Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
SacrificialNewt

Clive Palmer

Recommended Posts

Posted (edited)

Don’t assume I only own one business. I operate one business. I’m also a partner in a restaurant in Newtown and a third-owner of a coffee cart outside a gym.

 

Don’t assume I’m enamoured with the Libs. They’re myopic and have no plan for anything except tax cuts. The problem is that Labor is blind, deaf, dumb and stupid. Their plans appear to have no basis in reality and I can’t see a way in which their stated economic benefits pan out.

 

You May believe that Libs represent the top 1%. I see that Labor always appeals to the 10% who shirk responsibility for everything and represent everything that is stereotypically true about the dole bludging bogan.

1 hour ago, SacrificialNewt said:

 

There needs to be a protocol, and if you're subject to the paperwork and red tape like everyone else, then that's just life. 

 

So are convenience stores shutting down as big business moves in? That’s “just life”, right?

 

I get that there needs to be a protocol. The problem is there was one (too lax). Then they became fascists (knee jerk the other way) and now they’re relaxing again.

Edited by Leonid

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
49 minutes ago, Leonid said:

 

You May believe that Libs represent the top 1%. I see that Labor always appeals to the 10% who shirk responsibility for everything and represent everything that is stereotypically true about the dole bludging bogan.

 

 

so pandering to a minority is a reason for voting for either extreme ?

 

don't assume i'm a fan of labor, just because i am no fan of the libs

 

 

your view that labor is blind, deaf, dumb and stupid suggests you have the same myopia politically that you pan the libs for demonstrating

 

both major parties have glaring deficiencies, but i would rather see the economy (whatever that is) "mismanaged" by team red than team blue; and i don't believe the libs have any pedigree  for their mantra of "better managers" - thet simply choose their benefactors such that they hold appeal to the "haves"

 

 

there's a letter in the smh today stating

If Labor governments are so good, Bob and Paul, why do we continue to elect Liberal governments?

Are the people who live in Liberal-held electorates not very smart?

 

to which the obvious rejoinder is, that's not as pertinent as the fact that they are very privileged, or they couldn't afford the location

 

thinking that drowning people choose to be held under water is a liberal fantasy

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I did mention it in another thread but I recently read "Swimming with Sharks" on the last big banking collapse. A sobering look at why banks need to be better controlled.

 

The banks have a very cavalier attitude to loans. According to a friend who is a bank manager the reporting of bank profits, pretty much always huge, and the limits they place on manager authorisations, too high, is what creates the situation and the extra hoop jumping doesn't really change much.

 

Cheers

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

The banks were lending out money to everyone like crazy driving up the credit bubble which inflated the housing market and now when you can't get cheap debt, the housing bubble is imploding. The government and RBA knew this but the day of reckoning when all that debt is going to explode in our faces is coming. The LNP would say ALP would wreck the housing market but in reality it's on fire and fuse is lit.

Edited by Jeruselem
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, scruffy1 said:

your view that labor is blind, deaf, dumb and stupid suggests you have the same myopia politically that you pan the libs for demonstrating

 

Nope, it’s just a reflection of the pretty much self-evident fact that Labor would be the default party of government if they were socially progressive, disassociated from the union movement and economically sane.

 

At a guess, I reckon 80% of Australians would be onboard with Labor plans and flights of fantasy if the money was in the kitty. But Labor have such a well-deserved reputation for pissing money up walls with fuck all to show for it except a shot-off foot, that they can’t hold government. That’s why the Coalition is the most electorally successful party since their formation. By far.

 

The Libs may pander to the 1% but those 1% are useful. When Labor hands more money to unproductive bogans in the bottom 10% to make them more unproductive (sit-down money) that is no better. 

 

The sane middle may not like the 1%. They don’t like bogans living on their dime either.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

🙂

 

It's a little hard for the man in the street to have much trust in the LNP after the musical chairs at the top that has been the hallmark of this term of government Leo. Most people do not have much of a grasp on the nuances of government or the economy, all they really care about is how much things cost versus how much they are paid on any average day. When a lot of them, even with the election trail advertising do not actually know the name of today's PM, which is true, several polls have shown it, they are as likely to vote Palmer just because his ads are there all the time and his empty promises sound nice.

 

I as I mentioned never do vote either major party but I don't think of labor as badly as you do. Probably because of Paul Keating who as treasurer under Hawke was blunt about what needed to be done to correct the mess left by the previous government and proved it.

 

Unfortunately there is no one of that calibre in Canberra at the moment, so keeping the buggers honest via strong tier two parties with sensible policies, unlike Palmer or Hanson, is the best way to vote at the moment.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well if you can find me a party that has a socially progressive outlook, tempered by fiscal conservatism and not given to knee-jerk flights of fancy, let me know.

 

In the meantime I haven’t had time to consider who I’m voting FOR because all I’m thinking about is how I don’t know whether to put the competent communists or the incompetent Nazis last.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

in the world of black and white, it's enough to make your hair go grey

 

your idea of extremist choices is laughable, but that's okay

 

 

labor will get in, do some stuff, and eventually the libs will get back in because the voters get sick of the stuff being done, and the liberals will allude to fixing the balance of payments, and possibly do so... on their past record, they haven't ever actually done so except during the mining boom, but that's irrelevant

 

they say they are good management, and who would believe a bunch of communists ?  certainly not a citizen from an ex-communist country with political ptsd

 

 

 

Edited by scruffy1
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It’s not PTSD. It’s vaccination.

