SA Footy

gadj1976 wrote:That's the thing isn't it. Give us something to vote for, not a reason to vote against a party.

rudd in 07 was the last time someone offered a genuine alternative, regardless of what you think of his policies.

every election since then has been "we are not that other mob" both lab and lib, state and federal.

And it took Rudd 5 minutes to piss off the people who voted for him.

The Sleeping Giant wrote:And it took Rudd 5 minutes to piss off the people who voted for him.

yep, not saying he did a good job afterwards, horribly micromanaged everything.

i guess the 2010 state campaign was different too, labor wanted refurbished stadium and new hospital, libs wanted refurbished hospital, new stadium.

Jimmy_041 wrote:

Gozu wrote:Libs have never been good at economics it's called a mortgage. Everyone understands you pay off your debt (mortgage) over time.

This bullshit about 'we're going to have the budget back in surplus by year x' is rubbish, both sides say that crap because it appeals to a few idiots so good luck to them.

Those idiots understand basic economics. For example: Everyone understands you pay off your debt (mortgage) over time. Yes, but these people are compounding the interest and borrowing more to make the repayments. They have NO plan, in any form, to repay the debt.
Plus, you cannot sustain an economy where you are borrowing money to pay your day to day services.
Debt is OK to pay for infrastructure where you service the debt or end up earning revenue to service, and eventually repay, the debt.
This mob relied on forecasts to justify their future expenses and, as we have found out, was based on a falsehood, same as the procurement savings.
Herein lies the problem with people swallowing the Labor crap that we can keep spending and not worry about repaying the debt. It's someone else's problem and shouldn't have to ensure some pain now. Absolute typical Labor economic doctrine. Spend it all and let someone else do the hard years and clean our mess up. Problem is, they cant keep blaming the GFC like they have been doing for years.

Predictions for the next 4 years:
1. The budget deficit will only get worse and they will never get it back to surplus
2. The debt will increase exponentially (it has already increased since the last admission but Labor have hidden it)
3. Higher public service numbers, because they have to bow to the union demands, costing more money and running up an even bigger deficit and debt.
4. Workcover will not be fixed. According to Weatherill and Rau, they are going to cut the unfunded liability of $1.4b with a stroke of a pen in 2015 so let's see what happens in real life now the unions can re-open hostilities with the government. Foley tried to reform it but had to accede to the unions who threatened to lynch him (literally).

But, the stupid people of SA have fallen for the biggest con job again and they will get what they deserve.

Prediction number 5. Jimmy to continue whinging about everything labor does until he self implodes.

Very good, Roxy I've been waiting years for it to happen with no success

I predict Jimmy will at some point compare SA's economy to Greece for the third consecutive term.

RIP Libs

Gozu wrote::lol: Very good, Roxy I've been waiting years for it to happen with no success

I predict Jimmy will at some point compare SA's economy to Greece for the third consecutive term.

I will when the debt hits $20b Gozu and you can remind me it doesn't matter because it's only a mortgage on North Tce

Even with a fanciful debt of $20B, that is more than serviceable by an SA economy of $90-$95B GDP.

To make the (illogical) comparison to a normal household, I would have thought a fair proportion of households have a debt that is many times their annual income.

The Libs were forecasting roughly similar budgets to Labor, so how were they going to supposedly repay this debt through market liberalism (ie smaller government) without massive cuts to expenditure or raising taxes.

On the contrary, the SA electorate seems to be one of the most knowledgeable in the country, that's why there are wild swings between seats.

The Liberals should look at themselves before blaming everyone else for their constant demise.

Democracy is well served here it seems.

dedja wrote:Even with a fanciful debt of $20B, that is more than serviceable by an SA economy of $90-$95B GDP.
To make the (illogical) comparison to a normal household, I would have thought a fair proportion of households have a debt that is many times their annual income.
The Libs were forecasting roughly similar budgets to Labor, so how were they going to supposedly repay this debt through market liberalism (ie smaller government) without massive cuts to expenditure or raising taxes.
On the contrary, the SA electorate seems to be one of the most knowledgeable in the country, that's why there are wild swings between seats.
The Liberals should look at themselves before blaming everyone else for their constant demise.
Democracy is well served here it seems.

