As a suggestion to bring more members onto this site, can I suggest a new Major heading, in the General Discussion area, called "Shares, Finance & Economics", to go with the other headings, such as General Board & Politicians Suck.

My reasoning is twofold -
1) It would fill a gap, which is not properly catered for at this site.
2) It may draw additional members, away from the Yahoo site, who still post in the "Finance Message Boards", which are still open, even though the Political & News message boards have closed.
http://au.messages.yahoo.com/finance/

There are additional features at this site, which I would suggest the Yahoo "Finance Message Board Members" would find  beneficial.

However, having a specific Feature/Major thread designated to "Shares, Finance & Economics" would enhance the enticement, to come over to the light.

And, Yes, I did previously post on Yahoo Finance Boards.

You can start a thread about it on the technical board if you want.

freediver wrote on Aug 16^th, 2010 at 5:48pm:

You can start a thread about it on the technical board if you want.

You may pick up a few members by doing that, but I would think not many.

In any  event, given that Economics, Shares & Finance are such a large part of modern life, it probably deserves a decent, stand alone status and I think those on Yahoo Finance would be more likely to switch, if there was a dedicated arena.

How about you have a look around the Yahoo Finance site & see what you think?
http://au.messages.yahoo.com/finance/

Do you want to moderate it?

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 8:40am:

Do you want to moderate it?

That would depend on whether there is any technical knowledge requirements and how much time it takes?

It takes as much time as you want to put in. There are no technical requirements.

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 10:14am:

It takes as much time as you want to put in. There are no technical requirements.

Ok, let's see how we go!

Do you arrange the set up or provide me with the capacity?

Would you prefer to have this under the General Discussion arena Or in the Member Run section?

Following is a suggested pic, for the Board section Icon?    

http://www.theymadoffwithyourmoney.com/images/bullbears.jpg

done

freediver wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 12:30pm:

done

Thank you!

Can you please also transfer my following threads from the General Board, to the new Finance & Economics Board, as they really all relate to Economics and how all of those separate issues affect the Economy now & in the future.

The Population Debate
The Peak Energy Debate
For the Record
The Future/s

Again, thanks!

Hey perceptions... :)


You're a mod .....  [smiley=vrolijk_1.gif] [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif][smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

perceptions- hope you viewed Tonights ABC Show 4 Corners  ?

:-X

the Australian media is again years late picking up on this news, vege. This has been plastered all over the net for the last two years, featuring the very commentators who were on the Four Corners program tonight.
Australia, including the government, have been too late in understanding the gravity of the global situation, and have simply followed suit and made the same mistakes as other governments have made, as set out so clearly in that program.

Fasten your seatbelt. These are once in a lifetime events coming up, maybe rarer than that.

Fasten your seatbelt. These are once in a lifetime events coming up, maybe rarer than that
=================

I agree -

and with that I and many others  have been awake  to this for  some years..

However The difference between Australia and America...I did note,   was that Australia spent the money back to the people . Where as in America they gave  most of it  back into a few companies . It was stated that the trillions they spent doing that would have been better spent on giving every family in America $100,000 instead . And got that circulating into the economy. Who knows...maybe its alot of trail and error but so far Australia isnt at the same level and the money WAS better spent whether many agree with that or not.

BUT, but we will suffer IF the world does as we are as I have always stated- in the eye of a storm...and on the wrong path.

if you say that, vege, you are totally missing the point of that program and what those commentators were saying; and note that those commentators are acknowledged as the ones who called the gfc before it happened, that is why they are so respected.

The point of the program, and of many many informed commentators is - that it is these incessant bailouts and stimulus packages which are causing the problems. Did you not hear the statistics on the program, they are HORRENDOUS. America cannot pay back these deficits and debts - EVER. It must lead to rocketing interest rates and inflation. That has happened before in Australia not very long ago, and can again.  America (and Britain) actually PRINT the money, the banknotes, to pay for those things. Can YOU do that? NO!
What do you think that does to the value of the currency.
The U.S. dollar is like a walking zombie, it is being artificially propped up, and if it crashes, which seems imminent, it will bring down the entire world economy. Australia is not immune to that, in fact our interest rates are likely to absolutely skyrocket in that event. Our dollar is linked to our resources, that is all, if sales falter our dollar crashes. Currencies these days are linked to nothing, they are floating, and have only been like this since the 1970s. It is all a big ponzi scheme, musical chairs, and the music is stopping!

The point of the program, and of many many informed commentators is - that it is these incessant bailouts and stimulus packages which are causing the problems. Did you not hear the statistics on the program, they are HORRENDOUS. America cannot pay back these deficits and debts - EVER. It must lead to rocketing interest rates and inflation. That has happened before in Australia not very long ago, and can again.  America (and Britain) actually PRINT the money, the banknotes, to pay for those things. Can YOU do that? NO!
What do you think that does to the value of the currency.
The U.S. dollar is like a walking zombie, it is being artificially propped up, and if it crashes, which seems imminent, it will bring down the entire world economy. Australia is not immune to that, in fact our interest rates are likely to absolutely skyrocket in that event. Our dollar is linked to our resources, that is all, if sales falter our dollar crashes. Currencies these days are linked to nothing, they are floating, and have only been like this since the 1970s. It is all a big ponzi scheme, musical chairs, and the music is stopping
=========================

Ha- I do get it believe me.  That is what I meant when I said we are following the wrong path- "Economy at all costs." We have built it up over the years to a level where we rely on growth and credit. The answer isnt simple I actaully think that the  Australia government sort of  GOT the right balance if something quickly needed to be done,. They didnt do the extremes.
I hated how tonights show stopped on the statement "we can change things. It can be done"  
I would have liked to hear there thoughts on that change.

