The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Lurking beneath Australia's AAA economy... > Comments

Lurking beneath Australia's AAA economy... : Comments

By Kellie Tranter, published 25/6/2013

If the banks are hunky dory why is it necessary to set up a $380 billion emergency fund and, more importantly, is it enough in light of possible derivatives exposure?

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All
Thank you for a very comprehensive article.

Re; "....the extent to which our gross foreign liabilities are written in Australian dollars..."
Julia Gillard did recently state that the $A was now held in the reserves of 61 foreign governments so a substantial total of the foreign liabilities must be denominated in our currency.

The USA enjoys a very substantial advantage because its currency is the currency of most international trade and is the principal reserve currency. Because of those advantages the USA is able to be a major debtor and is even able to go futher into debt to buy overseas assets such as Graincorp.

The American market often plays the role of the consumer of last resort when countries are looking for opportunities to export their potential unemployment.

If the Euro area was not is such diabolical economic trouble then the Euro area, China and Russia combined could probably set out to negate some of that USA advantage.
Posted by Foyle, Tuesday, 25 June 2013 11:10:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kellie, one of the myths of economics is that markets are rational.

The US Federal Reserve is injecting circa $1 trillion per year into their economy by printing money. If this liquidity is not injected, what will sustain the markets? If the markets crash and interest rates rise, how can the Fed expect recovery? Well in simple terms, it can’t!

There is no real basis for the high stock and bond prices. The prices are an artificial reality created by the printing press. Rational markets would take into account the printing press and would price stocks and bonds at a much lower level.

How can there be no risk in Treasury bonds when the debt is growing faster than the economy?

There is no recovery going on in the US, Europe and Australia is only now sliding down the wrong side of the economic curve, one our politicians and financial pundits have failed to see coming, or denied is facing us.

As 2013 progresses, a further downturn will continue. In the US, the Fed will have to get the printed money past the banks and into the economy. If this occurs, inflation will explode. The dollar will collapse, and import prices, as globalism has turned the US into an import dependent economy, will turn high inflation into hyperinflation.

Disruptions in food and energy deliveries will become widespread, and a depreciated currency will cease to be used as a means of exchange.
You can bet this is why the Australian Reserve Bank has set up its $380B Committed Liquidity Facility.

China is setting up international trade avenues that preclude the need to conduct trade in US dollars, you don't have to be a genius to work out why.

It’s going to get ugly, most Australian’s are oblivious to the real financial situation and governments and the banking sector are rightly to blame for this mess
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Tuesday, 25 June 2013 12:15:46 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Yes the mining boom shows very distinct signs of slowing, with the rest of the economy in a virtual recession.
So what are the choices?
Given every western style economy rest on just two economic pillars, energy and capital, we need as never before, to divorce ourselves from any dependency, on foreign oil.
Even if that means reversing recent decisions and opening up the reef to economic development, or exploitation of its possibly massive hydrocarbon reserves.
We need to import less and export more!
Our own tradition Australian sweet light crude leaves the ground as a virtually ready to use diesel; and produces four times less carbon pollution, than the current highly refined imports.
Copious NG can be used for all manner of energy and transport requirements, utilising ceramic fuel cells.
CNG powered ceramic fuel cells, produce mainly water vapour as the exhaust product.
We could build a carbon fibre electric car, {we lead the world in moulded carbon fibre technology.]
And replace the conventional engine and or the battery banks, with a significantly lighter CNG powered ceramic fuel cell!
A world leading world beating energy coefficient of 72%, would make this combination the cheapest to run or use. Economies of scale would make it the cheapest to produce.
Solid state technology, means no engine/gear box/transmission to wear out, with only electric motors turning! Which only need the very occassional replacement of bushes and brushes!
A safe 10,000 RPM, and the very high torque of electric motors, one for each wheel, would produce power to weight ratios, that not even the V12 could match?
And it's not just cars that could be powered by this combination, but trucks trams, tractors, roll on roll off ferries/rapid rail
Refuelling would only take minutes rather than overnight, with the half ton plus/plus battery pack!
We need a vastly reformed tax system, to make tax both unavoidable and the cheapest, with compliance costs eliminated. Lastly, very low cost publicly provided energy!
This combination would have the energy dependant high tech manufacturing industries queuing to relocate here, and guarantee our prosperous future.
Rhrosty.
Posted by Rhrosty, Tuesday, 25 June 2013 12:18:39 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
This article is especially worrying given the newest tactic of the Banking Criminals. They have discussed the Bail-In method of covering their losses rather than asking for a Bail-Out by taxpayers.

In case you don't know what Bail-In means, it means the banks just take the savings of depositors and their term deposits to make up for any losses they incur because of bad loans and risky derivative purchases, etc.

Yeah, Folk, Ned Kelly is alive and well and seems to be the head of most banks.
Posted by David G, Tuesday, 25 June 2013 12:53:02 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is for moments of illumination such as this, that we need a "lawyer and human rights activist" to explain complex financial issues to us poor deluded saps:

"Put simply, the surplus on the capital account is flogging off the sideboard to buy the fruit."

And calculating the dollar exposure on an interest rate swap is... what? Tapping the barometer glass? Reading your horoscope in Bella magazine?

The article is a true work of art in the manner in which it demonstrates such a perfect absence of understanding of its subject matter. Even that old chestnut...

"...we've learned that the National Australia Bank and Westpac borrowed money from the US Federal Reserve at the height of the financial crisis but we don't know if this has been paid back"

That's one of Arjay's favourites, Kellie. You could learn a lot from him when it comes to the perfidy of Banks. Of course, if you really want to know what went on, all you have to do is go to the source of your information - you know, the one that told you that our Banks borrowed money from the Fed - and ask them to tell you what was the term and the interest rate.

