Potential Big GFC Discussion Thread

[GASWAGON]

Just keep in mind.....If it turns sour this time.... Ther WILL NOT be any stopping it...... The money (derivatives-not actual paper money ie digital transactions, bonds, loans, debts and all the other fancy words, etc etc etc) will hit a MASSSIVE brick wall of debt and NO ONE can stop it..... The stock market computers will literally freeze up with so many bailouts occuring at once when this day comes and when they do unfreeze.... the numbers will be HORRENDOUS to say the least..... be prepared for Apocalyptic ARMAGEDON!!!!!

[Auslandau]

Originally Posted by GasOLane

I like the way that all the 'experts' are now busy talking about another dip/crash/recession/depression, but didn't see the GFC coming.

If they keep constantly predicting another apocalyptic crash ......eventually they will be able to say "TOLD YOU SO!" .......... even if it is in another 5-10 or 100 years.

Read through part of the thread again and to see the amount of predictions, quite a few here should be in the Stock market and living the absolute high life on the proceeds of being able to see into the short term future but alas, no one can.

Oh well ........ off to slit my wrists.

[AMGC63]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Haha I don't need to look it up, I have my Google alerts set on "doom and Gloom" and follow Henny Penny's sky falling in blog

I genuinely believe you! I dont know where you find the time to find all those sites with all the negative propoganda, im too busy running my business and trying to make money, in fact ive employed 9 new staff over the past 4 months to keep up with growth.

Its amazing what you can achieve with a positive outlook and focus.....

[GASWAGON]

Also just seen that Ben Bernanke of The Fed Bank is in a BIG meeting in the U.S today to discuss the U.S economy and possible QE3 measures..... This would mean MORE borrowing at now AA rating (higher interest) for the U.S.... If they don't do QE3 they will sink!!!! Today may be the day it all goes DOWN?????

[BA GT-HO]

Originally Posted by EF_6

Just keep in mind.....If it turns sour this time.... Ther WILL NOT be any stopping it...... The money (derivatives-not actual paper money ie digital transactions, bonds, loans, debts and all the other fancy words, etc etc etc) will hit a MASSSIVE brick wall of debt and NO ONE can stop it..... The stock market computers will literally freeze up with so many bailouts occuring at once when this day comes and when they do unfreeze.... the numbers will be HORRENDOUS to say the least..... be prepared for Apocalyptic ARMAGEDON!!!!!

Cool.

[GasoLane]

Originally Posted by Auslandau

Oh well ........ off to slit my wrists.

Before you do, would you mind signing your Landy over to me first please?

[TZENU]

Originally Posted by EF_6

Just keep in mind.....If it turns sour this time.... Ther WILL NOT be any stopping it...... The money (derivatives-not actual paper money ie digital transactions, bonds, loans, debts and all the other fancy words, etc etc etc) will hit a MASSSIVE brick wall of debt and NO ONE can stop it..... The stock market computers will literally freeze up with so many bailouts occuring at once when this day comes and when they do unfreeze.... the numbers will be HORRENDOUS to say the least..... be prepared for Apocalyptic ARMAGEDON!!!!!

That all wont mean anything come September

[Charliewool]

Originally Posted by TZENU

That all wont mean anything come September

Huh? ... Bathurst and the grand final aren't until Oct, are they?

[Gobes32]

Originally Posted by Charliewool

Huh? ... Bathurst and the grand final aren't until Oct, are they?

I think he means the AFL grand final, if collingwood make it, then all the Collingwood supporters may bankrupt the country with their mass requests for forward centrelink payments to pay for tickets.

[Romulus]

Interest rates on hold, signals RBA governor Glenn Stevens

James Glynn
From: Dow Jones Newswires
August 26, 201112:00PM

THE Reserve Bank of Australia appears set to keep interest rates on hold for now as turmoil on world markets outweighs concerns over reining in inflation.

"Inflation bears careful watching but we can keep it under control," RBA governor Glenn Stevens said today in testimony to an influential federal cross-party economic committee.

"There is a heightened degree of uncertainty at present. There are major challenges in the global economy and significant forces at work in the Australian economy."

Leading analysts have increased their bets in recent months that the RBA will cut rates before the end of the year after a series of poor economic data signalled that Australia's mining boom may not be enough to maintain high levels of growth throughout the economy. Base rates in Australia are high by international standards at 4.75 per cent largely to keep inflation in check.

Mr Stevens said in times of turbulence it’s "useful to sit still".

Unemployment has started to tick higher and consumer confidence remains bogged down even as the country undergoes what the government describes as a once in a century mining boom.

The strength of the exchange rate, holding close to 30-year highs against the US greenback, continues to divide political opinion after one of the country's largest steel makers said it was sacking 1,000 staff and closing its export business. The company, Bluescope, blames the strength of the Australian dollar for undermining its competitiveness.

