06-01-2014 07:58 PM - edited 06-01-2014 07:59 PM
ACCC chairman Sims argues the benefits of privatisation
An article in this morning's Australian Financial Review, based on an interview with Mr Sims, says that he has called for Federal Government to sell Medibank Private and Australia Post.
However, Mr Sims has told News Radio that he was not advocating for the sale of particular Government-owned businesses.
"Australia Post, that's really an issue for government, I was making a general point this morning, and I'll really leave it at that," he told News Radio's Marius Benson.
"I think there are direct experiences you can draw from the energy sector, but I've really got no parallel from which to comment on Australia Post, or Medibank Private for that matter.
"Mr Sims adds, however, that the only good reason for government ownership is because it has particular social objectives in mind.
"If all you're after is maximum efficiency then there's no question that you'd have those assets owned by the private sector," he argued.
"If you're continuing to own them by government, then that's because you've got some social objective to achieve."If you have a social objective, it's worth specifying what that is, and I suspect there's probably more direct ways to achieve that social objective".
Martin O'Nea, the national assistant secretary of the Communication Workers Union says " Australia Post hasreturned more than $800 million in dividends to taxpayers over the past three years.
He also warns that Australia Post's less profitable but socially useful services, such as relatively affordable and timely mail and parcel deliveries to rural and regional Australia, would likely suffer if it was privatised
."With a privatised Australia Post, would them services that people have seen in the past three years remain the same?" Mr O'Nea asked rhetorically."We'd venture that the experience that regional and rural Australia have had with privatisation in the past would leave them to believe that it certainly wouldn't.
"That is a view shared by the Post Office Agents Association Limited, which represents the owners and operators of licensed post offices, which make up around 75 per cent of Australia Post's network.
"A privatised postal operator would focus on the main population centres at the expense of customers in rural Australia," said its chief executive Ian Kerr.
The association says it received assurances from both major parties ahead of last year's federal election that neither had plans to privatise Australia Post.
The Government has launched a scoping study into the possible sale of Medibank Private, which is due to report next month.
Click Here To View Entire Article
Poor Aussies, so far in debt we'll have to sell off our remaining assets soon, and then how will we repay our loans if all our jobs go overseas or to foreign workers?
08-01-2014 04:48 PM - edited 08-01-2014 04:50 PM
The "really ?" is for - do you really think nobody in NZ is concerned about the amount of foreign interests in their holdings and the amount of their foreign debt.
What is worse a debt level in excess or 100% and a poor economy or a booming econo
@icyfroth wrote:
@am*3 wrote:Icy -Sorry Am but I find no comfort in that.
Look at the trouble the US is in. Public services have been cut as seen in the debacle they had recently re their own debt-ceiling raising debacle. Cities like Detroit are in decay, others are in decline. States like California have been bankrupt.
Look at their debt %. 107% compared to Aust 33%
Australia isnt the US and never will be. Australia isn't Greece or Spain either... or the UK.. all of those countrie have devt levels far in excess of Australias.
New Zealands debt % is slighter higher (35%) than Australia's. -New Zealand's economy will prosper in 2014 as financial experts predict it will be a 'golden' year for the country... no doom and gloom, the country is ruined, our debt is too high there.
Really?
Why does that surprise you? Or couldn't you accept that it is true?
What?
The "really ?" is for - do you really think nobody in NZ is concerned about the amount of foreign interests in their holdings and the amount of their foreign debt.
my with foreign investors?
Why should citizens, for example, in NZ. be concerend about their foreign investors & debt level when their economy is prosperous & 'golden'?
As I tried to explain already.. debt isn't the only thing when you look at an economy. If GDP is high then the country is doing well, standards of living in that country will be high. If the level of debt is fairly low (33%) to GDP then why the panic?????
When does foreign investment cause a countries debt level to get higher and higher?
08-01-2014 04:48 PM - edited 08-01-2014 04:49 PM
Double post
on 08-01-2014 05:20 PM
@am*3 wrote:The "really ?" is for - do you really think nobody in NZ is concerned about the amount of foreign interests in their holdings and the amount of their foreign debt.
What is worse a debt level in excess or 100% and a poor economy or a booming econo
@icyfroth wrote:
@am*3 wrote:Icy -Sorry Am but I find no comfort in that.
Look at the trouble the US is in. Public services have been cut as seen in the debacle they had recently re their own debt-ceiling raising debacle. Cities like Detroit are in decay, others are in decline. States like California have been bankrupt.
Look at their debt %. 107% compared to Aust 33%
Australia isnt the US and never will be. Australia isn't Greece or Spain either... or the UK.. all of those countrie have devt levels far in excess of Australias.
New Zealands debt % is slighter higher (35%) than Australia's. -New Zealand's economy will prosper in 2014 as financial experts predict it will be a 'golden' year for the country... no doom and gloom, the country is ruined, our debt is too high there.
Really?
Why does that surprise you? Or couldn't you accept that it is true?
What?
The "really ?" is for - do you really think nobody in NZ is concerned about the amount of foreign interests in their holdings and the amount of their foreign debt.
my with foreign investors?
Why should citizens, for example, in NZ. be concerend about their foreign investors & debt level when their economy is prosperous & 'golden'?
