Should Australia have her own national bank?

I suppose you could ask a somilar question of our various levels of govt., regardless of persuasion.

How are they going to support their programs/projects when they have sold off all public assets??

 

It is what reasonable commentators say about Howard wasting a great opportunity! His party governed during golden economic times and overlooked our massive mining boom for years! There was absolutely no foresight to set us up at all for the future!

 

Without living in the past, calls have gone forth for years to bring about a plan to remove total economic dependence on mining boom. However, for years both sides of politics have simply hedge their bets on the mining sector and continue to use that cheap easy cash to buy votes to keep their jobs.

Funny enough, Howard focused away from the area that Australia has relied upon since its conception, farming, to move to less relevant markets such as the commodity markets. How in hell he thought that market was more important than rural sector had me buggered, because the commodity market relied on the rural sector for Australia's commodities (other than resource sectors)

Howard also moved the focus of the people away from real government issues to sell that very infrastructure he used to pay Government debts. Fact is, he got his major sell off through convincing everybody that the government should not keep business that is ultimately losing money or considered by the government as unprofitable. Since when has government been a profitable business? They move everybody’s focus away from the reason the government has these businesses.

The ALP on the other hand has continued the same emphasis and actually continued to create a country where it is cheaper to export your product with government welfare and import the products you buy in your own country. Fact is, the government cannot keep paying the difference between Australia and the rest of the global market in costs, means future Australian industry will continue to dwindle.

One almighty problem the government has, while moving the goal posts for Australian consumer markets to off shore production, Jobs will be lost and the major problem of National debt will continue to increase. The real problem with the government debt is the percentage of national debt it makes up. While the current parties only intend to use short term cash grabs to fund their buy up of votes, Australia falls well behind the rest of the world.


Australia is in for extremely bad times if they continue on the same direction, without major changes. People do not want anything to change, but wake up people, while your government is only thinking 3 years into the future; you’re always going to lose.

 

Without the resources sector the Howard government would not have been able to pay off the huge debt left behind by the Keating government & still put billions in reserve plus the future fund. Given the current labor government lack of management skills & ideological/political imperatives government debt would not be less than 750 billion by now (my opinion) assuming Julia Gillard would have still won the last election with the increased debt levels.

The best indication of how a coalition government would have fared during the GFC is the "Asian financial crises" that the Howard government sailed through & the $24 billion nest egg the Rudd government inherited in 2007.

 

Because it would just be sold off again as soon as the right pockets are greased.

 

Howard and costello sold our assets, that is what paid off debt and set up the future fund that Aussies thought was for them but was only for a select few(public servant superannuations).

Howard himself stated that the Asian meltdown would have no real effect due to export links in the region. China was only slightly affected!

 

Its really sad and pathetic, but from an international point of view; the majority of Australians live is such a secluded, shallow little pond, that they will not wake-up until they hit the wall at high speed. This wall is coming at them so fast, they wont know what hit them. The housing bubble crash and financial difficulties that occurred world wide will seem like child’s play when it happens here in Australia, due to the majority of population being so child like in nature.

There is a basic fundamental question even the dumbest person can ask themselves regardless of what political persuasion they are or what past bias they have, and that is: “If Federal & State politicians in my chosen political party cannot manage a profitable public owned asset (example Telstra & electricity) without selling it. Then how can they convince ME they can manage the State or Countries entire economy”?

I agree with you Gary, NO politician or political party has had a futuristic plan for Australia or the Australian people since the “Snowy Mountains Scheme” was developed and built.

All this current batch of parasites have done is capitalise on the countries enormously abundant resource/mining industries through taxes, and selling off these profitable industries to foreigners.

Some politicians in this country should be hung by neck, because they did a massive snow-job on the people of Australia by saying that Australian manufacturing could not compete with overseas manufacturing. The only reason why Australian manufacturing could not compete in Asian countries was because, these countries put massive import tax on items manufactured in Australia and imported into their countries, but Australian politicians have NO import tax on manufactured items being imported from their country into Australia. If we had an equal tax import tax rate, the imported items would be very equal in price to the one manufactured right here in Australia, regardless of the human wage difference.

Its really fair for the Australian people and Australian businesses that these foreign countries can tax our imports, but our Australian politicians don’t put a tax on their imports into Australia.

It really begs the question. Are Australia politicians working for the best interest for Australia and the Australian people, or are they working for the best interest for foreign countries and their people?

 

culldav

Totally agree, cull, but who is it that keeps throwing out the propaganda that govts can't run a business?
All that seems to have resulted from privatising our public utilities is higher prices.
Definitely no improvement in service.

Just this morning Shell Petroleum is talking of selling, or closing, another refinery.
Seems to me like a good opportunity to start 'buying back the farm'.
Where will we be if we have to rely on another country to maintain our fuel stocks.

 

Wasn't dropping Import Duty supposed to make our manufacturing more competitive?
That was the BS touted at the time.
All it did was allow retailers to import cheap products without lowering their prices to match their savings.
And the loss of jobs to OS.

