Canteen Worker
First Grader
This is the funniest thread I have seen on this site for a long time.
:blaugh: :blaugh: :blaugh: :blaugh: :blaugh:
:blaugh: :blaugh: :blaugh: :blaugh: :blaugh:
Interest rates
- Thread starter Matabele
- Start date
Can somebody please check the village vacancies, It's obvious that one somewhere is short an idiot.
I apologise if anyone but Byso took offense at that, someone pokes me enough times and I am going to poke back.
Stick to photos champ, you are very good at that. but leave the thinking to those that are better equipped for the job.
I apologise if anyone but Byso took offense at that, someone pokes me enough times and I am going to poke back.
Stick to photos champ, you are very good at that. but leave the thinking to those that are better equipped for the job.
Canteen Worker
First Grader
PM's bid to buy back office sells out the economy
THE Prime Minister told us yesterday that "the worst possible thing any government could do at the present time is to embrace a policy that would put upward pressure on inflation and therefore on interest rates".
If it is such an important priority, then surely that means the Howard Government will not be announcing any new spending before election day? Surely that would meet John Howard's definition of the "worst possible thing any government could do".
Any new spending would add to demand in the economy and that would add to inflationary pressures and that, in turn, would press the Reserve Bank to act by raising interest rates yet further. This is irrefutable economic logic, no?
There were three answers to this yesterday - one from John Howard, another from the economists and a third from the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd.
Howard's answer was to say, "No, you can't take it from that that we won't be announcing any new Commonwealth outlays". How so? Because not all spending is inflationary, he said, and he offered this Animal Farm categorisation of new spending: "If it's financed out of a surplus, it's good; if it's financed out of borrowings, it's bad."
In other words, if I'm doing the spending it's good, but if it's the state Labor governments it's bad.
Next is the answer from the economists. "The thing that matters," said the interest rate expert at Macquarie Bank, Rory Robertson, "is not how extra spending is financed - it's whether there's extra spending".
The director of Access Economics, Chris Richardson, put it this way: "As the secretary of the Treasury, Ken Henry, reminded us recently, if you throw money around while we have an economy running at full capacity, it's inflationary. We will regret it.
"Look at the big picture. The Government is throwing money into the economy and the Reserve Bank is trying to take it out again. We have one foot on the accelerator and one on the brake. No wonder we're blowing smoke."
In other words, the professional economists give Howard not one jot of credibility on this.
Then there was Rudd's answer: "Our spending commitments for the next election … will be less than those of the Government."
The truth is Howard is preparing to spend billions to get re-elected. This will be inflationary and put upward pressure on interest rates. But Howard won't admit it because he doesn't want to do anything to bind his hands. This is irresponsible. This is a clear-cut assertion of the Government's political interest over the national interest.
And Rudd's position is to promise that, however irresponsible Howard may be, he will be slightly less irresponsible.
THE Prime Minister told us yesterday that "the worst possible thing any government could do at the present time is to embrace a policy that would put upward pressure on inflation and therefore on interest rates".
If it is such an important priority, then surely that means the Howard Government will not be announcing any new spending before election day? Surely that would meet John Howard's definition of the "worst possible thing any government could do".
Any new spending would add to demand in the economy and that would add to inflationary pressures and that, in turn, would press the Reserve Bank to act by raising interest rates yet further. This is irrefutable economic logic, no?
There were three answers to this yesterday - one from John Howard, another from the economists and a third from the Opposition Leader, Kevin Rudd.
Howard's answer was to say, "No, you can't take it from that that we won't be announcing any new Commonwealth outlays". How so? Because not all spending is inflationary, he said, and he offered this Animal Farm categorisation of new spending: "If it's financed out of a surplus, it's good; if it's financed out of borrowings, it's bad."
In other words, if I'm doing the spending it's good, but if it's the state Labor governments it's bad.
Next is the answer from the economists. "The thing that matters," said the interest rate expert at Macquarie Bank, Rory Robertson, "is not how extra spending is financed - it's whether there's extra spending".
The director of Access Economics, Chris Richardson, put it this way: "As the secretary of the Treasury, Ken Henry, reminded us recently, if you throw money around while we have an economy running at full capacity, it's inflationary. We will regret it.