The SA Govt revenue is only $15B, so, unfortunately, you hit the nail on the head. The SA economy is going to end up paying for the "fanciful" debt (whether $15B or $20B) The problem is the "unproductive" debt is growing unchecked. Most families make the hard decisions to cut their expenditure to their income less interest payments, so you are right, this is not a normal household. Why, because the buck stays with them, not the next bloke.
In the 2013-2014 budget, the current Govt forecast a budget surplus (Comprehensive result — total change in net worth) of $805m in 2015 - 2016. That's out the window.

If you really want to see where we are. look at this document from 9 months ago and see how far out they were: http://servicesa.cdn.on.net/mybr2013/docs/Budgetp3_201314.pdf

It is scary

The financial fear mongering by the liberals has reached dizzying heights in the last few years. IMO the biggest negative to the economy is the right wing politicians, media and commentators constantly talking it down. This serves no positive purpose for business or the community, but rather highlights the vested interest of a few who stand to gain from such fear mongering. The Libs might consider renaming themselves the Henny Penny Party!

dedja wrote:On the contrary, the SA electorate seems to be one of the most knowledgeable in the country, that's why there are wild swings between seats.

A much more plausible cause of "wilder" swings in SA is a lower number of people in each seat. However (and you'll laugh at this Dedja ) I actually have looked at whether the standard deviation of swings in SA is different from other states and in federal elections , and I didn't find any evidence that seats tend to swing any differently in SA than anywhere else, particularly once you allow for obvious factors like retiring members and sophomore effects.

Gozu wrote::lol: Very good, Roxy I've been waiting years for it to happen with no success

I predict Jimmy will at some point compare SA's economy to Greece for the third consecutive term.

Unfortunately Jimmy is just a sheep ... baa baa baa

bennymacca wrote:Equating public debt and private debt is a little misleading imo. The capacity of governments to both service and handle debt is much better than an individual

I don't think anyone has suggested that SA and Australia has ever not been able to pay off their debts in recent history either.

Most of the talk about the "fiscal emergency etc" is all politics. Prime example for that is liberals raising the debt ceiling almost straight away. They know that debt ebbs and flows but they were happy to score cheap political points at a time when governments of any persuasion would have struggled.

My understanding was that was what all the frantic selling of of public assets post the Bannon government was all about, along with privatising public industries to get rid of the un-refillable hole in the SA government superannuation fund at the time. There was not the money available to either dig out the state bank nor to pay superannuation payments falling due except by off-loading future liability so the meagre remaining reserves could be used for immediate payments due.

Source: Personal discussion of the issues with John Olsen and other MPs at the time. The LIbs felt they had no choice at the time, and they knew it was likely to shorten their time in power because it would be unpopular.

Gozu wrote:Libs have never been good at economics it's called a mortgage. Everyone understands you pay off your debt (mortgage) over time.

This bullshit about 'we're going to have the budget back in surplus by year x' is rubbish, both sides say that crap because it appeals to a few idiots so good luck to them.

A mortgage is subtly different - the lenders don't lend you the money unless you have an asset to provide payment security.
Some governments borrow without such security - a form of unsecured loan.

When you have a mortgage you have collateral - an asset you can sell when necessary and usually get back enough money to discharge the debt if things go bad for you and your income drops - unless of course you have made a poor business decision and bought in an area that has depreciated or taken an excessive mortgage in the first place.

(Banks are now precluded from allowing excessive mortgages by new regulations, so those who want to risk them are looking to non-bank loans.)

Psyber wrote:

bennymacca wrote:Equating public debt and private debt is a little misleading imo. The capacity of governments to both service and handle debt is much better than an individual

I don't think anyone has suggested that SA and Australia has ever not been able to pay off their debts in recent history either.

Most of the talk about the "fiscal emergency etc" is all politics. Prime example for that is liberals raising the debt ceiling almost straight away. They know that debt ebbs and flows but they were happy to score cheap political points at a time when governments of any persuasion would have struggled.

