with Labor has left them in a far worse position than where they were after the 2010 election.
-
Good points, actually very good points as always. Both sides of politics are very much not thinking to the future and making the tough policy changes that need to be made to think to the next 10-20 years and beyond... Same goes for major infrastructure spending and the like.
Consider this though - In area's that already have a lot of housing available... Take the Tarneit, Pt Cook areas in Western Melb. There are 100's of residences (and that's no exhaggeration) now that are listed lots are empty, I'm very close with the CFO of one of the larger residential property groups and he tells me people have a place advertised @ say 400k, owe around 450-500k. Someone walks in and offers them 350k - done deal as people have dug themselves a massive hole in these new release land areas and have no money left because they've over extended from the start and the land/house simply is not worth the money it cost to put there.
If new areas like those are already in the shit because of people's stupidity (borrowing too much), it's certainly going to hurt further if more area's are built when existing ones are empty. Unless it becomes tough and things are limited around the size of house/money that can be borrowed to forcibly stop people digging themselves into a nasty hole they cannot get out of affordability wise... If that does not happen I don't see a lot of point in more land release even further out. Especially when jobs in the outer fringes are scarce so people's travel costs are higher and so on.
Govt needs to secure big company backing in areas to help make them viable or it's overall just not going to work. Things like call centres etc being in Mill Park (N of Melb) is a great idea for one, provides a few hundred jobs for the outer areas and I'm surprised a lot of other companies have not done similar as the cost reductions of doing so would be massive... My old work place had probably 600 call centre staff in the CBD, insanity... Move them out to the outer burbs and free up that money.
The whole residential house pricing problem is more than one single issue - comprising of:
- "The Great Aussie Dream" of owning/building your own home.
- People have spent 80k-150k on land and then put 350k worth of house on it - Surprise surprise just the bills alone to heat the place rape them each month.
- The cost to build a house - A good majority of tradies are being paid far more than they should be for the quality of work being done, as a result pushing the actual cost of building higher than it should be.
- Over extending on borrowings and 'living on the edge' financially and not thinking about future things that might come up like kids, job loss/reductions in hours, interest rates & costs of living like bills/repairs
- Estates and their fixed prices for everything and little DIY allowed.
I also find it interesting looking @ some places like Bridge Road (Richmond). Used to be a massive fashion/retail hub, now quite a lot of places are gone simply because rental is too expensive. Although that is now moving into commercial and apart from the residential part.
I couldn't agree more with all points.
The idea of decentralisation is a brilliant one, it creates jobs outside of existing built up areas which takes the strain off infrastructure. It also drives down the price of existing housing as there is less demand. This is definetly something the government should be concerntrating on as new infrastructure even defecit funded infrastructure is usually politically possible.
The culture surrounding housing/real estate in Australia is quite disturbing, as you pointed out there are literally thousands of empty houses throughout Melbourne just sitting there. The owners hold on to these houses because of the potential capital gains, the fact is however that the capital gains arent coming, property has stagnated at best since 2010, yet the media and popular imagination still harks on about property "doubling every 7-10 years" or "predicted to rise 10% this year".
This culture needs to change, people need to be informed of the reality of their financial situation rather than just listening to their real estate agent/investment manager (aka vested interests). Its literally like asking a used car salesman if the overpriced rust filled car in front of you is a good buy, of course theyre going to say yes.
Your point about people borrowing too much is a perfect example of the cultural issue of real estate in this country. They will do anything and everything just to be able to have their rubbish little new house on their tiny block in buttf**k nowhere.
Today there is talk of the RBA implementing new LVR (Loan to Value ratios) which determine what size deposit you require to get a loan. To me this is one of the few politically possible things that can actually be done to fix the property market, it will stop people from over borrowing because they simply won't be able to borrow that much money any more.
Agreed on the point of over extended borrowers, I know far too many people my age buying 500k houses while still working a 40-50k a year job who plan on having kids and having the Mrs be a stay at home mum. Truly I wonder what goes through these people's minds.
When unemployment does finally force these people to sell the trickle will become the flood as all the investors in the market for capital gains realise that the party is over. Investors really are the drivers of the market, they can drive prices up when things are going well, but when the tide turns they can also drive prices down just as quickly.
