Cory Bernardi

[pazza]

Cory is so far right that a keep left sign is offensive to him.

 

[Maggie5]

What is ridiculous is if I was in my 20s, no one would hire me as they would suggest I couldn't do "the job" because of the health issues or my inability to read and write. Yet no one questions these issues sitting at the board table. I'm just lucky the wheels fell off when they did, rather than earlier, as I would never have been given an opportunity. Perhaps that's why I believe in giving others opportunity.

You may believe in giving others opportunities but at the same time are very critical of the unemployed.

I have different views, I have been extremely fortunate despite not having any real experience nor educational qualifications (gained them in my 30's), I know the difficulties involved in obtaining the first break because the opportunities I had were in different times, they aren't there now. I could have left a job and almost immediately walked into another with better pay and conditions the next week. Further the newspapers were full of jobs plus the old CES did a pretty good job of finding work for the unemployed.

Naturally there are some that if you gift them a job they still wouldn't take it but IMO they are in the minority. However you seem to put everyone in the same category. The reality is the jobs aren't there, not for the youth nor for adults/with families.

Australia is in a bad place at the moment and all this government can gloat about is their free trade agreements and the biggest beneficiaries are the industries that export but are not big employers of people. This is a do nothing government. Youth unemployment over 20%, adult figures although supposedly under 6% I doubt those figures and they admit that most jobs created are part-time. Apprenticeships and Traineeships are at an all-time low.

The likes of Bernardi, Christensen etc bleat about Muslims or SSM or Super for the rich. Shame they can't put the same energy into job creation.

People are doing it tough, try looking at the situation through their eyes and experiences and not through your good fortune. I do.

 

[Power Raid]

You may believe in giving others opportunities but at the same time are very critical of the unemployed.

I have different views, I have been extremely fortunate despite not having any real experience nor educational qualifications (gained them in my 30's), I know the difficulties involved in obtaining the first break because the opportunities I had were in different times, they aren't there now. I could have left a job and almost immediately walked into another with better pay and conditions the next week. Further the newspapers were full of jobs plus the old CES did a pretty good job of finding work for the unemployed.

Naturally there are some that if you gift them a job they still wouldn't take it but IMO they are in the minority. However you seem to put everyone in the same category. The reality is the jobs aren't there, not for the youth nor for adults/with families.

Australia is in a bad place at the moment and all this government can gloat about is their free trade agreements and the biggest beneficiaries are the industries that export but are not big employers of people. This is a do nothing government. Youth unemployment over 20%, adult figures although supposedly under 6% I doubt those figures and they admit that most jobs created are part-time. Apprenticeships and Traineeships are at an all-time low.

The likes of Bernardi, Christensen etc bleat about Muslims or SSM or Super for the rich. Shame they can't put the same energy into job creation.

People are doing it tough, try looking at the situation through their eyes and experiences and not through your good fortune. I do.

I would suggest I am critical of policies and organisations that create unemployment rather than the unemployed. It wouldn't be wrong to suggest I am critical of some of the most capable posters on BF who whine about how tough life is but feel it's OK to be stoned or worse use misleading and deceptive conduct in an attempt to advance their own position.

If anything I am pro helping the unemployed by promoting participation and increasing social welfare payments.

The graph above show youth unemployment has been an issue post the 87 crash with the worst period in the early 90s. This highlights that we have been stuck in a 1960s mentality on policy and failed to recognise that the world has changed. This could be fixed overnight but unfortunately the unions would squawk, along with labor voters, that IR will change. Note Labor and the unions need and benefit from unemployment and desperation to remain relevant. but at least we can blame the wrong cause of the problem and sympathise for the poor whilst we do nothing. oh and the solution is "participation" and a "minimum income" which is different to a "minimum wage".

 

[Maggie5]

I would suggest I am critical of policies and organisations that create unemployment rather than the unemployed. It wouldn't be wrong to suggest I am critical of some of the most capable posters on BF who whine about how tough life is but feel it's OK to be stoned or worse use misleading and deceptive conduct in an attempt to advance their own position.

If anything I am pro helping the unemployed by promoting participation and increasing social welfare payments.

The graph above show youth unemployment has been an issue post the 87 crash with the worst period in the early 90s. This highlights that we have been stuck in a 1960s mentality on policy and failed to recognise that the world has changed. This could be fixed overnight but unfortunately the unions would squawk, along with labor voters, that IR will change. Note Labor and the unions need and benefit from unemployment and desperation to remain relevant. but at least we can blame the wrong cause of the problem and sympathise for the poor whilst we do nothing. oh and the solution is "participation" and a "minimum income" which is different to a "minimum wage".

Keep it simple PR.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

This could be fixed overnight

How?

