Reserve Bank reveals new design for Australia's $10 note

Discussion in 'Currencies' started by ozcopper, Feb 16, 2017.

  1. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Same old mantra about Labor and economic management.

    To the degree that it actually matters which government is in place, hope for Labor:

    In an article in The Guardian on 19 March 2018, Stephen Koukoulas, a research economist, after examining economic data, concluded ‘On both measures, the level of economic growth and growth relative to the US, Labor is a better performer than the Coalition. One of the weakest economic managers since the early 1970s is the current Abbott/Turnbull administration where GDP growth has averaged a mere 0.60% per quarter which is just 0.04 percentage points above the US performance.’

    Only two Australian treasurers have been awarded the coveted Euromoney ‘Finance Minister of the Year’ award. Paul Keating won it in 1984 in recognition of the government’s role in structural reform. Wayne Swan won the award in 2011 in recognition of the government’s successful response to the Global Financial Crisis. It is unlikely that recent treasurers, Joe Hockey or Scott Morrison, would make the shortlist for this award!

    But what about Peter Costello who because of his performance as treasurer in the Howard government is now treated by the media as a financial guru.

    Peter Costello was a very lucky treasurer. He inherited a booming world economy and a mining boom. As Paul Keating once put it, Peter Costello was ‘Hit in the arse by a rainbow’.

    With record revenues in boom times, Peter Costello introduced measures which have left a very serious and damaging legacy. Continuing chronic budget deficits are very much due to Peter Costello. The Howard and Costello government wasted the buoyant revenues of the mining boom.

    The parliamentary budget office put this problem in the following terms.

    Over two-thirds of the five percentage points of GDP decline in structural receipts over the period 2002/3 to 2011/12, was due to the cumulative effects of the successive personal income tax cuts granted between 2003/4 and 2008/9. A further quarter was the result of a decline in excise and customs duties as a proportion of GDP. Significant factors driving this trend included the abolition of petroleum fuels excise indexation in the 2001/2 Budget and the decline in the consumption of cigarettes and tobacco over the period.

    The IMF came to much the same conclusion. It identified two periods of Australian ‘fiscal profligacy’ , both during the Howard turn in office – in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007. (SMH Jan 11, 2013).

    In short, our continuing structural budget deficit is due in substantial part to the Howard/Costello government’s laxity with government spending in it’s last years in office. We blew the benefits of the mining boom when we should have been doing more to improve the underlying budget position.

    The Howard/Costello years locked in negative gearing concessions and generous treatment of capital gains which have been at great cost to the government in lost revenue and priced many young Australians out of the housing market.

    There were also tax-free superannuation benefits, family trust concessions, franking credit rebates and a whole series of decisions on spending and tax that have caused continuing budget difficulties and the skewing of the tax system and the economy in favour of older generations. There really has been generational theft.

    These tax concessions introduced by Howard/Costello cost the budget over $50 billion a year. We are paying a very heavy price for the budget damage that Peter Costello inflicted over a decade ago.

    The Howard/Costello governments did pay down the debt it inherited by $96b but $70b came from asset sales and particularly from the sale of Telstra for which we are paying a heavy price today in the NBN mess

    The other major cause of the structural deficit is that the Rudd government spent heavily to counter the global financial crisis. It was more successful than almost any other government in the world in avoiding a major recession and unemployment, but when the recovery took hold, the Rudd and Gillard governments did not focus on the structural deficit problem particularly as identified by the Henry tax review. Some improvements were made to reduce middle-class welfare like the subsidy to private health insurance and the over-generous concessions that Peter Costello had given to superannuants. But the improvements were nowhere near enough.

    Since Tony Abbott became Prime Minister, the Coalition has been predicting that it would get rid of Labor’s debt. It hasn’t. When Tony Abbott came to office in 2013, Australia’s net government debt was $174 billion. It has now doubled to over $340 billion.

    https://johnmenadue.com/john-menadue-the-myth-that-the-liberals-are-better-economic-managers/
    and the always described 'left wing' ABC - another urban myth, had this to say:

    Is low spending always a virtue?
    Fact Check asked three experts if low spending should be pursued as an economic goal in its own right. All agreed that spending should be adjusted to suit changing economic circumstances.

    For example, real spending surged by 12.7 per cent in 2008-09 as the former Labor government unveiled billions of dollars worth of stimulus measures to offset the impact of the global financial crisis.

    Although there is disagreement among some commentators over whether the spending surge was an excessive or appropriate response to the crisis, there are few who would argue the stimulus spending was entirely unnecessary.

