DUDE - Don't make me break out my Grammar Police Badge again!!!! http://idioms.thefreedictionary.com/woe+betide
But the GFC didn't cause most of the things that I mentioned, they were pretty much all caused by the stupidity and vested interests of the government of the day.
Jonesy.. We are talking about Qld here.. Have a look at the debt clock in post 37 and then google up Qld investment Corporation and please tell me if Qld is in a bad a position as other Australian States. Regards Errol 43
Errol I think that the State Government layer exists solely to act as the interface layer between government members and corporations and developers to allow corruption to proceed smoothly. I think that this occurs with all of the parties and that this layer of government is basically a clearing house for favours, backhanders and the Old Boys club and it should cease to exist.
Jonesy.. So you mean its like a Ponzi scheme..You don't know how much is in the state coffers until they go bankrupt. The only difference between Governments and you and me, is that they believe in paper and we believe in silver and gold. Regards Errol 43 Now when I think about it,Yea I know, Joe used to get his pay in a paper bag!
I had a think about this. The problem is, it's not like the funds under management by QIC are like money in the bank they (the Govt.) can draw on. Technically, it's not really even theirs (the Govt's) to spend. So it's not really an asset. Neither is it calculated as part of the debt. It's the Superannuation Acct of it's employees. To dip into those funds would be to dip into segregated acct funds like what MF Global did... or what those dodgey company execs did to those poor US Coal miners and Steelworkers retirement funds!?
Did Labor cause the GFC? Did the Liberals lobby China to bring in the mining boom? Did they lobby Greenspan to inflate world debt markets and create asset bubbles? I agree that some Liberals supported businesses and the environment that encouraged them. And that some Labor was harmful to business. But do you really think that those two parties are so different at the moment? The Liberals are too chickensh#t to have a real stance on anything, and Labor seem to think we'd be better off with a whole bunch more rules and taxes (that actually screw everything up).
I think the Swanny is well aware of this one. That's why he's constantly running around trying to boost 'confidence' in the economy. This is exactly what Central Bankers are petrified of too. Bernanke studied the Great Depression, he doesn't want to be the 'head of the Fed' that let it happen again. They know all about deflation, and that's why they'll fight it using every financial tool at their disposal.
Clawhammer.What you said^^^is true. However all the other states have unfunded super funds.. They have spent all their public servants contributions. Therefore in future years they have to find the payouts to pay their public servants when they retire..This has to come out of the states yearly revenue and it is because of this that all states with unfunded super will feel the pinch in future years. Lets hope that the Qld Investment Corporation invests the public servants money wisely..If they do then we will have little to worry about. With bad times probably around the corner, it will be important that the Qld Government doesn't waste our monies paid in taxes. I would like to complement all SS members who engaged in this thread for the way they pursued their thoughts on the matter. I like to engage in subjects such as this but at times I feel that too many times they degenerate into personal attacks and therefore I don't bother. I like your post Clawhammer..They make me think too. Regards Errol 43
Be careful what you wish for Jonesy. Sentiments such as the one you expressed echo those of the "big government" factions who would wish for centralised power in the hands of a few. Yes duplication of government responsibilities is always an issue, however we are witnessing the accumulation of political power in a central body (Federal) at the expense of freedoms at a local and state level on an ever increasing basis. Qld recently amalgamated shire councils and city councils across the state (reminiscent of Victoria), removing local consultation and a local voice in councils in many communities and towns across the State. This has had negative consequences for many. Councillors from the main city in our regional council are openly hostile to our community's wants and needs, we have 2 votes around the table out of about 12 votes in total. Consequently, decisions are usually taken resulting our best interests being ignored. Likewise the Federal Labor government (actually the Greens really) have been legislating and interfering at a State level in our financial and economic affairs - and it can be argued that the motives are dubious.
All the more reason to abolish state governments. They don't do anything that the federal government and local councils couldn't split between them and keeping local councils local would be very important in making sure communities have a voice in a two-level system of government. Queensland amalgamating shire councils is simply the state government trying to preserve its power by neutering a lower level of government that could compete with it. That goes towards Jonsey's point that state governments are a breeding ground power struggles and the corruption and wastage that goes along with them. If we assume for the sake of argument that about one third of the state governments' "activities" are essentially useless and simply involve managing the other two thirds, if we abolished the states then one third of the publish servants would be absorbed by the federal government and continue doing basically what they do now and another third would be absorbed by local government and continue doing basically what they do now. The remaining (useless) one third would cease to exist, the total number of public servants in Australia would be reduced by about 11% and nobody would really notice the difference. The states were important two hundred years ago when Australia was a series of isolated penal colonies and long distance communication was as only as fast as the horse that carried it, but now we've got roads and phones and the internet and we simply don't need the states any more. If you bestow power on an organisation, it is inevitable that the organisation will use that power to defend it's existence even if the organisation isn't relevant to anybody or anything.
