Who will you vote for if a federal election was held tomorrow

[ger]

Told you they'd forget about the strong economy, low unemployment etc at this election...

If it wasn't for the mining boom, China, $$ sale of Telstra
the economy would not be as healthy.
As for low unemployment the are a lot of workers now placed oncasual and part time
and even if you work more than 5 hours a week it means
that you are FULLY employed.


I am sitting on the fence at the moment re election

 

[crest133]

Wish we had some better candidates.
Although it seems like a lousy smorgasbord to me,
it doesn't feel like time for a change yet.
cheers
crest133

 

[plusnq]

Interetsing Paper on returns of asset classes under govt's of differing persuasions

This paper considers the link between ruling political parties and stock, property, and bond returns in Australasia. Australia and New Zealand provide an ideal setting as their political systems allow a precise examination of the influences of political parties. We find higher inflation under left-leaning governments and this flows through to higher property returns during their terms. Stock markets tend to do better during right-leaning governments when inflation is lower.

http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=982691#PaperDownload

Cheers

Shane

 

[natmarie73]

I just recieved something in the post today from a representative of the labour government, it stated something like "Howard has taken the RIGHTS away from WORKING Australians.... Labour will give them all back".....

That's all we need, more people with entitement mentalities in Australia, more people who think that the government or their employers OWE them a living, more people who can't take responsibilities.

I will definately NOT be voting for labour!

Totally agree Xenia, fancy those pesky workers actually asking for time off on public holidays, annual leave, sick leave, or a fair wage for a days work! The cheek! Bring back slavery I say!

Seriously though - who has the bigger "entitlement mentality" ? Is it the employee who expects a wage that is enough to pay the rent/mortgage and buy food in return for working a 12 hour day, or families who get paid $1000's of dollars for popping out children and scream gimmee gimmee gimmee for more childcare rebates, more family benefits, more tax breaks etc etc etc even though they live in big houses and drive energy guzzling 4WDs to drop the kiddies off at private school? I think we all know the answer to that one don't we.

 

[Barracuda]

just look at what hurricane Katrina did to the US economy - imagine if storms of this magnitude were regular and frequent occurrences which is a distinct possibility if climate change continues at the present rate.

Sorry? Have hurricanes never wiped out cities in that region in the past? Try Galveston in the 1900's.

Just because you can't remember it or weren't alive at the time does not mean that climate change is to blame for hurricanes, floods, tsumanis or droughts in the last 5 years. Believe it or not, there have been quite a few in the last few hundred thousand years. The world works on a much bigger timescale than the puny few years we each inhabit this place.

Here's something that you might find interesting. Many mountain ranges were formed by tectonic plates smashing together and driving them up into the sky - just because it hasn't happened in the last few years doesn't mean the earth's processes stop.

No, I'm not a climate change sceptic; however, I am also not so gullible to follow the twisted logic that the current government is to 'blame' for climate change, or that anything they could have done in the last 10 years would have had any perceivable impact on the current drought etc. Similarly, I'm not as gullible to believe that Labor has any concrete or stated policies to achieve their 50 year goals. All they have in their policy bucket is simply that - a stated goal, with absolutely no substance. What I do believe is that politics does get in the way of initiatives - and that Labor govts at all levels is more than guilty of that (try water recycling for domestic use, the Murray-Darling initiative, nuclear power).

Time to start believing pollies will deliver on 50 year promises tomorrow without an actual stated intitiative? Not likely.

Cheers,

 

[FrankGrimes]

"nothing else is more important than a sound economy,"

Sorry Frank, I don't agree. IMO, nothing is more important than a planet that sustains life.

Sorry I should have said that (I thought I did). I more meant compared to things like Hicks etc.. Libs have a long way to go with their environment policies

 

[natmarie73]

Sorry? Have hurricanes never wiped out cities in that region in the past? Try Galveston in the 1900's.

Just because you can't remember it or weren't alive at the time does not mean that climate change is to blame for hurricanes, floods, tsumanis or droughts in the last 5 years. Believe it or not, there have been quite a few in the last few hundred thousand years. The world works on a much bigger timescale than the puny few years we each inhabit this place.

Here's something that you might find interesting. Many mountain ranges were formed by tectonic plates smashing together and driving them up into the sky - just because it hasn't happened in the last few years doesn't mean the earth's processes stop.

I realise that Barracuda. What I am saying is that hurricanes/cyclones such as Katrina have an impact on the economy of that region. There is no doubt that the surge in the price of oil immediately after Katrina was due to the destruction of oil rigs in the area. I know severe storms have occurred in that area since Jesus was a lad, but what I am saying is that if climate change causes more severe storms, as has been hypothesised by some scientists (and discredited by others), it is bound to have an effect on local economies.

I also realise that the earth is in a 30000 year drying cycle at the moment and that climate change is a natural occurrence hence ice ages etc and that tectonic movement has not stopped. My point is that our economy does depend in part on our environment.