To be sure, Mr Stevens gave no indication the bank is in a hurry to adjust policy. The market has priced in for 125 basis points of cuts over the next 12 months.

On the positive side, Mr Stevens highlighted Australia's high terms of trade buoyed by China's continued demand for its natural resources; a robust banking network and strong sovereign balance sheet.

The federal government is in the enviable position of targeting a return to surplus as early as next year at a time when other major economies are deeply mired in debt and seeking to impose restrictive austerity measure.

China's growth remains key to Australia's outlook, said Mr Stevens, who cautioned that Asian nations need to contain higher inflation.

In response to the testimony, Barclays Capital economist Gavin Stacey said the RBA sent a clear signal it has no intention of cutting rates, and if anything, will need to tighten once world markets settle.

"If the global backdrop stabilises it appears fairly clear to us the RBA has policy tightening in its sights," Mr Stacey said.

I'm of the opinion the Reserve Bank Governor, Glenn Stevens should be sacked. One only needs to look at the high exchange rate, attributed mainly by our high interest rates, is causing our exports to become uncompetitive and is hurting manufacturing. It appears the sole objective of Mr Steven's is to keep inflation in check - at the expense of the whole economy. Drop interest rates by 0.5 - 1.0% and watch the exchange rate drop back to around 90-95c, helping exports.

Unbelievable.

[Spanrz]

If China can't pay it's bill on certain things, how do you expect them to pay for our natural resource of Coal at the current exchange rate.

Once China's demand shifts to find a cheaper coal source, that will change Australia's mining boom and plunge us into a bad area.
We are riding on "the sheeps back" as one would say, when the sheep die, so do we.

Poor old economists can't see this. Gillard is so strong on this carbon tax BS, that it will kill her political career when she has no Plan B for an economic meltdown. She doesn't spruik this, because she doesn't want to install fear.

This Carbon Tax and the current exchange rates are just a "false economy".

[mik]

i just stumbled on this article by an ozzy scientist ,most of it`s over my head but in conclusion after many mathematical explanations he comes to the conclusion the incumbent governments plan to deliver less co2 will in fact deliver more, you guys be the judge.
http://bellaciao.org/en//spip.php?article21140

Oz Labor’s Carbon Tax-ETS & gas for coal plan means INCREASED GHG pollution


by: Dr Gideon Polya
Saturday August 27, 2011 - 10:48

Sensible public policy depends upon rational risk management, which successively involves (a) correct data, (b) science-based analysis (science involving the critical testing of potentially falsifiable hypotheses) and (c) informed systemic change to minimize risk. Unfortunately this process is typically perverted by (a) incorrect information from error, ignorance, lying by omission and commission, censorship, intimidation), (b) anti-science spin-based analysis (the selective use of asserted facts top support a partisan position) and (c) blame and shame that counterproductively inhibits correct reportage and increased risk.

As a 5-decade career scientist who is still teaching science students at a major Australian university, I do my bit for rational risk management in the public interest by making carefully researched, science-based submissions to media and to MPs to inform them about reality and to correct misconceptions. I frequently write to media and MPs about the worsening climate emergency and recently received 2 detailed Australian Government responses from Australian public servants who had been asked to respond, respectively, on behalf of Greg Combet MP, Minister for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency (to whom PM Julia Gillard had forwarded my letter) and Mark Dreyfus MP, Parliamentary Secretary for Climate Change and Energy Efficiency.

Both of these detailed letters contained the same utterly incorrect comments concerning the Australian Government’s disastrous Carbon Tax-ETS plan to tackle climate change: “The Australian Government [has] a comprehensive plan to move to a clean energy future. Central to that plan is the introduction of a carbon price that will cut pollution in the cheapest and most effective way and drive investment in clean energy sources such as solar, wind and gas.”

“Tackling climate change” means DECREASING greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution but Treasury modeling, ABARE and US EIA data show that the Australian Government’s plan will result in INCREASING both Domestic and Exported GHG pollution in both 2020 and 2050 in relation to that in 2000. As also shown below, gas is not clean, gas is dirty and a coal to gas transition for power generation will be counterproductive in relation to the urgent, science-demanded need to cease GHG pollution by about 2050.

(A) Natural gas is not clean – burning gas is dirty GHG-wise

Carbon (C) has an atomic weight of 12, methane (CH4) has a molecular weight of 16 and carbon dioxide (CO2) has a molecular weight of 44.

When you burn CH4 you get CO2: CH4 + 2O2 -> CO2 + 2 H2O.