Personally, I would have been a bit disappointed with my Bank if it had not taken advantage of the Fed's offer, given the rock-bottom rates at which they they were priced.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 25 June 2013 1:14:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is extraordinary that an asset rich nation like Australia has a negative balance for gross foreign liabilities.

The last 7 years of a green led incompetent alp government has much to do with this. The author makes light of the $260 billion government debt and seeks to sheet home blame to the private debt, primarily that which is in the banking system.

International bank debt will always globally exceed deposited assets because banks aggregate debt by lending more than their deposited securities. However, they do not necessarily and by definition cannot exceed the worth of the assets which are used to secure the consequent loans. That is, unless they are forced by government edict to lend beyond the worth of those assets as happened with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac due to the ideological imperatives of the Clinton government.

No doubt derivative debt is a problem as several Australian local governments found out when their loans were called in during the GFC. However bank debt against assets within Australia is not an issue with bad debts [essentially where the asset worth is less than the debt AND the debtor cannot fiance the primary debt] fluctuating but not exceeding long term trends.

The author's solution is:

"We need specialised manufactures and non-resources tradeable industries for export, a reduction in the real exchange rate and import replacement to lower our current account deficit. All this requires an extensive increase in funding for university research and development combined with "productivity raising reform".

This is nonsense. Universities have been the recipient of vast grants to research AGW for instance which is dead money. So to with the rest of this green government's policies which, unlike China's, have generated a huge debt with no asset to show for it.

It is that debt which is the issue not the private debt.
Posted by cohenite, Tuesday, 25 June 2013 7:05:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, perhaps you might offer your own opinion rather than simply pretending to superiority?

Or are you only up to baiting Arjay?
Posted by Antiseptic, Tuesday, 25 June 2013 7:51:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
http://www.cecaust.com.au/ The Citizens Electoral Council has found the germination of a plan by the BIS ( Bank of International Settlements) and APRA to initiate bail in powers for our banks.ie Govts will not bail out banks but shareholders and depositors will be fleeced.

Our banks now have a total derivative exposure of $ 20 trillion or 6 times their assets. This is over 13 times our GDP. Banks view derivatives as a form of insurance. Who takes out an insurance policy that is 6 times your assets?

Derivatives are a form of gambling and banks are using our mortgages as assets to make huge profits. They bet on prices rising or falling or someone defaulting on a loan. On a world shrinking economy how do they make so much money? They are creating it with the click of a computer mouse propping, up their phoney derivatives, shares etc.
The next big collapse is coming.

http://rt.com/shows/breaking-set-summary/iraq-violence-corruption-protest-097/ Abby Martin interviews whistle blower Karen Hudes who worked for the World Bank. She reveals a few elites own 40% of our corporate world and earn 60% of the money. They control just about every politician ,media outlets and businesses of consequence. She also exposes the corruption rife within the World Bank.
Posted by Arjay, Tuesday, 25 June 2013 11:45:05 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Kellie

it is not only our banks which are exposed to the derivatives.

So are our governments, federal, state, council, many of our public institutions (Uni's, schools, hospitals etc)and corporations.

Most have not removed the derivatives, in which they invested when they were classed Prime, from their balance sheets.

The piper is indeed waiting, in the wings, to be paid ... she will come on stage just as soon as the US Federal Reserve Lolly Monster departs and stops dolling out the free candy to the US Banks. She will be ruthless and more relentless.
Posted by imajulianutter, Wednesday, 26 June 2013 4:06:21 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thanks for your contribution to the discussion, Antiseptic.

>>Pericles, perhaps you might offer your own opinion rather than simply pretending to superiority? Or are you only up to baiting Arjay?<<

I referred to Arjay only to establish the reliability level of the information that the inestimable Ms Tranter had presented. This Forum is accustomed to enjoying the many views expressed by Arjay, and to accept that they are as valid as everyone else's - including mine. But is it not reasonable to expect at least a modicum of subject-matter expertise in the headline articles?

It is entirely appropriate for Peter Sellick, for example, to expound on religion, since this is his field. On the same basis, the contribution of a human rights lawyer will be more respected if it remains in its own field of knowledge and understanding, e.g. under "Law and Liberties".

The underlying problem with the article is that it misreads, totally, the reasons why this country has such high levels of private debt. Simply put - and avoiding the temptation to enlist either sideboard or fruit to assist with the understanding - we cannot support the level of investment required by our industries (i.e "economic growth") from domestic sources. We haven't earned/saved enough to do so. As a result, companies have chosen over the past twenty years or so to fund our economic growth in the private sector through overseas borrowing. Much of our current prosperity, and our ability to avoid the worst aspects of the GFC, has been made possible as a result of this investment strategy.

None of this explanation appears in the article. I believe that it should at least have deserved a passing reference.

Ok, I guess that might be a little too complicated. Try this:

We have used the sideboard as collateral for the money we borrowed to enable us to fill the fruit bowl.

Does that help?
Posted by Pericles, Wednesday, 26 June 2013 4:26:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you Pericles. An interesting, but in my view inadequate exposition.

For example, you say that "we cannot support the level of investment required by our industries (i.e "economic growth") from domestic sources.", which is trivially true, but ignores the fact that the national priority since 1974 has been to subsidise women into work and education. A laudable social goal, to be sure, but expensive. Not only expensive because of the direct cost of subsidisies, but in a few other important ways.

First, money that was marked for such use was not available to invest in those industries that you mention above.

Second, as Goldman Sachs showed in their report for EOWA in 2009: "Male productivity has historically averaged over double that of female productivity
over the past 30 years." meaning that if we had spent the money on work and education for men instead of women, we would have got twice the return. According to the same report:" the rise
in the female employment rate since 1974 boosting economic activity by 22%", so we could have an economy which is 22% or thereabouts bigger if we had chosen a more sensible set of PMs than Whitlam and Hawke, all other things being equal.

