Laptops for all senior school children.

[Jaaassseeee]

Just updating on what Dave said, yes demand has gone down considerably (50% of Copper mines have closed down in WA due to lower demand which gives China greater bargaining power [yes I need Copper, but not from you if you don't sell it cheaper type of thing] hence driving prices down.

On the topic of laptops, I think it is an absolute waste of time. People will just turn into nerds and play games all the time, have no social life. If there is a need to use computers, just as Dave said back in the day I just sat at the computer lunch times and after school to do it. If you ask, the school will provide. Kids with laptops are a no-go IMO, they will treat it like crap because it is not their personal property, they didn't go out of their way to earn that cold hard cash to buy it.

Spoilt brats these days... <_<

Edited December 2, 2008 by Jaaassseeee

[Jay.]

i think they should be giving laptops to uni students instead

tafe students get 800 bux to buy tools and stuff

why dont we uni students get money to buy books?

[Kenneth]

i think they should be giving laptops to uni students instead

tafe students get 800 bux to buy tools and stuff

why dont we uni students get money to buy books?

uni student get hecs :)

[Jay.]

i think they should be giving laptops to uni students instead

tafe students get 800 bux to buy tools and stuff

why dont we uni students get money to buy books?

uni student get hecs :)

lol i already owe them about 16k and i got 2 years left :(

[Jaaassseeee]

i think they should be giving laptops to uni students instead

tafe students get 800 bux to buy tools and stuff

why dont we uni students get money to buy books?

because the opposition bench will do this jayce

lol

[Jay.]

she looks like the cougar sort

[Keisari]

Agreed. If there is anything that annoys me more, it's the spelling and grammar (or lack of) coming out of each progressing generation. Call me old fashioned (LOL, I'm only 21) but I hate it how kids these days write with abbreviations or spell words that look 'kewl'. It's just a mess.

It's not just kids either. I just finished a science degree, yet there is a truly frightening proportion of graduates who cannot spell, punctuate or write in an appropriately clear, simple style (which is absolutely necessary in science, let alone daily life). Really the only ones that are any good at writing are those who have also done some humanities or law.

I think that's the only good thing the 'Melbourne Model' has going for it. Undergrads will be required to develop basic skills such as this before specialising.

[mrs.sportivo]

That makes no sense whatsoever!! Let me get this straight - due to there being no more potholes on the Hume highway, the Australian public has developed more skills?

no more potholes because there was workers who were hired to FIX it = which means workers gain skills which mean employers expect to hire people who do have experience = which is why i think unemployment is down because the employers standards are too high :) you made me open my economics textbook again HAHAHA

[Keisari]

and the fact that interest rates have dropped by a further entire percent proves how much this government knows about economic policy management.

How does that 'prove' it, exactly? The reserve bank does not answer to the government, nor does the government have a terribly great influence on the overall direction of a free market economy (by definition). Incidentally, the countries that are doing the best at the moment are those which are entrenched more in protectionism.

[Leroy]

no more potholes because there was workers who were hired to FIX it = which means workers gain skills which mean employers expect to hire people who do have experience = which is why i think unemployment is down because the employers standards are too high :) you made me open my economics textbook again HAHAHA

I'm glad that you are opening the textbook - this is what this thread is all about. Good teaching and better standards, rather than blowing it all on laptops. :)

Now.... the bad bit, lol. This still makes no sense, mrs.sportivo - read the textbook again

How do they gain skills by fixing potholes? The fact that they were hired to fix the potholes would indicate they already had the skills to start with.

Likewise, why would high employer standards create low unemployment... higher standards would mean less people get hired, thus meaning higher rates of unemployment.

Unemployment has been down because for Australia to continue its current/previous (depending on how recent you want to get) rate of growth, we do not have the amount of skilled workers to make it happen - hence more jobs than people = low unemployment.

(PS - DJKOR and Keisari are clearly legends. We are dying breed, gentleman B) )

[Leroy]

and the fact that interest rates have dropped by a further entire percent proves how much this government knows about economic policy management.

How does that 'prove' it, exactly? The reserve bank does not answer to the government, nor does the government have a terribly great influence on the overall direction of a free market economy (by definition). Incidentally, the countries that are doing the best at the moment are those which are entrenched more in protectionism.

It proves it because if Rudd's 'economic stimulus package' had worked effectively, the decline in growth would have slowed so that interest rates remained the same, or went up again.

The fact the RBA continues to drop interest rates indicates that the government has not done enough to restore faith/encourage spending - therefore the RBA must lower interest rates to achieve this.

[Keisari]

That makes no sense whatsoever!! Let me get this straight - due to there being no more potholes on the Hume highway, the Australian public has developed more skills?

no more potholes because there was workers who were hired to FIX it = which means workers gain skills which mean employers expect to hire people who do have experience = which is why i think unemployment is down because the employers standards are too high :) you made me open my economics textbook again HAHAHA

What happens when there's no more potholes to fix?

