OT: Current Affairs and Politics

[Poupou Escobar]

Yet in the context of this discussion, it is only the "big employers" that would be remotely capable of offering a private sector alternative to the building of such a huge piece of infrastructure.

No there's plenty of project management companies that would do it with subcontractors.

My view is that there's a point where any given organisation reaches a size whereby there becomes to many layers in order to manage it, and therefore becomes inefficient and unresponsive, government being the generally the largest of organisations, is not immune to this, nor is any corporate behemoth.

Of course there would always be exceptions, but basically the larger the organisation, the more internally f**ked it becomes.

Agreed

 

[Bandwagon]

No there's plenty of project management companies that would do it with subcontractors.

The nature by which they engage labour in order to profit is a rather pointless splitting of hairs.

At any rate I'd still wager a project management company with the resources to manage this kind of project would still be a pretty "big employer".

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The nature by which they engage labour in order to profit is a rather pointless splitting of hairs.

Well it's not, because they pass much of the risk along to the subbies. This plus their diversified business models means they don't need bailouts.

At any rate I'd still wager a project management company with the resources to manage this kind of project would still be a pretty "big employer".

They are, but unlike banks and airlines they aren't overexposed to one industry, and their employees aren't clustered in one country.

 

[hindy111]

Well the key evidence that's missing is how much better or cheaper it could actually have been under the circumstances. But being government (rather than just the LNP) we should have a fair idea that it cost a lot more than it needed to.

Most the people installing the crap work for peanuts. I looked into it and turned my nose up. I wasnt going to work that hard for what they where paid per day on an install.

The issue was promising it to every house. Some properties the cost would be over 10k due to driveways.

 

[hindy111]

No there's plenty of project management companies that would do it with subcontractors.

Agreed

I know a few companies who took on sections of installs and pulled out halfway through cause losing money.

 

[Twizzle]

There will always be exceptions to a general statement like that.

Quiet a few need bailing out especially when they are on fixed price contract and govt jobs always go over budget and time frames, so they stick their hand out at the end of the project for more money.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Yep and the government always pays because they're terrified of bad press.

 

[Twizzle]

Yep and the government always pays because they're terrified of bad press.

nothing to do with bad press in my experience

they always pay, agreed, but the so called project managers they employ who could never survive in private enterprise, do not have the ability to arbitrate any contract variations so its easier to pay overs

 

[Hollywood Jesus]

In the middle of the Apocalypse I got 1.2Mb/s yesterday.

Is it really that bad?

I'm still at work so not seeing what it's like with the work-from-home situation during the week. Is there is drop in speeds?

 

[hindy111]

In the middle of the Apocalypse I got 1.2Mb/s yesterday.

Is it really that bad?

I'm still at work so not seeing what it's like with the work-from-home situation during the week. Is there is drop in speeds?

Yes woefull...
I get up to 120 on mobile data and usualy atleast above 30.

 

[Avenger]

$1500 a fortnight for 6 million workers for 6 months at a cost of $6B. Ballsy move.
Good on him. f**k the economy, save your people.

 

[hindy111]

$1500 a fortnight for 6 million workers for 6 months at a cost of $6B. Ballsy move.
Good on him. f**k the economy, save your people.

Wasn't it 130 billion

 

[Poupou Escobar]

$1500 a fortnight for 6 million workers for 6 months at a cost of $6B. Ballsy move.
Good on him. f**k the economy, save your people.

This is what surpluses are for.

 

[Bandwagon]

This is what surpluses are for.

So far the packages announced are cumulatively being valued at 330 billion.

Forecast net debt for 19-20 as per the pre-election budget is 361 billion.

https://budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs6.pdf

Now that's not taking into account the hit to revenue we'll see over the March and June quarters.

But apparently ( or so I've been told ) we need a surplus to enable us to respond to economic crisis?

Isn't it grand how reality so often flies in the face of ideologically based political spin.

 

[Bandwagon]

$1500 a fortnight for 6 million workers for 6 months at a cost of $6B. Ballsy move.
Good on him. f**k the economy, save your people.

Do you think maybe putting money in peoples pockets who might otherwise have f**k all might well be good for the economy?

Don't get me wrong, it's a good move, but it isn't being done at the expense of the economy, it's being done to save it

 

[Poupou Escobar]

So far the packages announced are cumulatively being valued at 330 billion.

Forecast net debt for 19-20 as per the pre-election budget is 361 billion.

https://budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs6.pdf

Now that's not taking into account the hit to revenue we'll see over the March and June quarters.

But apparently ( or so I've been told ) we need a surplus to enable us to respond to economic crisis?

Isn't it grand how reality so often flies in the face of ideologically based political spin.

You don't need a surplus, but it would've been better if we had one. Now is the time for Government spending, and more debt is going to hurt.

 

[Gary Gutful]

So far the packages announced are cumulatively being valued at 330 billion.

Forecast net debt for 19-20 as per the pre-election budget is 361 billion.

https://budget.gov.au/2019-20/content/bp1/download/bp1_bs6.pdf

Now that's not taking into account the hit to revenue we'll see over the March and June quarters.

But apparently ( or so I've been told ) we need a surplus to enable us to respond to economic crisis?

Isn't it grand how reality so often flies in the face of ideologically based political spin.

The political obsession with a surplus has been really unhelpful over the last 10-15 years. Hopefully it becomes a thing of the past.

 

[Gronk]

You don't need a surplus, but it would've been better if we had one. Now is the time for Government spending, and more debt is going to hurt.

Most punters out there actually think that the government having a budget surplus means that we are no longer in debt. Whereas really just means for the financial year receipts are greater than expenditure. So in effect we can start arresting debt.

Meanwhile debt has climbed significantly since the GFC. I am not against debt, but like the players vs the NRL right now, you'd like to know where all the cash has gone.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Once voters get an appetite for debt-fuelled government spending it's difficult to arrest the rot.

 

[Gary Gutful]

There better be a Gary payout in amongst all these COVID-19 handouts. How else am I going to buy more durries?