Another factory closes!!

[PhilG]

..

[Psyber]

I don't recall the Whitlam connection, but I'll take your word for it. Certainly tariff barriers were successively lowered under H/K. I'm not sure there is any real validity to PK's excuse about the over-valued status of our dollar. Poor economic management creates a situation that means people stop investing here and our dollar drops as a result, then it recovers as our economy does better and Australia looks like it is worth investing in again - as has happened recently.

No, Psyber. Before Hawke/Keating, the dollar was rigid. Stuck stronger than the US dollar and pretty much the same as it was against the British pound as it was when we decimalised in 1966. Any shift in our dollar before it was floated was totally dictated by the Brits. By floating the dollar we struck out on our own to obtain our dollar's true value. Better to invest from the US with our dollar lower than theirs. It's a bit high at the moment for me - I'd like to see it around 75 cents.

Yes I know it was fixed, and I think floating it was sound, but I'm not convinced it was "overvalued", before PK's economic management bit into the performance of our economy. I'm not convinced we ever did need to have a recession! Maybe with better control a small credit squeeze might have done.

Under PK investing in growing your business got too expensive due to interest rates and tax levels [especially after the "L...A...W... ones didn't happen], housing became too costly to invest in, and people in business bought tax deductions instead - like a car I sold at a 40% profit on what I'd paid for it 4 years earlier in late 1987 - just before everything collapsed.

That would have happened anyway, no matter who was in power. Reason being the world economy hit a recession later than ours. It would have happened at the same time as the rest of the world if Keating hadn't engineered the "recession we had to have" - a result of the interest rates being pushed up. If we had to have a recession, better to have it on our terms than the world's. If you think things were bad then, it would have been much worse if we had gone into recession on anything but our terms.

I'm not convinced about that either. We seem to have ridden through recent world fluctuations pretty well. It looked much like the Whitlam era to me - overspending, inflation, collapse. Sure you can find plenty of socialist economic theorists to run that argument, but then they would, would they not?! I think a little less arrogance and a little less vote buying may have mitigated the severity of what happened. [Sure, I know the Libs are vote buying these days too.]

The problem now is that the moment any federal government decides to restore tariff barriers the prices of the goods currently no longer made in Australia will rise dramatically, CPI figures will rise, wage demands will rise, and the hip-pocket nerve will kick in and that party will be out of office at the very next election. Pollies are aware the public has a short memory and they rely on it, but it also means they know they can't sell them the, "Look it will cost you now, but the country will be better off in the long run..." message. So of course Johnny Howard has not done anything about it and neither will anyone else. If we had cooperation between the major parties for the good of manufacturing in Australia, we might be able to creep the tariffs up slowly, but that sort of unified approach is unlikely, given our oppositional style of government.

Goods that are imported dropping off will encourage demand for local product. That will push the up button on available employment and may restore the flailing manufacturing industry here. It will also benefit the trade deficit - which is appalling right now! Wage demands are already high, and bluntly that top level has got to be nipped in the bud because we just can't afford it as long as we import so much. It's one big mess, and it needs to be promoted as such - forced an incumbent government to bloody well do something about it! Howard hasn't given a stuff about the trade deficit (which is a big mistake because it costs jobs - and combine that with the IR laws and you have big trouble). Yes, there does need to be a unified approach. And we'll get it when the current government (who are the ones who would oppose the idea) realise the folly of their lack of action.

Yeh, but TV sets now $500 will be nearer $5000 made in Australia! I can buy a computer made in Taiwan cheaper than an Australian made radiator core. So, I expect the short-sighted people would react by throwing out the government before the benefit showed, and then the incoming lot would claim the credit as usual. That is why I think only a bipartisan approach will allow that change - and I don't think we'll get that - our political scene is too polarised.

I do agree with you the the present massive importation of goods inevitably generates unsustainable trade deficits. However, nipping the top level of wage demand makes little difference as the numbers are small - nipping the millions making small demands at the bottom end shows up better in the economic indices. [I am not saying that makes it right!]

It is similar to Medicare's claims about bulk-billing figures - they are only worrying about getting GPs to bulk-bill because a small change by GPs has a large effect on overall statistics. A much bigger increase in specialist bulk-billing would hardly show up. And it is all about making it look right, not be right for the bureaucrats.