How about introducing 10/20% import duty on companies that take their manufacturing base offshore??
Maybe on those companies that take their Head Office offshore as well.
Just a thought, as that will never happen.

 

There are a few people on here who think that me saying Australia has an international reputation of being backward and dumbarse, is just my personal vendetta against Australians, but nothing could be further from reality or the truth.

These forum people, and the majority of Australians in general, have absolutely no concept on how ridiculous their actions and behaviour look to other people around the world.

I agree with what you are proposing Woolf, but it will take a non greedy politician with ball to implement such a radical policy, or even propose that change.

Look what Bonds International recently did here in Australia. They always had a good reputation for under garments and clothing, and their products were always good sellers here in Oz. In a disguise to be greedy they pretended to be losing money, and Australian workers lost their jobs in favour of the Bonds company relocating to an Asian country to manufacture it products.

Did any Australian politician protect Australia and the Australian people from this rouge company by immediately placing tariffs or import taxes on its products in retaliation for this companies greedy inappropriate behaviour towards Australia and the Australian workers?

NO, they didn’t.

The Australian people and Australian politicians have a child like mentality, and allowing Bonds International to do what they did without any recourse, is similar to allowing a 6 year old to bully and boss around adults.

Now can people finally realise how “desperate daisy” and “dumbarse & backward” this attitude and behaviour by Australian politicians and the Australian people by letting Bonds walk all over them, looks to the rest of the world?

 

I don't mean to butt in, BUT is this the problem. Isn't the reason the government was running these businesses was to reduce the costs of utilities to the general population? Is it the government’s job to make it profitable to sell to companies (generally overseas companies) to profit off? Isn't that the government’s job? When the ALP planned to sell government utilities, they were halted by the very fact that it is the job of the government to insure fair distribution of utilities to ALL.

We see how good a job Howard actually did in changing the focus of people so they could sell off the infrastructure of the nation. No matter who you talk to, they consider it is OK to sell unprofitable business to private interests. Even the debate is more pointed to the profitability of the assets sold by the governments combined. Again since when is the government into making profit?

Problem is, where is the money going to come from to secure any assets. The government is squandering any chance. It would be good to buy back our own business, but they are too busy selling of the rest of the infrastructure to fund their vote buying funds.

Cannot build roads, sell of existing roads so private companies can kill us all with tolls on roads and bridges already paid for ten times over. Cannot run trains, sell them to private interests. Ports, being sold as we speak, airports on the market (if not already sold).

Let’s face it, there really is not much more left to sell.

 

The danger of a national bank is that it can be used to rack up huge levels of debt. That is a big problem in the USA right now, with the Federal Reserve Bank buying up government debt and turning it into money.

Also, when national banks manipulate interest rates, it is like giving free money to wealthy investors, at the cost of inflation for everyone else. If interest rates are kept high, investors get more interest on their accounts. If interest rates are kept low, investors can borrow the money at subsidized interest rates, and put it to use to earn more elsewhere, which is still like giving away money for free to those who already have a lot of it. I think national banks trying to manipulate interest rates just increase inequality.

 

However, with Australian regulations in banking, this could be the best way to reign in the rest of the banking industry in Australia. It also allows the best way for government to directly manipulate the interest rates.

That being said, you are correct that it only effects the richest of the population with increasing their wealth. But it also allows the lesser of the population to finance increases in wealth with wise finance and investment. Problem has always been that the population is a consumer nation who wants everything now. Easy finance only increases in locking people into the greed cycle rather than increasing wealth.

 

A national bank is not the solution. The medicine will be much worse than the cure.

Believe me, you do not want the government manipulating interest rates. It takes money to manipulate interest rates. There's only two places where that money can come from: higher taxes or inflation

if you want to "reign in" on big banks, the best laws tend to be simple laws. Complex laws are usually too complicated to have been well thought out. Also, the more complex the regulations are, the more power you are giving to the bureaucrats. These things are too complicated for politics to sort out.

 

Well said, It does take money. The fact that at this present time, The big banks in Australia want to now create their own interest rates, tends the rise of the banks to becoming the economic leaders of the economy NOT the government (although They do not tend to be of the best interest of the people either).

The only advantage I see in a state owned bank is to bring them to account through market force. True, it is not the only way, but it is a way that is fairly simplistic. Fair enough that this medicine (not being petulant) is not the cure either. For anything like this system to work, an ULTURISTIC government is needed. Australia is far from having that.

Well it is the bureaucracy is the real problem here. So much bureaucracy in the financial sector is creating the problem of control. As governments want to free the market to move money around the economy faster, which is not good for the general population, the government adds new layers of bureaucracy that is mainly toothless tigers on the pretence of holding that banks to account. These bureaucrats simply then create more bureaucracy to justify their position which generally conflicts with existing systems to create more loop holes.