    CommSec's Mr James said: "There are good reasons for spending to increase in soft economic times and good reasons for spending to be constrained in periods of good economic growth. Modest spending growth is certainly appropriate at the current time."

    Professor Carmignani said a low growth rate of spending is not in itself a good or bad thing. "In fact, there are situations in which we would like spending to grow faster; that's, for instance, the case when the economy is in a recession."

    He added that judging the performance of a government on the basis of how low (or high) the growth rate of expenditure is "does not make much sense".

    "In fact, if I had a government that decided to reduce spending in a period of recession, then I would conclude that the government is highly incompetent."

    Dr Edwards, likewise, said spending should depend on the economic circumstances, a recent notable example being the Rudd government's response to the 2008-09 global slump.

    He said spending increases under the Abbott and Turnbull governments had been "quite modest" compared to those under the Howard government with Mr Costello as its treasurer, "though both were periods of reasonable consistent economic performance".

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-06-01/fact-check-spending-growth-under-the-coalition/9800624
     
  2. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,935
    Likes Received:
    2,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    JulieW,

    I do agree on the point re Liberal economic mgmt that Howard should have put more $'s aside / created a sovereign wealth fund (for a rainy day along with the Future Fund) rather than hand out the value tax cuts and incentives they did. Too election focused but that's politicians for you.

    Keating's comment about a economic rainbow is just Keating re-writing history. Keating had NFI when it came to managing the economy / currency and apparently went into physical paralysis one cabinet meeting in the mid 80's when the dollar was dropping into the 50c to the USD range. Keating let the economy overheat in the second half the 80's and left it up to the RBA to crank interest rates to 17% to fix it.....didn't we all enjoy that, the recession we all had to have and 11% unemployment. It wasn't till after the event did Keating implemented the 2-4% inflation range re interest rate setting. Note Bill Kelty takes credit for that idea too.

    Whilst Howard / Costello did inherit an economy on the improve post the 1990's recession, interest rates were still 8% odd, a net govt debt of 15% of GDP and there was no mining boom to fill the treasury coffers. Rather, when the AUD crashed against the USD to sub 0.50, Howard and Costello did nothing to defend the currency and let the market decide. As a result, the Govt generated more corporate tax / royalty revenues due to the main export commodities being sold in USD, thus when converted back to AUD, bigger revenues and more tax paid but that was about it along with gentle economic growth thru the Howard years ( and higher tax receipts) and lower welfare costs due to lower unemployment. Howard also brought in GST, a tax policy that Keating wanted in the 80's but Hawke & the ALP didn't have the spine to push, rather Labor introduced the capital gains tax on investments and undid Gough's free uni education policy thus saddling young Australian's with a HEC's debt even before they can start a full time job.

    I do think that times have changed somewhat in the last 30 years with govt's forced to look at spending on policy initiatives that were not a material factor in the past. ie foreign aid $ v trade deals, immigration costs / border security, environmental, social and wider health spending along with the basics of defence, health, education etc. I know I'm simplifying this one point, but you get the gist of what I'm saying as govt's from the 90's onwards have had different and wider policy issues to deal with and fund as opposed to say pre Hawke. However this doesn't mean a govt can act recklessly when it comes to spending our tax dollars or the money they borrow.

    I noted in past SS threads that neither Rudd or Swan had a clue when it came to the economy and how to manage the the GFC. Such was widely know in the Australian financial markets.

    Rudd & Gillard's spending was political, not economic in the main. Throwing $900 cheques at voters, pink bats, the Building the Education Revolution...all huge wastes of borrowed money which provided effectively no return to the country apart from temporary cash splurges. Rudd and Gillard also had the benefit of the mining boom that was kicking off an should have sat back and watched how global events started to effect the Australian economy, then in need provided some level of considered stimulus to the economy. Would have slightly higher unemployment rates, softer growth and lower debt post GFC been a better outcome for Australia in the medium to long term....probably yes but we'll never know as Labor didn't act in a considered and paced manner of review, consider and then act.

    Don't get me started on the NBN project which will run close to AUD100bn over time, will provide last century technology that is expensive to maintain and hard to upscale cheaply (v wireless tech) and forces the tax payer to take a NBN package that costs more for less. 100mbs for hospitals and certain businesses maybe required and the provide sector can provide it, but the average punter can get by okay on 13-15mbs ADSL / wireless. Then when 5G rolls out, people will dump their landlines / NBN and go fully wireless leaving a useless and valuleess network of fibre optic cabel we still haven't paid off. What was Labor thinking.