Accordingly, burning 16 tonnes of CH4 yields 44 tonnes of CO2; burning 100 tonnes of CH4 yields 100 tonnes x 44/16 = 275 tonnes of CO2; and burning 1 tonne CH4 yields 2.75 tonnes CO2.

Burning carbon, C, the major constituent of coal, you also get CO2: C + O2 -> CO2.

Accordingly, burning 12 tonnes of C yields 44 tonnes of CO2; burning 100 tonnes of C yields 100 tonnes x 44/12 = 367 tonnes of CO2; and burning 1 tonne CH4 yields 3.67 tonnes CO2.

Burning both coal and methane generates the GHG CO2 (as well as other pollutants) i.e. neither coal nor natural gas are not clean GHG-wise, they are both dirty.

(B). Systemic methane leakage increases GHG pollution from burning gas.

According to the US Environmentlal Protection Agency ( EPA): “The concept of a global warming potential (GWP) was developed to compare the ability of each greenhouse gas to trap heat in the atmosphere relative to another gas. The definition of a GWP for a particular greenhouse gas is the ratio of heat trapped by one unit mass of the greenhouse gas to that of one unit mass of CO2 over a specified time period.”

If there is industrial leakage of CH4 (estimated to be 3.3% in the US from US EPA data) [1] then one must consider the GHG effect of the released methane, noting that 1 tonne of CH4 is 105 times worse than 1 tonne CO2 as a greenhouse gas on a 20 year time scale with aerosol impacts included [2-5].

Of 100 tonnes of CH4, how much CH4 leakage (y tonnes) gives the same greenhouse effect (in CO2 equivalents or CO2-e) as burning the remaining CH4?

y tonnes CH4 x (105 tonnes CO2-e/tonne CH4) = (100-y) tonnes CH4 x (2.75 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4).

105y tonnes CO2-e = (100-y) 2.75 tonnes CO2-e

105y = 275 – 2.75y

107.75y = 275

y = 275/107.75 = 2.55 i.e. a 2.6 % leakage of CH4 yields the same greenhouse effect as burning the remaining 97.4% CH4.

Check: 2.55 tonnes leaked CH4 corresponds to 2.6 tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4 = 268 tonnes CO2-e . Burning the remaining 97.4 tonnes of CH4 corresponds to 97.4 tonnes CH4 x 2.75 tonnes CO2/tonne CH4 = 268 tonnes CO2.

(C). A coal to shale gas transition could double power-based GHG pollution.

The MWh of energy produced per tonne of CO2 pollution for a gas-fired power station is on average 2 times that of a coal-fired power station (the current situation in the state of Victoria, Australia). Indeed in terms of toxic pollutants such as carbon particles (soot), carbon monoxide, nitrogen oxides, sulphur dioxide, radioactivity and heavy metals, burning gas is cleaner than burning coal. However, given significant systemic methane leakage, what would a coal to gas transition for electricity mean in terms of GHG pollution?

In Victoria, Australia, gas-fired power stations (0.60 – 0.90 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, average 0.75 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) are roughly twice as efficient in producing energy as brown coal-burning power stations (1.21-1.53 tonnes CO2-e/MWh) according to a report by Green Energy Markets commissioned by Environment Victoria (EV) [6].

Accordingly, at a systemic leakage of 2.6% the GHG pollution would roughly double to about 1.5 tonnes CO2-e/MWh, equivalent to that of Hazelwood, the dirtiest coal-fired power station in Victoria.

A more precise set of calculations is given below.

If the systemic leakage rate is zero (0) then burning of 100 tonnes CH4 would be associated with 275 tonnes CO2-e to give 0.75 tonnes CO2-e/MWh.

If the leakage rate is 2.6% then combustion of 97.4 tonnes of CH4 would be associated with 275 tonnes CO2 x 97.4/100 = 268 tonnes CO2 (from burning) + 2.6 tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4 = 273 tonnes CO2-e (from leakage) = 541 tonnes CO2-e. Accordingly, burning of 100 tonnes CH4 would be associated with 541 tonnes CO2-e x 100/97.4 = 555 tonnes CO2-e i.e. tonnes CO2-e/MWh would increase by a factor of 555/275 = 2.0 to give 2.0 x 0.75 tonnes CO2-e/MWh = 1.5 tonnes CO2-e/MWh (i.e. as dirty as Hazelwood’s 1.5 tonnes CO2-e/MWh).

If the leakage rate is 3.3% (US average) then the combustion of 96.7 tonnes of CH4 would be associated with 275 tonnes CO2 x 96.7/100 = 266 tonnes CO2 (from burning) + 3.3 tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4 = 347 tonnes CO2-e (from leakage) = 613 tonnes CO2-e. Accordingly, burning of 100 tonnes CH4 would be associated with 613 tonnes CO2-e x 100/96.7 = 634 tonnes CO2-e i.e. tonnes CO2-e/MWh would increase by a factor of 634/275 = 2.3 to give 2.3 x 0.75 tonnes CO2-e/MWh = 1.73 tonnes CO2-e/MWh (1.2 times as dirty as Hazelwood).

