<< …immigration ADDS to Australia's GPD, not subtracts from it. >>

Nhoj, please take a good close look at GDP. It is a most terribly flawed economic indicator, which adds all sorts of negative factors to the positive side of the ledger, such as increased economic turnover as a result of fires, floods, cyclones, illnesses due to smoking or alcohol, etc, etc.

Yes immigration adds to economic turnover and hence GDP.

But what about the other side of the coin - the enormous demands that it exerts on our economy and budget?

<< Please don't blame immigrants for Joe Hockey's almost IMMEDIATE DOUBLING of the deficit. >>

I’m not. It’s got nothing to do with the mooted doubling of the deficit. But immigration sure as hell has EVERYTHING to do with the budget and the government’s ability to rein in the deficit. Hockey and Bowen should be talking about it, very prominently, as a fundamental part of the current banter about the budget.

Nhoj, I must confess I have not yet read the link, but I will.

What I want to know now is, why do you continue to talk about immigration in the past hundred odd years as being the same as immigration intake today.

Our early immigrants were mostly hard working, highly motivated and highly skilled orpeople who wanted to learn skills and, without their input, Australia would be a different place today, for the worse I might add.

Today, the majority of immigrants, and the illegals are welfare dependent, with many still drawing on our welfare system years after arriving.

Where else in this world could a couple immigrate to, not work a single day, yet bring up ten kids, be paid $5 grand each to have those kids and not lift a finger to contribute.

Immigration today is a drain, and Rudds fiasco that he alone created has cost us billions, will continue costing us billions and will deprive our future generations of many of the luxuries we were lucky enough to have.

Immigration must stop immediately and all 457's must not be renewed and no more issued until we get this country back on track.

Finally, before finger pointing on our position, first step is to find out how much money's being wasted, in servicing the left overs from that incompetent labor/green mob that plunged us into debt in the first place.

Now once that figure is established, if there is still mud to be thrown, then that's fair game.

As soon as I saw the $8 billion to the RBA was included I knew it was
an ABC branch of the ALP fraud.
For Mhoj's information the RBA is part of the government.
For example left pocket and right pocket !
Got it ?

I thought we had cleared this one up, Ludwig, ages ago.

>>Nhoj, please take a good close look at GDP. It is a most terribly flawed economic indicator, which adds all sorts of negative factors to the positive side of the ledger, such as increased economic turnover as a result of fires, floods, cyclones, illnesses due to smoking or alcohol, etc, etc.<<

GDP contains neither negative nor positive components. It contains nothing but numbers, and these are just numbers that you add up in a single column. If you want to classify some of those components as "good" or "bad", that is fine, but they have no impact whatsoever on the numbers that you add up to arrive at a total for GDP.

Fires, cyclones, illnesses are not "good" for the country, as they divert resources - and therefore money - from other, more productive roles. But that is no reason to exclude them from the calculation, since the money is employed within our economy, buying groceries for the firefighters, allowing the nurses to pay their rent, builders' labourers to buy clothes etc. etc.

But above all, these factors you cite do not, repeat not, increase economic turnover. It is clear as day (to most people) that if we spent all our time tending the sick, fighting fires and rebuilding after an earthquake or cyclone, very quickly we would have a GDP of zero. So, by definition, the time, energy, resources and money expended on these activities cannot possibly, in any universe, cause "increased economic turnover".

I am frankly astounded that this simple concept still hasn't made it through into your consciousness, Ludwig.

Good morning Nhoj, please take a seat and thank you for coming in to share your thoughts with the new management team.

As you know, since the new management of Australia Pty Ltd took over in November last year, we have been interviewing staff that were here under the previous management in order to get their perspectives. We are pleased that you have raised your concern that, in trying to get back to profitability (surplus), the new management has actually doubled our debt?

We were just wondering if you would clarify your basis for this assertion for us?

Firstly, can you confirm that under the previous management, the finance department prepared the forecasts but the management provided the income and expense “assumptions” upon which those forecasts were based?

Nhoj; Yes of course, that’s how it works.

So, during your previous six years with the firm, the assumptions you used repeatedly “predicted” returns to profit that never eventuated and the then manager of finance Mr. Swann actually reported that the firm “had” delivered a profit when it didn’t?

Nhoj; Well, Err, Yes.

Did the firm ever return a profit?

Nhoj; well, Err, actually, No!

So can you explain why there was no return to profit against the hundreds of claims that you would or indeed had produced a profit?

Nhoj; Well, Err, I guess the revenues and expenses never matched our forecasts.

If I could just take that a little further Nhoj, the revenues and expenses are real and “actual” but the assumptions you provided to finance for the forecasts are yours and were repeatedly wrong?

Nhoj; Well, Err, I guess so.

So if our new managers were to accept your PEFO of August 2013 as the base line for 2014, it would be wrong because your assumptions were self evidently wrong?

Nhoj; Well, Err, I guess so.

Cont’d

Cont’d

So if we were to put in our own more conservative assumptions to finance department for that same plan as announced on December 7, 2013 in the MYEFO, it would look totally different, particularly if we accepted revenue and expense actual figures but added some of our own spending priorities?

Nhoj; Well, Err, I guess so.

You see Nhoj, we have the same base line “actual” results as you had as at December 7, 2013, but we have lowered the assumption thresholds and added our immediate spending priorities.

This has given the new management a realistic but much higher debt target to address in the May budget, does that in anyway resonate as logical to you?

Nhoj; well, Err, actually, No!

Is this because you don’t accept that your failed assumptions actually failed?

Nhoj; well, Err, actually I still don’t even see anything that needs fixing.

Do the repeated failed assumptions need fixing, does the failure to produce a profit need fixing?

Nhoj; well, Err, actually, could you repeat the question?

OK Nhoj, did you ever do any financial analysis work on this yourself or did you outsource that task?

Nhoj; well, Err, we actually outsourced it.

To where?

Nhoj; well, Err, we actually outsourced it to a PR firm.

So you outsourced critical national financial analysis to a PR firm! Which one?

Nhoj; well, Err, we actually outsourced it to the ABC’s Fact Check unit.

I see, thank you Nhoj. I feel this interview has gone some way to defining a career path for you. It’s not with us of course but you can reflect on your opportunities somewhere in the real world.

In the meantime please empty your desk into the cardboard box provided and await escort from the premises by our security staff