Well obviously some NZ Citizens are, Am:
This free investment by foreign capital has also been criticised. Groups like Campaign Against Foreign Control of Aotearoa (CAFCA) consider that New Zealand's economy is substantially overseas-owned, noting that direct ownership of New Zealand companies by foreign parties increased from $9.7 billion in 1989 to $83 billion in 2007 (an over 700% increase), while 41% of the New Zealand sharemarket valuation is now overseas-owned, compared to 19% in 1989. Around 7% of all New Zealand agriculturally productive land is also foreign-owned. CAFCA considers that the effect of such takeovers has generally been negative in terms of jobs and wages
As I tried to explain already.. debt isn't the only thing when you look at an economy. If GDP is high then the country is doing well, standards of living in that country will be high. If the level of debt is fairly low (33%) to GDP then why the panic?????
When does foreign investment cause a countries debt level to get higher and higher?
Because foreign-owned companies tend to bring in their own workers if the local wages are considered too high. This puts local people out of work who then are not only no longer paying taxes but are actually on taxpayer-funded welfare.
Because foreign-owned companies tend to take their profits back to their own country of origin or those of their shareholders.
So the less income the government has from it's own investment in utilities and services and from the taxes it collects, and the more it has to pay out in services, welfare and other community projects etc, the more it has to borrow.
I know there's more to it than that but that's as simplified as I can make it for you.
I have to go BBL.
on 08-01-2014 06:48 PM
@boris1gary wrote:who is being crucified? Do you mean the miners - as in those who actually go underground and risk their life/health or are you talking about the mine owners who really do nothing but own. If the latter let them go, they can't take the land/mines with them, maybe we could nationalise them then and really share in the wealth.
I think you need to read the thread about the Co2 emissions proposals to understand that comment.
By crucified I was referring to fining companies big chunks of money if they produced too much Co2, to the extent that they decide it is not profitable for them to continue their operations here, so that they go to another country.
No one forces the miners to take those jobs, they do so of their own free will. but I bet most of them are glad for the employment. And from my undeerstanding, they are payed well.
My nephew works at the mines in Mt Isa, he drives the heavy machinery above ground. He doesn't go underground at all (apparently that is a different licence or something? Dunno, just know he doesn't go underground.
He joined straight out of school, and at 26 the mines have paid him enough wages to buy himself 2 houses and some lime green really ugly limited edition Ford (I think) which cost about $70,000 from memory (I just remember my father going off his nut at my brother (the boy's father) for "allowing" him to "waste his money like that" instead of planning for his future etc etc etc...
My guess is the people who go underground, choose to do that (just as my nephew chooses not to) and they probably get paid more money as well.
As for stop em mining LOLOLOL - 20 of our top 25 exports are all mining related. Our 3 biggest earners make up 1/3 of our export income. So if we lose those 3 alone, how many people will be unemployed, and how do we replace the $125 BILLION a year they provide in income for Australia?
huh?
Be realistic and stick a bandaid over your bleeding heart.
We have no alternative but to keep em, cos we got nothing better, and we can't survive as a nation if we lose 1/3 of our employment opportunities and 1/3 of our income.
Please tell me, if they leave, do you know how we would survive?
Do you know how these people would feed themselves without those jobs?
Stop resenting these companies because they make money.
That's why people go into business!
But we need them to want to make their money here, so they employ Australians to work and allow us to raise revenue as well.
We go into debt as a country with their money, how in the hell do we survive without it? Nearly 1/3 in just the top 3 Industries?
Wake up
Any job is better than starving.
on 08-01-2014 06:56 PM
@freakiness wrote:
@crikey*mate wrote:
@donnashuggy wrote:Resources, sorry for the one word answer 🙂
Yeah, but some are trying to scare the the people who make those resources useable and into a profitable commodity, away.
If that happens and we can't access and utilize our resources, they mean diddlysquat
And those who make the mega profits are trying to scare us into thinking that if we don't sell out to the cheapest bidder all the large corps will run away and leave us broke.
I don't understand why people begrudge people whose business is profitable.
The whole reason people go into business is to make a profit.
If they go, we will be broke. and if we need them to try and make us think that, then we are not very smart, cos that's the reality.
If it is not profitable for them to operate their business here, then they wont.
The minute that they can earn more money somewhere else, they will be gone.
That's business.
Without the income and employment that they provide, we cannot survive as a nation. Cos we have nothing of value to replace them with.
It's all in the other thread.
on 08-01-2014 07:20 PM
Who is talking about begrudging people whose business is profitable?
Nobody. That's just a bizarre conclusion you reach for some reason only known to you.
08-01-2014 07:30 PM - edited 08-01-2014 07:33 PM
icy -Because foreign-owned companies tend to bring in their own workers if the local wages are considered too high. This puts local people out of work who then are not only no longer paying taxes but are actually on taxpayer-funded welfare.
???So according to you a foreign owned company takes over an Australian company and sacks the local workers and employs foreign workers in AUSTRALIA on a lower than legal wage? The foreign owners don't have to abide by Aust employment laws, is that what you are inferring?
Please provide evidence of that.
I am discussing the economy as a whole, foreign investment is good for the economy overall.
Bonds has foreign ownership. The people that work in Bonds stores are Australian locals. The drivers that deliver stock to the stores are Aust locals.
So the less income the government has from it's own investment in utilities and services and from the taxes it collects, and the more it has to pay out in services, welfare and other community projects etc, the more it has to borrow.
Why does the Govt has less income??. If a foreign owner buys a business here, they pay company tax etc. If the Govt asset was a loss making asset, the Govt would be better off if someone else buys it.
The taxation system pays for welfare, the Govt doesn't borrow to pay benefits.