If the leakage rate is 7.9% (the upper estimate with shale formation-derived gas) [7] then the combustion of 92.1 tonnes of CH4 would be associated with 275 tonnes CO2 x 92.1/100 = 253 tonnes CO2 (from burning) + 7.9 tonnes CH4 x 105 tonnes CO2-e/ tonne CH4 = 830 tonnes CO2-e (from leakage) = 1,083 tonnes CO2-e. Accordingly, burning of 100 tonnes CH4 would be associated with 1,083 tonnes CO2-e x 100/92.1 = 1,176 tonnes CO2-e i.e. tonnes CO2-e/MWh would increase by a factor of 1,176/275 = 4.3 to give 4.3 x 0.75 tonnes CO2-e/MWh = 3.2 tonnes CO2-e/MWh (roughly 2.1 times as dirty as Hazelwood).

Methane is 105 times worse than carbon dioxide (CO2) as a GHG on a 20 year time scale and major systemic gas leakage from the hydraulic fracking of shale formations has led Professor Robert Howarth, Cornell University, Ithaca, New York, to conclude that “The large GHG footprint of shale gas undercuts the logic of its use as a bridging fuel over coming decades, if the goal is to reduce global warming. We do not intend that our study be used to justify the continued use of either oil or coal, but rather to demonstrate that substituting shale gas for these other fossil fuels may not have the desired effect of mitigating climate warming”. [7].

(D). Australian Labor Government’s Carbon Tax-ETS plan will INCREASE Domestic GHG pollution.

Treasury modeling of the Australian Government’s Carbon tax-ETS plan [8], Australian Bureau of Resource and Agricultural Economics (ABARE) data indicating coal and gas exports increasing at 2.6% pa and 9% pa, respectively, and US Energy Information Administration (EIA) data on Australian coal and liquid natural gas (LNG) exports show the following Australian Domestic and Exported GHG pollution (in millions of tonnes of CO2-equivalent, Mt CO2-e) for Australia under the Carbon Price [9].

2000: 496 (Domestic) + 505 (coal exports) + 17 (LNG exports) = 1018.

2009: 600 (Domestic) + 784 (coal exports) + 31 (LNG exports) = 1,415.

2020: 621 (Domestic) + 1,039 (black coal exports) + 80 (LNG exports) + 59 (brown coal exports) = 1,799.

2050: 527 (Domestic) + 2902 (coal exports) + 1,061 (LNG exports) = 4,490.

Both the Australian Liberal Party–National Party Coalition Opposition and the Australian Labor Government have the same goals involving “5% off 2000 Domestic GHG pollution in 2020” and unlimited coal and gas Exports.

“Tackling climate change” means DECREASING greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. However the above data show that the Australian Labor Government’s plan will mean INCREASING both Domestic and Exported GHG pollution in both 2020 and 2050 in relation to that in 2000 i.e. the Australian Labor Government has absolutely no intention of “tackling climate change” either in the short term or long term. [9].

Indeed it gets worse. In 2009 the German Advisory Council on Climate Change (WBGU) determined that for a 75% chance of avoiding a disastrous 2 degree C temperature rise, the World must pollute less than 600 Gt CO2 between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050. Unfortunately by August 2011 Australia had already used up its “share” of this terminal greenhouse gas (GHG) budget through disproportionately huge annual fossil fuel burning and exports. [10].

It must be finally noted that Australia has a population of 22 million and accordingly its 2009 annual per capita GHG pollution was 1,415 Mt CO2-e/22 million = 64.3 tonnes per person per year, 71 times that of Bangladesh (0.9). [11].

Conclusions.

Australia has an annual per capita GHG pollution 71 times that of Bangladesh and has already used up its “fair share” of the global 600 Gt CO2 pollution budget permitted between 2010 and zero emissions in 2050.

Tackling climate change means a DECREASE in greenhouse gas (GHG) pollution. However the Australian Labor Government’s Carbon tax-ETS plan means that Australia will INCREASE both its Domestic and Exported GHG pollution in both 2020 and 2050 relative to that in 2000.

Further, the Australian Government adumbrates a coal to gas transition for power generation as a consequence of its carbon price plan. However gas burning is a dirty energy source and if fracked shale gas is used to generate electricity instead of coal then power sector GHG pollution can double associated with systemic gas leakage.