However my own thoughts are-  I feel we can make a new economy, with or in  renewables. It doesnt alway HAVE to be about GROWTH -  maybe about CHANGE, is enough...

if you *really* understood, vege, you would not need to hear the answer to the closing statement "it can be done". You would know what they mean. Sorry. Most people today, including myself, anyone really born since world war 2, if not before, have been brought up with "Keynesian" economic thought, most notably Labor thinking people.
Keynesian stuff is all about "the government will fix everything for us", "if there is a recession, just give people more money to spend and that will stimulate everything and the problem will go away".

It is a false fix though, like putting sticky tape on a crack in the wall. Looks good, won't last.  The symptom of this that people see, but don't understand, is why they have worked hard and have money in the bank, but even though they get an interest rate, ten years later, prices have risen so much higher than the value of their money, and it isn't worth anything anymore. This system encourages people not to try and save. It is called "inflation".
In the past under different currency systems, inflation was under control, if you saved, your money retained value. Now, what you have to do is invest in inflation-related things like property that keep increasing in value - and price! Pity the people who have to try and buy a house - which is just about all of us ordinary people.

The answer to their closing question is an answer that most people today, (who are Keynesian thinkers) don't want to hear and won't tolerate. The alternative is a crash. It is the only way left to clean out the system, and it is tragic.
That's the point - stimulus spend or don't stimulus spend, that is the question. People today want the government to spend, in the past long ago, they did not want the government to do that.
The Liberal political way of thinking is that latter, more old fashioned way of thinking, which was the situation for hundreds of years. The Labor way of thinking is for the government to spend us out of economic trouble. Saving versus spending, pretty much that's it.
Can a government really take your money and spend that and much more on credit to get you out of credit problems? For a while, yes, but eventually the music stops. That's why there so many homeless people in America now.
The worst possible scenario is to go into a crash like that - with no effective government!
Fasten your seatbelt.

Quote:

Can a government really take your money and spend that and much more on credit to get you out of credit problems? For a while, yes, but eventually the music stops. That's why there so many homeless people in America now. The worst possible scenario is to go into a crash like that - with no effective government! Fasten your seatbelt.

It is obvious that when you don't have much money - you should spend it cautiously. The cash stimulus did initially help, and our trade figures have improved, but our credit card debt has almost doubled in the last couple of years - which is alarming.

Our banks are in good shape though and I suppose that's what you need to keep an economy going.

Still Australia can't remain a single good economy now that we're globalised and at the rate we're spending - it's not sustainable, especially if the rest of the world can't afford our exports.

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 12:18am:

if you *really* understood, vege, you would not need to hear the answer to the closing statement "it can be done". You would know what they mean. Sorry. Most people today, including myself, anyone really born since world war 2, if not before, have been brought up with "Keynesian" economic thought, most notably Labor thinking people. Keynesian stuff is all about "the government will fix everything for us", "if there is a recession, just give people more money to spend and that will stimulate everything and the problem will go away". It is a false fix though, like putting sticky tape on a crack in the wall. Looks good, won't last.  The symptom of this that people see, but don't understand, is why they have worked hard and have money in the bank, but even though they get an interest rate, ten years later, prices have risen so much higher than the value of their money, and it isn't worth anything anymore. This system encourages people not to try and save. It is called "inflation". In the past under different currency systems, inflation was under control, if you saved, your money retained value. Now, what you have to do is invest in inflation-related things like property that keep increasing in value - and price! Pity the people who have to try and buy a house - which is just about all of us ordinary people. The answer to their closing question is an answer that most people today, (who are Keynesian thinkers) don't want to hear and won't tolerate. The alternative is a crash. It is the only way left to clean out the system, and it is tragic. That's the point - stimulus spend or don't stimulus spend, that is the question. People today want the government to spend, in the past long ago, they did not want the government to do that. The Liberal political way of thinking is that latter, more old fashioned way of thinking, which was the situation for hundreds of years. The Labor way of thinking is for the government to spend us out of economic trouble. Saving versus spending, pretty much that's it. Can a government really take your money and spend that and much more on credit to get you out of credit problems? For a while, yes, but eventually the music stops. That's why there so many homeless people in America now. The worst possible scenario is to go into a crash like that - with no effective government! Fasten your seatbelt.

LOL, I agree with you, but do you have to be such an optimist?  :)

Keynesian stuff is all about "the government will fix everything for us",
=========================

I have never BEEN one that expects the Government to fix everything on a personal level. I vote for what’s best for the country over what is in it for ME.

However, you can not ignore that our system has been created to work on growth and credit,  whether I or you liked it of not. So realistically you can NOT just put the breaks on a system that has been built on growth of credit. That’s why it needed a subtle stimulus from the government UNTIL we learn and change our system and way of thinking...

That is also why I protested in the Howard era against the baby bonus , the first home buyers bonus the ignored warning of credit debt of the people whilst Howard was rattling of “we have never had it so good”.

The answer to their closing question is an answer that most people today, (who are Keynesian thinkers) don't want to hear and won't tolerate. The alternative is a crash. It is the only way left to clean out the system, and it is tragic.


======================

I understand that.

BUT I still felt it needed to be said out loud. So those that were listening that DONT see it ,can hear it.

Not all people can read between the lines...if we all could we wouldnt be in the postion we and OUR kids may face.....

Quote:

Keynesian stuff is all about "the government will fix everything for us",

No it isn't. That is socialism.

wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 11:47pm:

BUT, but we will suffer IF the world does as we are as I have always stated- in the eye of a storm...and on the wrong path.

