3BrNBBRz4UYdo+!~~60_7.JPG "chameleon54"){kind=avatar}
Martin, I will try to respond to each paraphrased post below
1) " the morons in charge are running off with the money "
True to some extent at least, but both Labor & the Liberals are great at it. In both cases the money goes to friends of the party through business deals.
2) " John Howard casualised the work force." Again there may be some truth to this, but I happen to agree with casualisation. The employer is purely buying some-ones labour for an agreed period of time. Why should the employer be responsible for social policy such as the employees retitrement savings, holidays, family plans such as birth of children or sex change treatment ? The individual should take responsability for planning and paying for life decisions. I get why full time employees need flexability in their working lives, but it should be up to the employee to plan for and PAY FOR holidays and retirement and long service leave if they want it.
If you dont agree with this, then the next step is socialism, ie. that the state should be responsible. If you believe in socialism, thats fine, I get it. But not even in socialism does it mean the private employer should be responsible, its a state issue.
3) " Lending is restricted because of tighter finance as a result of the royal commission, resulting in falling house prices. "
Agreed, this is a contributor to falling house prices, along with high immigration. Nothing occurs in a bubble with multiple influences on ecenomic policy at any one time. BUT the tightening of lending restrictions was long overdue. I was a happy beneficiery of low doc loans, used to buy properties in the early 2000,s. Sure we got the loans and the money and in our case the deals payed off with rapidly rising house prices, but in all honesty, we never should have been lent the money. We had no real income except the rents from the properties purchased.
4) " The Liberals campaigned on running the economy better " Well that is sort of true..........:
... The Liberals havnt been great at economic management this time round. Things are not booming BUT they have so far kept us out of recession with stable ecenomic management and I suspect that had Labor got in, the policies they where proposing would have made things a lot worse very quickly.
Like many others on these boards I wouldnt be suprised to see a recession this term though, regardless of who had their hands on the steeringb wheel. Should this occur it just becomes a question of degrees. Would the Liberals manage the recession better than Labor ?
5) " Privatisation is the root of all evil and pushes up prices for consumers " Agree fully with you on this general principle. Essential utilities are much better being state owned. The only problem is the public service has become fat and lazy. In the 1950,s and 60,s the public service really new how to run things, with boring little men doing a great job of organising stuff, accounting for finance and long term planning. That was the public service heyday and it was a job treated with respect.
Now, the public service has poor leadership, too many middle level people doing not very much and those at the coal face getting hammered from understaffing and a less respectful, me orientated public. Basically the public service no longer has the ability to run big business. The answer is to fix the cultural problems in the public service, not sell everything off to private profit makers.
6 ) " Sco Mo is a flim flam ad man "............ Possibly Time will tell. The only definate is that most politicians are pretty fake and just tell us what they think we want to hear. And you would suspect an ad man knows this better than most................ It might just be that he,s worked out that what we want to see and hear is the truth, so in part at least, that may be what he is delivering...........