Third, other things aren't equal. As a part of the drive to make women economic rather than social players, it was important to remove their connection with men as financial supporters. Therefore a subsidised legal mechanism had to be introduced, in the form of Family Law and child support, along with extensive expenditure on funding "women's legal services" and on providing high levels of financial support to separated women via welfare paymnents. These things also broke up the family asset base, with legal presumptions that women would be the primary beneficiary, while men (the sex that was twice as productive as the other one), were often left destitute and with little incentive to be productive and dropped out of the workforce or reduced their expectations and worked for cash if they could find such work.

[cont]
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 26 June 2013 7:49:35 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It also gave women lots of money to spend on consumerism and so imports rose rapidly, because our own manufacturing sector, with no investment funds to modernise and deliberately deprived of tariff protections, were left to die. Since it was obvious that if women are to be able to have things to buy there has to be someone making it, someone shipping it and someone selling it we helpfully deregulated the banking industry so it could give people who wanted to do those things the money they needed and when they told us they had given too much money away, we ensured that the flow of such goods wouldn't stop by guaranteeing to pay any inconsiderate overseas lenders who insisted on being paid.

Fourth, as the number of single mothers grew apace, a new subsidised industry was required, in the form of childcare, which employed women almost exclusively. Many of those women were "professionals" because they had received subsidised education and everyone knows professionals get lots of money, so we subsidised a massive raise of 30% in their income. It wouldn't be fair to subsidise one lot of "professionals" doing menial work without subsidising all of them, so we did the same for charity workers, social workers and other "caring professions" doing stuff that Mum used to do because she had no need to work.

Fifth, as the work that men used to do dried up, they found themselves out of work, so that we now have male (the sex that's twice as productive as the other one) higher than during the Great Depression. Fortunately for those men, women don't like seeing men starving in the street, so we subsidised them with welfare payments, but of course, they still had to pay for the children who they weren't allowed to see thanks to all that subsidised legal mechanism, so we took $10 back from them each week and gave it to the women they used to support much more generously by choice when they had one.
[cont]
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 26 June 2013 8:04:16 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Of course, it wouldn't be reasonable to expect anybody to pay for the funeral of such socially undesirable misfits, so we saved money by giving them pauper's cremations unless someone was silly enough to pay for something more elaborate.

Sixth, we took 9% from everybody's pay packet and created an industry to invest it, which it did - in derivatives and fiscal trading and in buying shares in the businesses which imported and sold stuff to women and the banks whose credit cards those women used to buy the stuff. Of course it would have been foolish to invest in manufacturing industries, since they were obviously a failed experiment in Australia as any economist could tell. After all, as our Accounts Payab...Treasurer told us yesterday "Services are the future of our economy. not manufacturing, not mining, not construction. Services are 80% of the Australian economy." he proudly intoned from his position as a member of the workers' party.

Seventh, when it became obvious that women professionals were wasting altogether too much money giving it to the government in tax, reducing their ability to buy stuff, we thoughtfully reduced taxes.
Eighth, when women (the sex that’s half as productive as the other one) found that having children was an intolerable burden on their ability to buy stuff, we generously compensated them and when that wasn’t enough, we made employers do it.

Having thought about, you're obviously right. We just couldn't afford to be competitive...
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 26 June 2013 8:06:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic

If abuse of statistics were a crime, you’d be in jail!

For anyone interested, here is a copy of the report he is misrepresenting:

http://www.asxgroup.com.au/media/PDFs/gsjbw_economic_case_for_increasing_female_participation.pdf

You might guess from the report’s title, "The economic case for increasing female participation”, that it does not exactly support Antiseptic’s analysis.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 26 June 2013 8:13:47 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian, the statistics are clear. Goldman Sachs had to satisfy the purchaser, which was EOWA, so they said they "refused to believe We refuse to believe that a female with the same educational and
work experience as a male will be 50% less productive in a similar
role."

And of course they were right. The problem is that women don't choose similar roles and when they do they only work full time until they decide to have children (if they're lucky they find one of the few men left with a job to be the father, so they get more than $10 a week in child support), then they take several years off and when they get bored with having coffee with the girls, or the father of their child gives up and becomes unemployed, they go back to work part-time.

So I'm afraid the abuser of statistics is you, dear.
Posted by Antiseptic, Wednesday, 26 June 2013 8:24:48 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic

The report clearly shows, not just assumes, that women’s lower productivity is due mainly to the industries and occupations they work in.

Even if one accepts your insulting little stereotype, it will have little direct effect on the data. If women are takings several years off to “have coffee with the girls”, they are not in the labour force, so they are irrelevant to productivity. Career breaks can affect a person’s accumulation of experience, and this may lower lifetime earnings somewhat, but not enough to explain the data. Working part time has no direct effect on measured productivity, which conventionally in Australia is measured as output per hour worked, not per employee, though again it may be that the types of jobs that are suitable for part-timers have relatively low productivity.

All of the data and analysis in the report you quote supports conclusions that are completely the opposite of what you are trying to argue. To selectively quote and misrepresent the report to try to bolster your argument without acknowledging this is deliberate misrepresentation.

It really is you that abuses statistics, dear.
Posted by Rhian, Wednesday, 26 June 2013 9:15:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic thank you. I have not had such a great laugh in years.

Not at you, but with you, as I can see you are laughing at us, & indeed yourself, for being so damn foolish as to have let it happen.

I had never put it together so well, & probably couldn't anyway, but it is a great description of half the community committing a very slow suicide, by sitting back & watching it all happen.