[SuperDave]

That makes no sense whatsoever!! Let me get this straight - due to there being no more potholes on the Hume highway, the Australian public has developed more skills?

no more potholes because there was workers who were hired to FIX it = which means workers gain skills which mean employers expect to hire people who do have experience = which is why i think unemployment is down because the employers standards are too high :) you made me open my economics textbook again HAHAHA

What happens when there's no more potholes to fix?

Resurface it

[mrs.sportivo]

no more potholes because there was workers who were hired to FIX it = which means workers gain skills which mean employers expect to hire people who do have experience = which is why i think unemployment is down because the employers standards are too high :) you made me open my economics textbook again HAHAHA

I'm glad that you are opening the textbook - this is what this thread is all about. Good teaching and better standards, rather than blowing it all on laptops. :)

Now.... the bad bit, lol. This still makes no sense, mrs.sportivo - read the textbook again

How do they gain skills by fixing potholes? The fact that they were hired to fix the potholes would indicate they already had the skills to start with.

Likewise, why would high employer standards create low unemployment... higher standards would mean less people get hired, thus meaning higher rates of unemployment.

Unemployment has been down because for Australia to continue its current/previous (depending on how recent you want to get) rate of growth, we do not have the amount of skilled workers to make it happen - hence more jobs than people = low unemployment.

(PS - DJKOR and Keisari are clearly legends. We are dying breed, gentleman B) )

i dont think i can be anymore clearer ?

when you work, you gain skills - so workers were assigned to for E.G. the potholes they gain experience and skills dont they ?

whoops got my words mixed up with high and low LOL i knew i should have proof read it - sorry what i was meant to say was "higher standards equals to higher unemployment which is why im guessing unemployment rates are up" better ? but anyways the main reason why its up is because of the global financial crisis.

Because no one is spending which mean business' dont make much profit so why would they hire more staff tho if business' do hire or need workers they would most likely hire someone with experience rather than someone who just got out of university/high school because of the high unemployment. (which is why me and william are unemployed)

the end lols get me now ? if not stop asking because i think its getting too brief here or let someone else explain if they understand what i mean LOL gosh

[Keisari]

It proves it because if Rudd's 'economic stimulus package' had worked effectively, the decline in growth would have slowed so that interest rates remained the same, or went up again.

The fact the RBA continues to drop interest rates indicates that the government has not done enough to restore faith/encourage spending - therefore the RBA must lower interest rates to achieve this.

I do think it's rather cynical to expect that one government's stimulus package will fix it this global problem. Further, it is not the aim of these stimulus packages to expand lending as you suggest (that's the goal of lowering interest rates), it is to keep lending from seizing up in the short- to mid-term. $10b is a drop in the bucket when one considers the sheer volume of assets exposed to danger from volatile markets and the panic of those who have invested in them. If we lived in a socialist economy, I would almost certainly agree that the government had failed. However, it is simply beyond the means of ANY single government that exists in the globalised world to contain this. Governments around the world will be dishing out welfare to investors for a while to come.

From the RBA:

"Recent actions by governments and central banks to stabilise their respective financial systems have begun to take effect. Nonetheless, financial market sentiment remains fragile, as evidence accumulates of weak economic conditions in the major countries and a significant slowing in many emerging countries. Commodity prices have fallen further........ Weighing up the international and domestic developments of recent months, the Board judged that a further significant reduction in the cash rate was warranted now, to take monetary policy to an expansionary setting."

[Keisari]

I'm glad that you are opening the textbook - this is what this thread is all about. Good teaching and better standards, rather than blowing it all on laptops. :)

LOL well I certainly agree with most of that! Knowledge FTW.

To be honest, I'm still not sure where I stand with the laptops.

[Leroy]

Further, it is not the aim of these stimulus packages to expand lending as you suggest (that's the goal of lowering interest rates), it is to keep lending from seizing up in the short- to mid-term.

Not entirely correct - although a resumption of lending would be most desirable, lowering interest rates is fundamentally aimed at ensuring that people have little incentive to save their money. Any form of spending will do, whether it be mortgages or buying televisions - they all contribute to GDP.

If Rudd hadn't made the error of setting the million dollar threshold, resulting in frozen accounts to prevent bank runs, then people would be more confident to spend (or at least be able to spend if their money wasn't stuck). As it stands, people are as unsure as ever; unsure of what will happen should they place it anywhere else.

Hence the RBA needs to give people a reason to start spending again.

Edited December 2, 2008 by Leroy

[Keisari]

Not entirely correct - although a resumption of lending would be most desirable, lowering interest rates is fundamentally aimed at ensuring that people have little incentive to save it. Any form of spending will do, whether it be mortgages or buying televisions - they all contribute to GDP.

I hadn't considered that. That's certainly how I've been approaching my finances of late! Haha.

If Rudd hadn't made the error of setting the million dollar threshold, resulting in frozen accounts to prevent bank runs, then people would be more confident to spend (or at least be able to spend if their money wasn't stuck). As it stands, people are as unsure as ever; unsure of what will happen should they place it anywhere else.