 

Paul Keating ran up a huge debt and still at the same time sold off the Commonwealth Bank. However much money a coalition government has they will try to work within that to balance the budget but a labor government will not be bothered to much when they fail to do it.
The reason the Howard put money aside for public servant superannuation (who I would think would be mostly labor voters) is so that future governments would not have to find extra money for that & instead could spend it on hospitals, schools, etc.

In the 1998/99 financial year Australian exports to China were $3.95 billion http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/94713ad445ff1425ca25682000192af2/be75d8ff866cba97ca256aaa007fe175!opendocument & in the 2008/09 financial year exports to China were about $40 billion. http://http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/Lookup/4102.0Main+Features10Sep+2009 It is hard to see how Julia's labor government can still blame the GFC for running up more & more debt.

 

Again, rather than look superficially and simplistically domestically, one needs to look to look internationally! Under Keating the nations growth was miles ahead of the developed world, obviously the" world"had simply come out of a recession once again! Prior to the 1996 election australia was already on the up and up and the debt was already coming down and then Howard worked off the back of keatings strong development of economic ties with Asia. The mining boom struck in Howard's term of government and a massive "world wide" economic upturn! There was money to burn and didnt little johnny burn it!

Gee, politicians and beuracrats are public servants aren't they? When did Howard spend money on hospitals and schools! Infrastructure around him was collapsing and he was in the best position of any government to address it....common!

 

No John did not burn the money but did pay off the debts left behind by Paul Keating, reduced taxes & provided a MRI machine to Dubbo despite the refusal of a NSW labor government to provide medical staff to operate it. The Labor party has a racially ingrained hatred of Dubbo that seems to go way beyond not voting for them.
Paul Keating's rule was characterized by a lot of alternating backward & upside down "J" curves, the economy would plummet down a backward "J" curve, level out at the base & rise a bit before plummeting down the upside down "J" curve. When John Howard took over the Australian economy was just rising off the base of one of Paul Keating's backward "J" curves & Howard managed to stabilize it.
It is true Australian governments do not determine international demand for minerals & energy but mining companies assess the risks/costs of doing business in every country & had Paul Keating stayed in power & the mining companies given Paul a similar risk factor as Julia Gillard there would not have been as much mining development.

So are teachers, policemen, nurses, firefighters, etc. so what's your point?

The infrastructure was not collapsing around John Howard but the uncooperative & badly managed state labor governments were making a really bad mess of it even with the massive boost in royalties from the mining boom.

 

Running a debt is not bad. Running a huge debt you can't pay off is bad.

Is there any suggestion outside of Nutterville that Australia's debt is huge and unpayable?

Every financial expert in the world is saying that the Australian government would be stupid to not be borrowing money because of Australia's AAA rating and low interest rates. Even billionaires borrow money from the bank when they want to buy a house if they can get great interest rates.

 

Not sure what cash flow individual billionaires runs, but anyone would be an economic moron not to use the monthly cash flow to buy the item, instead of borrowing money from a bank and paying interest on the loan.

Billionaires would have to run monthly cash flows between $1 - $20million minimum.

Fairly sure you could get a nice mansion or penthouse between $1 & $20 mill without having to borrow.

I would like anyone to show me any book that advocates borrowing money is economic responsibility when you don’t have too?

I would bet money that: "running a debt is not bad" is a philosophy that originated from a Jewish banker. Why people still believe and trust in these Jew money men is beyond me!!

 

Heil Hitler!

 

Should Australia have a national bank?

At the rate the private sector is going we not only need a national bank, but a national car manufacturing industry and national oil refinery as well.

 

There was a global recession between 1990 and 1994, which obviously was going to impact on our minuscule economy in global terms! Growth was low for most developed countries, however growth in Australia was still higher than average developed nations during this period. Australias economy was striving once again prior to 1996 and, little old numbskull Howard simply got lucky........".we didnt" in the long term, but certainly should have. Howard had Aussies where he wanted us, tied up in big mortgages and misleading low interest rates! but fortunately we had a lucky break in his quest to change industrial relations laws. Howard stuffed the economy as treasurer with highest ever interest rates and inflation, but again found the going tough once things beame tough again. His only endeavour was to disempower the working man!

It is interesting how you come up with some strange reasoning behind lack of investment trust in keating, when again Howard was taking down the gurgler when he was treasurer. They were absolutely hopeless in hard times and simply hopeless in good times, it just happen to be extremely good times for a solid period of time globally! We weren't the only nation with an economic upturn, we were simply one of "all" developed nations doing well.

As for superannuation....state governments have responsibility for police, nurses, firies and teachers etc, I thought! If this is the case, who was the future fund intended for?

 

Guys, this is a side-issue.

It doesn't matter if we have a Peoples Bank.

What you want is for the corporations charter to be re-written to include a social contract and remove the folly of corporate 'personhood'.

A quick Google found this site, it might be good or crap, i don't know

https://movetoamend.org/