One point you missed was the male giving control of education to the feminists, & allowing them to disenfranchise the males.

I do hope you have a flack jacket, I'm sure you'll need it.
Posted by Hasbeen, Wednesday, 26 June 2013 9:58:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
All very entertaining, Antiseptic. But irrelevant.

>>For example, you say that "we cannot support the level of investment required by our industries (i.e "economic growth") from domestic sources.", which is trivially true, but ignores the fact that the national priority since 1974 has been to subsidise women into work and education.<<

To a hammer, everything looks like a nail, of course, so there's no surprise that you took the opportunity to segue into your hobby-horse topic. But you failed to point out any linkage between the fascinating factoids that you present, and the accumulation of overseas debt.

Or did I overlook something?

>>First, money that was marked for such use was not available to invest in those industries that you mention above.<<

Was this public money, from our taxes? Or was it private money, paid by the companies who borrow from overseas? If the latter, it would help to explain how much was involved, and how it was spent.

>>...we could have an economy which is 22% or thereabouts bigger if we had chosen a more sensible set of PMs<<

Oh dear. If you actually think about this, you would need to increase the number of men in the workforce to achieve this outcome. Any thoughts on where you might find them?

>>... imports rose rapidly, because our own manufacturing sector, with no investment funds to modernise and deliberately deprived of tariff protections, were left to die.<<

Ya think, DiNozzo?

Tariff protection, or any other form of artificial government support, does not guarantee the survival of a business in the long term - think, car industry. All it achieves is to make those products it "protects" more expensive to the consumer, forcing up the cost of living and depriving people of the ability to save. The very savings that are required to obviate the need to borrow overseas.

Incidentally, re-reading your litany of complaints, I suspect there might be more than a smidgeon of personal experience in your rant against women. If so, you have my sympathy.

But that still doesn't validate your argument that it impacts overseas debt.
Posted by Pericles, Thursday, 27 June 2013 9:54:33 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
“you failed to point out any linkage between the fascinating fact[…]s that you present, and the accumulation of overseas debt.”

Actually,my reply was to your silly claim that Australia is somehow intrinsically lacking in the capacity to invest in productive industry sectors. As I pointed out, we have had the money to invest in non-productive sectors and to give it away to encourage consumption of imports.

To put it in terms you seem to be able to grasp, we’ve spent the money that we should have used to fix the damp rot in the floor joists under the sideboard to buy some beautiful lace doilies and magnificent crystal fruit bowl to put on top of it and we’ve smashed up the Sheraton furniture that our parents gave us (what were they thinking? Ikea is so much nicer and they’ll even send someone to put it together for you while you watch) to prop up the sagging sideboard.
Your argument is that this is fine, because it’s only the living room that’s rotting, which we hardly use any more and besides, the bank said we can increase the mortgage anytime, so who cares?

“If you actually think about this, you would need to increase the number of men in the workforce to achieve this outcome. Any thoughts on where you might find them?”

Thanks for asking.

http://www.economics.unimelb.edu.au/staff/jib/documents/Dimensionsetc.pdf

Have a look at Figure 4, old chap, if that’s not too much trouble. It shows that male employment between 1967 and 1997 declined from around 85% to below 70%, while during the same time female employment rose from around 35% to 50%. That means that there was no net increase in the proportion of the total population in work. Male jobs were lost at the same rate as female jobs were created. Far from needing to increase the number of men, we only needed work for the ones we had.
In case you missed the point of that, you might like to look at the same chart, which shows that the rate of female full-time employment remained largely unchanged, at around 25-30%.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 27 June 2013 8:34:59 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
In other words, as the chart shows, we spent lots and lots of money subsidising a reduction in full-time employment within the country by replacing men working full-time with women working part-time.

Table 4 shows that at every age men have a higher rate of unemployment than women and a much higher rate of long-term unemployment. Unsurprising, since male jobs are largely private sector and female ones government funded and hence buffered from the intrusion of reality.

I realise this might be asking more than is strictly reasonable, but perhaps you might consider thinking a little before posting? It’s not pleasant watching people make fools of themselves.

“All it achieves is to make those products it "protects" more expensive to the consumer, forcing up the cost of living and depriving people of the ability to save.”

Yes indeed, we wouldn’t want the consumer to be deprived of her ability to consume as much as she wants, would we?

However, you seem to be a little confused: “saving” means “spending less than you earn”, which is a little difficult if you’re reliant on welfare benefits. Similarly, “cost of living” means “the proportion of income committed to essential expenditure”, it doesn’t mean “how many pieces of Ikea furniture I can buy before the credit limit”.

You may have heard the old (and horribly outdated) expression “two can live as cheaply as one”? This reflects the fact that many costs of living are fixed and when people cohabit they don’t change very much. I have a couple of boarders who share a room and each pay me half of what I charge for the room, which leaves them each with more to spend on other things or save. By breaking the family unit apart, we have increased the cost of living for each of the former partners, reducing their ability to save. Superannuation was a response to the lack of saving caused by this and by the loss of full-time jobs discussed above. Gee, that worked well…

My personal history is irrelevant, your ignorance speaks for itself.
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 27 June 2013 8:40:22 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Rhian:"The report clearly shows, not just assumes, that women’s lower productivity is due mainly to the industries and occupations they work in."

Saying it doesn't make it true, Rhian.

From the report

"we find that an important element of gender equality is the dominance of females in low productivity sectors of the economy, particularly health care and training, a bias to clerical roles and a bias to working short hours."

" On the assumption that females already in the workforce remain in their existing roles, then new female entrants exhibiting equal productivity gains as male workers would have the potential to boost the level of economic activity by over 20%"

In other words, if women were men, we'd be better off economically by 20%. As I said yesterday.

