Interest rates

pazza

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
31,476
Likes
5,414
Location
Hoppers Crossing
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
#26
Frodo said:
What Howard said was that under the coalition interest rates would be lower than under Labour/Green

Now unless you are completely dumb you have to agree with him. As I have said before the scrapping of workplace agreements and getting back to collective bargaining would have caused wage blow out. In turn prices rise and inflation rises. The result is an increase in interest rates. Period.

The election promises will mean nothing, they are controllable.

With control of the senate there will be more industrial relations changes. In three years time the unions will be baying for blood. Now IF the unions still controll the ALP then the so called "Lie / Scare" will be ripe for the plucking again.

The ALP's only hope is to shed the unions control over it and give it back to grass root members.
The risk of not having the union membership, as small as it is, under-represented by not having a say in what happens in this country is that...no matter what the penalties would be, there would be industrial chaos.

Business, taxpayers, veterans, environmentalists all have a say..why can't the union membership?

Labor needs to keep the unions a little on-side..you can't be friendless in this world.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

Dry Rot

My hat is better than yours
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Posts
36,402
Likes
8,338
Location
Dead Snow of Norway
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#27
timelord said:
You talk about Japan, and then you go back to the US rates. What about the Japanese rates, or Europe's for example.

We will only be stuck with that capital outflow if all the economies - or at least the majority of them - raise their interest rates and we don't. If just the US raise their rates and no one else does the outflow won't happen. Or if it did it would be a meaningless trickle. But if we went with the US all the time no matter what we could risk an outflow to other countries - that's what I meant with "Keeping up with the Jones's".
The reason I spoke about Japanese investors is that their rates are basically 0 and that there is a massive flow of funds out of Japan chasing returns.

"We don't keep up with the Jones's" - we are forced to offer the spread because of our dodgy economy and higher risk.

It's a bit like junk bonds - they offer a much higher rate than bonds issued by quality companies, because of the higher risk.

The spread we offer is not a matter of choice.
 

timelord

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Posts
1,545
Likes
2
Other Teams
..
#28
Actually it is - because we choose to have such an inconsistent economy (dodgy as you called it - I prefer inconsistent because it's a better reflection of the reality of our economy).

It would be a lot easier if we got rid of our debt once and for all. That would help no end.
 

Dry Rot

My hat is better than yours
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Posts
36,402
Likes
8,338
Location
Dead Snow of Norway
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#29
timelord said:
Actually it is - because we choose to have such an inconsistent economy (dodgy as you called it - I prefer inconsistent because it's a better reflection of the reality of our economy).

It would be a lot easier if we got rid of our debt once and for all. That would help no end.
Your comment re choice is bang on.

Correct view, ie that of the international investors who count is "dodgy", hence the risk premium.
 

mantis

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 9, 2001
Posts
36,917
Likes
1,072
Location
Away from redneck country
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bombers
#30
Frodo said:
What Howard said was that under the coalition interest rates would be lower than under Labour/Green

Now unless you are completely dumb you have to agree with him. As I have said before the scrapping of workplace agreements and getting back to collective bargaining would have caused wage blow out. In turn prices rise and inflation rises. The result is an increase in interest rates. Period.

The election promises will mean nothing, they are controllable.

With control of the senate there will be more industrial relations changes. In three years time the unions will be baying for blood. Now IF the unions still controll the ALP then the so called "Lie / Scare" will be ripe for the plucking again.

The ALP's only hope is to shed the unions control over it and give it back to grass root members.
Yep, let's go back to the days of Joe Hill. :mad:
 

timelord

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Posts
1,545
Likes
2
Other Teams
..
#31
To be honest, I do have a problem with the idea of "junk bonds" - if only because it makes us look like a bargain basement economy for investment. Mind you, it was worse when our dollar was around 50 US cents.
 

timelord

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Posts
1,545
Likes
2
Other Teams
..
#33
It's the sort of investors we attract that worries me about them. The sort that will dump them at a whim without committing to the investment. The bargain basement hunters. That's bad for any economy IMHO because it creates uncertainty.
 

Dry Rot

My hat is better than yours
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Posts
36,402
Likes
8,338
Location
Dead Snow of Norway
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
#34
timelord said:
It's the sort of investors we attract that worries me about them. The sort that will dump them at a whim without committing to the investment. The bargain basement hunters. That's bad for any economy IMHO because it creates uncertainty.
For better or worse it's just world financial markets. Can't remember the numbers, but the financial trades/day exceed "real" traidng in goods and servcies by an amazing factor.
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#35
pazza said:
The risk of not having the union membership, as small as it is, under-represented by not having a say in what happens in this country is that...no matter what the penalties would be, there would be industrial chaos.