Great time to have a surplus and no public debt!

wrote on Aug 17^th, 2010 at 8:19pm:

Hey perceptions... :) You're a mod .....  [smiley=vrolijk_1.gif] [smiley=vrolijk_26.gif][smiley=beer.gif] [smiley=thumbsup.gif]

My apology, I did not realise that this thread was still being used, until it was transferred. Today?

As I said to Pansi, in the "Welcome" post, I intend to take this role very seriously, indeed!?

In fact, I have taken the liberty of having a special stamp prepared, specifically for the role of "evil moderator".


http://www.ducati.ms/gallery/files/4/9/5/0/EvilModerator.gif

I figure that if I live up to the reputation, which apparently precedes me, I will not require another stamp, showing my APPROVAL, as that will be unlikely to be used?

wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 11:29pm:

perceptions- hope you viewed Tonights ABC Show 4 Corners  ? :-X

Actually, I was otherwise occupied last night, so I recorded it & watched it today.

It was similar to some other programs, it raised some valid points, but missed out on other factors that have had large impacts & it didn't finish properly, because it didn't say where the likely future scenarios would go!

shampain socialist wrote on Aug 23^rd, 2010 at 11:32pm:

the Australian media is again years late picking up on this news, vege. This has been plastered all over the net for the last two years, featuring the very commentators who were on the Four Corners program tonight. Australia, including the government, have been too late in understanding the gravity of the global situation, and have simply followed suit and made the same mistakes as other governments have made, as set out so clearly in that program. Fasten your seatbelt. These are once in a lifetime events coming up, maybe rarer than that.

Agreed!

I used to frequent yahoo finance board too, although I refrained from posting because they seemed to be a well established 'club' and I didn't want to butt in. It certainly made for interesting reading and I'm sure it will here when it catches on.

<<Australia, including the government, have been too late in understanding the gravity of the global situation, and have simply followed suit and made the same mistakes as other governments have made, as set out so clearly in that program.>>

............................................................................................

I can never quite work out if the government does understand the gravity of the situation or not.

If they did surely all of their policies would reflect this, but to me, it seems that they really believe that we are heading for ongoing growth.

Then again, I wonder if they do realise what's around the corner, but like America in the GFC MarkI, couldn't come to terms with it, so are choosing to ignore it.

Or maybe they don't have a flaming clue and are fully entrenched in the 'growth fairy' ideology.

I realise that they couldn't come straight out and tell us, that would cause chaos with the banking system etc, but surely we would be seeing certain signs, but I don't see any evidence that the government or opposition (whoever that is at the moment lol) is aware of an imminent  serious meltdown.

Ex Dame Pansi wrote on Aug 25^th, 2010 at 6:58am:

<<Australia, including the government, have been too late in understanding the gravity of the global situation, and have simply followed suit and made the same mistakes as other governments have made, as set out so clearly in that program.>> ............................................................................................ I can never quite work out if the government does understand the gravity of the situation or not. If they did surely all of their policies would reflect this, but to me, it seems that they really believe that we are heading for ongoing growth. Then again, I wonder if they do realise what's around the corner, but like America in the GFC MarkI, couldn't come to terms with it, so are choosing to ignore it. Or maybe they don't have a flaming clue and are fully entrenched in the 'growth fairy' ideology. I realise that they couldn't come straight out and tell us, that would cause chaos with the banking system etc, but surely we would be seeing certain signs, but I don't see any evidence that the government or opposition (whoever that is at the moment lol) is aware of an imminent  serious meltdown.

I think you would find Globally, a mixture of a few that have the knowledge, quite a few that simply act on self-interest and the vast majority that go about their daily lives, thinking that "this time & these times, are not different" and another small bunch who know something is happening, but do not have access to all of the information!

freediver wrote on Aug 24^th, 2010 at 7:26pm:

Quote: Keynesian stuff is all about "the government will fix everything for us", No it isn't. That is socialism.

I can not agree with either of you!

Keynesian Economics, is just A branch of Economics, which suggests certain solutions for certain circumstances and given the right inputs, those solutions would be correct, just as the Austrian branch would be correct under certain circumstances.

The thing is that the current & future inputs we face are unique in history and the solutions will also need to be unique, both Economically & Politically!

So where's all those yahooligans from the finance boards that were going to turn up?

freediver wrote on Aug 29^th, 2010 at 9:20am:

So where's all those yahooligans from the finance boards that were going to turn up?

There are no guarantees in life, FD.

As I said originally -
"As a suggestion to bring more members onto this site, can I suggest a new Major heading, in the General Discussion area, called "Shares, Finance & Economics", to go with the other headings, such as General Board & Politicians Suck.

My reasoning is twofold -
1) It would fill a gap, which is not properly catered for at this site.
2) It may draw additional members, away from the Yahoo site, who still post in the "Finance Message Boards", which are still open, even though the Political & News message boards have closed."

The reasoning was two fold, this does fill a major gap & it may draw new members away from Yahoo.

I think the first aim is being achieved, slowly?
The second aim is still being worked on!  

So where's all those yahooligans from the finance boards that were going to turn up?

I'm here its a start,FD!

Perceptions g'day to U,one question though regarding the forum,is why do the posts run backwards?
The most recent post should be on the 1st page,saves the users searching back through 100's pages as we progress through the months,years?