"Look at the big picture. The Government is throwing money into the economy and the Reserve Bank is trying to take it out again. We have one foot on the accelerator and one on the brake. No wonder we're blowing smoke."
In other words, the professional economists give Howard not one jot of credibility on this.
Then there was Rudd's answer: "Our spending commitments for the next election … will be less than those of the Government."
The truth is Howard is preparing to spend billions to get re-elected. This will be inflationary and put upward pressure on interest rates. But Howard won't admit it because he doesn't want to do anything to bind his hands. This is irresponsible. This is a clear-cut assertion of the Government's political interest over the national interest.
And Rudd's position is to promise that, however irresponsible Howard may be, he will be slightly less irresponsible.
G
Guest
Guest
No he didn't. He said that interest rates would always be lower under a liberal government and a labour one.
I suggest that you read the following report released today by economic forecaster Econtech who confirm exactly what Howard said 4 years ago.
It also states that Rudd has no policies other than metooisms - when howard releases a policy Rudd says that he would have exactly the same one. I other words - me too.
Rates rise 1.4% under Labor: report
August 10, 2007 - 5:54AM
More interest rate rises are on the way if Labor wins the election, according to a report commissioned by business groups.
It claims interest rates will rise a further 1.4 per cent, with the loss of more than 300,000 jobs, if Labor wins the election and keeps its promise to scrap the federal government's workplace laws.
Bolstering its new multi-million-dollar advertising campaign, a coalition of business groups will release a study predicting significant costs to the economy if coalition workplace reforms are ditched, The Australian reports.
The study by forecaster Econtech claims the party's plan to reverse industrial relations laws would cut real average wages by up to $787 a week.
Econtech study, commissioned by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry for release, presents a positive picture of workplace reforms started by the Keating government in 1993 and continued by Prime Minister John Howard's government.
But it warns that winding back the laws as pledged by Opposition Leader Kevin Mr Rudd would push up inflation, adding as much as 1.4 per cent to interest rates by 2011.
:stupid: © 2007 AAP
clontaago
First Grader
No he didn't. He said that interest rates would always be lower under a liberal government and a labour one.
[/quote]
He did say that Tookey but he also said that interest rates would remain low.
Mr Rudd seized on the rise to ridicule Mr Howard's 2004 election campaign pledge to keep rates low.
And he said Mr Howard's "core problem" on economic credibility was that in the 2004 election campaign he had made "the undeliverable promise" to keep interest rates low. "In any person's understanding, that means that they would not go up from that point," he said. "They've gone up five times since."
Byso this is all so simple!
Interest rates are starting to get and push towards the high and on all loans that are upwards of $300,000 for a squat studio these days yes that is equivelant to 17% on $100,000
Unemployment is low for 1 simple reason, you can not afford to be unemployed in Sydney or Australia anymore, it isnt viable, both partners in any couple have to work these days because cost of living is through the roof. There are a lucky few who were sorted and settled before the current climate who get away with it, but for the rest everyone has to work just to scrape by.
Myself and my GF are on high salary's about 75k and still struggle to get on by.
You say wages have gone up?
Sure so has tax, both GST and Income
The cost of goods and services is going up and general living is just ridiculous.
You fall for the magician tricks that little Johnny is so good at and that is why redneck Australia somehow keep him in. I call it selfish really, you arent worried about the people around you as long as it appears like you are on a good wicket.
Very UnAustralian
Myself and my GF are on high salary's about 75k and still struggle to get on by.
[/quote]
WTF do you spend all your money on!!! Its Buck Hunter isnt it. :naughty:
[/quote]
It is I am ****ing hooked on that game!
That is why I am just going to have to buy one
G
Guest
Guest
Byso this is all so simple!
Interest rates are starting to get and push towards the high and on all loans that are upwards of $300,000 for a squat studio these days yes that is equivelant to 17% on $100,000
Unemployment is low for 1 simple reason, you can not afford to be unemployed in Sydney or Australia anymore, it isnt viable, both partners in any couple have to work these days because cost of living is through the roof. There are a lucky few who were sorted and settled before the current climate who get away with it, but for the rest everyone has to work just to scrape by.
Myself and my GF are on high salary's about 75k and still struggle to get on by.
You say wages have gone up?
Sure so has tax, both GST and Income
The cost of goods and services is going up and general living is just ridiculous.