I am not confident there is a solution, regardless of who is in power, because the real power is in the hands or the bureaucrat theorists, who will play "Yes Minister" with whichever incumbent government. The real contrast in the past has been in government spending policies. I think Labor have tended to overspend and indulge the "public service" to keep them on side, and the Libs have been too mingy in social support spending under Howard. In my lifetime it has looked like an ongoing see-saw effect between the two major parties.

Speaking of see-saw effects, we seem to have our own going. I don't think you and I will agree, although we obviously have some common ground, and we could fill up the forum with this sort of debate. That's why I expressed doubt about having a political forum on a footy site!

[PhilG]

..

[Psyber]

Malfunction here - I dont think this site entirely likes Opera!

[Psyber]

Phil,

My main concern was filling up and dominating these pages with our complex notes, and squeezing out others. Yes, I enjoy a good debate without abuse.

I had an old friend back in the 1980s, whom I met in the Adelaide University Choral Society - we both sing bass. He was a full time Labor Party campaign staffer, and one Christmas we looked at the fair on the tables at the AUCS Christmas party and he suggested we adjourn to the verandah and drink the bottle of [untraditional] Laphroig he had in his very traditional working mans' kit bag. We spent most of the night debating.

We concluded that we largely agreed on what needed to be done, and disagreed, where we did disagree, mainly on method. He tended to favour legislation where I advocated persuasion as more effective. I suspect you and I may finish up in the same place - debating method rather than broad objective.

For example:
At the time medical man-power was an issue and PK was having a shot at creating regional Provider Numbers that would let the government tell doctors where to work. My case was you can make people do things for a while, but they can always leave the country. However, if you make it attractive rather than compulsory they might stay. [It turned out to be illegal under law anyway - Civil Conscription is illegal.]

The adminstrators of departments like Medicare, however, are about show and appearance only. For example, you referred to the affordability of medical specialist care as an issue. Since 1973 the bulk-billing fee from Medicare has risen by about 62% of inflation, but because appearances matter more than real results general practitions actually get more for pensioners and children - 100% of the MBS "Schedule Fee" [bringing it up to 73% of inflation] plus Practice Incentive Payments - lump sums of up to $50,000 per year to help cover losses and extra compurterisation costs etc. This brings them up to about par with inflation, and thus the statistics look OK, but specialists who bulk-billed would earn a lot less than GPs - and less than half the hourly rate of lawyers who spend less years training!! So, they don't.



From there of course one can branch into tax and superannuation policy - my starting position is, "Taxation is theft!", but I'll concede that some is necessary. I don't like the Workplace Relations legislation, but, as a former small employer, I do think some relaxation of law was necessary for genuine small business - I'd have said less than 10 employees rather than less than 100.

However, you will never get me to see Paul Keating in a favourable light [or Mark Latham]. I have time for Gough Whitlam despite his mistakes for his good intent, Jim Cairns for his honesty, and possibly Kevin Rudd who seems to be shaping up well. On the other side, I am not a John Howard fan, but have liked what I could see of John Gorton and Mal Fraser. As I have said elsewhere I am a liberal conservative - some socialist leanings, but against compulsion and for individual liberty.

I guess what I disliked most about PK was that he seemed to believe he knew best and therefore had the right to try to force others to do it! I will always oppose force.

[PhilG]

..

[Psyber]

Yes Phil, I agree with your statement about the IR laws - I argued to my local MP that freeing up companies that employed less than 10 people not less than 100 was more appropriate, because a company employing 10 or more is not going to be crippled by one dud employee like a company employing 4 or 5 might be. I also tend to agree about Bob Hawke, and his keeping Keating in line, just as Fraser restrained Howard as Treasurer - in fact that stalemate may have been why not a lot changed then.

The issue about force is the problem about whose judgment do we trust about when it should be used - that's why my default position is "never".

My concern about tax revenue is that the bureaucracy will always find ways to spend as much as they can get their grasping little paws on - and not always productively! Perhaps if the governement's annual returns had to be independently audited and published annually like a private company's do for public scrutiny we may get somewhere towards real equitability - but neither party would like that!