 

[Power Raid]

How?

oh and the solution is "participation" and a "minimum income" which is different to a "minimum wage".

 

[Maggie5]

Participation in what?
Please keep it relevant.

 

[Brunswick Trap King]

Participation in what?
Please keep it relevant.

I presume participation in below minimum wage conditions which supplement the minimum income (received from the govt)?

That's my interpretation, I don't know how correct I am though.

 

[Maggie5]

I presume participation in below minimum wage conditions which supplement the minimum income (received from the govt)?

That's my interpretation, I don't know how correct I am though.

I always need PR to clarify as I too am only guessing
I thought he may have meant participation in the workforce.
Thanks anyway.

 

[Power Raid]

Participation in what?
Please keep it relevant.

participation is simply the opportunity to participate in the workforce or other activities. Currently we have a system which locks people out of society which is demeaning and cruel.

there should be opportunities offered by councils, training etc which gets people involved and hopefully proud and motivated. This is a very socialist approach to life and an important ingredient in modern Australia.

 

[Power Raid]

I presume participation in below minimum wage conditions which supplement the minimum income (received from the govt)?

That's my interpretation, I don't know how correct I am though.

The participation is work or other activity and the mechanism is subsidy. It's is the reverse of work for the dole which is a subtle but important difference.

This was the solution utilised in the 1970s in SA during the fuel crisis. It worked as it mobilised people that would have given up otherwise.

 

[Gough]

Are we pretending to be a socialist now PR, this is a new one for you.

 

[Maggie5]

participation is simply the opportunity to participate in the workforce or other activities. Currently we have a system which locks people out of society which is demeaning and cruel.

there should be opportunities offered by councils, training etc which gets people involved and hopefully proud and motivated. This is a very socialist approach to life and an important ingredient in modern Australia.

And we have come back full circle...

Where are the jobs for people to participate in? We keep coming back to your sound bites and I am trying to get you to stick with the current reality.

Think we should leave it here as you really don't get it.

 

[Gough]

I'm sure PR, as a socialist, would support nationalising the mining industry, and we invest the money from that in job creation schemes, giving everyone the chance to "participate".

 

[Power Raid]

And we have come back full circle...

Where are the jobs for people to participate in? We keep coming back to your sound bites and I am trying to get you to stick with the current reality.

Think we should leave it here as you really don't get it.

the is more work than there is labour. So having unemployed must mean something is wrong with the system.

It's pretty easy to see why and pretty easy to find the solution.

getting people to understand their policy position is the reason for pain and suffering is the tough bit and thus we will just whine about the problem but not the cause.

 

[Power Raid]

Are we pretending to be a socialist now PR, this is a new one for you.

I'm sure PR, as a socialist, would support nationalising the mining industry, and we invest the money from that in job creation schemes, giving everyone the chance to "participate".

I would consider myself a practical socialist. Even on the extreme left of politics (communist russia and china) they saw mobilisation and participation as very important. Even in the West we modernised our nations post WW2 by keeping the women we mobilised in the workforce.

Nationislisation doesn't work as governments should govern and not operate, especially in high risk ventures where the national balance sheet is placed at risk. We learnt banks balance sheets are too big to allow to fail during the GFC, so the same rules if not more importantly apply that to government balance sheets.

A much better way to "nationalise" mining is to do what we do by collecting 30% profit, 10% GST and a further 10% effective profit royalty; meaning we have nationalised 50% of the industry without taking downside risk.

I'm also against lowering company tax rates as I believe corporations need to pre-pay individual personal tax on an ongoing basis rather than wait for profit distributions. This is consistent with providing governments sufficient capital to provide "participation" schemes.

 

[skilts]

Cory is so far right that a keep left sign is offensive to him.

Should we point out that there are countries elsewhere which don't insist on its residents keeping left, or would that be too subtle?

 

[skilts]

Power Raid is celebrating the success of his doings in South Australia over the past few days. Has there ever been a better power raid? Well done that man.

 

[Theseventhhamster]

Are we pretending to be a socialist now PR, this is a new one for you.

Forgetting the time he joined the labor party he so dearly loves?

 

[Number37]

Nationislisation doesn't work as governments should govern and not operate, especially in high risk ventures where the national balance sheet is placed at risk. We learnt banks balance sheets are too big to allow to fail during the GFC, so the same rules if not more importantly apply that to government balance sheets.

1. Governments can borrow at a much lower rate than corporates.
2. Lower borrowing rate means you need a lower rate of return in order to make a venture break even or profitable.
3. Every single bit of infrastructure that builds nations has been paid for by government. In every country in the world, EVER.