I don't blame the current government for climate change either - it probably all started way back in the industrial revolution or before - who knows. I just don't think they take it seriously enough when we have to start making changes to the way we operate now in order to prevent things going pear-shaped in the future.

Frank, no need to apologise but thanks for clarifying your statement. I do agree with what you said in that context, and I do agree that a strong economy is important. I may be a greenie, but I have no desire to see the economy go down the drain either - there needs to be a balance.

 

[Ausprop]

..... IMO, nothing is more important than a planet that sustains life. I'll bet no one cares two hoots about the economy when there are no fish in the sea, fresh air to breathe or unpolluted water to drink. It is impossible to have a good economy if you don't have a healthy environment......

the environment you describe here sounds like that of a poverty stricken 3rd world country where the concerns are least about the environment. Strong economies can pay for anything, whereas everything else goes out the window when you are hungry or have no shelter. Trivial debates over Hicks or adding $30 to the cost of an airfare are the privilidges of a rich nation.

 

[our obsession]

Thankyou Norwester for the very interesting paper, enjoyed reading it immensely.

 

[Norwester]

Thankyou.

I'm glad at least somebody took the time to read it.......

Xenia's post actually gave me a good laugh. (no disrespect intended Xenia)

I remembered my old TA that I used to work with in the Victorian Railways back in the eighties. An immigrant, who had worked his **** off for his kids, acquired plenty of property and whose one lament was always that the kids were now voting Liberal (how can they do this to me???)......always used to crack me up.

ciao

Nor

 

[our obsession]

Xenia:

I just recieved something in the post today from a representative of the labour government, it stated something like "Howard has taken the RIGHTS away from WORKING Australians.... Labour will give them all back".....

That's all we need, more people with entitement mentalities in Australia, more people who think that the government or their employers OWE them a living, more people who can't take responsibilities.

I have a strong faith and belief in working people; working class Australians; people entitlements need to be protected...for me I feel (and have observed); one of the greatest asset(s) to any business/company/institution are it's staff.

It is my experience where workers are treated *fairly* and encouraged to have input and say in their work and jobs, everyone benefits.

Worker's are entitled to have award conditions and wages/bonuses ...working any possible job for however many years people do...working hard and committed to their employer; why would you not want them to have a sense of entitlement...they are people.

They have hopes and dreams just as all of us do, none of us share the same dream and aspirations, but does that mean we are any less worthy?
You possibly maybe referring to people that don't have their employers' best interest at heart? That doesn't mean working men and women should be held in the same light, just as we should not lump all business's and employers as money hungry, arrogant exploiters...

Thank goodness for Labor; they may not be perfect, but I do hope they are elected, and return some sense of security and conditions back to our workers.

 

[WinstonWolfe]

I think a lot of employees have absolutely no idea how tenuous the survival of many businesses is. They don't know this because they are ignorant of what it takes to keep a business above water through changing economic times and competitiveness.

Many employees and the unions expect to be cocooned in cotton wool from the harsh reality of the free markets and competition. They expect to go home at 5pm leaving work and responsibility behind them. and thus enjoy a stress and responsibility free time at home with loved ones.

And yet, I know there are a lot of employers who will screw anyone anytime to secure an extra buck. The solution for these types? If an economy is healthy, there are more jobs. If more jobs, bad employers won't find nor keep employees.

I also believe a big part of removing the chasm between employers and employees, is for employees to form co-ops and start or takeover a business themselves. That way, they don't remain blissfully ignorant and unreasonably demanding of their employers. That way, they get to find out what it is to carry responsiblity for their future, and not expect an employer to play father christmas.

At the end of the day, absolutely no one benefits from employees being shielded from and ignorant of the market forces that effect their employment.

 

[our obsession]

WinstonWolfe:

I also believe a big part of removing the chasm between employers and employees, is for employees to form co-ops and start or takeover a business themselves. That way, they don't remain blissfully ignorant and unreasonably demanding of their employers. That way, they get to find out what it is to carry responsiblity for their future, and not expect an employer to play father christmas.

WinstonWolfe, and would you care to consider vice versa...we ensure that vacous chasm is further bridged by employers placing themselves into the role that their employee is expected to take...that way they don't remain blissfully ignorant and unreasonably demanding of their employees......and not expected that their employee play dopey, sneezy, grumpy, happy, sleepy, bozo, doc and bashful...

"A human being is a part of the whole, called by us, "Universe," a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest -- a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. This delusion is a kind of prison for us, restricting us to our personal desires and to affection for a few persons nearest to us. Our task must be to free ourselves from this prison by widening our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty. Nobody is able to achieve this completely, but the striving for such achievement is in itself a part of the liberation and a foundation for inner security."

Albert Einstein

 

[WinstonWolfe]

OO, as I suggest above, the smartest long term solution for bad employers, is a healthy economy.