The recent written advice I have received from the Australian Government that “The Australian Government [has] a comprehensive plan to move to a clean energy future. Central to that plan is the introduction of a carbon price that will cut pollution in the cheapest and most effective way and drive investment in clean energy sources such as solar, wind and gas” is comprehensively incorrect: the Australian Labor Government’s plan is effectively for climate change inaction, a dirty energy future and indeed dirtier energy future. Further, gas is not clean energy and can be worse than coal GHG-wise due to systemic gas leakage.

[1]. David Lewis, "EPA confirms natural gas leakage rates", The Energy Collective, 7 December 2010: http://theenergycollective.com/inde... .

[2]. Drew T. Shindell , Greg Faluvegi, Dorothy M. Koch , Gavin A. Schmidt , Nadine Unger and Susanne E. Bauer , “Improved Attribution of Climate Forcing to Emissions”, Science 30 October 2009: Vol. 326 no. 5953 pp. 716-718: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/3... .

[3]. Shindell et al (2009), Fig.2: http://www.sciencemag.org/content/3... .

[4]. Katharine Sanderson, “” Aerosols make methane more potent”, Nature News, 29 October 2009: http://www.nature.com/news/2009/091... .

[5]. Dr Drew Shindell, quoted in Mark Henderson, “Methane’s impact on global warming far higher than previously thought”, The Times, 30 October 2009: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/ne... .

[6] Green Energy Markets, “Fast-tracking Victoria’s clean energy future to replace Hazelwood”, 2010: http://www.environmentvictoria.org.... .

[7]. Robert W. Howarth, Renee Santoro and Anthony Ingraffea, “Methane and the greenhouse-gas footprint of natural gas from shale formations”, Climatic Change, 2011: http://www.sustainablefuture.cornel... .

[8]. Australian Treasury, “Strong growth, low pollution. Modelling a carbon proce”, 2011: http://cache.treasury.gov.au/treasu... .

[9]. Gideon Polya, “Analysis: Australian Labor Government Carbon Price-ETS scheme fails & entrenches climate change inaction”, Bellaciao, 16 July 2011: http://bellaciao.org/en/spip.php?ar... .

[10]. Gideon Polya, “Shocking analysis by country of years left to zero emissions”, Green Blog,1 August 2011: http://www.green-blog.org/2011/08/0...

[burnz]

Originally Posted by SB076

Think you will find thats one of the things that have increased the value of gold is the printing of money by the US (QE1, QE2) Therefore its not a shortage of money its the abundance of money. Maybe a lot of investors have moved away from US bonds etc over fears of the US devaluing its currency and have jumped on to gold.

Gold has dropped a bit, interesting to see how other currencies compared to gold thanks for the info. To be honest I dont know other currencies that well - It is interesting to hear that the Japanese government has been trying to devalue their own currency

dunno if other pick up on this...

but a weaker dollar as in china,, think of the export potential of the oz market if we were $0.70 usd.

[dave289]

More good news.


http://www.news.com.au/business/busi...-1226123687766

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by dave289

More good news.


http://www.news.com.au/business/busi...-1226123687766

Which reconfirms my previous comment the only thing Glenn Stevens is interesting in is controlling inflation. I'm sure the 10's of thousands of people who will lose their jobs will thank the reserve bank governor for keeping inflation under control.

[Charliewool]

Beats me how anyone can think that's "good" news?

[buggerlugs]

Originally Posted by EF_6

Also just seen that Ben Bernanke of The Fed Bank is in a BIG meeting in the U.S today to discuss the U.S economy and possible QE3 measures..... This would mean MORE borrowing at now AA rating (higher interest) for the U.S.... If they don't do QE3 they will sink!!!! Today may be the day it all goes DOWN?????

Well, apparantley it wasn't........

[dave289]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

Which reconfirms my previous comment the only thing Glenn Stevens is interesting in is controlling inflation. I'm sure the 10's of thousands of people who will lose their jobs will thank the reserve bank governor for keeping inflation under control.

The whole idea of the blokes job is to control inflation , that is why the reserve bank was set up and what he is employed to do. The problem is , he cant win , if he tries to do his job he gets critisized and people call for a public hanging ,in this case his job .

There is no solution ,well none that has a happy ending , and if any of those on the other side of the fence (if there is any left , that is) would like to try and attempt to explain one to me , I would love to hear it .

Are we all on the same side yet ?

[dave289]

Originally Posted by BA GT-HO

Thread has gone quiet, I guess there is not enough bad press out at the moment.

Just not looking hard enough ba . Found this for you below.

http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/mor...-1226123539461

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by dave289

The whole idea of the blokes job is to control inflation , that is why the reserve bank was set up and what he is employed to do. The problem is , he cant win , if he tries to do his job he gets critisized and people call for a public hanging ,in this case his job .

