A world in economic crisis

A thoughtful comment from Don Argus on Australia’s GDP

Posted in Uncategorized by Aussie on August 31, 2013

Don Argus is correct in what he is stating, that Australia’s position in 2013 has deteriorated back to the high debt levels of the 1990s.

The situation in Australia today economics wise is not a good situation for a variety of reasons. I have always argued that the measures taken back in 2008 were not necessary because Australia was not affected by the GFC because of the flow on effect of the good management under former Treasurer, Peter Costello.

The points that come out of what Andrew Bolt is reporting re the comments of Don Argus are ones that I think are critical as to the future economic position of Australia, especially if the electorate was foolish enough to allow the ALP to have another 3 years in power. That point is that our debt position has worsened and we have not had a recession!!

Despite what some claim, Australia was not as badly affected by the GFC, as say the USA or the UK for a simple reason – we have better controls over bank lending for mortgage. The mortgage companies that failed did so because they were following practices adopted in the USA and they were lending to people who could not possibly meet the mortgage repayment requirements.  However, we did have a minor liquidity problem at the time and it did mean that some lending sources dried up, leaving some big projects either unfinished or simply delayed until the situation got better. Specifically, I am thinking of the Canberra Airport expansion that was held up due to temporary liquidity problems.

The measures adopted by Wayne Swan as Treasurer were the wrong measures to be taken. There was no need to send out $900 cheques to a portion of the population. I should add here that most of what was adopted was a colossal waste of money.

On a different note: There is a lot of information being revealed about government waste on certain projects. The waste involved more than 1 state in Australia and includes: Victoria, Queensland, South Australia and NSW. The projects are the white elephant de-salination plants. What is being revealed at this time indicates that the beneficiaries of the projects were people who had their snouts in the trough. Certain names, companies and unions have surfaced in what I have been reading. One name Robyn McLeod is quite significant because her history is not what has been claimed. The winners in regard to these projects have been the AWU and Thiess. 

I am not sure that what has happened can be undone, but the point to make here is that this kind of project has meant that taxpayers will continue to be hurt for a very long time because a group of people had their snouts in the trough and were getting rich as a result of these schemes. BTW think Climate Change when considering this matter.


13 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. boricuafudd said, on September 14, 2013 at 3:34 am

    Aussie You were also fortunate not to have an institutionalized policy by the Federal government that required the banks to make such risky loans. This is something that is rarely mentioned but banks that did not have a certain percentage of such loans were penalized. Whereas banks that made this loans were rewarded, they got recognition, they were chosen as partners for government programs, etc. Sure some banks went above and beyond and they are to blame for that but it was our government with programs like the Community Re-investment Act that got the ball rolling and kept it going, only to be made worse also by governmental fiat.

    • Aussie said, on September 14, 2013 at 9:46 am

      Bori, you are correct on that score. We did not have what i believe to have been the real reason behind the GFC – a policy that forced risky lending.

      However, just prior to the the GFC Australia had de-regulated and that meant it had been easier for people who might be big risks getting those loans.

      One loans company fell over at the time and it was indulging in risky loans.

      Australia’s banking regulations had for years made it very difficult for people in the high risk category to get loans, and the de-regulation under Keating almost caused a disaster.

      As it was, Australia was less impacted by the GFC because the Howard Govenment had the budget in surplus, and we were in a comfortable position. All of that changed because we ended up with a high spending Prime Minister by the name of KRUDD who went through the budget surplus in a short space of time and introduced all manner of wastage to get Australia into huge debt (by far the worst in my lifetime and it was totally unwarranted).

      We have put that period behind us because the adults are back in charge, but it is going to be a rough ride.

    • Aussie said, on September 14, 2013 at 9:48 am

      One more thing Bori, an economics professor, the late Professor Charles Rowley did a very good analysis of the whole thing.

      Professor Rowley passed away on August 2 this year, much to my dismay, as a result of cancer.

      I have a book of his that is on this very subject about how the GFC came about. Your analysis is spot on with his own comments and analysis.

      • boricuafudd said, on September 14, 2013 at 10:41 am

        I did not read his book, but I did others and all agreed that de-regulation combine with the policies that demanded banks to lend to unqualified people caused a domino effect.

        Another irony is that for all his faults and the fact that people here blame him, he tried to fix the problem only to be voted down by the Democrats who were in charge of Congress.

      • Aussie said, on September 14, 2013 at 11:40 am

        are you talking about GWB? If so, I agree.

        One of the architects of the whole disaster happens to be the occupant in the White House. His fingerprints are all over that crappy legislation.

      • boricuafudd said, on September 14, 2013 at 11:58 am

        Yes, GWB. Is that not not something, you are partly responsible for the issues but get elected by decrying your own policies.

        And now they are talking of re-doing it. There are a couple of bills one in the Senate one in the House where the same type of regulations are being pushed, just with a different name.

      • Aussie said, on September 14, 2013 at 12:08 pm

        It is intentional. They never accepted any blame for the GFC in relation to that legislation. Instead they want to continue to bring down the USA by bringing down the financial system.

        It is disgusting to think that they could be this stupid… oh I forgot look who occupies the White House… one of the architects of the whole thing!!