To borrow the logic of a famous saying, if bad employers are evil, then to stop evil from succeeding, good men must be prepared to do something more than nothing. And doing something involves taking on the responsiblity that bad men try to manoeuvre themselves into.

To me, bad employers are a sign of a lacklustre economy. Therefore, getting the economy strong is yet again the solution to so many of the social ills that civil minded socialists attempt to solve.

 

[Firsthomelooker]

Then Labor comes in....Unemployment rises, inflation rises, people lose their jobs, houses, shares slump.... People will start thinking -

Needless to say I would vote Liberal - Why risk Labor? Especially on an investment forum I'm suprised

Unemployment rises, and inflation rises? You have that completely backwards... In very simple terms...

High employment = consumers have more money
consumers have more money = they can afford to pay more for goods/purchase more goods, and so demand rises
demand rises = price rises
price rises = inflation
inflation = reserve bank raises interest rates

You can see this in Australia the past few years, tight labour market = higher wages = higher inflation = interest rate rises

If you don't believe me believe the paper linked to by plusng:

It is conventionally held that the ‘business’ community prefers a right-of-centre government whilst the ‘trade union’ community prefers a left-of-centre government. When governments reflect their constituencies’ views, right-leaning governments would generally support policies that favour the business community and restrain wage increases and inflation, whilst
left-leaning governments would generally support policies that favour full employment and hence tend to result in wage increases and inflation.

Winstonwolf - not a bad theory but consider that the employment market is made up of many different sectors and skill levels, which form a little economy of their own. For example, we always hear things like 'there is a skill shortage in the building industry' and so wages in the building industry go up. At the same time, there are other sectors which are not in demand, if there are 100 people in field and only 75 jobs, then the bottom 50 employees will accept any sort of 'evil' conditions offered just to secure a job. It is not good enough to say they can go into a different field, like building, if they are one of the 25 who miss out because there are 'transaction' costs to switching fields such as training, lost wages while training that people with mortgages, families etc cannot afford.

A strong economy is no justification for eroding basic conditions

 

[daviddanae]

I don't trust the labor party and im currently lowering my LVR with the prospect of the ALP being elected in to goverment.

 

[Harris]

And terrorism wouldn't be so bad if we just stopped the endless flow of economic refugee Muslims into the western world. Is it too much to expect rich Islamic countries to spend their oil profits on poor Islamic countries?

.

this reeks of third degree Xenophobia and a sheer and utter lack of understanding and ignorance of the actual causes of the terrorism related turmoil gobally.

Wonder why this post wasn't deleted...?? Surely, as an investing community we discuss issues without stooping to a level where we have to equate a group with certain religious values with terrorism.

Regards
Harris

 

[WinstonWolfe]

For example, we always hear things like 'there is a skill shortage in the building industry' and so wages in the building industry go up. At the same time, there are other sectors which are not in demand, if there are 100 people in field and only 75 jobs, then the bottom 50 employees will accept any sort of 'evil' conditions offered just to secure a job. It is not good enough to say they can go into a different field, like building, if they are one of the 25 who miss out because there are 'transaction' costs to switching fields such as training, lost wages while training that people with mortgages, families etc cannot afford.

A strong economy is no justification for eroding basic conditions

FHL, if there are 75 jobs and 100 workers, then to me, the industry is oversupplied. In an efficient market economy, those 25 workers would remain flexible. 3 choices:

- travel to where there are demands for their skills.

- If they don't want to travel to where work is, then they'd do something in another industry

- Set up in business against their employers and undercut them.

The worst choice would be to accept conditions inferior to what they find acceptable.

The trouble with many employees is that they don't take a mature interest in the field they work in, and therefore don't understand their skills are progressively devalued. To expect an employer to pick up the slack for the employee's ignorance is naive. A market economy is a market economy. Employees who don't want to remain flexible should blame the market, not employers.

Further, it seems in this day and age, that many people don't want to work out in the country or away from trendy suburbs. Hence, the workforce is less flexible. Historically, the workforce has always been flexible. That's how Australia, Canada, and the USA came into existence.

 

[natmarie73]

I'm actually really surprised at the number of people who are panicking about a change in government and the affect it may have on their investment strategies. Reminds me a bit of the story of Chicken Little.

I really don't think there will any noticeable changes if/when Labour get in and am not in the least bit worried. Maybe this might be a good time to start buying...

 

[WinstonWolfe]

this reeks of third degree Xenophobia and a sheer and utter lack of understanding and ignorance of the actual causes of the terrorism related turmoil gobally.

Wonder why this post wasn't deleted...?? Surely, as an investing community we discuss issues without stooping to a level where we have to equate a group with certain religious values with terrorism.

Regards
Harris

So why don't you start another thread on the causes of terrorism according to Harris...Be sure to address your definition of Jihad inspired terrorism and how it is funded; and the motive of the guys who carried out the London bus and subway bombings, and the Islamists recently arrested in England and Canada.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/10663276/
http://www.iht.com/articles/2007/01/31/europe/web.0131britaincnd.php