Business, taxpayers, veterans, environmentalists all have a say..why can't the union membership?

Labor needs to keep the unions a little on-side..you can't be friendless in this world.
Little? The unions have over 50% control of the ALP. The ALP does as the unions say. Yep, keep them onside..but not in control!!!
 

Frodo

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Nov 17, 2000
Posts
12,595
Likes
22
Location
Perth, Western Australia.
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
Post Count: 125,527
#36
mantis said:
Yep, let's go back to the days of Joe Hill. :mad:
No, Going back is not the way.

We live in a different world to the old bosses v workers days.

We have to go forward, but the ALP is shackled by a trade union movement that are the remnants of Arthur Scargills legacy, migrated to Australia and trying to keep an old myth going. Sure there are still bad employers and sure the need for workers representation is still needed. But I have lived through the changes, I see the teamwork that is now commonplace rather than the confrontation. Workers and employers have learned that working together is a far better result for all.
The fact is that there has been change and the ALP suffers as long as it is controlled by the ACTU, who wont change. And that means many years of coalition government until the ALP moves into century 21.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

mantis

Hall of Famer
Joined
Mar 9, 2001
Posts
36,917
Likes
1,072
Location
Away from redneck country
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Bombers
#37
Frodo said:
No, Going back is not the way.

We live in a different world to the old bosses v workers days.

We have to go forward, but the ALP is shackled by a trade union movement that are the remnants of Arthur Scargills legacy, migrated to Australia and trying to keep an old myth going. Sure there are still bad employers and sure the need for workers representation is still needed. But I have lived through the changes, I see the teamwork that is now commonplace rather than the confrontation. Workers and employers have learned that working together is a far better result for all.
The fact is that there has been change and the ALP suffers as long as it is controlled by the ACTU, who wont change. And that means many years of coalition government until the ALP moves into century 21.
Sorry a load of rubbush, once the unfair dismissal laws are repealed, that is the start of the bosses having carte blanche, next the boss will say you work for 50 hours a week for the same money or you are gone.
 

campbell

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Posts
17,827
Likes
703
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#38
mantis said:
Sorry a load of rubbush, once the unfair dismissal laws are repealed, that is the start of the bosses having carte blanche, next the boss will say you work for 50 hours a week for the same money or you are gone.

I gotta tell you bosses in small business do exactly what they want now. A few years ago I worled for a company,as the Office Manager.After 2 weeks I was called into the office and sacked on the spot.The reason, he refused to pay any of his staff super.I told him legally he had to,under what TAx law etc, and he said he didn't want someone in his employ telling him what was legal, he would run his business how he seemed fit.Shonky ******** he was.

Last year I worked for a company for 7 months as an Office Manager.The owner was cruel beyond belief.He would sack his stff because he felt like it then try to rehire them a week later.Once he went on holidays overseas, and rang and sacked a bloke.I new nothing about it,the bloke wanted his final pay.It was a real mess.This bloke only paid casual,ecept he never told his staff that when he hired them,No entitlements what so ever.No super again.I left as I couldn't stand it.

There are an awful lot of shonky small business people out there already,so these new laws are only going to make it worse.


As for the interest rates,on ABC radio the week of the election, it was said they are reviewed monthly and they would be goin up next month.The economist said that they never put them up at election time,and they have all the inidcators for the last 2 months.

So, imagine if the Reserve Bank had f had the balls to put up rates 2 months ago, then Howard would have looked a tad less attractive to the electorate.

I think a heap will feel foolish when they do go up so soon after the election, when they realise they were duped.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#39
campbell said:
I gotta tell you bosses in small business do exactly what they want now. .
That is crap. One of my staff stole $10k from me. She was already serving notice. However I couldnt get the money back and the licensing authorities (she was a licensed real estate agent) wouldnt even look at the case. Even if she was not under notice it would not have been straightforward for me to sack her on the spot. I know of other small business employers with exactly the same experience.

Small businesses (or the vast majority that I know of) do their utmost to keep their staff because it's so hard to find good ones and takes a while in general to train someone to do a good job.

Try hiring people yourself and you may have a very different idea. Not only do you have idiotic hiring conditions ie cant possibly discriminate against someone no matter how unsuited they are but its damn hard to sack someone. You also have to put up with idiot lawyers who tell their clients as a matter of course to claim sexual harrassment in order to get a better unfair dismissal payout.
 

campbell

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
Dec 7, 2001
Posts
17,827
Likes
703
AFL Club
Brisbane Lions
#40
medusala said:
That is crap. One of my staff stole $10k from me. She was already serving notice. However I couldnt get the money back and the licensing authorities (she was a licensed real estate agent) wouldnt even look at the case. Even if she was not under notice it would not have been straightforward for me to sack her on the spot. I know of other small business employers with exactly the same experience.