      • boricuafudd said, on September 14, 2013 at 12:33 pm

        The philosophy that that the world’s problems and peace can be achieved by being weaker than your enemies is one I could never grasp.

        It is counter intuitive as the enemy will exploit your weaknesses to their advantage. History has been clear about this, yet there are those that subscribe to this philosophy.

      • Aussie said, on September 14, 2013 at 4:43 pm

        I agree.

        I am about to start perhaps a series of posts about Robin Hood. Actually it is more about the Norman Conquest than it is about Robin Hood.

        Recently I watched the latest version of Robin Hood and it piqued my interest because it was hinting at the signing of the Magna Carta. Well, I did some research and now I am reading Ivanhoe for the first time.

        What is so very interesting is the setting for Ivanhoe. It is the period not long after the Norman conquest of the Saxons. I am at the point where Sir Cedric and the Lady Rowena have been captured. One thing stood out to me in the story and that was mention of the Normans ensuring that the Saxons did not have weapons of war.

        I am in total agreement with you, that the deliberate efforts to make a country weaker, whether it is the USA, Britian or Australia, from within is counter-intuitive.

        In Australia we have fools who want to turn Tasmania into some sort of detention area for illegal immigrants. One person exclaims that this will help to dilute the influence of those dreaded Anglo-Saxons.

        Well, I am one of those Anglo-Saxons with more Saxon than Anglo, and with a bit of Celtic thrown in for good measure. On top of that I have a family history that stems to Tasmania’s early days when it was known as Van Dieman’s Land.

        Such thinking coming from a white person is ridiculous. The person must hate himself. However, I suspect that there are other reasons for making such a ridiculous proposal. I say NO THANKS and I am proud of my heritage!!

  2. boricuafudd said, on September 14, 2013 at 5:58 pm

    You have hit on a point that I think is important, being proud of your heritage, in towards PC world that is only possible if your Black, Hispanic or some other minority. If you are White, you are not allowed to be proud of your heritage.

    This another counter-intuitive notion, you mention the Norman conquest and that is perhaps one of the most important events in our history. For example the English we speak today would not be so, without the Norman influences in our language. Our English would sound more Germanic and Celtic.

    Or if for instance 300 years earlier the Berber Muslims had not been stopped at Toulouse in France. So instead of a Norman invasion it could have been a Muslim invasion of England, though they are doing marvelously today, conquering England from within. The Muslims that is.

    • Aussie said, on September 15, 2013 at 6:57 am

      I was about to contradict some of what you said, BUT, then I read what you said again.

      Yes, the original English – a language of the Angles and the Saxons, was spoken in England at the time of the Norman invasion.

      After reading Ivanhoe I have learned that the Normans in the population actually spoke in French.

      Somehow the words became blended and it is why we have such words as melee.

      The Berber invasion of Toulouse actually happened in a later period. The Norman invasion of England happened in 1066. This was the era around the time of the first Inquisition – the ones that were more widespread in Germany and France, England and other European countries.

      The Berber invasion occurred in the reign of Queen Isabella and King Ferdinand of Spain and it was in fact the reason for the 2nd set of Inquisitions, that of the Spanish Inquisition. The target of that Inquisition was the Jewish population who were financing the Berbers for their own ends as well as having themselves baptised as Christians so that they could participate in government.

      The Muslims were most active in the Holy Lands, hence there was a need for the Crusades to protect the Holy Places. They did not go there to project the Jews!!

  3. boricuafudd said, on September 15, 2013 at 10:52 am

    Aussie- I was watching a documentary on BBC where they went to a Flemish town, that used to be part of old Normandy and still spoke Old English as a local dialect. One of the words that was similar was cow which to them was cou and pronounce similarly, very interesting.

    As for the Battle of Toulouse in 721, I think you are confusing with the Reconquista where the Catholic Queen and King of Spain drove the Berber Muslims out of Al-Andalus (southern Spain). Had the Duke of Aquitane lost that battle in Moors would have nothing between them an the Frankish Army in northern France. The battle not only stopped the westward expansion of the Muslims but it signaled their high point in their westward expansion in Europe.

    • Aussie said, on September 15, 2013 at 3:45 pm

      You are writing of an earlier time again!! I knew of the later conquests.

      For a time the Moors occupied Spain. They call the country Andalusia.

      The English language seemed to have devolved from the Latin, Saxon, Germanic languages as well as the Norman that was spoken in Normandy.

      In this respect you are absolutely correct.

      It is my error that I knew best the later incursions of the Moors as they attempted to regain Andalusia. They are doing the same thing in our own generation. It is their desire to take Andalusia again. They often speak about it.

      From that earlier time they stole several Cathedrals and turned them into mosques. Of course they did that in Byzantium/ Constantnople/Istanbul because the have stolen the Haga Sophia which was indeed a Christian Cathedral before it was turned into a mosque.

      I will need to continue to do more research on the whole period, if I can find the information on the Internet 🙂

      For the moment I am immersed in the story of Ivanhoe and the return of King Richard to England. It is quite a story, and has some very surprising information.

      I have gleaned many things, especially about the Knights Templar, and the fact that some of them at least were heretics known as Catharists. Their treatment of Jews was abominable in my opinion.

Comments are closed.

%d bloggers like this: