By: jaymarcel
30/06/2009
10:00 am Yahoo! Profile:
jaymarcel Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I agree with you there pol_pak |
|
By: justd79
3/06/2009
11:27 am Yahoo! Profile:
justd79 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
You are forgetting that we tried that once and we still ended up in this current situation. While we stiffle overseas producers they will continue to be able to undercut us. The more of the international market we give to the cheap labour countries the sooner their prices will become comparable to our own and then we will be able to compete with them.
I don't understand why we should "compete" with cheap labour from overseas, when we SHOULD be trying to create jobs here for our children and grandchildren, in circulating "our" money in "our" country.
"But the secret is to increase "exploitation" now to the extent that it reduces unemployment."
Exploiting? Thats what it all seems to be about. That'll certainly turn us into a 3rd world country, and by importing we only are condoning the practise |
|
By: nz4forest
22/02/2009
12:37 pm |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: nz4forest
22/02/2009
12:31 pm |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: ozlostin
22/02/2009
9:32 am Yahoo! Profile:
ozlostin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| No, my wife is articulate and very beautiful. You are a crazy woman/man. Who knows what you really are. One thing that is obvious though is that you have nothing relevant to contribute to this board. And yes I happen to keep my eye out for your posts and will be there to reply every time you do. |
|
By: nz4forest
22/02/2009
9:16 am |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: nz4forest
22/02/2009
9:10 am |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: ozlostin
21/02/2009
8:00 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ozlostin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
By: nz4forest
Yesterday (11:37 am)
Re:An Idea For The Stimulus Package (PREVIEW)
You are wrong.(SPACE)The reason labour is cheap in under developed
countries is because they are under developed and do not have sufficient industry.(SPACE)Also if they dont find work they die.(SPACE)We are supposed to be sharing the wealth on the planet.
(CAPITAL M)maybe you are like so many do-gooders who thought it would be a good idea for children in India not to work.(SPACE)As a result their famlies (FAMILIES) starved.
DO YOU OWN A DICTIONARY NZ4FOREST???
Gee how many mistakes were just found in this post? I do not have the time to go through all of the other rubbish you post on here. Just enough to prove a point. You are a nutcase & quite obviously bored. Go & do something constructive with your time. |
|
By: nz4forest
20/02/2009
5:43 pm |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
20/02/2009
2:22 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| It might help if you read what I said properly, because you just reitereated what I actually said. |
|
By: nz4forest
20/02/2009
11:37 am |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
20/02/2009
11:11 am Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"right now we have an opportunity to create sustainable industries now and i do believe that subsidising our industries will get us all used to the fact that it isn't so bad to buy locally, which in turn creates better devolopment, more effieciency and flow on effects that regenerates employment."
You are forgetting that we tried that once and we still ended up in this current situation. While we stiffle overseas producers they will continue to be able to undercut us. The more of the international market we give to the cheap labour countries the sooner their prices will become comparable to our own and then we will be able to compete with them.
eg labour remains cheap in 3rd world countries because of high unemployment. As unemployment reduces it is harder to find people so wages have to increase. The standard of living improves and they are no longer exploited. But the secret is to increase "exploitation" now to the extent that it reduces unemployment. |
|
By: nz4forest
19/02/2009
3:52 pm |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: justd79
19/02/2009
2:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
justd79 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I understand what you are getting at Ecchi, but i think Costellos idea was to offset the ageing of our nation in 20-30 years time, when the welfare of our senior citizens will come at a great cost. In saying that, when these youngsters start their careers, right now we have an opportunity to create sustainable industries now and i do believe that subsidising our industries will get us all used to the fact that it isn't so bad to buy locally, which in turn creates better devolopment, more effieciency and flow on effects that regenerates employment. one needs only look at the "success" China has become, and it hasn't been an overnight sensation. As economies increasingly falter, the idea is to have a system in place were we look after our own, were we can lay the foundations now |
|
By: nz4forest
19/02/2009
1:08 pm |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: nz4forest
18/02/2009
1:13 am |
Message deleted. Reason: Breach of terms of service |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
16/02/2009
12:10 pm Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"relieve the strain on our congested metroploitan areas by having people perhaps populating these areas"
Look around, dense populations in developed countries tend to have stronger economies. That was why Costello was saying have one child for your country so we could increase our numbers and become more densely populated.