I hope the RBA does implement these new restrictions to save people from themselves and the rest of us from footing the bill, just like the U.S, UK, Ireland, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Netherlands.
-
Fair comments. Personally I think that Australia is doing so well compared to the rest of the world in terms of standards of living and the economy that we should be looking to thank the government rather than criticise it but there is still room for improvement.
I also think the issue of housing affordability is virtually unsolvable without massive negative repercussions. People who have already spent their working lives paying off their own houses don't want them to decrease in value as they have in America, Japan and elsewhere. America in particular has many horror stories of people buying houses, being unable to pay the mortgages, having the houses foreclosed on at a big loss and then the people are in massive debt with nothing to their names. I have heard there are properties going for next to nothing in the US nowadays even in parts of Las Vegas. The negative gearing scheme in Australia probably has a big effect on housing affordability but that is an awesome scheme for those that can afford and I am guessing it has a huge impact on the amount of people eligible for the pension. Without negative gearing and superannuation Australia could be in the sort of mess that Japan is going to see in the next 30 years. Consumption tax (effectively Japan's GST) is predicated to hit 30% and still the government may not be able to pay pensions. The idea of working towards financial independence is virtually unheard of in Japan whereas in Australia it is an achievable dream. I am definitely interested in any ideas you have regarding housing affordability though, I am not being sarcastic, I am genuinely interested.
I agree massive repercussions are unavoidable. However at this point doing nothing is slowly becoming no longer an option.
The high cost of housing/land/commercial rent is crippling the economy's ability to grow. So much money is being put into property and repayments on property that it leaves precious little else to grow the economy. The only thing that has enabled the country to grow under such high housing costs has been the huge ramp up in debt, with household debt to disposable income almost tripling since the mid 1990's.
Real (inflation adjusted) retail spending per capita has flatlined since 2007, the construction industry is shrinking and has been for several years and now even the rest of the economy is starting to show signs of stress.
In my opinion negative gearing has to be abolished (make negative gearing available on new homes to add to overall housing supply, actually benefiting the country at large), Capital gains tax on housing should no longer be halved, Land supply and zoning needs serious reform so there is actually the land available to build new homes.
I understand why the Rudd government wants to reform FBT on cars, but its lamentable that the government doesn't touch negative gearing. 98% of properties that are negatively geared are existing properties, negative gearing isnt helping create new housing supply as many of its proponents would argue. The government could save somewhere between $4-13 billion a year if they abolished negative gearing and when essential services like hospitals are falling apart its a crime that the policy remains untouchable.
I know there will be pain, but at the end of the day that is life, you make an investment sometimes it goes well (like people who bought many houses in the 90's and sold at the top of the market) or sometimes it goes bad (people who bought in the last 5-6 years). Australian's for generations to come cant be sacrificed at the altar of current homeowners just because its not politically convenient.
Whether we deflate the housing bubble or not one thing is certain the Australian economy is slowly coming to a halt, the defecit for the 2013-2014 FY has already blown out another $8 billion since the May budget and unemployment is on the rise.
If the housing bubble is not deflated there is no quick way out of this mess, the RBA and the government (Liberal and Labor) wants housing construction to become the engine of economic growth. But that simply cant happen until land/housing prices decrease, so it actually becomes affordable for people to start building homes again (the number of houses being constructed per capita has been shrinking for quite some time).
-
..... but how do we fix the politics of today comrade ?
Honestly, I don't think its possible. However the only thing that will make a difference is the large political parties suffering major setbacks in terms of votes in the next election.
This is why I plan on preferencing the Greens, Labor, Liberals last (in no particular order). I hope that many more people do this rather than throwing their vote away (donkey vote/not filling in voting form), make our voices of displeasure with the current priorities of government heard.
In my opinion whether you are a Liberal/Labor/Greens voter they arent addressing the issues that affect many everyday Australians. No party is addressing the issue of housing affordability, which is shaping up as the biggest issue for people of my generation (GenY). Many of us want to move on with our lives, buying houses, having children, starting business's. Yet due to incredibly high cost of housing many people are putting these things much to the detriment of the nation, both socially and economically.