On the subject of productivity, I'm afraid you're as confused as Pericles, the poor old dear. Productivity as discussed in the report refers to the total value added to the economy by the work of all the members of each gender. Women add half as much as men.

GS could find no suggestion about how to improve that except by even more subsidies for work on the one hand and reducing subsidies for children on the other.

Oh yeah, because EOWA was paying for it, they also suggested making companies hire women for their boards. Gotta make sure you understand the customer's expectations when you do these things, you know.

Rhian:"To selectively quote and misrepresent the report to try to bolster your argument without acknowledging this is deliberate misrepresentation."

I'm glad you realise that. Perhaps you'll stop doing it now?
Posted by Antiseptic, Thursday, 27 June 2013 9:05:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My goodness, Antiseptic. You must be an absolute hoot at dinner parties once the discussion gets past who will win "The Voice". If it ever does, of course. And always assuming you ever get invited out, that is.

>>...my reply was to your silly claim that Australia is somehow intrinsically lacking in the capacity to invest in productive industry sectors. As I pointed out, we have had the money to invest in non-productive sectors<<

You failed to let us know where this money comes from. I specifically asked this, so that you could demonstrate your fine understanding of economic realities:

"Was this public money, from our taxes? Or was it private money, paid by the companies who borrow from overseas? If the latter, it would help to explain how much was involved, and how it was spent."

But since you rely heavily on random generalizations and outbursts of hyper-selectivity for your arguments, I don't hold out much hope.

Thing is, you miss stuff. Here's the basis of your "lost productivity" argument:

>>...male employment between 1967 and 1997 declined from around 85% to below 70%, while during the same time female employment rose from around 35% to 50%<<

If you had read some of the text, instead of just looking at the pictures, you would have noticed that the re-balancing towards female participation has been predominantly in "retail, finance/insurance/property", which are - by definition - less "productive" areas of the economy. That's on page 76, if you are interested.

Which is also supported by the very report that you chose to carefully select from earlier, the Goldman Sachs report:

"...we find that an important element of gender equality is the dominance of females in low productivity sectors of the economy, particularly health care and training, a bias to clerical roles and a bias to working short hours."

Heck, that was on page 2. Hadn't you even made it that far? And there weren't even any particularly long words to challenge you.

So your entire hypothesis dissolves into a welter of hot air and pointless trumpeting. Not good dinner-party manners at all.
Posted by Pericles, Friday, 28 June 2013 12:25:33 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Antiseptic

“we find that an important element of gender equality is the dominance of females in low productivity sectors of the economy, particularly health care and training, a bias to clerical roles and a bias to working short hours.”

This supports my argument, not yours.

You say “Productivity as discussed in the report refers to the total value added to the economy by the work of all the members of each gender”. This is utter nonsense. The usual definition of productivity is output per unit of input, and the report gives no indication it deviates from this. Labour productivity is typically measured as output per employee or output per hour worked (a better definition). The argument on page 10, that “the marginal product of labour declines in tandem with a declining unemployment rate” would be irrelevant to a discussion of productivity if it were measured as you describe, because any addition to output from increased employment, however small, would add to “productivity” as you define it.

As it happens, I find the paper’s argument quite weak. It suffers a fallacy of composition, arguing that the way to raise productivity is to shift employment from low productivity to high productivity industries and occupations. If this were true, we’d be better off if everyone worked as a manager in the mining industry.

The Borland and Kennedy paper you cite was written in the 1990s – the world has changed since then. Men no longer have a higher unemployment rate than women. The male unemployment rate is currently marginally below the female rate (5.5% compared to 5.6%), as it has been for most of the past 5 years. The decline in the male employment ratio reversed in 1993. The structural decline in male labour force participation ended in 2003
Posted by Rhian, Friday, 28 June 2013 1:29:55 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Anticeptic, why do you bother engaging in discourse with Pericles? His aim is always distraction from the real issues.
Posted by Arjay, Friday, 28 June 2013 7:49:56 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My apologies Pericles, I didn't notice that the brandy had been poured. You can have mine...oh, I see you've already done so. Best make that one your last, old thing, I'm rather fond of the carpet.

Now, where were we? Oh yes,you spilt the brandy because of all that hand-waving you were doing about money. Of course it's important, but nothing to spill your snifter over, surely? Now, now, pull yourself together, the carpet can be clean..not the carpet? Of course, if I can help I will, but you'd best tell me everything.

Here's a napkin, dear fellow, that spittle dribbling from your shirt will leave a nasty stain and I'm sure your good wife will not be happy about you creating work for her. Oh, she has a job now? Well done her!Well then, you can surely afford to pay a laundress. Yes, they are expensive, aren't they, but it's only money and...really? All of it? Well, yes, of course she couldn't be expected to clean the house after working all day and of course the children must be supervised by someone and...four hours a day, you say? In a call centre? Excellent work that's the backbone of our economy! No cooking at all? Well yes, supervising the cleaner is important, of course, but even s...how far away? Oh dear, surely she can find someone closer to home to do the ironing? Not to her standards? No cutting corners for her, bravo! That's not all? How much, did you say? My word! Still, your children are the most important thing and you couldn't trust just anyone to watch them. She's obviously far too busy herself, so you should be pleased she insists on professional qualifications for the nanny. She's obviously embraced the efficiencies that our service economy makes possible. It's a great endorsement of our introduction of the Cleaning and Ironing Supplement, but we'll have to do something about the lack of properly certified Clothing Press Operators. I hope she's seen the cleaner's Certificate of Competency?
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 29 June 2013 1:52:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We're determined to rid the industry of that sort of riff-raff. We have to show them that cleaning is a highly skilled trade.Our first Bachelors of Arts(Cleaning and Polishing) will graduate at the end of the year and it's just in time. They'll all be slotted in at APS 6 to supervise the contractors we use at the House. They've been getting away without supervision for years!