    An article in the Australian in 2013 sums it up well.
    https://www.theaustralian.com.au/na...g/news-story/33f7cb7a94e19aca3210b3e246147196

    Then we come to the Abbott Govt. Yep agreed, govt debt went up under Abbott and then Malcolm due in the main to:

    1) Labor blocking the first Hockey budget in the senate (cos they could) even when Abbott had an electoral mandate from the public to make hard economic choices and cuts. Labor and the Dems didn't stand in the way of Costello's first budget (which was harsher than Hockey's) as Labor acknowledged the LNP had a mandate for that budget.

    2) Like all good modern Labor Govts, introduce new policies and spending that is locked in for years to come ie NBN, additional welfare classes, commitments to foreign aid payments (which are funded by debt) to name a few which the new government has to accede to or it becomes political dynamite to try and wind back or cut those policies and spending levels.

    The Libs ain't perfect, but they don't spend tax dollars / borrowed money in the same ill considered and politicised way a modern Labor govt would.
     
    JulieW likes this.
  3. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Thanks for a fulsome reply. Mostly agreed but the faults are common to both parties, and I still hold that Labor does better in a very limited comparison, based upon the minor influences either Party has on the macro view. (Trump tweets aside lol)

    Labor's policies are well telegraphed at this election and so we'll no doubt be able to revisit this comparison in 3± years and see if the economy has "done a Trump bump" or is down the gurgler.

    Considering the future world trends, it probably won't matter which Party is pulling the levers, though at least Labor has actual policy to try out.
     
  4. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Timely. Just out, The Plan according to Labor

    Labor will release its policy costings today, which are expected to outline $154 billion in savings to the budget over a decade, due to its contentious tax changes.

    Key points:
    • The ABC understands Labor's costings will show it intends to match the Coalition's surplus this coming financial year
    • Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen said the party would achieve a surplus of one per cent of GDP by 2022-23
    • That would be four years earlier than the current Government trajectory, he said

    The Opposition's plans to curb negative gearing, capital gains tax concessions and dividend imputation have been a central battle in the federal election campaign.

    Labor will set out how those changes and a crackdown on multinational tax avoidance would allow it fund spending promises on education and healthcare, while also bringing the budget back into surplus.

    The ABC understands Labor's costings will show it intends to match the Coalition's surplus this coming financial year, but promise a quicker reduction of debt.

    "We will show bigger budget surpluses over the forward estimates and the medium-term, achieving a surplus of 1 per cent of GDP by 2022-23, four years earlier than the current Government trajectory," Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen said.

    "The Liberals' claim about the amount that Labor will raise from its tax reform decisions is wrong.

    "Labor has consistently said further tax relief can be prudently provided when the budget is back in healthy surplus, if the economic and fiscal circumstances allow — that is reflected in Labor's final fiscal plan."

    The Coalition has described Labor's key policies as tax hikes, but Mr Bowen will use his party's costings to argue households are paying $18,6000 on average each year to fund the tax concessions.

    In previous election campaigns, opposition parties have released policy costings only a couple of days before polling day, but this time Labor is releasing the details eight days before the May 18 poll.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...led-surplus-savings-federal-election/11099378
     
  5. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    BTW, this is referenced above and makes for interesting reading.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-11...ey-your-money-takes-after-buying-nike/9075626

    Nike’s Australian arm is owned by — and pays large amounts of money to — Nike companies housed in the low-tax destination of the Netherlands.

    The company’s own filings show that Nike has only paid tax of 1.4 per cent on accumulated global offshore profits of $US12.2 billion
    Which is quite fascinating considering The Netherlands is dyed in the wool socialist. I would have thought corporate tax avoidance was a giant no-no, but it seems only citizens are taxed to the bleeding point.

    AND perhaps this has something to do with it!

    From that $80 Nike also pays about $17 in royalty payments — a figure based on company disclosures — to the Dutch company called Nike Global Trading BV.

     
  6. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,935
    Likes Received:
    2,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    And there we have it sports fans.... https://www.smh.com.au/federal-elec...x-hit-to-top-end-of-town-20190510-p51lyj.html

    Rather than providing a "hand up" to the normal players, Labor will penalise those who work hard and will "redistributing billions of dollars from the "top end of town" to "normal players"....aka socialism 101....and I quote from the SMH today...

    "Labor will deliver a $446 billion tax hit to retired shareholders, property investors, superannuation accounts and high-income earners in order to fund a pay rise to child care workers, dental for pensioners and the highest surplus in Australian history."

    Will Labor deliver a budget surplus.....5 gets ya 10...NO ! Rudd billed himself as "Howard Lite and economic rationalist and looked what happened. Bill and the ALP only know one way...tax and spend.

    And not a word about the economic impact of Labor's CO2 / environmental polices on the Australian economy.
     