-
The state of political/economic/social debate in this country is horrible and as the years go by it gets worse and worse. As the media is gradually taken over by interests that favor one political party over another it seems reasonable political debate becomes even harder to come by. People push their party line regardless of how bad any given policy is in the real world. We are slowly becoming like the United States where rational political debate becomes impossible because of the hostility between the various sides of the political divide.
For example the Carbon tax has not been the economy killer that the Liberals made it out to be and many of us feared it would be. Its impact has been minimal at best yet people still many hardline liberals blame it for all our economys ills. The same applies to some Labor supporters who blame Workchoices for every ill that came after the Howard government. It goes both ways.
It seems to me that the easy times are over for this country and people are increasingly looking for someone to blame. To me the simple fact is you cant have nearly two decades of debt binge fuelled growth and then expect for your economy to continue to grow and for the government balance sheet to expand.
Now we will watch over the coming years as our economy slows the major parties (I include the Greens) will each be taking pot shots at each other over who's fault it is rather than actually tackling the actual problems.
So much in this country could be remedied if politicians would stop pandering to special interest groups. For example, Urban growth boundaries could be removed and land supply could be increased to drive down the cost of housing, wages and costs could be overhauled so we can actually afford to fix and expand our crumbling infrastructure (schools, hospitals, roads etc), we could tackle largely ignored issues like alcohol fueled violence, problem gambling (I'm looking at you Tom Waterhouse) and suicide prevention.
Instead it all comes down to Holden cars, boats and defecits. With no real policies for the future of this country from either side.
-
Birds, you summoned me?
As a Recruitment and Management Consultant, I can tell you that marks matter - only when someone is incredibly picky.
I specialise in working with Accounting firms and it does come down to the marks at times because there are a lot of good quality people out there and we work in a candidate POOR market.
We have clients who will not look at someone with a GPA below 6, or went to the wrong Uni etc and this is because they feel they can. Accounting has had dwindling numbers of entrants into the unis over the last few years, yet clients still feel that they can be incredibly picky. But this only matters if the person has the right experience. If someone has been working in a small firm on small clients, but they have an excellent GPA, they won't get a look in because they don't have the experience.
So when you look at this from a market where there is an abundance of candidates, such as telco, construction, engineering etc, you find that it becomes incredibly difficult. Unless you are willing to work in the middle of nowhere for peanuts, it's tough. Colin was right in saying 170 applications for 3 positions. Knowing his company, I'm surprised that it wasn't more!
What you do find is, that people who are recently graduating feel as though they are owed a job because they got through Uni. There are a lot of grads out there who believe it's their god-given right to work for a top tier firm because all they have is a strong GPA. Where are your networks? Where are your extra curricular activities?
A great GPA matters, but it is nowhere near enough to get you a job.
It's a tough market out there and very few are recruiting due to growth. If they are replacing someone, they want like for like. And that comes down to experience. If you haven't got it, don't bother applying.
Experience will be the prime factor - ALWAYS
Indeed, most of the jobs I have had in my life are because of people I know, not because of my schooling.
I have had opportunitys because family members and friends have known people at the top of their field willing to give a cocky upstart like me a chance.
People without those connections would be up shit creek trying to cut it in the same industries with no relevant experience.
Also I know people who teach interview skills and resume writing as a full time job and they tell me no one gives a shit how you do in uni. Only once your out of uni and in the real world you realise how pointless those marks are in the vast majority of fields.
Sure sometimes a degree is a prerequisite for a job, but when it isnt good luck when your up against someone with experience and/or connections.
Ukraine Vs Russia
in News & Current Affairs
Posted · Edited by FrangaR33
Why is it laughable? Why wouldn't the U.S want to destroy Russian prestige and make Putin look like a fool in front of the entire world.
The U.S government has been sponsoring opposition parties and anti-Russian groups in the Ukraine for years, that much is not a secret. The U.S was attempting to degrade Russian influence as far back as 2004 and its no secret they have continued to fund and sponsor groups that are anti-Russian and Pro-EU.
Edit: Just for the record I am neither Pro-Russian or Anti-American, merely a pragmatist who wants to see peace maintained going into the future where the status quo will sooner or later no longer apply.