rehctub,
decent & thinking people can see it. it's the morons who are totally lost within themselves & they only come out to vote Labor when there's an election.

KIllarney

I have briefly mentioned on these pages before that some of the discussion seems to deteriorate into name calling and sarcasm that shouldn't be necessary on opinions freely expressed.

Why am I not surprised that when I make a credible argument in favour of a personal opinion or experience, it is met by your sarcastic and meaningless response ? All I can say is that you use this form of ridicule because you don't have the intellect to use more persuasive reasoning in the debate.

I shall probably restrict my views here on OLO which will probably be music to your ears and your wisdom and reasoning may not be stretched too far

Dear snake,

You need to go back and read the entire link that
I cited earlier. Liberal Senator's Kevin Andrews
claims were unfounded according to the given
article for several reasons:

Andrew Podger, Professor of public policy from the
Australian National University wrote in The Australian
Financial REview, "The claim that Australia's welfare
system is "unsustainable" would surprise observers in
most OECD nations which spend a much higher percentage
of GDP on social security payments."

"Our emphasis on flat-rate, means-tested payments rather
than earnings-related social insurance has limited the
burden on Australian taxpayers."

"Because we income test payments more than any other
country we have the most progressive distribution of
benefits in the OECD, and we also spend less than the
OECD average."

"It could be noted that the only element of the social
security system that will resemble the European approach
when it is introduced is the Government's Paid Parental
Leave Scheme."

"We have challenges to face, but we are not heading the
same way as Europe!"

"There is nothing to indicate that as the population ages
Australia is heading toward the high welfare spending of
some European countries. Treasury projections to 2050
show welfare spending as a proportion of GDP will remain
steady over the next 3 decades."

And those are the facts.

Not government rhetoric!

Dear Foxy,

It's not the facts as presented there that I dispute. They are are probably very accurate for the present day. What I do dispute is the suggestion that Treasury can possibly make any kind of projection 36 years hence when they can't even get it right in a lot of cases two or three years ahead. We are governed by world events and demographics which can also vastly change over that many years.

I am very pessimistic about the world financial situation and while "green shoots" have been constantly forecast over the last 4 or 5 years I see none. In fact debt world wide is higher now that it was when it helped create the GFC. The Americans have a 17 trillion dollar deficit ( and still rising) with unfunded liabilities going forward of over $70 trillion and over 50 million people presently on food stamps. It is these sorts of statistics that worry me, particularly when they have the world reserve currency with all the ramifications that are involved. We are not immune, but I will listen to anyone giving me evidence that I'm wrong.

A very good book to read is the best seller by James Rickard called the End of Money. Very recently published. The author is an advisor on International economics and financial threats to the Dep. of Defence and US intelligence community. The book got rave reviews from Bloomberg & The Financial Times among others. Well worth a look if you have the time and inclination.

Dear snake,

Thanks for the book reference.
I do have both the time and the inclination. ;-)

I suspect you are right to be, snake.

>>I am very pessimistic about the world financial situation<<

What we are seeing is a re-balancing of supply and demand that will take the next couple of generations to work through.

The developed world has exploited weaker countries for a number of centuries, in order to create the standard of living that we now enjoy. Think of the East India Company, or Cecil Rhodes, or a whole host of empire-builders from Europe who enriched their own countries at the expense of their colonies.

The twentieth century changed all that. A whole raft of countries turned from being exploited to becoming exploiters themselves... not to the same degree, of course, because the differentials weren't quite so great. At the same time, advances in transport made it easy for people to migrate across borders. Communication improvements enabled the population of the richer countries to understand more clearly the differences between the haves an the have-nots. Technology also changed the ability of a weaker country to force itself up the ladder of enrichment.

All of which has created a vacuum of sorts.

The developed countries have filled their "expectation gap" - that is, the difference between what they actually earn, and what they feel entitled to - with debt. The end result, as everyone is slowly coming to realize, is that these differentials are not sustainable, and that the relativity between the haves and have-nots will gradually close.

In short, we are destined to become slightly poorer, overall, as the rest of the world catches up.

Adjusting is going to be difficult for us, of course. But if we don't, and try to resist the inevitable, we will make ourselves very unhappy indeed.