Dear me, old chap, no need for that sort of thing. Here's a fresh snifter, it'll calm your...steady on, that's strong stuff! Now, what were you saying before you started crying? You have a well-established business, perhaps a larger overdra...closing down? No, of course, finish it, I shall order another case from the importer. Shall I pour? We don't want to add the tablecloth to the casualty list, the wife bought it because it's made of Australian cotton when we were in Greece last year taking advantage of the high dollar. Of course, it's made in China, but she cut that label off and tells everyone it's authentic. It was much cheaper than the locally made o..now, now, pull yourself together.

You were telling me that your firm is closing down? That's a shame, it's an Australian icon. It hasn't moved with the times though, to be honest. You're still trying to make things, for heaven's sake! Surely you realise Australians are simply unsuited to such work? One only has to peruse the indolent rabble loitering near any Centrelink office to see the evidence. They could have good clean part-time jobs like the people who work there if they had taken the trouble to get educated instead of lazing around factories and getting young girls pregnant.

Please don't do that to the sideboard, it's quite fragile.

The wife commissioned it while we were in Bali a couple of years ago. It's a custom design she had done by a fellow here, at no charge. She wasn't impressed with him, because she had to put off her appointment with the homoepath and he took up half the morning measuring up and asking silly questions.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 29 June 2013 1:56:18 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Even with the cost of shipping she saved 10% on the gouging of that other fellow and although AQIS were most uncooperative, insisting on fumigating twice after some functionary with not enough to do found some tiny holes in one back leg where nobody will ever see them, she still had it on show in time to impress the inlaws with her economic nous at Christmas this year. The bowl is a local item which she got at a liquidation auction and it covers the crack in the top beautifully.
Perhaps she might have a chat to your good lady to give her some tips on saving money when she shops? Noone can beat her when it comes to keeping the cost of living down. She could make a career out of it.
I'm terribly sorry, old chap, but I have to call it a night. I'll have the driver take you home. I don't have to be at the House till 10. There's some trouble brewing with a few malcontents whining about a perfectly rational decision by their employer to shift manufacturing offshore. Why they can't move with the times like the lovely lasses I met at their new call centre, who understand that services are the future of this nation is beyond me. I had to rush my speech to them because their shift was changing. The four-hour working day is such a boon for employment. Perhaps I could recommend you to them? They're an Australian icon.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 29 June 2013 1:57:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hmmmm. It seems that our little discussion has finally tipped you over the edge, Antiseptic. My apologies for being the catalyst for your distress.

You appear to have some sort of bee in your bonnet about women in the workforce, and how they are dragging down our economy. As I observed before, you probably have some very personal reasons for this stance, so I won't pry.

But one thing is for sure and certain: their participation has absolutely nothing to do with our overseas debt (sorry to bring this entertainment back onto the subject matter).

Our industrial base was never large enough to support internal investment on the scale that our country needed in order to dig up all those minerals that have made your life so comfortable, particularly in the past five years. Shuffling work between men and women does not make a skerrick of difference to this state of affairs. If this is beyond your ability to comprehend, that's fine. But descending into fatuous bluster in order to cover your embarrassment is kidding no-one.

Oh, and thanks for popping your head over the parapet, Arjay, and for your contribution. As incisive as ever, I notice.

>>Anticeptic, why do you bother engaging in discourse with Pericles? His aim is always distraction from the real issues.<<

It is of course a very good question. Not for the reason you suggest - it was after all Antiseptic who ran the discussion off the rails with his homespun diversion into gender warfare. But there is little point in voicing views when you are unfamiliar with the topic. Best to keep silent and have people suspect you might be ignorant, than open your mouth and confirm it.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 29 June 2013 3:24:10 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why didn't you just say you didn't understand? It would have saved so much time.

To correct you, I have no "bee in my bonnet about women in the workforce". Nor am I engaged in "gender warfare".

My point is simple and has been made previously. Men and women are different and they have strengths and weaknesses that tend to be complementary. The last 40 years have seen a great deal of social structural change based on the false idea that women can be just like men, as Goldman Sachs expressed in the report I quoted earlier:"new female entrants exhibiting equal productivity gains as male workers
would have the potential to boost the level of economic activity by over 20%". They acknowledge the difference, but wish it away.

That difference is the subject of my little allegorical monologue above. Men are driven to work for the benefit of women and children. Women are driven to work for the social display, expressed as nice furniture, a well-presented home, etc., unless they have no other support mechanism, in which case they work as little as they can manage to provide for themselves and their children. GS, in that same report, acknowledged that:"Reducing direct child subsidies for those outside of the workforce could be used to fund these initiatives
since these payments discourage female labour supply", but this was after suggestions to "incentivise" via subsidy.

We have been able to ignore the loss of male jobs because of the deregulation that allowed expansion of apparent (not real) wealth, while the industrial growth of China has been enabled by their exchanging a small portion of their industrial products for a large portion of our minerals, with the difference made up by that pseudo-wealth described above. The solution, we're told, is more women in work, yet we have around 30% of men who do not even bother looking, but are called "disabled".

I realise you're not very bright, but even you should be able to understand that.
Posted by Antiseptic, Saturday, 29 June 2013 5:47:03 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
It is very obvious, Antiseptic, that you are unable to join in the main discussion here, and therefore feel the need to provide a diversion.