 

The only known cure for the allure of communism is communism. Like cancer in terrorists it’s both a problem and a solution.

 

Either way, as long as the competent Communists or the incompetent Nazis don’t hold balance of power, I think we’ll all be safe. Even if old mate Clive pulls the strings. He’s nuts, but he’s not Final Solution/Smash Capitalism nuts.

 

Maybe I’ll just draw a gigantic dick on the ballot paper but Australia’s most reliable news source - the Betoota Advocate - says that’s automatically counted as a vote for The Greens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

amen to a minority government

 

don't draw a dick; you need to go for a generous set o tackle so that you message is "nothing satisfies like a well hung parliament"

 

 

 

locally, a giant dick would be a clear vote for abbott

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Shorten and his team fold to the demands of big biz perhaps those voting for ideals will see some reality ... I'm usually a Labor supporter .

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

So are convenience stores shutting down as big business moves in? That’s “just life”, right?

 

Not at all. Get the big businesses to share their tax responsibilities fairly and keep on top of anti-competitive laws which could enforce companies to not sell their products at cost or less in close proximity to smaller businesses. I know that goes completely against your laissez-faire beliefs.

 

 

10 hours ago, Leonid said:

 

I get that there needs to be a protocol. The problem is there was one (too lax). Then they became fascists (knee jerk the other way) and now they’re relaxing again.

 

To be fair, I've never applied for an overdraft so I don't know everything involved. However, if you were able to get one then it was merely a PITA for you and just a first wold problem.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Look, I'm going to help you out because clearly you know next to nothing about business.

 

With very few exceptions, the highest cost in an Australian business is labour. As you get bigger, you can realise cost benefits. As such, a bigger business can generally do more with less people.

 

 

In addition, bigger businesses can make more money because they offer more services. Frankly, the local butcher doesn't have better meat than the Woolies next door. So I could go to the butcher, or I could go to Woolies that has what I need meat-wise + has everything else.

 

 

 

In terms of anti-competitive laws... I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it is exceedingly possible to use your market power to lower your costs and IT'S NOT ILLEGAL! How's this work?

 

Well... imagine you're a big supermarket chain that has x visitors. You got to supplier y and tell them "Hey, we'd like your product front and centre as people enter the store and when they leave. What's that worth to you?".

 

Supplier y thinks for a second and figures their 30% margin is compromiseable for a volume-of-sales increase and drop their margins to 20%. You mark it up 5% on top of that. You're below the cost level a small business can sell that product at and you've broken no laws because negotiating with your suppliers is not (and should never be) illegal.

 

 

 

Now since we're on convenience stores and such, maybe you need a heads up... 

 

Westfarmers (which owns Coles) paid 30% effective tax rate in 2018 and 29.97% in 2017. 

Woolies paid 30.3% effective tax rate in 2018 and 29.6% in 2017

 

Do they minimise their profits and have armies of accountants looking for loopholes? Course they do - see first paragraph of my reply - getting bigger means more profit which means you can invest more into profit-making. But by-the-by, as if trying to find a way to pay less tax is (a) not the most Australian thing everyone does, and (b) all the methods used are as available to small businesses as they are to big businesses?

 

35 minutes ago, SacrificialNewt said:

However, if you were able to get one then it was merely a PITA for you and just a first wold problem.

 

I'll help you out there too. From what I'm told, about 60% of Aussie small businesses use overdrafts to smooth out cash flow.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

thinking that drowning people choose to be held under water is a liberal fantasy

 

hmm... didnt have a hand in that GetUp! ad by any chance did you? :P

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

no, though i loved the line "we bleached the barrier reef because it's okay to be white"

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Heh,

 

a lot of small businesses do use overdraft, to the benefit of the banks but why ? Because customers so often do not pay their bills on time. If you are a small business that doesn't work on COD but on invoice you are pretty much constantly chasing payment and the worst offenders are usually government departments.

 

I'd vote for any party that would give government accounts departments a big shake-up but it never comes up as a policy issue.

 

Cheers

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/05/2019 at 2:02 PM, eveln said:

how come Clive was able to set up this charity and get away with it ? Somebody musta let him ...

Get away with which bit?  It's not that hard to set up a charity.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 08/05/2019 at 7:37 PM, eveln said:

People are ready to back the major party of their choice cos well they figure it's the "devil you know" perhaps ... nfi ... but try an Independant ? Ooooo no  can't do that ! ...I wouldn't and don't trust either Shorten or Morrison like EVAR DUDE  at least backing an Independent might make either Shorten or Morrison work more for their ( our ) money. And whilst Mikaelia Cash is allowed to walk the corridors of Parliament unsullied, I want them all to work pretty bloody hard for our money

Palmer isn't an independent.

