---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@the_great_she_elephant wrote:

---

@icyfroth wrote:

So why are we so far in debt? Something like 3.5 Billion AUD?

---

What, in your opinion would be a managable level of debt?

 

---

That's a hard question for me, She-el, seeing I'm a political numpty and and not very good at figures either, as you've probably noticed. 

 

But as an answer I'd say...maybe something like the 96-odd billion the Howard government started off with when it took office.

Which was paid down by selling off assets like Telstra and quite a few others, bringing us into a $20bill surplus.

 

Which is now gone, and not only gone, but now wer'e now evenin more debt, and I don't entirely blame the Labor government, there were circumstances beyond their control.

 

It does worry me however when a government applies to raise our debt ceiling to $500bill and the opposition says no no no you can only have 400bill, that we still need to borrow more. No there's no debt ceiling at all, to my understanding.

 

I mean, how are we going to pay even just the interest on those loans? Cutting services, raising taxes and selling off assets seems the logical answer, doesn't it? I mean, if that's going to happen, then why not in the first place, to keep us out of debt and out of foreign hands.?

 

Which is why I feel a bit insecure when I hear little hints of further Government services to be privatised sold off. How much longer before we run out of assets and resources?

 

BBL

---

But the problem is, reducing debt by selling assets can only ever be a very short term solution and one that  can only lead to increasing  problems in the future. - revenue from these assets is lost and  the time  inevitably comes when there are no more assets to sell. And where do you go from there?

---

But that's my whole point!

---

@lakeland27 wrote:

---

@monman12 wrote:

IF: "Australia Post and Medibank To Be Sold Off?"

Hmmmm, reading the article I notice it contains ".....Mr Sims has told News Radio that he was not advocating for the sale of particular Government-owned businesses......"

Then I discover this (today) :
"ACCC chairman Rod Sims denies urging privatisation of Australia Post"

Also noted:
"Communications Minister Malcolm Turnbull said the government had no plans to privatise Australia Post."
"The Coalition has no plans to privatise Australia Post"

"A spokesman for Nationals leader Warren Truss said the government did not plan to sell the service."

"The government doesn't have any policy to sell Australia Post"

So IF, what on earth is the thread actually about, because the "?" is not adequate qualification?

Within the article:
"Martin O'Nea, the national assistant secretary of the Communication Workers Union says " Australia Post has returned more than $800 million in dividends to taxpayers over the past three years."

A quick check of the published financial reports show that dividend return  to be :

12/13  $244    million
11/12  $213.7  million
10/11  $173.2 million

I would  suggest that  O'Nea progress no higher than assistant secretary, because his researching is on a par with the occasional CS author. 

 

---

i would think this is a pantomime governments of all descriptions go through. leak a litttle and see how it plays out. then decide (or reconsider if the decision has been made) .

---

I know Monno. I just think that once the idea is floated,  the public has been acquainted with it and the government has denied it - it's out there.

TB, I would be interested in a valid reference  to support this :

  "Not too long ago the generation and supply of electricity was a public sector function........the Howard Government forced the states to privatise (sell off) this asset.

That is codswallop, and by extrapolation, one would assume, the rest of the post.  Electricity supply, both generation and distribution were/are purely State controlled when part of a State government  infrastructure asset.

"At the Commonwealth level, both Labor and Liberal governments undertook privatisation.......... an interesting part of the Australian  story has been the bipartisan support of privatisation. Under  governments of both left and the right, such policies have been actively pursued since the1980s"

If you bother to research, the above applies to past federal government asset sales  such as Qantas, Testra, CBA etc.

PS

2012:  "Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson said a new energy white paper would urge all states to privatise to encourage competition."

" Federal Energy Minister Martin Ferguson to states: sell power assets"

---

@am*3 wrote:
Still has got nothing to do with causing Aust not being able to pay its debt payments though.....

---

Where did I say it did?

Yes the asset was state owned.  But if you did some further research you would find that, at the time, Howard assisted by Abbott, and other, made it quite clear he wanted the asset sold and then placed pressure on the states to do exactly that.  That is it was a clear cut case of do it or else, with the or else being how federal funding was to be distributed.

I mean the process is not new.  For instance the last Labor government did exactly the same to get its states to agree to its education and health care initiatives.

“That is codswallop, and by extrapolation, one would assume”

My post is directed towards a fundamental and well proven fact that is not one instance where the community has been better off when a public sector asset has been privatised. In fact, in every case, where that asset has been privatised, not only has the level of service decline but also the customer is being forced to pay more for the reduced service being provided.

---

@icyfroth wrote:

---

@am*3 wrote:
Still has got nothing to do with causing Aust not being able to pay its debt payments though.....

---

Where did I say it did?

---

Your own words in the opening post

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?

Govt selling off assets can increase productivity which is good for the economy. Aust Post or Medibank may be run more efficiently than they are now as well.

Selling off remaining assets (which is not even a reality at present) has nothing to do with repayng loans.

We are not 'so far in debt' either compared to other countries (see my previous post for the % of debt to GDP).

What jobs are going to overseas or foreign workers.. the local posties jobs?

TB: "My post is directed towards a fundamental and well proven fact that is not one instance where the community has been better off when a public sector asset has been privatised. In fact, in every case, where that asset has been privatised, not only has the level of service decline but also the customer is being forced to pay more for the reduced service being provided."

TB that is absolute nonsense,  allow me to mention  at state level  the State Bank of  Victoria, or the CBA at federal leveljj

 Among the policies for which the Hawke-Keating Labor government is remembered, two of the most prominent were privatisation and financial deregulation. The combination of these two policies was symbolised by the conversion of the Commonwealth Bank from the 'people's bank' to a private organisation devoted to maximising returns to its shareholders and managers.

I realised that governments were not  good bankers, and upon privatisation purchased as many shares as I could afford with dividend  re-investment. (I now have over 8000 CBA now with a good fully franked return) as do most supperanuation funds.

" not one instance where the community has been better off when a public sector asset has been privatised."

Nonsense TB, and you do not invest I would assert.

Is there anyone here who knows a little about economics ?,  or actually invests?, or has there own SMSF?, or understands  any of the  one , or more of the  foregoing?

Waiting, waiting, waiting.

 nɥºɾ