You fall for the magician tricks that little Johnny is so good at and that is why redneck Australia somehow keep him in. I call it selfish really, you arent worried about the people around you as long as it appears like you are on a good wicket.
Very UnAustralian
[/quote]
Crap to anyone who thinks that it is harder now to buy a property than it has at any time over the past 60 years.
Buying a first property is always a struggle. I worked 2 jobs to survive when I bought my house in 1986. My wife looked after 5 kids under 4 years old in our home 5 days a week to pay the mortgage.
We didn't go overseas or have plamsa TV's or computers or home theatre systems. We only had one car and for the first 10 year of our married life our annual holiday consisted of visiting my wife's parents in the country because we couldn't afford anything else.
If you and your girlfriend are both on $75k pa you should be buying a 2 bedder for up to $500k now to live in.
No deposit required and the government will waive your stamp duty and also give you $7,000 (that is if you want to take the money from John Howard - you could always say no because you don;t like him). I had to pay full stamp duty and never received a cent from the government when we bought our first propety.
The problem with some poeple, these days is that they are not willing to compomise their lifestyles to accomodate a mortgage. The y generation simply wants to wait until their parents die and then they can inherit their assets and live the lifestyle they are accustomed to. They might be in for a shock when their parents spend their inheritence now.
Do you think people who are in the eighties now found life easy when they were young? They had to survive the depression which is far worse then now economically and the second world war and still managed to buy a home. That's if they survived the war.
Could you imagine today's 18 years olds going to war? On a computer maybe.
If you sit down and work out what you spend your money on you would realise that you are having a great time with it.
Im about to buy my first place!!!! Although I dont think im going to buy one in Sydney as I dont want to spend $500k + on a 2 bedder. If you are a couple on $150k you should have no issues unless you have got yourself into serious debt previously.
As for Labour v Liberal and who I will vote for at the next election, it is like asking me which one of my sisters I want to sleep with!!! I guess I am probably leaning more towards Liberal atm due to my memories of the last recession.
As for Labour v Liberal and who I will vote for at the next election, it is like asking me which one of my sisters I want to sleep with!!! I guess I am probably leaning more towards Liberal atm due to my memories of the last recession.
Ryan
Journey Man
Facts are the lower the unemployment rate is, the more likely rates will rise, and there will be a higher inflation rate.
One thing I think we can all give John Howard credit for though is the "countries" debt levels, and his ability to create budget surpluses.
On the flip side, he has promised so much, and delivered so little. Prime example being inflation rate. He can promise all he likes to keep interest rates low, but if inflation is high, he gets screwed over. I'm sure he cringes every time The Reserve bank Board meet !!
My biggest beef with politics in Australia though, is that there should only be a federal government, and that is it. Infrastructure improvement etc would be more evenly spread. I say this as a Nth Beaches resident.
Another example is that Howard bought in the GST, with an aim to lower company tax throughout Australia. When the time came then for taxes to be lowered, the then Labor leader in NSW Bob Carr refused, saying the state could not afford it !
What I guess I'm trying to say, is that there would be no need for any of these arguments if there were one governing body, and it would be a fairer system for those all round.
Don't even get me started about Mona Vale Hospital, The Spit Bridge, or the fact that labor upgraded The Northern Beaches from low density populace to medium !
One thing I think we can all give John Howard credit for though is the "countries" debt levels, and his ability to create budget surpluses.
On the flip side, he has promised so much, and delivered so little. Prime example being inflation rate. He can promise all he likes to keep interest rates low, but if inflation is high, he gets screwed over. I'm sure he cringes every time The Reserve bank Board meet !!
My biggest beef with politics in Australia though, is that there should only be a federal government, and that is it. Infrastructure improvement etc would be more evenly spread. I say this as a Nth Beaches resident.
Another example is that Howard bought in the GST, with an aim to lower company tax throughout Australia. When the time came then for taxes to be lowered, the then Labor leader in NSW Bob Carr refused, saying the state could not afford it !
What I guess I'm trying to say, is that there would be no need for any of these arguments if there were one governing body, and it would be a fairer system for those all round.
Don't even get me started about Mona Vale Hospital, The Spit Bridge, or the fact that labor upgraded The Northern Beaches from low density populace to medium !
Users who are viewing this thread
| Team | P | W | L | PD | Pts |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
|
0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 |