"I tend to think that this attitude is more likely to keep the country from moving forward. "
It might help if you understood what I was saying, because your suggestion backs up what I said not contradicts it. Creating a system to utelise flood waters would decrease our competitive disadvantage in agriculture. |
|
By: perceptions_now
15/02/2009
9:34 pm Yahoo! Profile:
perceptions_now Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"How about we build a wall around parliament house and fill it with water."
Now that should take some time and employ a lot of people, given the size of some of the heads in parliment.
A very sensible suggestion! |
|
By: guy_shar
15/02/2009
6:37 pm Yahoo! Profile:
guy_shar Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Why the governments are not providing the cash to people in a form of stamps or cards that are expired after let's say 6 month. The cards receivers which are the people will have to buy something using those cards and within this time period, that way the money given by the government will guaranteed to go back to the economy and stimulus it and not wasted on gambling or paying debts.
I don't understand why it is not done already here in Australia they have already wasted $4b and now more will be wasted without this kind of system.
I would save the money if I could and I'm sure many more will do the same, so without this kind of system my friends it will fail!!! |
|
By: pol_pak
14/02/2009
5:46 pm Yahoo! Profile:
pol_pak Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
Build some more tunnels - like with the snowy, then tap say top 10% of all the floodwater and channel to our drier inland.
Fresh water lakes inland might impact on the environment... almost as much as getting our inland rivers flowing a bit.
. |
|
By: justd79
13/02/2009
4:08 pm Yahoo! Profile:
justd79 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| I guess ecchi, that you prefer your taxes are used to prop up other nations, which most likely occur given the data from the last stimulus package, with retail spending up considerably, mostly of imported goods, considering our manufacturing industry is almost non-existent |
|
By: justd79
13/02/2009
4:04 pm Yahoo! Profile:
justd79 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
This is the type of thinking that keeps Australia from moving forward. Why would you want to revive an industry like farming in a country where you have severe and regular droughts, floods and bushfires?
I tend to think that this attitude is more likely to keep the country from moving forward. Diversion of our far northern floodplains to the interior would seem an ideal nation building project, similar to that of the snowy mountain scheme. A massive project i agree, but one that would sustain jobs for many years in construction, with obvious benefits once completed, It could open the interior up to industry, relieve the strain on our congested metroploitan areas by having people perhaps populating these areas |
|
By: ecchi.gaijin
13/02/2009
9:50 am Yahoo! Profile:
ecchi.gaijin Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
"We could revive our manufacturing industry, our farming, many industries could survive ..."
This is the type of thinking that keeps Australia from moving forward. Why would you want to revive an industry like farming in a country where you have severe and regular droughts, floods and bushfires? We need to realise we are part of a global economy and we do not have a competitive advantage when it comes to agriculture. Fair enough if you want to put tariffs on imports that are being subsidies to even the playing field, but by the same token if we aren't good enough at something to compete then lets find something else we can compete at. We have some of the best scientists in the world and they are regularly forced to go overseas because they don't get enough backing here, but thankfully we can swim really fast because that really helps our economy so much........ |
|
By: lasty49
13/02/2009
9:25 am Yahoo! Profile:
lasty49 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| How about we build a wall around parliament house and fill it with water. |
|
By: justd79
12/02/2009
10:43 pm Yahoo! Profile:
justd79 Did this message offend you?
Sign in to report abuse |
Reply to this message |
| Hey peoples, I have thought of an idea that the government should implement instead of the the $950 cash handouts. I am all for the infrastructure spendings, maybe even more of it needs to happen to bring it up to speed if/when the economy recovers. However I think that in giving ordinary folk the cash bonus, and not being fair to all, as i have paid over well and truly my share of taxes in my career and yet to see a "handout". I propose that the government would better serve all Australians interests by perhaps subsidising most essential and common Australian products to compete on a scale to compete with imported goods. We could revive our manufacturing industry, our farming, many industries could survive and creating jobs by circulating our money throughout our economy. If for maybe 5-10 years the subsidies could last, which in turn improves our research and quality to get to the point were we are so used to buying locally that we would not need cheap imports. JUst an idea that could float our nation without outside influences |
|