My understanding was that was what all the frantic selling of of public assets post the Bannon government was all about, along with privatising public industries to get rid of the un-refillable hole in the SA government superannuation fund at the time. There was not the money available to either dig out the state bank nor to pay superannuation payments falling due except by off-loading future liability so the meagre remaining reserves could be used for immediate payments due.

Source: Personal discussion of the issues with John Olsen and other MPs at the time. The LIbs felt they had no choice at the time, and they knew it was likely to shorten their time in power because it would be unpopular.

yeah i wasnt talking about in the past, obviously we are in a vastly different economic situation to the early 90s when the state bank collapsed etc, though i cant really comment on that because i wasnt old enough

bennymacca wrote: yeah i wasnt talking about in the past, obviously we are in a vastly different economic situation to the early 90s when the state bank collapsed etc, though i cant really comment on that because i wasnt old enough

Apart from interest rates being much higher then, the state financial position looked much the same as it does now to me as an investor.

The one exception was that, as I said above, there were still assets that could be sold later. We haven't got that option now.

I lived through the crisis of the late 1980s and early 1990s and was involved in by having several business enterprises running at the time, owning (each with mortgages) my own house, and business premises in North Adelaide and in Hahndorf. Fortunately, I saw the writing on the wall during 1987 and sold up the two business premises and my Porsche during 1987-88, and cleared my debts before the collapse. I almost didn't get out of the Hahndorf property in time.

Meanwhile the Bannon government guided by Paul Keating's advice that the "J-curve" was coming - that is that the economic down turn was about to bottom out and the economy rise again - encouraged the state bank to keep lending and encourage business investment. The SA branch of the AMA was one of the institutions that listened to that bad advice and by late 1988 their new building in Ward St, Nth Adelaide, was worth less than they owed on it.

By then, the state government could not refill the hole they had encouraged the state bank to dig, and nor could they put back the similar size hole left because they had spent most of the holdings for the state superannuation fund meant to be there to pay government staff pensions. Things then just limped along until the Liberals came to power and bit the bullet by doing what was necessary to clear the debt (and took the flack for it) in the early 1990s.

(That situation may have also been one of the reasons Bannon's ALP successor Lynn Arnold stepped back and did nothing to oppose the Grand Prix moving to Melbourne.)

I did not move back into investing until the mid 1990s when things were starting to look like getting better, but it was still slow until the early 2000s.
I did well out of property, in Victoria, between 2003 and 2008, before our more recent slump, although again I only got out, completely, in the nick of time in late 2008.

That was compensated for by being able to buy property in SA below council valuations in 2009 and 2011.

Sounds like you have done pretty well with your timing.

Small business is not the be all and end all though.

To be honest I don't see the economy as going particularly badly, and certainly not well either. Just flat. Flat, when put in an international context, is pretty good I think.

Gozu wrote:A South Australian Liberal candidate who suggested his would-be constituents were smelly and work-shy has issued a formal apology.

Anthony Antoniadis, the candidate for the Adelaide seat of Ramsay in the upcoming state election, made the derogatory comments in a series of Facebook posts, the Adelaide Advertiser reports.

http://news.ninemsn.com.au/national/201 ... -residents

Anthony also runs a News agency at Ingle Farm Shopping Centre
Earlier this week , I approached his agency

Here was a young man who looked more like a generational trendy , a night clubber , than a Polly
I have shopped in his agency previously , and have had very good service from Anthony and staff
The young man greets me whenever I walk past ,when we catch each others attention
The agency is intricate , it doubles up as coffee and pastry goods eatery
A rather unusual business set up

Anyhow times have changed since Anthony's on line tirade against some peoples of 5108
I had made up my mind on the matter
I approached the agency
The first time since AA's infamous face book posts

I had made up my mind and prejudged what to say to AA
There were no other customers in the agency
I snuck up behind him
I drew his attention
I pointed my finger directly at him
He was will and truly on the back foot with my motion
I stared him and with a semi raised tone said :
" I've got one thing to say to you."
" Have a Happy Easter if we don't catch up."

His reaction was priceless