John Smith wrote on Jan 5
th, 2014 at 11:10am:
and it takes an even greater degree of perceptiveness to understand the difference between 'no child will live in poverty' and 'no one will live in poverty'
Now John, you're getting it more refined of what I had thought Bob Hawke really meant at the time. I was stunned by that statement, I can remember it clearly, it just stopped me in my tracks, and thought, well, my babies will be children by the time they get to the 1990's, so they won't be in living in poverty eh?
I said to the husband with tongue in cheek when it was announced and thought some key words were not included..."No, the child won't be in poverty ...
alone... but the whole family of that child will be".
So for a 'child' not to be in poverty, means that the whole family must not be in poverty either.
But as we all know, more people lost their businesses, houses and shirts during that.
And it was Malcolm Fraser, as he was doing his farewell speech and exiting as PM, did warn us, that our money would be safer if we put it under a mattress.
(something to that effect, just going by memory here rather than exact words....(writes note to self, to google it later) .... )
Then of course, all the collapses of Pyramid, and One-Tel etc etc...and ta ta people's money. I know of some that lost $300,000 they had placed temporarily in there, until they could buy a shop to support and work for themselves.
And thinking, they were safe, being Kerry Packer's son etc.
Yes, I went through the 'recession we were meant to have' and it was a dark and horrible time, the 1990's.
1991 June, interest rates were a whopping 17% or thereabouts, by December that same year, it plummeted down to 8%....the economy was so bad, and every 2nd house by then had mortgagee sale on it, and just about every 2nd and 3rd shop was empty.
And many of my gen, are never going to trust any bank or government ever again to want to go into debt.
But, the wheel keeps turning, and a new gen comes on to the scene......here we go again.
Do we learn from other's pasts, will the "child" that was a child not meant to be in poverty, actually mean, will be in poverty by the time they are old enough to leave school and work and to try and survive in the jungle?