Yes, administration of the guarantees was an absolute farce. If my assets were frozen, I would be withdrawing the closest possible to 100% of them at the earliest time and stashing them in the bank, in a deposit box, wherever, and I wouldn't care about copping a poor or negative return. Though as I understand it, one is required to 'apply' to withdraw assets now?

[MR22ZZ]

and the fact that interest rates have dropped by a further entire percent proves how much this government knows about economic policy management.

Actually it shows how great the Howard Government was a riding the coat-tails of the Resource boom and stifled future development in favour of wasted surplusses.

Had the Howard government actually spent some money on infrustructure, research, development and manufacture we may have had something to fall back on now that the buyers of said resources cannot afford to buy anything. Now is the perfect time for Australia to be EXPORTING goods yet we have no goods to export because in the last decade everything has been privatised, closed down and moved off shore to the point that we are actually a nation that well... does nothing.

Now, can you please explain to be what the Howard government which would have been so much better as to avoid this ineviatble readjustment in out overinflated dollar and share market?

[Leroy]

Now is the perfect time for Australia to be EXPORTING goods yet we have no goods to export because in the last decade everything has been privatised, closed down and moved off shore to the point that we are actually a nation that well... does nothing.

Do you really think that any exports we could be making now would substantially match the gains we have experienced in the last decade - ie. economic growth and relatively cheaper imports, due to a stronger Australian dollar?? (With the notable exception of 01/02 when the dollar fell just below 50c in reaction to the respective Asian and US crashes)

Now, can you please explain to be what the Howard government which would have been so much better as to avoid this ineviatble readjustment in out overinflated dollar and share market?

True, the Howard government would also be spending the surplus. But I can tell you what they WOULDN'T be doing in response:

1. The deposit guarantee would not have been set so high - in fact, before Rudd set the million dollar threshold, Turnbull suggested that it be no more than 100,000. By setting it at 100k, the majority of the 'normal' population would have been guaranteed their savings, the banks would not have had to pay as high a fee to attain that guarantee and the people with more than 100k would have been free to invest their money elsewhere in the economy, rather than having it frozen - thus not resulting in a deadweight loss to GDP.

2. They would not have been throwing 15 billion at the states in a bid for eventual federalism. I'm not against federalism per se... but laptop computers are not going to save Australian financial markets. Nor is a high speed internet project.

3. The new workplace laws would not have been implemented. Again, I can see the merit in protectionism (equity for all, etc), but it is simply not appropriate in times of financial crisis. It inevitably increases workplace costs, thus reducing efficiency, thus reducing growth in GDP. I will even wager right now that Union interference will occur soon after the legislation is officially passed - meaning a resurgence in strikes ala the mid 90's. Now that is really going to help us isnt it...

Edited December 2, 2008 by Leroy

[Simo]

Needs more Larakinism

Edited December 2, 2008 by Simo

[spillige]

we can only hope costello comes to our rescue, still think johny is king. he came into the restuerant tonite for dinner next time he comes in ill beg him to take on rudd, if he says no......ill offer him head?

p.s he never tips...........

[Kenneth]

we can only hope costello comes to our rescue, still think johny is king. he came into the restuerant tonite for dinner next time he comes in ill beg him to take on rudd, if he says no......ill offer him head?

p.s he never tips...........

stingy old man? :P :P

[Keisari]

we can only hope costello comes to our rescue, still think johny is king. he came into the restuerant tonite for dinner next time he comes in ill beg him to take on rudd, if he says no......ill offer him head?

I would rather have the economy go into recession than be 'saved' by either one of them, if it meant enduring another three years with them.

So it's not strictly true to say "we can only hope" :P

[Keisari]

True, the Howard government would also be spending the surplus. But I can tell you what they WOULDN'T be doing in response:

1. The deposit guarantee would not have been set so high - in fact, before Rudd set the million dollar threshold, Turnbull suggested that it be no more than 100,000. By setting it at 100k, the majority of the 'normal' population would have been guaranteed their savings, the banks would not have had to pay as high a fee to attain that guarantee and the people with more than 100k would have been free to invest their money elsewhere in the economy, rather than having it frozen - thus not resulting in a deadweight loss to GDP.

Speculative. You can't really say that we would be any better or worse off under them; if things were different, then things would be different. Let us not forget that Howard & co. did ride and fuel the bubble of this economic cycle, particularly through housing. Though I agree that the advice sought by the government about the guarantees is questionable.

2. They would not have been throwing 15 billion at the states in a bid for eventual federalism. I'm not against federalism per se... but laptop computers are not going to save Australian financial markets. Nor is a high speed internet project.

Australia is already federalist by law. Granted there is economic trouble, but it does not follow that some or all investment in infrastructure or education is irresponsible, or that a smaller government would respond any differently / have greater power to avert the crisis (look how the Americans are going at the moment). People with good technology skills will be essential to the economy in the coming decades (some of the academics I work with at uni have poor computing skills, which limits their productivity, application of their vast knowledge and the reliability of what they DO produce).