The future fund sold 1/3 of its Telstra shares a few weeks ago:

http://www.smh.com.au/business/future-fund-telstra-share-sale-inquiry-call-20090916-fqne.html

I guess it was just a coincidence.

*However, there is a difference between your house and a monetary investment. You've generally put work into your house and the amenities you provide to the renters have generally come after your labours.*

Hang on, hang on RobP. Because you seemingly have never done real
work to save for an investment, you think that others don't?

Think again!

One of my employees at the time of the first Telstra float was in
fact an 18 year old farm girl, whose dad had taught her it was
her responsibility to provide for her future. She did without the
latest CDs, clothes and make up, and bought shares, with the sweat
of her brow. Today, as a mother of a few kids, she benefits, as she
should. There are many like her, who live quietly, don't blow
their money on gambling and other vices and save, invest the proceeds.

You seemingly see nothing wrong with the Govt taking their money
for an asset it sells, but now, with a change of ideology, its going
to virtually nationalise the asset without fair compensation to those
small investors who did work so hard. Frankly that stinks and is
third world stuff, I don't blame those people for being really pissed
off.

*The length of time a particular deal is on offer can be short but once you've signed up for a particular rate, the bank is obliged to pay you at that rate even though that particular term/rate combination may have ceased to be available in the meantime.*

Well of course, I know that, I follow the rates. Fact is that banks
are not silly, they employ economists and they never offered 8.5%
for 5 year terms, but maybe 6 month or 1 year terms at most.
They put a huge amount of thought into drawing up those interest
rate deals and its to their benefit, not to the benefit of the
customer! The point is, none of this changes the fact that money
in the bank over time, loses real value, due to a combination of
inflation and taxation.

Another example of the long-term folly of some types of full privatisation.

While all the pundits were lapping up then-Senator Alston's spin comparing Australia to Botswana in being "the only counries with a full Government owned Telco" he neglected to mention that almost all other Governments retained a controlling interest in their Telcos and Australia is now only one of a few with a fully private telecommunications network.

So we can't be a competitor and also a regulator? It worked OK for the Commonweath Bank and Qantas for many years. It didn't stop the ASX regulator from floating itself on the sharemarket either.

Likewise, how will Sydney ever get a second International Airport without Government finance? The current monopoly owners certainly won't be interested in investing.

I can't wait to see what will happen with water and electricity when they are completely taken over.

After that, why not the National Highway network or even the Armed Forces?

As a Telstra shareholder I also say let the country's future come first.

Over the last week I've read nearly every political article over Telstra as I wanted to try and get a better understanding over where all parties sat. The reason for this is that we've just soft launched a free new political site www.megaphone.net.au and this weeks question is on the telstra split. We created the site out of despair in that my staff had no idea about what was happening in fed politics or what party they were most aligned to. To be honest I'm pretty new to blogging and find the material here really thorough. My bigger concern is for the 90% of the population that just doesn't care or know how to care. Hope our site can get more people interested in politics and maybe more people can start contributing here that wouldn't normally be heard.

Rache, the question is not if privatisation is a good or a bad thing,
that is a separate question and can be debated at length.

Conroy clearly thinks his numbers won't work without the Telstra
ducts, or with Telstra as a competitor in the marketplace.

That should not give him the right to expropriate assets using
blackmail.

If the Govt wants to own those assets, they are free to buy them
back, the money ripped off mums and dads is still sitting in cash
in the future fund.

It is no different to the Govt selling you a block of its land,
then years later deciding it needs that land for the common good.
If they did it without compensation there would be an uproar.

So the question is about Govt expropriation of assets, that it once
sold and the morality and credibility involved with that.

“You seemingly see nothing wrong with the Govt taking their money for an asset it sells, but now, with a change of ideology, its going to virtually nationalise the asset without fair compensation to those small investors who did work so hard.”

Yabby,

For someone who doesn’t know me, you seem to think you have a lot of insight into me. Now I’ve said things like “one man’s meat is another’s poison” on this thread. I am acknowledging there are people who are getting the sharp end of the stick. I come from an ordinary family myself and I know how structurally marginalised people are and how difficult some people’s lives can be. I suspect you are the one who doesn’t really understand this but is using the odd person you’ve met as an example to get the outcome you are after yourself.

As bad as it is for some individuals – and I know they and their circumstances are real – the government has to make some tough calls from time to time. If it ends up with the betterment of society overall, it’s a good call. Even better is if they can identify the people who are going to be unfairly made worse off and provide them with an adequate form of compensation.

My personal view is that anyone who is on a low income with low savings is silly to put their money on the market. And anyone who advises them to is equally silly. I’ve always had an innate sense that putting money in the market is risky. A person on a low income with low savings is always going to be safer putting their money into the bank – as the saying goes, at least you can “bank on” getting exactly what you signed up for. Investing in the market is just a sophisticated form of gambling where the people who do best are generally those with good knowledge, lots of options and lots of money to start with. Maybe you should do your employees a favour and tell them that.