  7. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Costings
    preparedby the independent Parliamentary Budget Office were released on Friday, eight days from the election.

    Over the next four years, measures that raise revenue or reduce spending (‘savings’) by Labor are set to exceed new expenditure (‘spending’) by $17 billion more than the Coalition — which means a larger surplus.

    It’s largely due to a decision to reverse personal tax cuts and reform the system of franking credits.

    Shadow Treasurer Chris Bowen said he accepted that it was “unusual” for Labor to pledge bigger budget surpluses than the Coalition.

    “But it’s right for the times,” he said.

    “We believe we do need a bigger economic buffer, we need a fighting fund for the economy.”

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05-10/federal-election-2019-labor-reveals-costings/11100352
     
  8. Oddjob

    Oddjob Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Aug 19, 2018
    Messages:
    2,935
    Likes Received:
    2,985
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Oz
    Wow...a lot of line items noted there but that's govt for you.

    One thing I notice was hat there is a lot of $ going to UN / foreign aid / refugees but not one line item re military vets (and the support they and their families) should get during and post service.

    Also still not a peep on what the impact Labor's environment policy will have on the economy...that's right, they can't calculate the impact...just trust them.
     
    JOHNLGALT likes this.
  9. JOHNLGALT

    JOHNLGALT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2017
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    881
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Country Victoria Australia
    Well, at least we don't have to worry about what's-her-face making large donations to the corrupt Clinton Foundation anymore.
     
  10. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Laura Tingle (ABC) has an interesting view on this. How Labor will fight the perception that it is not good at economic management:

    Election promises have increasingly become ones that stretch out until we are all dead, or at least for a decade.

    But, built on the funds raised from measures like the proposed changes to dividend imputation and the taxation of trusts, Labor's promised spending, in areas from schools to infrastructure, aggressively starts within the next term of the Parliament.

    Voters will be able to assess Labor on its record in three years' time.

    Given the likely nature of the Senate, that is a strategy full of political risk. The likely Senate crossbench has signalled its hostility to many of the revenue raising measures Labor has set out, leaving a question over what happens if the money isn't there to fund the new spending.

    And there is the broader question of whether voters, in three years' time, will be feeling better if the promises are delivered.

    Labor has rightly talked of a possible global downturn, of a sluggish domestic economy and an economy "not growing in the right way" in terms of equity.

    It argues it is prudent policy to spend the majority of the money it raises from closing tax loopholes on a budget surplus "fighting fund" to protect Australia from future downturns.

    But what do its policies do to address its central attack on the Coalition over the domestic economy experienced by most voters — an economy that people do not feel is delivering?

    You can't really model the impact on the economy of individual measures, but Labor's finance spokesman Jim Chalmers said on Friday, "what we are proposing today is in the economic orthodoxy more likely to grow the economy than what the Government is proposing".

    Chris Bowen argued Labor's more generous investment allowance and larger tax cuts for low-income households would boost consumption, as would childcare subsidies by lifting disposable income.

    Labor's history is one of winning government when things have gone bad globally.

    There is nothing it can do to stop that global trend if it happens again in 2019. But its political and economic task will be to deliver enough of what it has promised to overcome the voxpop of Labor, and lock in the shift in the debate about the role of government that lies beneath its 2019 campaign.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-05...9-shorten-finds-feet-morrison-panics/11102786
     
  11. JOHNLGALT

    JOHNLGALT Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2017
    Messages:
    2,643
    Likes Received:
    881
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Country Victoria Australia
    "Labor's history is one of winning government when things have gone bad globally."

    Labor's history is one of miss-managing MONEY, factional infighting & sucking up to the Internationalists, IMF, CLIMATE CREEPS, ILLEGAL IMMIGRANTS, LEFT-WING EVERYTHING YOU CAN INVENT, & not giving a $#!T about ordinary Australians.

    There, I fixed it for you. _JOHNLGALT. (Australian)
     
  12. l***g

    l***g Active Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Jun 20, 2014
    Messages:
    474
    Likes Received:
    176
    Trophy Points:
    43
    Location:
    a blue sunday
    And I fixed it for you.
     
  13. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    "Voters will be able to assess Labor on its record in three years' time."
     
  14. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    And here's a clever move by Shorten:

    Labor has challenged the Coalition to back its competing plan for tax cuts should Bill Shorten become prime minister, amid a dramatic shift by the Reserve Bank of Australia that throws doubt over the key economic and wage forecasts underpinning the budget.

    The opposition kicked off the final week of the election campaign by detailing the total cost of its move against the "top end of town", revealing $160 billion in extra tax revenue that will be used to fund new spending, generate larger surpluses and pay down more debt than proposed by the Morrison government.