You raise some very valid points BigAD. When i get home and can use my computer instead of my smutfone, I will counter your anti-state position
I think it is a good thing that people lose sight of the Paradox of Thrift theory. Firstly, it contradicts Say's Law? If there is a glut of savings, demand will fall, we know that if demand falls, prices fall. Lower prices stimulate demand as things become more affordable. Savings also represent loanable funds. Increases in the savings rate lower interest rates which stimulates borrowing for both investment and consumption. Also Keynes' Paradox of Thrift theory assumes a closed economy where the savings can not be loaned or invested abroad. We certainly don't have a closed economy. A perfect example is the Chineese using their huge savings to invest in Australian mines. The resulting action is that the chinese economy continues to thrive as they reduce their overall costs of resources (hedging increasing commodity prices by taking a kickback through the profits) and selling their products world wide. Similarly, "investing" in US debt allows the US PONZI scheme to keep going and the US buying their products ( I think this is a mistake long term).
Some good points made however there is a risk that the party in power at the Federal level will favour/spend more money on areas it considers electorally important and ignore others. Eg Sydney North West rail link - Federal Labor is unwilling to commit funds to this project as it is in mainly Liberal areas. Instead it wants to push the Parramatta-Epping link which is much more marginal ground. The state Liberal government can now tell federal Labor - no thanks, we are going to build the North West Rail link with or without your help. Without a state Liberal govt,a federal Labor govt would have continued to ignore the needs of North West Sydney residents.
I like your thinking Big A.D. Although we both agree that we have too much government I think the solution is to go into a different direction. I would rather see the roles of Federal and State governments completely separated. Try to kill off overlapping areas of responsibility. It shouldn't be a responsibility of a centralized government in Canberra to micro manage a range of responsibilities that require completely different solutions in different areas. Also if the Federal government screws something up, they screw it up for everyone. I would rather see the states coming up with their own solutions to their own problems and have the people of those states hold them accountable. You could have 7/8 different experiments happening at once on how to best manage the child education system and have the Federal government in charge of adult education (as just one example). States can learn off of the success and failures of other states and have the Federal government there just to have some oversight to coordinate a broad consensus so that at a minimum each state is doing enough to prepare students for university if they so chose to take that path. The Federal government can then simply give an equal amount of education dollars per student to the states to spend as they so chose. Similarly, how do we expect a centralised government in Canberra to know the needs of specific regional health care? We shouldn't, and we should never have a situation where government at a Federal level can disproportionately allocate funding from say a regional area of QLD to a metropolitan area of Tasmania. Again, environmental protection. Why do we have two levels of government doing exactly the same job and often doing the same thing twice? What a waste of resources. While I would like to see the EPA at a Federal level only, so that there is no conflict of Interest between a states want of economic projects at the expense of the the environment, I am hugely concerned with the recent marine parks farce that all the Zionist greenies will simply target the Federal government and gain more power than they have now and kill us of economically based on pure ideology. The Federal government should stick to areas that only a Federal government can provide such as Defence, International Relations/trade etc and pass the dollars to the states to manage at their will. Local councils need to be abolished altogether as they are unconstitutional and state regional sub offices established to manage specific areas.
That could be partly the case, but remember that the Liberal/conservative position is that government should generally stay out of people's lives and let the private sector handle things. The previous NSW Labor government may have deliberately withheld funding for public transport in Sydney's north west because its full of safe Liberal seats, but how well is the area going to fair with under another party that doesn't really believe in building public infrastructure in the first place? The latest announcement (a few days ago) was that the NW Rail Link will be privately built and operated. Labor - attempting to be as "fiscally responsible" as the Liberals - already tried that sort of arrangement with the Airport Line, the Cross City Tunnel and the Lane Cove Tunnel and all of them have been epic failures (great infrastructure but financial disasters). Compare that scenario with the Sydney Light Rail system, where Sydney City Council has brought together five other neighbouring councils to hash out the plans for extending the light rail network - people know what they need at a local level and that group of councils - in consultation with their communities - have developed several plans for adding to the Light Rail network but they just need funds to be able to start building them. Those funds have not been forthcoming because the previous Labor government had mates in the roads lobby and they wanted to keep building motorways instead. I think Barry O'Farrell has managed to luck out in a way, in that everyone in Sydney is screaming out for better public transport and all he has to do is approve some of the plans that have already been developed and allow someone else to spend the money building it all. Its certainly interesting that he's brought former Liberal premier Nick Greiner in to "advise" on all the transport stuff. Buy hey, what's the point of being in power if you can't hook your mates up with cushy jobs?
Ha ha ha one wants States abolished, one wants Federal abolished and one wants Local abolished. Well looks like the big losers out of this are politicians.:lol:
Nick Greiner?! Seriously? ...and I though Gillard bringing back Bob Carr from the dead was an act of 'Dark Magic'.