How many are familiar with EWT?(Elliott Wave} Can any one who work this out?
Where are we positioned presently in the scheme of things,eg 4thwave(major)and 3 sub wave(minor)...To me its crap,Elliott took the secret with him,And Prechter has altered the original concept and
butchered it with his ideas. Prechter has turned a dud into  a commercial success..............for himself.If you followed his fortnightly subscribed news flashes for the past 2years U be broke,some 87% accuracy.

lerche007 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 5:25pm:

So where's all those yahooligans from the finance boards that were going to turn up? I'm here its a start,FD! Perceptions g'day to U,one question though regarding the forum,is why do the posts run backwards? The most recent post should be on the 1st page,saves the users searching back through 100's pages as we progress through the months,years?

Good question!

I have put it to FD, via the following thread, but I agree it would be better, if it can be done!

Can new posts appear first?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?board=feedback

lerche007 wrote on Sep 12^th, 2010 at 5:25pm:

How many are familiar with EWT?(Elliott Wave} Can any one who work this out? Where are we positioned presently in the scheme of things,eg 4thwave(major)and 3 sub wave(minor)...To me its crap,Elliott took the secret with him,And Prechter has altered the original concept and butchered it with his ideas. Prechter has turned a dud into  a commercial success..............for himself.If you followed his fortnightly subscribed news flashes for the past 2years U be broke,some 87% accuracy.

Personally, I am not a follower, but perhaps more because of what I perceive as the unique situation we are now moving thru.

If I am correct and these are a once in history set of circumstances, then almost none of the usual theories will fit, we will need to think completely outside the square!

That said, if you are interested, you may like to pursue some discussions with Da Bear, Bart or some of the others at the  Da Message Board, which is a USA based board.
http://www.phpbbplanet.com/damessageboard/viewforum.php?f=1&mforum=damessageboard

Hi Perceptions,

Good question!

I have put it to FD, via the following thread, but I agree it would be better, if it can be done!

Can new posts appear first?
http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?board=feedback
.....................................................................................................
Yahoo and Most forums,...Music,Programs,Movies ,Games types etc,have the last post first,because likewise here people tend to click right in there into the action,rather sift through pages of previous READ posts.
Ebay is another example,there the user can place last or first post of enlisted auction items,other user changers are price,buy now etc.

Hope it helps..

lerche007 wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 12:36am:

Hi Perceptions, Good question! I have put it to FD, via the following thread, but I agree it would be better, if it can be done! Can new posts appear first? http://www.ozpolitic.com/forum/YaBB.pl?board=feedback ..................................................................................................... Yahoo and Most forums,...Music,Programs,Movies ,Games types etc,have the last post first,because likewise here people tend to click right in there into the action,rather sift through pages of previous READ posts. Ebay is another example,there the user can place last or first post of enlisted auction items,other user changers are price,buy now etc. Hope it helps..

 
freediver wrote on Sep 14^th, 2010 at 8:26pm:

If you click on the subject from the main page it takes you to the last page. Or you can click on the last number. I justy had a look on YaBB and it does not appear to be a standard feature.

Lerche,
It doesn't look promising!

Australia is not a Democracy but a Plutocracy; and it does not matter which party is in power, they only fight for themselves, because the treasurer gets paid more than the shadow treasurer and so on....
The simple calculations will prove my point, because I,am no financial wizard, but I know when I,am being robbed.

The article “Government does not help the rich get richer” AFR 18’th Aug.2010 page 33 should not go unchallenged.

Take retiree: 1)
Worked for 45 years and paid taxes, but did not accumulate enough assets to be completely independent of the age-pension. For every dollar of extra income for him and his wife above $6,500, the couple loses $0.50 of age pension, and if their income exceeds $45,000 per annum, the couple will pay tax of $0.315 in the dollar including medicare levy, leaving them with an income of $0.185 from every dollar extra income. For the defined benefit income a 10% tax-offset applies if paid from an Australian super fund, but not if the income comes from an overseas fund.

Retiree 2)
Has accumulated assets of $1.5million and the assets are in a so-called taxed Self Managed Super Fund. To be very conservative, the assets are in a term deposit earning 7.0% income of $122,500 per annum and even if the retiree is single, he/she will not pay a cent of tax.
Now if the assets are in fully franked shares, like banks and return $100,000 worth of franked dividends, he/she will again pay no tax on the dividend, and the government will send him/her a cheque of $30,000 for the franking credits.

Retiree 3)
Is an ex-politician or highly paid public servant, in receipt of a defined benefit pension of $100,000, on which he/she will have to pay tax, but he/she gets a 10% tax offset, which equals %10,000 after reaching retirement age, but before retiring, the public servant can establish a SMSF and contribute into it extra with tax concessions if the $25,000 total for under fifty and $50,000, if over fifty is not exceeded and in addition he/she can contribute $150,000 from after tax income, and the earnings from the SMSF will only attract 15% tax, and when the person reaches the age of 60 even the income will be completely tax-free from the SMSF.

What Ken Henry should have recommended is, abolish all tax concessions for super, abolish the means test for the age pension so that even millionaires get the full pension, but then the retirees should pay the same tax as do the workers.

hawil wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 4:49pm:

Australia is not a Democracy but a Plutocracy; and it does not matter which party is in power, they only fight for themselves, because the treasurer gets paid more than the shadow treasurer and so on.... The simple calculations will prove my point, because I,am no financial wizard, but I know when I,am being robbed. The article “Government does not help the rich get richer” AFR 18’th Aug.2010 page 33 should not go unchallenged. Take retiree: 1) Worked for 45 years and paid taxes, but did not accumulate enough assets to be completely independent of the age-pension. For every dollar of extra income for him and his wife above $6,500, the couple loses $0.50 of age pension, and if their income exceeds $45,000 per annum, the couple will pay tax of $0.315 in the dollar including medicare levy, leaving them with an income of $0.185 from every dollar extra income. For the defined benefit income a 10% tax-offset applies if paid from an Australian super fund, but not if the income comes from an overseas fund. Retiree 2) Has accumulated assets of $1.5million and the assets are in a so-called taxed Self Managed Super Fund. To be very conservative, the assets are in a term deposit earning 7.0% income of $122,500 per annum and even if the retiree is single, he/she will not pay a cent of tax. Now if the assets are in fully franked shares, like banks and return $100,000 worth of franked dividends, he/she will again pay no tax on the dividend, and the government will send him/her a cheque of $30,000 for the franking credits. Retiree 3) Is an ex-politician or highly paid public servant, in receipt of a defined benefit pension of $100,000, on which he/she will have to pay tax, but he/she gets a 10% tax offset, which equals %10,000 after reaching retirement age, but before retiring, the public servant can establish a SMSF and contribute into it extra with tax concessions if the $25,000 total for under fifty and $50,000, if over fifty is not exceeded and in addition he/she can contribute $150,000 from after tax income, and the earnings from the SMSF will only attract 15% tax, and when the person reaches the age of 60 even the income will be completely tax-free from the SMSF. What Ken Henry should have recommended is, abolish all tax concessions for super, abolish the means test for the age pension so that even millionaires get the full pension, but then the retirees should pay the same tax as do the workers.

I agree, the Superannuation area needs a long, hard look and actions taken, although not all may go the way that you may initially think.

But, that is only the beginning! In fact, the entire TAX arena is in serious need of a complete overall.

But, there's more, asall government revenue, expenditure & Services, also need a complete overall and rationalization.

In fact, one whole arm of government needs to go, for a starter, that being "Local Councils", which can be dealt with as a department of the Federal Parliament or the relevant state government.

Inaddition to cost savings, there would be stablization of rules & regulations & "hopefully" a little less local graft?

The U.S. dollar is like a walking zombie, it becomes artificially piled up, and if it fails, which seems imminent, it will drop the global economy as a whole. Australia is not immune to this reality in our interest rates are likely to skyrocket in this event entirely. Our dollar is linked to our resources, thats all, if sales do not hang our dollar. Coins these days is attached to something, the liquid, and has only been this way since the 1970s. Its all a big Ponzi system, musical chairs and the music stops!

jenny.smith wrote on Sep 17^th, 2010 at 2:08pm:

The U.S. dollar is like a walking zombie, it becomes artificially piled up, and if it fails, which seems imminent, it will drop the global economy as a whole. Australia is not immune to this reality in our interest rates are likely to skyrocket in this event entirely. Our dollar is linked to our resources, thats all, if sales do not hang our dollar. Coins these days is attached to something, the liquid, and has only been this way since the 1970s. Its all a big Ponzi system, musical chairs and the music stops!

Jenny,
I agree, the US$ is headed for problems, as is the "main street" US Economy and the ramifications of those events & others, will be felt around the world!

Following is a copy of a post from the "For the Record" thread, which shows the recent deterioration of the US$. Since that report, the US$ index has fallen further, it has since gone under 81c and is now at 80.89c.  

Btw, the US$ was linked to gold, but from memory Nixon put a stop to that in 1971. Since then, there has been nothing to hold back the US$ and nothing has, until now!

Finally, Oil is priced & purchased in US$'s, so as the value/exchange rate of the US$ declines, so the cost of Oil increases. There are already a number of moves to stop that linkage and when it happens, the value of the US$ will take a hammering!


perceptions_now wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 6:18pm:

The Mighty US$ Last Report dated 23/08/2010 US$ Index (basket of Currencies:  @ 81.61 (Last Report - 82.98) (2010/06/04 - 87.85) http://www.goldseek.com/quotes/charts/usdollar/usdollarindex24hour.php Euro - US$: @ 1.2998 (Last Report - 1.2716) (2010/06/04 - 120.44) AUD$ - US$: @ 0.9383 (Last Report - 0.8918) (2010/06/04 - 83.17) AUD$ - GBP: @ 0.6046 (Last Report - 0.5726) (2010/06/04 - 57.04) AUD$ - Euro:  @ 0.7219 (Last Report - 0.7013) (2010/06/04 - 69.06) http://www.bloomberg.com/markets/currencies/fxc.html Gold - @ US$1,271.60 (Last Report - US$1,231.40) (2010/06/04 - $1,207.80) Oil -  @ US$76.18 (Last Report - US$74.17)  (2010/06/04 - $72.59)

PS - The Aussie $ is now 94.63c against the US$.

Hi Perc,

If the USD indeed did collapse why wouldn't each country buy its own oil in their whatever currency they have?

Why should or would the USD demise ruin it for all the rest of the world?

If it were that important,the more reason to keep it in tact,therefore it wont happen!

Already most would be expecting a demise,and only a few with more cash than all us put together wont let it happen,they are the solid traders in the market.U know the rules the few that play the minority win while the masses with majority opinion lose!

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 5:07pm:

hawil wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 4:49pm: Australia is not a Democracy but a Plutocracy; and it does not matter which party is in power, they only fight for themselves, because the treasurer gets paid more than the shadow treasurer and so on.... The simple calculations will prove my point, because I,am no financial wizard, but I know when I,am being robbed. The article “Government does not help the rich get richer” AFR 18’th Aug.2010 page 33 should not go unchallenged. Take retiree: 1) Worked for 45 years and paid taxes, but did not accumulate enough assets to be completely independent of the age-pension. For every dollar of extra income for him and his wife above $6,500, the couple loses $0.50 of age pension, and if their income exceeds $45,000 per annum, the couple will pay tax of $0.315 in the dollar including medicare levy, leaving them with an income of $0.185 from every dollar extra income. For the defined benefit income a 10% tax-offset applies if paid from an Australian super fund, but not if the income comes from an overseas fund. Retiree 2) Has accumulated assets of $1.5million and the assets are in a so-called taxed Self Managed Super Fund. To be very conservative, the assets are in a term deposit earning 7.0% income of $122,500 per annum and even if the retiree is single, he/she will not pay a cent of tax. Now if the assets are in fully franked shares, like banks and return $100,000 worth of franked dividends, he/she will again pay no tax on the dividend, and the government will send him/her a cheque of $30,000 for the franking credits. Retiree 3) Is an ex-politician or highly paid public servant, in receipt of a defined benefit pension of $100,000, on which he/she will have to pay tax, but he/she gets a 10% tax offset, which equals %10,000 after reaching retirement age, but before retiring, the public servant can establish a SMSF and contribute into it extra with tax concessions if the $25,000 total for under fifty and $50,000, if over fifty is not exceeded and in addition he/she can contribute $150,000 from after tax income, and the earnings from the SMSF will only attract 15% tax, and when the person reaches the age of 60 even the income will be completely tax-free from the SMSF. What Ken Henry should have recommended is, abolish all tax concessions for super, abolish the means test for the age pension so that even millionaires get the full pension, but then the retirees should pay the same tax as do the workers. I agree, the Superannuation area needs a long, hard look and actions taken, although not all may go the way that you may initially think. But, that is only the beginning! In fact, the entire TAX arena is in serious need of a complete overall. But, there's more, asall government revenue, expenditure & Services, also need a complete overall and rationalization. In fact, one whole arm of government needs to go, for a starter, that being "Local Councils", which can be dealt with as a department of the Federal Parliament or the relevant state government. Inaddition to cost savings, there would be stablization of rules & regulations & "hopefully" a little less local graft?

I tend to agree here, however I would advocate keeping the local councils and offing the State Governments instead.  I've read the duplication between state and federal amounts to ~$60b annually.  

The local communities would be better to have a body that reflects their desires and needs, which will vary vastly across the regions.

hawil wrote on Sep 15^th, 2010 at 4:49pm:

Australia is not a Democracy but a Plutocracy; and it does not matter which party is in power, they only fight for themselves, because the treasurer gets paid more than the shadow treasurer and so on.... The simple calculations will prove my point, because I,am no financial wizard, but I know when I,am being robbed. The article “Government does not help the rich get richer” AFR 18’th Aug.2010 page 33 should not go unchallenged. Take retiree: 1) Worked for 45 years and paid taxes, but did not accumulate enough assets to be completely independent of the age-pension. For every dollar of extra income for him and his wife above $6,500, the couple loses $0.50 of age pension, and if their income exceeds $45,000 per annum, the couple will pay tax of $0.315 in the dollar including medicare levy, leaving them with an income of $0.185 from every dollar extra income. For the defined benefit income a 10% tax-offset applies if paid from an Australian super fund, but not if the income comes from an overseas fund. Retiree 2) Has accumulated assets of $1.5million and the assets are in a so-called taxed Self Managed Super Fund. To be very conservative, the assets are in a term deposit earning 7.0% income of $122,500 per annum and even if the retiree is single, he/she will not pay a cent of tax. Now if the assets are in fully franked shares, like banks and return $100,000 worth of franked dividends, he/she will again pay no tax on the dividend, and the government will send him/her a cheque of $30,000 for the franking credits. Retiree 3) Is an ex-politician or highly paid public servant, in receipt of a defined benefit pension of $100,000, on which he/she will have to pay tax, but he/she gets a 10% tax offset, which equals %10,000 after reaching retirement age, but before retiring, the public servant can establish a SMSF and contribute into it extra with tax concessions if the $25,000 total for under fifty and $50,000, if over fifty is not exceeded and in addition he/she can contribute $150,000 from after tax income, and the earnings from the SMSF will only attract 15% tax, and when the person reaches the age of 60 even the income will be completely tax-free from the SMSF. What Ken Henry should have recommended is, abolish all tax concessions for super, abolish the means test for the age pension so that even millionaires get the full pension, but then the retirees should pay the same tax as do the workers.

The problem with your assumptions in Retiree 2 example is that you undervalue the banks.  ANZ over the last 20 years including the effects of the GFC has returned almost 4 times the income of an equivalent portfolio in cash.  I'd be very surprised if CBA, WBC or NAB were any different.

Retiree 3 would more than likely be far better off commuting the Defined Benefit account to an Accumulation account and then simply rolling it over to his SMSF.  If the pollie was over 50 at the time he could salary sacrifice the difference between his SGC and the $50k concessional cap (until 2010-11) and up to $150k from taxed monies.  Frankly unless an SMSF invests in property I think they are a complete waste of time, energy and resources.

I have zero sympathy for Retiree 1, I actually struggle to even empathise.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 7:59pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 5:07pm: I agree, the Superannuation area needs a long, hard look and actions taken, although not all may go the way that you may initially think. But, that is only the beginning! In fact, the entire TAX arena is in serious need of a complete overall. But, there's more, asall government revenue, expenditure & Services, also need a complete overall and rationalization. In fact, one whole arm of government needs to go, for a starter, that being "Local Councils", which can be dealt with as a department of the Federal Parliament or the relevant state government. Inaddition to cost savings, there would be stablization of rules & regulations & "hopefully" a little less local graft? I tend to agree here, however I would advocate keeping the local councils and offing the State Governments instead.  I've read the duplication between state and federal amounts to ~$60b annually.   The local communities would be better to have a body that reflects their desires and needs, which will vary vastly across the regions.