[PhilG]

..

[Coorong]

The issue about force is the problem about whose judgment do we trust about when it should be used - that's why my default position is "never".

Well I can give you an example of when force was more than appropriate. The gun laws. And anyway - if the wrong decision is made by force there is always a backlash. I happen to think that several decisions that have been made since the 2004 federal election have been forced, thanks to the numbers in the Senate.

My concern about tax revenue is that the bureaucracy will always find ways to spend as much as they can get their grasping little paws on - and not always productively! Perhaps if the governement's annual returns had to be independently audited and published annually like a private company's do for public scrutiny we may get somewhere towards real equitability - but neither party would like that!

I happen to agree with that. Definitely do an independant audit! It will make the spending more accountable so we know jusy how much is going into lining MP's pockets "really" and how much is going to where it's supposed to. I have a feeling that if you saw a positive result from higher taxes you wouldn't have a problem with it. I think the same would be true for a majority of Australians.

We seem to be agreeing more and more!

:


So I am observing

[Psyber]

I have a feeling that if you saw a positive result from higher taxes you wouldn't have a problem with it. I think the same would be true for a majority of Australians. We seem to be agreeing more and more!

Agreed again! I really just want to see that it is fair and just so I don't feel I am being ripped off by the pollies primarily for their benefit, or for their particular ideas of what constitutes social justice. Taxes were fairly high under Mal fraser - up to 57cents in the dollar I think.

[PhilG]

..

[Psyber]

Well I can't comment on what the tax system was like back then because I was still at school so it didn't affect me. I didn't really start paying attention until I did my first tax return for the year 1984/1985, and by then I think the top rate was 48 cents in the dollar.

I'd like to see it back up at 60 cents, but only for those earning 200K or more. (Unlike the 57 cents threshold under Fraser which I'm sure even without knowing would have been at a much lower threshold)

Yes - but of course incomes generally were about a quarter what they are now.

[PhilG]

..

[TroyGFC]

With another 600 jobs gone with the closure of Ford's engine plant in Geelong Little Johnny will soon be able to reach his carbon levels.

[Psyber]

With another 600 jobs gone with the closure of Ford's engine plant in Geelong Little Johnny will soon be able to reach his carbon levels.

As was said before, this started long before John Howard came to office. Ford of will preserve American jobs before those in any other western country - at least until they can move all production and administration to a 3rd world country and abandon US public opinion too.

Logically, if I were into manufacturing I would set up all production in a stable 3rd world environment with low wages, and adequate material supplies, and ship products to sell to developed countries on my own "flag of convenience" shipping line, charging my production and sales division sufficient for the shipping the make almost all the profit in the "convenience" country, where, hopefully, a few judicious bribes will mean I pay little or no tax. Is this not where all industry will go unless a combination of tariffs and GST charges force them to do otherwise?

This is the one good argument for a high GST - you sell the goods you pay the tax - there is no ducking it.

So, we should perhaps consider a new regime:

When elected I shall introduce a new "Customs Processing Levy" on a user-pays basis instead of naughty and unfashionable tariffs, add a hefty luxury goods tax to certain imported goods, and the whack a real GST on top. Then we can scrap income tax and sack the rest of the ATO. We will need to get rid of state governments in the process!

[Wedgie]

If anyone's wondering why PhilG's posts show up as .....
It has nothing to do with Site Admin, when he spat the dummy he went back through all 731 posts he'd made and replaced them with dots, now that's dedication, Im stuffed if I could be bothered doing that if I spat the dummy!

[magpie in the 80's]

If anyone's wondering why PhilG's posts show up as .....
It has nothing to do with Site Admin, when he spat the dummy he went back through all 731 posts he'd made and replaced them with dots, now that's dedication, Im stuffed if I could be bothered doing that if I spat the dummy!

with your amount of posts i'd agree

[Wedgie]

If anyone's wondering why PhilG's posts show up as .....
It has nothing to do with Site Admin, when he spat the dummy he went back through all 731 posts he'd made and replaced them with dots, now that's dedication, Im stuffed if I could be bothered doing that if I spat the dummy!

with your amount of posts i'd agree

he he, good point!