 

15 hours ago, SacrificialNewt said:

Not at all. Get the big businesses to share their tax responsibilities fairly and keep on top of anti-competitive laws which could enforce companies to not sell their products at cost or less in close proximity to smaller businesses. I know that goes completely against your laissez-faire beliefs.

Does that apply to small companies, too?  Like, no more loss-leading specials to get people in the door for your small local?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Clive cares only about one thing, well two .. him and his bank balances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, Nich... said:

Palmer isn't an independent.

 

Didn't think I said any different.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
53 minutes ago, Nich... said:

Get away with which bit?  

Any of it. It's not like Clive is an obscure being. His infamy is rather on the public radar

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)
15 hours ago, Leonid said:

In terms of anti-competitive laws... I'm not sure if you're aware of this, but it is exceedingly possible to use your market power to lower your costs and IT'S NOT ILLEGAL! How's this work?

 

 

Well... imagine you're a big supermarket chain that has x visitors. You got to supplier y and tell them "Hey, we'd like your product front and centre as people enter the store and when they leave. What's that worth to you?".

 

Supplier y thinks for a second and figures their 30% margin is compromiseable for a volume-of-sales increase and drop their margins to 20%. You mark it up 5% on top of that. You're below the cost level a small business can sell that product at and you've broken no laws because negotiating with your suppliers is not (and should never be) illegal.

 

"While selling goods at a below-cost price is usually okay, it may be illegal if it is done for the purpose of eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor. This is known as predatory pricing. Whether the law has been broken will depend on a number of factors, such as how long the goods were sold below cost and how much market power the seller has."

 

this is an area of the ACL (section 46) that has been under continual revision for years, and is a matter of fierce debate.  you can read speeches on the most recent amendments from various pollies here.

 

the Competition and Consumer Amendment (Misuse of Market Power) Act was introduced in 2017. 

 

     Section 46 - Misuse of market power

    (1) A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market must not engage in conduct that has the purpose, or has or is likely to have the effect, of substantially lessening competition...

 

...which continues in the same non-specific vein that is in some ways more and less powerful than the preceding provision:

 

     Competition and Consumer Act 2010 (Cth)

     (1) A corporation that has a substantial degree of power in a market shall not take advantage of that power in that or any other market for the purpose of:

         (a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market;

         (b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or

         (c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.

     (1AAA) If a corporation supplies goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the corporation of supplying the goods or services, the corporation may contravene subsection (1)

                  even if the corporation cannot, and might not ever be able to, recoup losses incurred by supplying the goods or services.

     (1AA) A corporation that has a substantial share of a market must not supply, or offer to supply, goods or services for a sustained period at a price that is less than the relevant cost to the corporation of supplying such goods or services, for the purpose of:

         (a) eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor of the corporation or of a body corporate that is related to the corporation in that or any other market; or

         (b) preventing the entry of a person into that or any other market; or

         (c) deterring or preventing a person from engaging in competitive conduct in that or any other market.

 

i suppose your point is that the supermarket enjoys a loophole in not operating at a loss, although the sorts of practices youve described could potentially fall afoul of the current law — even if there will always be shenanigans which are anti-competitive and remain legal by default of them being prohibitively difficult to prove illegal in practice — whether or not by design of the law.  

 

in any case, what is or isnt currently "legal" is so according to legislation riddled with biases that mark clear points of difference between Liberal and Labor and as such does not amount to an objective measure of who is "right".

 

Edited by @~thehung
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
29 minutes ago, @~thehung said:

While selling goods at a below-cost price is usually okay, it may be illegal if it is done for the purpose of eliminating or substantially damaging a competitor. This is known as predatory pricing. Whether the law has been broken will depend on a number of factors, such as how long the goods were sold below cost and how much market power the seller has."

 

Look... uh... do me the favour of reading what I wrote first.

 

I didn’t write about predatory pricing. I wrote about the simple self-evident fact that negotiating with suppliers on the basis of volume sales and market power is not illegal and is not below-price.

 

We are talking at cross purposes. I’m explaining to you that natural competition favours big business who can run smaller margins (while still making money) on the same products that smaller competitors can’t even buy at that price.

 

You’re talking about the illegal practice of predatory pricing which is exceedingly rare because nobody actually needs to go that far.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
8 minutes ago, Leonid said:

Look... uh... do me the favour of reading what I wrote first.

 

right back at ya.  its potential misuse of market power, even if nothing would ever or could ever be done about it in most contexts.  (its the vibe of the thing).  and whilst "below the cost level a small business can sell that product at" could just mean margins too small to be feasible for the little guy irrespective of price competition, severe undercutting couldve easily been implied.

 

but sure, the specifics of this example aside, many aspects of a free market = law of the jungle, which is how it should be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, eveln said:

Didn't think I said any different.

Sure, that was aimed at Rybags, whom you quoted.

 

1 hour ago, eveln said:

Any of it. It's not like Clive is an obscure being. His infamy is rather on the public radar

What's 'getting away with it'?  Like, when people just assumed he was doing what he was meant to, until someone looked into it and then suddenly the charity was totally rebranded to be non-Aboriginal, and the media and its consumers has let it fall by the wayside of the electoral trail? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×