I would opt to do away with Local councils for a couple of reasons -
1) They are not as accountable as State & Federal Politicians, because there is no mandatory voting and they are elected by so few people.
2) There is a driving need to standardise rules & regulations accross Australia and that can only be done, IF the council issues are taken up as part of a State or preferably Federal government department.

Certainly, there are some sizeable cost savings, but all Revenue & Expenditure of all governments will need to be attacked with vigour, whilst trying to maintain the Publics disposable income, as much as possible.  

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 10:35pm:

qikvtec wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 7:59pm: perceptions_now wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 5:07pm: I agree, the Superannuation area needs a long, hard look and actions taken, although not all may go the way that you may initially think. But, that is only the beginning! In fact, the entire TAX arena is in serious need of a complete overall. But, there's more, asall government revenue, expenditure & Services, also need a complete overall and rationalization. In fact, one whole arm of government needs to go, for a starter, that being "Local Councils", which can be dealt with as a department of the Federal Parliament or the relevant state government. Inaddition to cost savings, there would be stablization of rules & regulations & "hopefully" a little less local graft? I tend to agree here, however I would advocate keeping the local councils and offing the State Governments instead.  I've read the duplication between state and federal amounts to ~$60b annually.   The local communities would be better to have a body that reflects their desires and needs, which will vary vastly across the regions. I would opt to do away with Local councils for a couple of reasons - 1) They are not as accountable as State & Federal Politicians, because there is no mandatory voting and they are elected by so few people. 2) There is a driving need to standardise rules & regulations accross Australia and that can only be done, IF the council issues are taken up as part of a State or preferably Federal government department. Certainly, there are some sizeable cost savings, but all Revenue & Expenditure of all governments will need to be attacked with vigour, whilst trying to maintain the Publics disposable income, as much as possible.

Presumably both would require changes to State and Commonwealth Constitutions no?  Standardised rules are good in principal but very impractical in practice, that standardised modelling would deliver services to areas that were simply not required.

qikvtec wrote on Sep 29^th, 2010 at 10:47pm:

perceptions_now wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 10:35pm: qikvtec wrote on Sep 29th, 2010 at 7:59pm: perceptions_now wrote on Sep 15th, 2010 at 5:07pm: I agree, the Superannuation area needs a long, hard look and actions taken, although not all may go the way that you may initially think. But, that is only the beginning! In fact, the entire TAX arena is in serious need of a complete overall. But, there's more, asall government revenue, expenditure & Services, also need a complete overall and rationalization. In fact, one whole arm of government needs to go, for a starter, that being "Local Councils", which can be dealt with as a department of the Federal Parliament or the relevant state government. Inaddition to cost savings, there would be stablization of rules & regulations & "hopefully" a little less local graft? I tend to agree here, however I would advocate keeping the local councils and offing the State Governments instead.  I've read the duplication between state and federal amounts to ~$60b annually.   The local communities would be better to have a body that reflects their desires and needs, which will vary vastly across the regions. I would opt to do away with Local councils for a couple of reasons - 1) They are not as accountable as State & Federal Politicians, because there is no mandatory voting and they are elected by so few people. 2) There is a driving need to standardise rules & regulations accross Australia and that can only be done, IF the council issues are taken up as part of a State or preferably Federal government department. Certainly, there are some sizeable cost savings, but all Revenue & Expenditure of all governments will need to be attacked with vigour, whilst trying to maintain the Publics disposable income, as much as possible.   1) Presumably both would require changes to State and Commonwealth Constitutions no?   2) Standardised rules are good in principal but very impractical in practice, that standardised modelling would deliver services to areas that were simply not required.

1) Yes!

2) I've heard that line before. I suggest the longer term benefits win the day, as a review of Sub-prime & Ninja loans would confirm, amongst other things!

Today Tonight did a story on a financial cashback company during the week that really interested me and I wanted to know what those commonly involved in finance discussion thought. Basically it’s a financial solution company but instead of retaining the fees and commission through their offering of advice, they offer no advice and rebate the fees and commissions back to you minus their fee. They were covering mortgages and after going on their website I found that I can retain over $1000 a year by refinancing through them, plus I can choose the banks that I want. Im pretty sold on the idea but would like others thoughts

The main difference between the economy and finance is that funding is focused exclusively on wealth maximization. Unlike financial economics focuses on optimizing the objective. If we understand the facts in this way can we say that finance is a subset of economics.Using only the basics of economics and finance at a time, we can say that finance is the study of markets Financial. Financial markets are to coordinate the interests of lenders and borrowers who do business on the market.

marryroy02 wrote on Oct 18^th, 2010 at 3:44pm:

The main difference between the economy and finance is that funding is focused exclusively on wealth maximization. Unlike financial economics focuses on optimizing the objective. If we understand the facts in this way can we say that finance is a subset of economics.Using only the basics of economics and finance at a time, we can say that finance is the study of markets Financial. Financial markets are to coordinate the interests of lenders and borrowers who do business on the market.

So, how does that relate to the set of circumstances/macro factors that are in play now?

Financial economics is the branch of economics concerned with "the allocation and deployment of economic resources, both spatially and across time, in an uncertain environment" It is additionally characterised by its "concentration on monetary activities", in which "money of one type or another is likely to appear on both sides of a trade". The questions within financial economics are typically framed in terms of "time, uncertainty, options and information.

jenika wrote on Oct 25^th, 2010 at 7:02pm:

Financial economics is the branch of economics concerned with "the allocation and deployment of economic resources, both spatially and across time, in an uncertain environment" It is additionally characterised by its "concentration on monetary activities", in which "money of one type or another is likely to appear on both sides of a trade". The questions within financial economics are typically framed in terms of "time, uncertainty, options and information.

So, how does that relate to the real world Economics & Macro factors, which are in play now?

The problem with your assumptions in Retiree 2 example is that you undervalue the banks.  ANZ over the last 20 years including the effects of the GFC has returned almost 4 times the income of an equivalent portfolio in cash.  I'd be very surprised if CBA, WBC or NAB were any different.

Retiree 3 would more than likely be far better off commuting the Defined Benefit account to an Accumulation account and then simply rolling it over to his SMSF.  If the pollie was over 50 at the time he could salary sacrifice the difference between his SGC and the $50k concessional cap (until 2010-11) and up to $150k from taxed monies.  Frankly unless an SMSF invests in property I think they are a complete waste of time, energy and resources.

I have zero sympathy for Retiree 1, I actually struggle to even empathise.

Qikvtec, I would not expect any sympathy from you for retiree 1, but it is people like retiree 1, who provide the goods and services that retirees 2 and 3 consume.
The banks only cream off the wealth produced by people like retiree 1.
If retiree did his/her job to the best of their ability, they should not have the extra burden of watching the sharemarket or other financial data.
I have watched people at AGM's of company's and I had little respect for them either, and most of them were half-foot into the grave.

income protection is most essential part of our life.

I,am a little disappointed that my posts seem to stop other members to further pursue my point, or is it difficult to contradict my point.
qikvtec where are you?

Its nice one provides a lots of data related to topic also provide more inofrmation related to topic.

Here is a letter that I wrote To Bill Shorten recently.[b][/b]

To
Senator the Hon
Bill Shorten
PO Box 6022
Parliament House
Canberra ACT 2600

9’th of June 2011

The Australian government provides everybody of pension age a safety net in the form of the basic pension, so why should the government give such huge tax concession to the self funded retirees?
If a retirees income falls below $41,719.60 he/she can apply for a part-pension, and for a couple it is $63,824.80, which are very generous limits, particularly as most of the self-funded retirees pay little, or no tax if their incomes come from taxed super funds.
Consider the part-pensioners at the lower end: as soon as a single person income reaches $3,796.00 his/her pension is reduced by $0.50 for every dollar extra, and for couple it is $6,656.00, hardly a very generous standard of living.
Currently the Australian government pays some $25 billion in age pension, but at the same time allows some $25 billion in tax concessions. As the compulsory super starts maturing, the tax concessions will by far exceed the cost of the age pension, although at least 70% of the retirees will be still dependent on a part age-pension, but where is the government get the tax revenue to sustain such expenditure?
As the self funded retirees are enjoying extreme wealth, paying little or no taxes, they will travel a lot more overseas, which will again strain the Australian budget and affect the local business, because more money will be spent outside Australia. This will widen the gap between the have’s and have not’s enormously, particularly among the retirees, as the 20-30% with incomes above the age-pension, but always the assurance of a part-pension, should their incomes fall, and the 70% on a full or part-pension, who will be prevented to a large  degree by the means test of the basic pension, to a decent standard of living.
Australia is the only country among the OECD countries which means tests the basic age-pension, and allows such generous tax concessions for super, which benefits mainly the upper 30% of the population, and as a result the average Australian retirees are the second poorest after Ireland.
The means test for the basic age-pension should be abolished, but so should all the tax concessions for super, and the compulsory super should be scrapped.
Australia also spends a larger percentage of the GDP on military, more than most European countries, to go fighting in other countries, to establish Democracy, yet Australia is not a Democracy but a Plutocracy. I probably will not see it in my life time, but if Australia does not become more egalitarian and democratic, it will have similar riots that other countries experience now.
This are the tax savings for a person who can use the maximum super contributions if under 50 Years of age.
Concessional contribution at 30.June 2010
$25,000 *0.465=$11,625
$25,000*0.15=3,750 Tax saving= $11,625-$3,750=$7,875
$450,000 in super fund
$450,000*.06=$27,000 Interest
$27,000*0.465=$12,555
$27,000*0.15=$4,050 Tax saving $12,555-$4050=$8,505
Total tax saved = $8505+$7875=$16,380 for this year.

If the person is over 50 contribution is as follow.
$50,000*0.465%=$23,250
$50,000*0.15=$7,500 Tax saved= $23,250-$7,500=$15,750
Total Tax saved==$15,750+$8505=$24,255 This is well above the age pension

As the persons super balance can exceed the $500,000 limit for the over 50’s the contribution drops to $25,000, but the person contributes $450,000 non concessional into the fund so that the fund now holds $900,000

$900,000*0.06=$54,000
Tax= $54,000*0.465=$25110
Tax= $54,000*0.15=$8100 Tax saved= $25110-$8,100=$17,010
Total tax saved=$17,010+$7875=$24,885

The tax savings for a person in this position will only increase further as the balance in their fund increases and therefore the income which is taxed at 15%. And when the person reaches the age of 60 and starts drawing down the super, there will be no tax obligation at all. Assume a fund balance of $2million*6% =$120,000 income completely tax-free and this is a very conservative approach by having super balance in a term deposit.

If a person starts to contribute the maximum concessional contribution at the age of 30, by the time they reach the age of 65, he/she will have saved more in tax concessions than what he/she would get in the form of age-pension, even if they live to the age of 100.

Yet you talk about a “sustainable social system” and you have been challenged by the Australian Taxation Office for breaches of the contribution limit.

Could the government prove that my calculations are wrong, or else admit, that it governs only for the benefit of the elite 30% of the population.
Yours truly
Hawil