There is no solution ,well none that has a happy ending , and if any of those on the other side of the fence (if there is any left , that is) would like to try and attempt to explain one to me , I would love to hear it .

Are we all on the same side yet ?

I agree, in part, but it appears the RB's sole objective is to control inflation by means of adjusting interest rates accordingly at the peril of everthing else. As I mentioned earlier many learned economists, and to a lesser extent politicians, are saying the high interest rate is the cause of the high value of the Australian dollar, which is affecting the manufacturing and retail sectors.

Sure, certain segments of the economy are going gangbusters (mine included) but by enlarge most aren't. Inflation is measured by things such as the price of banana's and fuel (both subject to extremeties in pricing) and tend to spike inflation numbers, leading to a artificially high inflation rates.

I suspect the RBA will react and lower interest rates, after most people and small (and possibly large) businesses are already up shyte street.

[dave289]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

I agree, in part, but it appears the RB's sole objective is to control inflation by means of adjusting interest rates accordingly at the peril of everthing else. As I mentioned earlier many learned economists, and to a lesser extent politicians, are saying the high interest rate is the cause of the high value of the Australian dollar, which is affecting the manufacturing and retail sectors.

Sure, certain segments of the economy are going gangbusters (mine included) but by enlarge most aren't. Inflation is measured by things such as the price of banana's and fuel (both subject to extremeties in pricing) and tend to spike inflation numbers, leading to a artificially high inflation rates.

I suspect the RBA will react and lower interest rates, after most people and small (and possibly large) businesses are already up shyte street.

Like I said he cant win. If he lowers rates the dollar goes higher , killing most buisiness here , inflation then goes higher , which means we then need to increase them so that our interest rate does not go higher which also kills biusiness here . It simply is a no win situation.

We could either jack rates up now to lower our dollar and try and make us more compeptitive with the world, which is now unlikely ( the competive part I mean) , or we can pussy foot around for years while evrything goes backwards for many many years.

If we do raise rates now , we will crash the whole economy and house prices quicker, get prices and rents back to more realistic levels , which would mean at least half of what they are now, and then we can all start to get on with our lives . Until house prices crash through the roof there will be no end to this problem. Even when they do crash through the roof , our economy is so dismal evrywhere else now that we are now out of the game. Which is why one of my sayings from the old thread and quoted in gt0132 signature was" You will never ever see house prices go up in value like it has in the past two years .ever ever again" , or something very simliar , this is something that gt0132 will never see in his life again , so leave it where it is just to remind you.

[buggerlugs]

Your missing that thread, are'nt you ..........

[Romulus]

Originally Posted by dave289

Like I said he cant win. If he lowers rates the dollar goes higher , killing most buisiness here , inflation then goes higher , which means we then need to increase them so that our interest rate does not go higher which also kills biusiness here . It simply is a no win situation.

We could either jack rates up now to lower our dollar and try and make us more compeptitive with the world, which is now unlikely ( the competive part I mean) , or we can pussy foot around for years while evrything goes backwards for many many years.

If we do raise rates now , we will crash the whole economy and house prices quicker, get prices and rents back to more realistic levels , which would mean at least half of what they are now, and then we can all start to get on with our lives . Until house prices crash through the roof there will be no end to this problem. Even when they do crash through the roof , our economy is so dismal evrywhere else now that we are now out of the game. Which is why one of my sayings from the old thread and quoted in gt0132 signature was" You will never ever see house prices go up in value like it has in the past two years .ever ever again" , or something very simliar , this is something that gt0132 will never see in his life again , so leave it where it is just to remind you.

On the contrary. The driving force for the high Australian dollar is our high interest rate. If the RBA dropped interest rate by 1% the AUS dollar would likely drop to ~90-95c.

[dave289]

Originally Posted by buggerlugs

Your missing that thread, are'nt you ..........

Well is was the best thread in the forum , you could see that by the amount of traffic going through there. And because my comments did not fit soembodies agenda , it has now been moved to where the majority cant see it.

The house thread ,while becoming heated at times ,was always settled down by members rather than mods becuase everyone knew it was in evrybodies best intersts to keep it going . Unfortunately somebody thought it better to keep evryone in the dark rather than follow it as closely as we were .

The house thread still goes on behind the scenes by way of pm , the only thing is nobody else gets to see it , so nobody else gets to benefit from it . I have thought about asking it to be returned to where it should be , but we still have a few on the other side that refuse to accept what is happening and will bring it down again. Maybe if we wait till the start of next year there will then be no more aguments as by then evryone shoud be fully aware of the situation .

I think this thread here has enabled us to expand on the whole global scene which has opened many peoples eyes as to the state of things . So it has been a good follow on and enabled people to see the big picture . Anyway I'll leave it at that for now.