>>Men are driven to work for the benefit of women and children. Women are driven to work for the social display<<

That is an assertion, of course, without a shred of evidence, and says a great deal about you and your personal circumstances. Quite why you continue to waffle on with the same made-up stuff like a lonely tramp at a bus stop, heaven knows. Still, if that particular gem has one benefit, it would be that it pales in the shadow of this flight of fancy:

>>We have been able to ignore the loss of male jobs because of the deregulation that allowed expansion of apparent (not real) wealth, while the industrial growth of China has been enabled by their exchanging a small portion of their industrial products for a large portion of our minerals, with the difference made up by that pseudo-wealth described above.<<

So many unsupported generalizations. So many talk-back irrelevancies. So little substance.

What deregulation are you referring to? I do hope you are not getting it confused with free trade, that would be most embarrassing. But you are probably used to that feeling by now. And what is that "pseudo-wealth" that you mention. How does it differ from real wealth? Does pseudo-wealth buy more than real wealth, or less? And if it is "described above" as you claim, it is awfully well hidden.

It is probably a very good thing that you don't get invited out to dinner. At least when you post here, it's only me who smiles politely at the blessed state of general ignorance that you so ably represent.
Posted by Pericles, Saturday, 29 June 2013 10:13:40 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Assertion, Pericles? So you assert. Let’s face it old boy, you’ve done nothing but nay say on this thread without adding a scrap of value to the conversation…oh, that’s right, adding value is so 80s isn’t it?

I must thank you for providing a fine example of the difference between intrinsic value and derivative value. Anybody reading this thread could skip your contributions with little loss to their understanding of anything other than your own boof-headedness. On the other hand, those who skipped an equivalent number of words from my contributions would derive a lesser understanding of the interplay of social and economic forces which have lead to this point in our nation’s history.

Now, I realise you’re probably struggling a bit to follow where this is leading, as you often do when the discussion strays from the text in your “Economics for Dummies” pocket guide, so I’ll be kind and explain.

My words are a useful thing that have real value. They are a manufactured good that didn’t exist until I put work into creating a new thing which can be consumed by the reader and increase their knowledge. On the other hand, your words have pseudo-value, because they are not a useful thing and consuming them is not going to increase anyone’s knowledge. If my words did not exist, the pseudo-value of your words could not replace them. They are merely derivative and not intrinsically valuable. Verbal pyrites.

This is an identical situation to the situation with financial derivatives. They are pseudo-money that has no intrinsic value. If a real exchange of goods which have real value because of the productive work which has been done to organise them into a useful thing does not occur, no amount of pseudo-money will do anything useful.

However, if that pseudo-money did not exist, the need to exchange useful goods would not change and their intrinsic value would persist. An exchange would take place with smaller numbers on the money, but it would still happen.

The endless churn, meaningless pseudo-work paid with pseudo-money would not.

The house of cards must fall.
Posted by Antiseptic, Sunday, 30 June 2013 3:35:05 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
We are still missing a crucial part of your argument, Antiseptic.

>>This is an identical situation to the situation with financial derivatives. They are pseudo-money that has no intrinsic value.<<

So, do tell. Can you actually spend this "pseudo-money", or not? If so, how is it different from ordinary money, and if not, how can you tell pseudo-money from real money?

And let's be frank with each other here, your word analogy is worse than useless, if it was an attempt to clarify this point.

>>My words are a useful thing that have real value. They are a manufactured good that didn’t exist until I put work into creating a new thing which can be consumed by the reader and increase their knowledge. On the other hand, your words have pseudo-value, because they are not a useful thing and consuming them is not going to increase anyone’s knowledge.<<

Reviewing your posts here, there is not a single word that you have manufactured yourself. They are all, without exception, words that have been used as the currency of communication for some considerable time. Your contention that they somehow differ from everyone else's words is precisely as convincing as your theory on pseudo-money.

Moreover, this comment of yours is demonstrably false:

>>Let’s face it old boy, you’ve done nothing but nay say on this thread without adding a scrap of value to the conversation…<<

On the contrary, I provided valuable insight to the less-informed reader, that the headline article had been constructed from unreliable information and wild supposition. Some would have recognized this, and become better able to see through the populist flim-flam. Others, sadly, would not.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 1 July 2013 10:31:13 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Oh dear Pericles, you really do struggle don't you, old fellow? But I'm glad to help those less fortunate where I can. No need to thank me.

My words have value because they have been organised into a thing of intrinsic value. I have added value to the raw material which makes the final product a different useful thing than the raw material. Of course, there are other inputs to the process, like my intelligent thought, my labour, my education, my capacity to innovate, my research, my availability to do the work required, my willingness to take the risk of failing to make a product which consumers require, my willingness to provide the product to be sampled by the consumer to ascertain how it suits their need. In return, I obtain the satisfaction of a job well done and the knowledge that the useful thing I have made is being consumed and made use of by those who think they can use it productively. I also know that some will look at it, possibly even consume it out of reflex and throw it away as worthless, but that's OK, we live in a consumerist economy, they're used to buying stuff and chucking it out without using it. If they didn't, the pretence that pseudo-money is real would not be required.

On the other hand, you have taken the same raw material as me and you have done nothing useful with it. Instead you have tried to convince us that manure has the same value as a fruit salad and that a promise to try to convince somebody else to do work will create one from the other.

Frankly, I'm disappointed. I thought you had more substance. I guess that's what I deserve for falling for something that looks like knowledge instead of insisting on the real thing.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 1 July 2013 11:38:22 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
That's such a shame, Antiseptic.

>>Frankly, I'm disappointed. I thought you had more substance<<

The idea that I have fallen short of your expectations could quite possibly keep me awake for many a long night.

On the other hand, I might instead treat your opinion of my deliberations with all the respect that it deserves, and spend not one picosecond fretting over it.

Yes, on balance I suspect that is far more likely.

Oh, by the way.

You are kidding yourself...