Small businesses (or the vast majority that I know of) do their utmost to keep their staff because it's so hard to find good ones and takes a while in general to train someone to do a good job.

Try hiring people yourself and you may have a very different idea. Not only do you have idiotic hiring conditions ie cant possibly discriminate against someone no matter how unsuited they are but its damn hard to sack someone. You also have to put up with idiot lawyers who tell their clients as a matter of course to claim sexual harrassment in order to get a better unfair dismissal payout.

So how large is your small business,

Under Qld laws, you can sack someone on the spot for theft.

I have found that if your go through an agency to get your staff, if your are specific in your needs, then you interview the filtered candidates, you can choose good staff.

Whats this about discrimination etc, how would they now your thoughts. You sound very bitter.

In my opinion the vast majority of small business owners, really shoudl not be in business. They are not business orientated. they have a kernel of an idea and want to make a go of that idea, but on the business front they are clueless.

You can't have a small business as your and your families own slush fund and succeed.The number of times I have seen small business fall over through the owner wanting to do renovations or travel OS, just cause they can. When the incomings are not going to cover the wages let alone the travel etc. The owner wants to travel, so the staff lose out.

Since the job market has been causalised things have gotten worse for workers.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#41
There's plenty wrong with the laws these days on both sides. A few examples:

* In NSW if an employee is an alcoholic you are obliged as an employer to pay for their councelling. You can't sack them for coming to work drunk, but have to keep them employed and pay for their counselling while they are off work.
* You can't sack one for theft unless you prove it and charge them. If you know they did it but they deny there's little you can do. Bloody hard to sack anyone these days.
* Anti-discrimination laws have been brought out to stop employers discriminating. It does stop them discriminating, it just stops them from telling employees or interviewees the real reason behind decisions. The thought of these laws is good but they don't really work.

The laws that favour employees are quite often ridiculous and are enforceable. The problem is there are some other laws designed to ensure equity so aren't enforceable and therefore clearly favour the employer.
 

medusala

Hall of Famer
Joined
Aug 14, 2004
Posts
34,959
Likes
6,230
Location
Loftus Road
AFL Club
Hawthorn
#42
campbell said:
So how large is your small business,

Under Qld laws, you can sack someone on the spot for theft.

I have found that if your go through an agency to get your staff, if your are specific in your needs, then you interview the filtered candidates, you can choose good staff.

Whats this about discrimination etc, how would they now your thoughts. You sound very bitter.

In my opinion the vast majority of small business owners, really shoudl not be in business. They are not business orientated. they have a kernel of an idea and want to make a go of that idea, but on the business front they are clueless.

You can't have a small business as your and your families own slush fund and succeed.The number of times I have seen small business fall over through the owner wanting to do renovations or travel OS, just cause they can. When the incomings are not going to cover the wages let alone the travel etc. The owner wants to travel, so the staff lose out.

Since the job market has been causalised things have gotten worse for workers.
I had 4 staff before I sold my business and moved to the UK, still keep in contact with two of them. I used an agency and found them to be useless and damn expensive. I am hardly bitter as I am still self employed, its just that you become wary of hiring staff without absolutely requiring them. Another major issue for small businesses is hiring women who have kids. Its very hard to hire someone in the mean time then have to give the woman her job back. If you get a temp your costs are increased and if you hire someone permanent then what do you do with them when the original hire returns? End result - many small businesses dont want to hire women if they think they may have kids. Discrimination doesnt really kick in when you hire but lawyers use it to add to unfair dismissal claims.

You only need to look at the number of people who post on BF (they cant all be students) to realise that huge numbers of employees dont work particularly hard.

Re your thoughts that the majority of small business owners shouldnt be in business, then who would employ them and their staff?
 

timelord

Club Legend
Joined
Jul 16, 2002
Posts
1,545
Likes
2
Other Teams
..
#43
Dry Rot said:
For better or worse it's just world financial markets. Can't remember the numbers, but the financial trades/day exceed "real" traidng in goods and servcies by an amazing factor.
Everybody in society demands certainty. "For better or worse" is a lax attitude that depreciates confidence in life itself (broadly speaking). That's why I don't like it. In one way - and in moral terms rather than legal - it's a form of theft IMO.

But then I'm biased I admit because I hate the stock market.
 
Top Bottom