[dave289]

Originally Posted by F6 Concorde

On the contrary. The driving force for the high Australian dollar is our high interest rate. If the RBA dropped interest rate by 1% the AUS dollar would likely drop to ~90-95c.

You have it wrong, think what would happen in the exterme , if interest rates were dropped to 2% tomorrow ,evrybody would have more money to spend on other things beside their mortgage and bills , they would then be able to spend it on our economy ,which would send inflation higher and bring our dollar upwards.

Then if you raise rates to 10% ,evrybody now has less money to spend on the economy beacuse it will all go to the mortgage and bills with nothing left over to spend on the economy , which would send inflation backwards ,which would lower our dollar.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by AMGC63

I genuinely believe you! I dont know where you find the time to find all those sites with all the negative propoganda, im too busy running my business and trying to make money, in fact ive employed 9 new staff over the past 4 months to keep up with growth.

Its amazing what you can achieve with a positive outlook and focus.....

Haha, yeah... I'm a journo by trade, so I read all the papers. Twitter has been the best thing ever for me because all the international press headlines get delivered to my feed so I can read without searching.

The only think I woul d pull you up on there is the use of "propoganda". By the sheer weight of the negative leads coming out across the world, the positive articles seem to be the propoganda at the moment. The negative is the uneasy truth that lies beneath the surface of everything right now.

It's the old skating on thin ice... I'm just trying to point out the cracks and am dead certain I don't want to fall in if/when the whole thing gives way.

[AMGC63]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

Haha, yeah... I'm a journo by trade, so I read all the papers. Twitter has been the best thing ever for me because all the international press headlines get delivered to my feed so I can read without searching.

The only think I woul d pull you up on there is the use of "propoganda". By the sheer weight of the negative leads coming out across the world, the positive articles seem to be the propoganda at the moment. The negative is the uneasy truth that lies beneath the surface of everything right now.

It's the old skating on thin ice... I'm just trying to point out the cracks and am dead certain I don't want to fall in if/when the whole thing gives way.

I guess it comes down to a number of things and your own mental fortitude and make up. "Fight or Flight"...

On one hand you can take everything on board, yes the good and the bad but be calm and logical while forging ahead, staying positive, working hard to be a success and make the most of a difficult environment and in fact look for opportunity from adversity..

Or... take the other approach; panic, sell everything, stop spending money, scream "the sky is falling" and roll up into a hysterical fetal suicidal mess....

I choose the first option, those who choose the second option are "lemmings" to the problem and are helping to fuel it.

[trippytaka]

Originally Posted by AMGC63

I guess it comes down to a number of things and your own mental fortitude and make up. "Fight or Flight"...

On one hand you can take everything on board, yes the good and the bad but be calm and logical while forging ahead, staying positive, working hard to be a success and make the most of a difficult environment and in fact look for opportunity from adversity..

Or... take the other approach; panic, sell everything, stop spending money, scream "the sky is falling" and roll up into a hysterical fetal suicidal mess....

I choose the first option, those who choose the second option are "lemmings" to the problem and are helping to fuel it.

I Hope you're not calling me a Lemming - I haven't sold anything off, just delayed purchasing a new place with my gf, as the market is on the slide and is getting worse by the week, so saving more to get more and more equity. I have stopped spending - I stopped about 2 years ago - but more because I had to clear some debts, get back into the black and build up some cash reserves to buy a new place with the gf.

I think calling anyone who has stopped spending a lemming is not paying enough credit to the situation that many Australians are facing. I would go out on a limb and bet that a large portion of people who have stopped spending and are paying down debts are doing so because they are worried that they might not be able to pay that debt off if interest rates go up, or if one of the family members loses a job.

They have probably done the maths and realised they are on a knife's edge. This is conservative, but it is a smart play right now - especially for any battler who is watching the equity in their house disappear by the week! I would hardly call these people lemmings. I'd call them responsible... would you prefer they racked up another 50k debt on their cards and mortgage?

Lemmings... I would say that anyone who jumped on the property band wagon because they were told that only ever rises is a lemming. Anyone who dipped freely into the mortgage to buy the latest and greatest appliance, while steadily eroding the hard-earned equity is a Lemming.

Using educated rationale to make an informed decision about what to do with your finances is hardly the action of a lemming.

I don't think anyone here is yelling the sky is falling in. I am certainly not. I am definitely saying that there is something in the air and I am bracing for it. Hardly the the "flight" reaction is it, getting your ducks in a row and preparing strategies for all the different outcomes. It's more smart strategy than panic, really.

[trippytaka]

Now for something positive... and for once I am behind Abbott all the way!

