Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
Start an new NBN and then sell it!
Federal Coalition Government 2013-?
- Thread starter boyo
- Start date
- Status
Start an new NBN and then sell it!
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
A.L.P., Liberal Party, or National Party makes no difference to me. Lazy economics is lazy economics.
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
That was before contracts had been signed. Now something will be built and sold.
I wonder if that would have been your view at the time?
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
Not quite apples for apples runner. Labor sold assets to deregulate and open the economy. Do we really want to deregulate our health sector? More than happy to see the Government hold a bit of control over that one.
Runner
Nev Cottrell (35)
Correct up to a point as Keating also said it was to reduce debt. It was refered to as privatization
Selling stuff off does not always mean that it will be done better.
Many former public assets are administered more poorly, and the service costs more after privatisation. Some privatisations can be successful but many are not the quick fix that Treasurers would like them to be.
Many former public assets are administered more poorly, and the service costs more after privatisation. Some privatisations can be successful but many are not the quick fix that Treasurers would like them to be.
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
The CBN/MTM/TBN will have very little value.
Probably only Telstra would be interested, as they would overbuild it with FTTP only in cherry-picked areas, meaning that regional, rural, and many metropolitan areas would miss out again.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
I'm thinking of a word that starts with the letter C and rhymes with runts..........
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-...ration-advice-service-for-asylum-seek/5355570
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-03-...ration-advice-service-for-asylum-seek/5355570
So their current asylum seeker policy costs around $5 billion a year but thanks to denying people natural justice we'll save $25 million a year.
Ruggo
Mark Ella (57)
You see stuff like this but still some people think you need to show "affection for the home side". Don't worry though because we have knights and dames again and the right to be biggots.
Welcome to the lucky country. Just don't have a moral conscience if you want to lap it up though.
Slim 293
Stirling Mortlock (74)
What was that C word I was searching for?
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...imes-inquiry-in-sri-lanka-20140328-35moj.html
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...imes-inquiry-in-sri-lanka-20140328-35moj.html
It depends on your philosophy as to what a government is for.
Lazy surplus economics is far preferable to lazy deficit spending
I for one don't think it adds value to the economy for the government to run a private health insurance provider (and many other areas that aren't what you could really consider "core")
I would actually prefer the radical approach of seeing a government driven by being pro market (not pro individual businesses) and if individual businesses fall; or are stopped from taking monopoly or oligopoly positions so be it.
Surely there is a difference between an entity being government run and an entity being government owned.
Medibank Private is run as a government business enterprise and pays tax like any other company. It pays an annual dividend to the owner (the government) like most profitable public companies do.
So the question should be what the opportunity cost of owning this asset is. Would taxpayers be better served by continuing to own this asset or would they be better off selling it and using the funds for something else.
Given the low borrowing cost of the Australian government, I would question what benefit taxpayers will see from selling this asset which provides a net benefit to taxpayers each year.
No.
If the government already owned a fish and chip shop due to actions of a previous government and the fish and chip shop was entirely independent, paid taxes like other fish and chip shops and provided a dividend to the government from its yearly surplus, should the government sell it?
The government isn't running Medibank Private. It just owns it. It is a highly competitive sector already so the government owning one of the many players in that market has negligable impact on the sector.
boyo
Mark Ella (57)
Simplistic economics says surplus:good, deficit:bad.
"faced with the task of actually delivering sustainable growth, Treasurer Joe Hockey has been pressuring statesnotto cut their debts.
Yes, not to cut their debts.
Here’s how the deal he presented to state treasurers on Friday works:
It encourages states to sell assets such as roads, ports and public transport systems and rewards them with a payment from a special pool if and only if they use the proceeds to build new assets.
“If asset sales are used to retire debt, they will not have access to the pool,” Mr Hockey confirmed on Friday. “The money must be recycled for productivity purposes, in productivity-enhancing infrastructure.”
The payments are big – 15 per cent of the value of the total reinvested – and they are available only for proceeds that are reinvested. Hockey is deliberately making paying down debt very unattractive."
How can this be? (remember, simplistic economics says surplus:good, deficit:bad)
Invoking fish and chip shops or supermarkets implies nationalising all industry, which I doubt is on the to-do list of any Australian government.
Medibank Private is a profitable GBE that provides a dividend which helps the budget bottom-line.
If the Federal Government sells it (or any profitable asset) how will they pay for services and programmes? Will they have to increase taxation rates, or introduce a "great big new tax"?
Selling profitable assets shrieks of short termism (quick $), not long termism (income from assets).
They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Privatise the profits and socialise the costs.
Their "Magic Pudding" economics will bite them on the arse.
Joe Hockey is right to pressure states not to cut their debts
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/joe-h...their-debts-20140331-zqoz3.html#ixzz2xayEOm8W
EDIT: Most of the comments are GOLD.
"faced with the task of actually delivering sustainable growth, Treasurer Joe Hockey has been pressuring statesnotto cut their debts.
Yes, not to cut their debts.
Here’s how the deal he presented to state treasurers on Friday works:
It encourages states to sell assets such as roads, ports and public transport systems and rewards them with a payment from a special pool if and only if they use the proceeds to build new assets.
“If asset sales are used to retire debt, they will not have access to the pool,” Mr Hockey confirmed on Friday. “The money must be recycled for productivity purposes, in productivity-enhancing infrastructure.”
The payments are big – 15 per cent of the value of the total reinvested – and they are available only for proceeds that are reinvested. Hockey is deliberately making paying down debt very unattractive."
How can this be? (remember, simplistic economics says surplus:good, deficit:bad)
Invoking fish and chip shops or supermarkets implies nationalising all industry, which I doubt is on the to-do list of any Australian government.
Medibank Private is a profitable GBE that provides a dividend which helps the budget bottom-line.
If the Federal Government sells it (or any profitable asset) how will they pay for services and programmes? Will they have to increase taxation rates, or introduce a "great big new tax"?
Selling profitable assets shrieks of short termism (quick $), not long termism (income from assets).
They know the cost of everything and the value of nothing. Privatise the profits and socialise the costs.
Their "Magic Pudding" economics will bite them on the arse.
Joe Hockey is right to pressure states not to cut their debts
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/comment/joe-h...their-debts-20140331-zqoz3.html#ixzz2xayEOm8W
EDIT: Most of the comments are GOLD.
- Status