    In an interview with The Sydney Morning Herald and The Age, shadow treasurer Chris Bowen said he expected bipartisan support for Labor's tax cuts for low and medium income earners, setting up an early test for the Coalition should it lose the May 18 contest.

    “We would hope and expect the Liberal Party, which has made a big deal out of tax relief from July 1, enables and supports the package of our measures through the Parliament expeditiously to ensure they can be delivered," Mr Bowen said.

    The Coalition announced tax relief of up to $1080 for 10 million people in the April budget but did not legislate the changes before calling the election. Labor backs those cuts but wants to deliver $1.1 billion extra to people earning less than $48,000.



    Whoever wins needs to legislate the changes before July 1 so Australians can immediately claim the increased offset, otherwise the tax office will have to retrospectively amend tax returns.

    The tax cuts could provide an important economic boost, with the latest RBA monetary policy statement pointing to growing concerns about the strength of the economy.

    The central bank downgraded its forecasts for growth, the terms of trade, household consumption and wages over the next two years.

    The RBA's forecasts are now much weaker than those underpinning the federal budget, released just five weeks ago, which predicted wages to grow by 2.75 per cent in 2019-20 and then by 3.25 per cent in 2020-21.

    But the RBA now believes wages will grow by 2.5 per cent in 2019-20 and 2.6 per cent in 2020-21.

    Mr Bowen seized on the statement, saying it was clear the economy was not working for ordinary people.

    "If Labor is lucky enough to win the election we would inherit an economy that’s seen record low wages growth, living standards stagnate and more people having to work two jobs to pay the bills," he said.

    But Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, who accused Labor of having a black hole at the heart of its costings, denied the economy was in difficulty.

    "The fundamentals of the Australian economy are very sound. And we have seen strong labour market growth," he said.

    From the Melbourne Age.
    So who has whose best interests at heart?

    The ideologues on both sides have no more interest than their years of "service" and their gold plated retirements.

     
  15. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Bob Hawke and Paul Keating have the last word:

     
  16. Stoic Phoenix

    Stoic Phoenix Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Nov 12, 2014
    Messages:
    3,671
    Likes Received:
    744
    Trophy Points:
    113
    No mention of Gillard and Rudd..the last two Labor PM's pissing billions of dollars in surplus and then some away by the writer of that story...lets guess their political leanings as its clearly not an unbiased piece@JulieW . Your #21 post also didnt allude to tweedledum and tweedledumber either...funny that.
     
  17. JulieW

    JulieW Well-Known Member Silver Stacker

    Joined:
    Oct 14, 2010
    Messages:
    13,053
    Likes Received:
    2,205
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Location:
    Australia
    Yes, good point, however Rudd gets favourable mentions frequently for staving off the recession/depression cycles that sprang up almost everywhere after 2008.

    Eleven years on it's easy to be wise after the fact, but the helicopter money drop was what they were told to do and so they did it and it worked out well in many regards. Again, in retrospect there may have been other alternatives but I remember being scared witless as the news spread on what was happening.

    I fully expected a 1929 disaster at the very least, and the emergency actions I took those weeks of Oct/Nov 2008 are still my baseline. (ie: gold, silver assets, debt free, cash on hand, food stores, reducing reliance on government pensions, self defence measures, etc.)

    For months, probably a couple of years total, I took every dollar as cash from super and wage deposits as soon as they arrived, in the expectation of an imminent banking collapse, dead ATMs, food riots etc.

    There's a scene in Margin Call I think, where a banking exec rings his wife, telling her to empty out the ATM. That was the prevailing sentiment for those who knew. So I'm glad that Rudd took the action and held the gates. The worst case scenario was horrifying.

    2008 changed everything and no doubt the perception you mention is probably why there is so much, shall we say political propaganda,addressing the issue of Labor's economic management.

    The minor differences between Lib and Lab from 2008 onwards have allowed us to argue minor points, but now Labor has outlined a significant change of direction and presumably will claim a mandate for the changes coming.

    I'm assuming a Labor win and if so, It will be a relief to have some determined and energetic government again, and not just endless inward looking posturing and infighting, and turning a blind eye to the major issues facing the country - and that has been both Parties since 2008 on.

    P.S. That piece was written by Keating ( Hawke is a bit too gaga to do more than nod assent - hence the bias! LOL.
     
  18. systematic

    systematic Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2010
    Messages:
    6,845
    Likes Received:
    318
    Trophy Points:
    83
    The fear of global economic collapse is buffered by a resilient and deeply corrupt financial system willing to hide the truth and keep the fraud going ....
     

Share This Page