TONY Abbott says there could be a case for propping up heavy manufacturing on the grounds of national security, urging the issue be discussed at an industry-wide forum.

The move came as manufacturing unions made an urgent plea for a “short, sharp and comprehensive” government inquiry into the ailing manufacturing sector.

The heads of the nation's biggest manufacturing unions spent two hours in crisis talks with Julia Gillard today, urging “tough cops on the beat” to ensure Australian-made products were used in the booming mining sector.

The Opposition Leader addressed the manufacturing slump in a speech in Melbourne, announcing a new “industries for Australia's future” policy review to chart a way forward for the sector.

Chaired by opposition industry spokeswoman Sophie Mirabella and resources spokesman Ian Macfarlane, the review will seek the views of both the mining and manufacturing sectors.

Mr Abbott said the Coalition was opposed to industry protection but believed industry assistance could be justified in certain circumstances.

“The Coalition is strongly opposed to industry policy that props up over-manning and feather-bedding or that does not count the cost of intervening and honestly face up to it,” he told the Committee for the Economic Development of Australia.

“On the other hand, if there's a respectable case that can be made for maintaining a heavy manufacturing base on the grounds of national security, the inherent value of a diversified economy or the transitional costs of shutting down capital intensive industries only to start them up again when market conditions change, there needs to be a forum where it can be addressed.”

Mr Abbott said the views of the entire sector should be sought, not just those of union officials, while the carbon tax should be included in any discussion of industry competitiveness.

Australian Manufacturing Workers Union secretary Dave Oliver and Australian Workers Union secretary Paul Howes demanded an inquiry similar to that conducted on the nation's car industry by former Victorian premier Steve Bracks.

“That was a short, sharp and comprehensive inquiry that came out with significant recommendations which I know secured the future of the automotive industry in this country. So in our mind that is the thing we are looking at,” Mr Oliver said after the meeting with the Prime Minister in Canberra.

Mr Howes said urgent action was needed to ensure Australian-manufactured products were used by the mining sector.

“The time has come for the big resource companies, who are making such incredible profits out of the resources that belong to all Australians, to start doing the right thing by all Australians and buying local and using more than 10 per cent of local equipment on these major resource projects,” Mr Howes said.

A spokesman for the Prime Minister said the meeting was “positive and constructive”.

He said the meeting discussed whether further action could help Australian businesses respond to current economic conditions.

“While acknowledging the challenges currently facing the sector, everyone present agreed that manufacturing had a strong future in Australia,” he said.

“Participants discussed the use of local content, the government's skills reforms, how to increase workforce participation, and the effectiveness of the anti-dumping measures the government has announced.”

[AMGC63]

Originally Posted by trippytaka

I Hope you're not calling me a Lemming - I haven't sold anything off, just delayed purchasing a new place with my gf, as the market is on the slide and is getting worse by the week, so saving more to get more and more equity. I have stopped spending - I stopped about 2 years ago - but more because I had to clear some debts, get back into the black and build up some cash reserves to buy a new place with the gf.

I think calling anyone who has stopped spending a lemming is not paying enough credit to the situation that many Australians are facing. I would go out on a limb and bet that a large portion of people who have stopped spending and are paying down debts are doing so because they are worried that they might not be able to pay that debt off if interest rates go up, or if one of the family members loses a job.

They have probably done the maths and realised they are on a knife's edge. This is conservative, but it is a smart play right now - especially for any battler who is watching the equity in their house disappear by the week! I would hardly call these people lemmings. I'd call them responsible... would you prefer they racked up another 50k debt on their cards and mortgage?

Lemmings... I would say that anyone who jumped on the property band wagon because they were told that only ever rises is a lemming. Anyone who dipped freely into the mortgage to buy the latest and greatest appliance, while steadily eroding the hard-earned equity is a Lemming.

Using educated rationale to make an informed decision about what to do with your finances is hardly the action of a lemming.

I don't think anyone here is yelling the sky is falling in. I am certainly not. I am definitely saying that there is something in the air and I am bracing for it. Hardly the the "flight" reaction is it, getting your ducks in a row and preparing strategies for all the different outcomes. It's more smart strategy than panic, really.

Its not for me to "individualize"... Its clear from many posts here who fits into what area to a greater or lesser degree, that's their choice, not mine. Some of the hysteria and panic displayed here from time to time is crazy though.

I agree reckless spending with credit is stupid, always has been, always will, its not a new philosophy, you only buy what you can afford to repay quickly.

Its also a sound strategy to limit spending to save to buy goods, housing etc, because ultimately you are still spending.

I firmly believe that housing prices will recover and continue to appreciate long term, its a no brainer, a minor blip here and there like we are seeing now is nothing over the life of a mortgage, ride it out, housing is a long term "investment", its been happening for decades.....