>>My words have value because they have been organised into a thing of intrinsic value. I have added value to the raw material which makes the final product a different useful thing than the raw material. Of course, there are other inputs to the process, like my intelligent thought, my labour, my education, my capacity to innovate, my research, my availability to do the work required, my willingness to take the risk of failing to make a product which consumers require, my willingness to provide the product to be sampled by the consumer to ascertain how it suits their need.<<

Many words. Zero substance. That pretty much sums up your contribution, does it not.

At the risk of embarrassing you further, have you given any thought to providing an explanation of your concept of "pseudo-money"? I mean, using actual finance-related ideas and concepts?

Not very likely, is it.

But I thought I'd ask anyway, to give you the opportunity to redress the shortfall, and demonstrate the depth of your intellect.

Go on. You know you want to.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 1 July 2013 4:26:51 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
No point casting pearls before swine, old dear. I'll leave you to enjoy your copy of "Macroeconomics: How to Make Nothing From Something".
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 1 July 2013 6:01:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hilarious.

>>No point casting pearls before swine, old dear<<

It's been great fun.
Posted by Pericles, Monday, 1 July 2013 6:15:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Pericles, all joking aside, I recommend this book to you and to anyone else interested.

http://moslereconomics.com/wp-content/powerpoints/7DIF.pdf

The problem we face in Australia is that we have an economy dependent on exporting raw materials rather than on adding value to those raw materials to turn them into something that people can use with no further input. That means that we are not competing on the basis of our ability to be productive and innovative, but are dependent on the buyer being unable to source the same stuff elsewhere at a lower price. Iron ore and coal are not uniquely Australian and if Australia stopped digging them up tomorrow the world wouldn't notice much, any more than we would notice if the office cleaner quit and was replaced by another.

That means that our government is no longer able to be in control of our currency, because the relative value of that currency is part of what determines whether someone will want our resources. A higher relative value means higher export prices and lower import prices and vice versa so it is in our national interest to keep it low. However, because of those derivative products which the private sector has been so keen on, a dollar that is too low means that nobody wants to buy those products and the system is in trouble.

It's not the trading of money per se which is bad, because that's based on relative movements in price, which are themselves linked to productive outputs with some fuzziness induced by the traders' reactions. It's the derivative products which concatenate those movements, amplify them and feed them back so that small fluctuations cause enormous changes in value, as the article points out.

If Government was affected it would not be a major problem, but because private enterprise is not using its own currency, it causes great problems for it and us.

Despite the jocularity in our exchange, this is a serious problem.
Posted by Antiseptic, Monday, 1 July 2013 9:19:31 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
I'm in complete agreement with you on this, Antiseptic.

>>The problem we face in Australia is that we have an economy dependent on exporting raw materials rather than on adding value to those raw materials to turn them into something that people can use with no further input. That means that we are not competing on the basis of our ability to be productive and innovative<<

This should be chiselled in stone over the entrance to parliament, to remind our legislators that our dream run is coming to an end.

Regrettably, none of them has a horizon further than the next election, and they are only held to account by an opposition that contains precisely the same measure of willful blindness and naked self-interest. Not one individual among them understands basic commerce, it's just the same old mixture of time-serving party apparatchiks and suburban lawyers.

Whatever action they take on interest rates, exchange rates, running a deficit or a surplus etc. is purely cosmetic, and will not conceal for long the inescapable fact that we are living today on income that will not be around tomorrow.

Just as any individual who is approaching retirement without having made any significant provision for the drop in income is bound to feel the fiscal pinch, so are we.

Where you and I differ is here:

>>It's the derivative products which concatenate those movements, amplify them and feed them back so that small fluctuations cause enormous changes in value<<

I don't see any evidence of this in the normal conduct of business, where derivative products are employed for precisely the opposite purpose - to create predictability in the face of changing circumstances - using currency/interest/commodity swaps etc. The packaging of bad loans that triggered the GFC also created derivative products, but these were of a specifically toxic nature, being somewhat fraudulent in their content.

Classifying all derivatives as dangerous is akin to classifying motor cars as lethal weapons. Sure, they can kill people. But...
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 2:03:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The question that remains, of course, is what action can we take to mitigate the inevitable impact of our changed circumstances.

Sadly, the political blindness that affects all parliamentarians will ensure that government will have absolutely no part to play in any strategy, for any business, in any industry, that has the potential to make a difference.

The only parliamentarian who has ever had a clue about this was John Button, who was both articulate and determined, particularly where the intellect-driven innovative industries were concerned. But by the time his ideas had been processed by "the party", there was little left bar a few soggy carrots and a brittle stick.

Being smart is elitist, doncherknow.

We will continue to dumb ourselves down relative to the rest of the world, I'm afraid.

But there's hope. Once upon a time, Spain was flat broke, and became the el-cheapo holiday destination for much of Europe's bogans. They parlayed this serving-the-masses indignity into an economy of sorts after a generation or so... then the politicians pissed it up against the wall with stupid fiscal policies. Interestingly, a similar cycle occurred in Ireland. At one point there was a mass exodus of Irish brainpower - a bunch of it came this way. Then they created an economy out of EU handouts and tax breaks, imagined for a while that they had done well, then their own bubble burst.

We could possibly get a temporary reprieve by "doing a Spain" with our tourist industry, so long as we are able rid ourselves of our palpable discomfort with foreigners. We would then have to avoid the governmental hubris that brought it all crashing down again, but hey.

Not an attractive destination, I admit. But I find it difficult to envisage any other. Fortunately, by my reckoning the timing will be such that it will be unlikely to affect me too much, it will be my kids who will have to bear the brunt.

And they will most likely be working overseas anyway.
Posted by Pericles, Tuesday, 2 July 2013 2:03:14 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. ...
  6. 5
  7. 6
  8. 7
  9. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy