Spieber
Bob Loudon (25)
Surely you jest - Japan 6 trillion, Indonesia 900 billion - a very long way to go (roughly 6-7x larger).
Federal Coalition Government 2013-?
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
- Status
Surely you jest - Japan 6 trillion, Indonesia 900 billion - a very long way to go (roughly 6-7x larger).
Indonesia is a growing economy and will continue to be more and more important to Australia.
So many people seem to think this relationship is entirely one directional and cite the fact that we should show them who's boss by cutting our $500m+ foreign aid to the country. The reality is that our foreign aid also buys us influence. There is certainly plenty of benefit in keeping Indonesia under our influence more than under China's for example.
On top of that, Indonesia is a significant trading partner for us accounting for over $12b of trade every year.
If anything, Indonesia is more important to us than we are to them. They're a close neighbour with a population of almost 250 million and are poor but developing. They have lots of coastline and are the staging point for many asylum seeker boats which are a major political issue in our country.
There is more for Australia to gain as Indonesia grows and develops than there is for Indonesians to gain from Australia as they become wealthier.
So many people seem to think this relationship is entirely one directional and cite the fact that we should show them who's boss by cutting our $500m+ foreign aid to the country. The reality is that our foreign aid also buys us influence. There is certainly plenty of benefit in keeping Indonesia under our influence more than under China's for example.
On top of that, Indonesia is a significant trading partner for us accounting for over $12b of trade every year.
If anything, Indonesia is more important to us than we are to them. They're a close neighbour with a population of almost 250 million and are poor but developing. They have lots of coastline and are the staging point for many asylum seeker boats which are a major political issue in our country.
There is more for Australia to gain as Indonesia grows and develops than there is for Indonesians to gain from Australia as they become wealthier.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Only because they're both to blame.
Why do we need to know what Mrs SBY is buying for dinner?
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
Not at all. This is all being driven from the top. It's not the students protesting who are stripping back all diplomatic relations.
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
Just answering Ruggo's question.
I would prefer there be not environmentally damaging man made pollutants. We have to however be realitic. This is a process which is still developing and can be a bit like deregulation--taking away duplication and obsolete regulations laws etc.
No I'm not.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
No, the commonwealth of Australia, the government owns this. As I said, partisan politics doesn't factor. On the International stage the government represents us, full stop. Partisan rivalry doesn't extend beyond our boarders and it never should.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
A few years might be a bit quick but Indonesia hasn't reached affluence unlike Japan. The scope for growth is massive for Indonesia.
Forget the economics. The single biggest issue is that Indonesia is the largest Muslim nation in the world, right on our doorstep and our relationship with them is a massive bridge across the cultural divide.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
Abbott has compounded the issue with all his bullshit rhetoric. Indonesia holds all the cards and he only has himself to blame for that.
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
$8.8bn grant determined by RBA: Stevens
22 Nov 2013
Jacob Greber
Reserve Bank of Australia governor Glenn Stevens has for the first time confirmed that the $8.8 billion grant from Treasurer Joe Hockey was an amount determined by the central bank.
Mr Stevens, speaking at a function in Sydney late on Thursday in response to a question from The Australian Financial Review, said the figure emerged from discussions at several of the bank’s board meetings.
Mr Hockey has been accused by Labor of artificially inflating the grant – which is aimed at bolstering the Reserve Bank’s capacity to weather market turmoil – as a way of making this year’s budget look worse.
Labor says Mr Hockey will seek to blame the opposition for this year’s budget deterioration and then claim credit for later years when the deficit narrows.
However, Mr Stevens appears to have undermined that claim, saying the top-up was aimed at bringing the Reserve Bank’s so-called reserve fund back to a level that covers 15 per cent of its assets at risk.
The bank maintains the fund as a way of absorbing accounting losses on its huge foreign exchange holdings, as well as potential trading risks such as fraud.
The fund was severely depleted after the global financial crisis when the Australian dollar rallied, driving down the local-currency value of the central bank’s offshore holdings.
Mr Stevens clashed over the issue with former Treasurer Wayne Swan over his decision to claim at least half of the bank’s 2011-12 dividend – a figure of $500 million – rather than allow the governor to retain the sum to help restock the fund.
15 per cent is bank’s figure
The size of Mr Hockey’s top-up last month surprised central bank watchers, who were expecting a figure that would have brought the fund closer to 10 per cent of assets at risk, as had been the case before the crisis.
Mr Stevens told the Australian Business Economists annual Christmas dinner that the larger 15 per cent figure emerged from internal central bank discussions.
“The board talked and we had a number of discussions about whether our previous thinking about capital adequacy was appropriate in the world we now live in,” Mr Stevens said.
“We came to the view [that] desirably we’d like that higher than we used to think was appropriate. So the 15 [per cent], that’s the bank’s figure, for sure. It’s a very good figure.”
The comments came after a speech in which Mr Stevens said he remained open-minded to the prospect of direct currency intervention, although he warned of the potential costs.
One cost, to which Mr Stevens alluded, was the prospect that intervention could result in the bank accruing losses from swapping Australian-currency denominated assets, which yield about 3 per cent, for foreign currency holdings, which in many cases yield nothing.
This so-called “negative carry” would result in less money being made available from the bank’s annual profit for the federal government to collect as a dividend
The Australian Financial Review
This is a paywall site hence the whole article and not a link. Apologies.
Spieber
Bob Loudon (25)
*Edit - not necessary*
A few years meant between 2030 and 2050 but your big prediction went all the way to 2017. What a far sited person you are. Maybe you should have a quick look in the growth column of the handy, far sited, page you bought up.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
The productivity commission wants the retirement age raised to 70. An inevitable response to short sighted policy from previous governments. The disregard by the Howard and previous Labor government (GFC did effect the scope of what they could do) and also the idiotic trend of the Labor opposition from 1996-2007 to abandon the Hawke/Keating reform legacy.
All the talk of the riches of the mining boom just fucking wasted in regards to the advancement of super. Governments have dropped the ball and now seniors are expected to pay the price for this. I have big issues with this morally. We are talking about people who have contributed their working lives to the productivity of our country and when they get to the age where rightfully they should be able to settle down as old age starts to physically take hold, they get stung for more. It's just not right.
For the record, this is not a dig at the current government.
All the talk of the riches of the mining boom just fucking wasted in regards to the advancement of super. Governments have dropped the ball and now seniors are expected to pay the price for this. I have big issues with this morally. We are talking about people who have contributed their working lives to the productivity of our country and when they get to the age where rightfully they should be able to settle down as old age starts to physically take hold, they get stung for more. It's just not right.
For the record, this is not a dig at the current government.
Inside Shoulder
Nathan Sharpe (72)
Spying on SBY was screaming out for a Charge of the Light Brigade excuse from Mr Rabbit. Where is his Sir Humphery Abbot when we need him?
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
Perhaps it should be directed to the Minister for Foreign Affairs in 2009 who approved such actions and look at what was going on to promote that thought.
Agree with lots but the Future fund was created and if health has improved we should look at people being able to work longer if the desire.
I would suspect that if it was introduced it would apply in 2050
Yep, Mr Rabbit had a perfect excuse to blame the other mob, and throw out some waffle that it won't happen during his watch, whilst finding a scapegoat in the intelligence community to sack and making sure that measures are in place not to get caught again.
He failed.
He failed.
I don't think this really works.
When it comes to foreign affairs, partisan politics is pretty much irrelevant.
The Australian government is the entity in question and it doesn't really matter who was in charge at the time.
I imagine we've made some sort of promise behind closed doors that we won't tap personal mobile phones again and that we deeply regret it blah blah blah. Of course that opens us up to questions of when else it has happened, if it was still happening and what else have we been doing.
It's a complex issue and will probably take a while for the wounds to heal.
Sent from my HTC One XL using Tapatalk
ChargerWA
Mark Loane (55)
Australian life expectancy has risen from 72 in 1960 to 82 by 2010. The burden of the ageing population is one of the great challenges for the coming half century. It only stands to reason that if we live to an older age we will be expected to work longer. Burying our head in the sands isn't going to make this go away and it will be a particularly brave political party who tackle it head on.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
We had a brave government who tackled this problem head on. All following governments had to do was continue the reform as it was intended.
Many people just physically can't work the jobs they know further into old age. Some can and generally they do continue beyond retirement age but to expect all to is not seeing the full picture.
- Status