 

[Power Raid]

1. Governments can borrow at a much lower rate than corporates.
2. Lower borrowing rate means you need a lower rate of return in order to make a venture break even or profitable.
3. Every single bit of infrastructure that builds nations has been paid for by government. In every country in the world, EVER.

1) regardless of borrowing rates, govt balance sheets should never be placed at risk. This is the very important principle that prevents nations defaulting.

2) It is also becoming a moot point given we are effectively near zero interest rates after inflation and tax.

3) the 1940-60s was an amazing period and a very important one for building a nation.

but as we have seen over the last 33 years since Hawke, Australia has matured beyond that period and way of thinking. As a result the nation has boomed.

Sure govt have a role to play in infrastructure and operations in Australia today, but the sooner they can extract themselves the better. after all, would you want 100% of the profit and all the risk or 40% (GST and corporate tax) to say 60% (add payroll tax) of the profit risk free, taking your money off the table and redeploying to the next needy item?

 

[kwikfix]

Your weekly dose of common sense.

Dear Kwikfix,

Distance makes it hard to truly comprehend the real impact of the weather events in South Australia last week. News reports showed the world the enormous damage done by wind and water, and highlighted just how fragile some of our infrastructure is. Nothing highlights this fragility more than the electricity grid failing across the entire state.

Notwithstanding the foolishness of being so reliant on unreliable green power, the lack of investment in appropriate interconnectors and redundancy power indicates just how the State Government has failed the people of South Australia.

But the events of the past week also demonstrate two other points. The first is the idiocy of the ideological extreme Green agenda, which promises the earth but fails mankind. The second is just how vulnerable modern life is to external shocks.

The lunacy of the Left has been well documented over many years through this blog. Their fanciful ideas about remaking society whilst dismissing the practical realities of human need are legion. That some people, albeit a shrinking group of fringe dwellers, persist in the pursuit of their utopian ideal whilst demanding the rest of us pay for it, should concern us all.

There are billions of dollars of taxpayer funds subsidising the work of groups, organisations and lobbies that actually want to downgrade our standard of living. They demand higher taxes, more subsidies for their pet projects, greater welfare and bigger government.

When their grandiose plans fail, as they do time and time again, it only leads to them demanding even more money to make them work. Unfortunately, these green dreamers are rarely held accountable thanks to the praetorian guard of cheerleaders in some of our established and influential institutions. Last week they were at work defending unreliable and uneconomic wind power whilst maintaining their condemnation of coal-fired base load electricity generation.

The events of last week also give cause to focus on how dependent we are on power to sustain almost every aspect of our lives.

Without power we can’t pump petrol, use credit cards, get cash or preserve our food. None of this may be a problem if the outage is brief or intermittent. However, in the event of a sustained blackout, like the three days regional centre Port Lincoln experienced, modern life quickly becomes chaotic. Some reports were that even the town’s supply of drinking water was under threat.

It has been mooted by some security analysts that the real warfare of the 21st century will be electronic or cyber. Such attacks have the potential to shut down electricity grids, telecommunications and internet access for millions of people. If it were to happen it could economically paralyse a country and see widespread civil unrest.

Last week’s electricity grid failure provided a small glimpse of the potential impact such a scenario could have. Whilst the South Australian community managed to work together to overcome the adversity, it provided a salutary lesson in the necessity of planning for the future.

That’s an important lesson for individuals and governments alike.

Until next week.

Cory Bernardi

P.S Don't forget to listen to my regular podcast at www.corybernardi.com/podcast or subscribe to it here.



Things that make you go 'hmm...'
Theresa May goes hard on the Brexit, as newly re-elected Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn promises “21st Century Socialism”. Europe, meanwhile, is turning its back on refugee quotas.

Anthony Mundine called for players to boycott the national anthem, which they dismissed as “stupid”. A Canadian professor has torn into political correctness, a university holds a "no-whites" student retreat, and the PC brigade attack the great John Howard. This student, meanwhile, must now be referred to as "His Majesty".

California is now regulating cow flatulence, pudding sizes need to be controlled, Happy Meal toys should be banned, snacks are confiscated from students’ lunch boxes, and Melbourne takes aim at Sydney's nightlife in a new campaign.

Lastly, marriage equality militants can "take our olive branch and shove it", according to Miranda Devine.

 

[CM86]

I don't even know what's satire and what's the real thing anymore...

 

[medusala]

Why does god allow gays and windfarms?

Or more importantly would he care to explain to us the 1990 grand final result.

 

[IKnowtheDog]

Or more importantly would he care to explain to us the 1990 grand final result.

To be fair to God he has made sure Collingwood has enjoyed no September success in close to 60 years. He just didn't have the foresight to know the AFL would wreck his dastardly plans!!