The government has devised an unpleasant law to compensate mortgage holders when banks fail to fully pass on interest rate cuts. In such cases, exit fees will no longer apply when customers switch to another source of money.
The banks will scream blue murder, but they can not have it both ways. If they fail to pass on a legitimate saving, then this law will prevent them locking the stable door and preventing the horse from bolting.
There is another anomaly that has been long overdue in being brought to public attention - and that is the interest rates paid on savings accounts.
The big. bad banks pay no interest on savings accounts that hold less than five hundred dollars - no interest on money held in cheque accounts - and a pitiful interest of less than one percent on savings of more than five hundred dollars.
But - if that little old lady who has loaned them her savings for years without interest has a sudden death in the family - and needs $ 6,000 for a funeral - expects them to be generous and give her a loan at a reasonable rate of interest - think again !
They will offer her a credit card attached to either Visa or Mastercard with an interest rate somewhere between 15% and 22%, depending on whether the card has a reward programme.
It is even worse for those with a substantial balance in a cheque account. Not only no interest, but hefty charges for the privilege of parking your money in their bank !
The entire money spectrum - banks, credit unions and building societies are not keen to give reasonable interest on savings accounts - simply because they have been getting away with it for years - and it is very profitable.
About time banking laws changed in favour of the little people !
Monday, 20 April 2009
Sunday, 19 April 2009
Boat people !
A growing threat to Kevin Rudd's dominance of Australian politics is the increasing flow of people smugglers arriving off Ashmore Reef.
Rudd has had a dream run in the eighteen months he has held office, despite the economic downturn. The impression is that he is a " can do " prime minister and so far he has barely put a foot wrong on many fronts.
The explosion on a refugee boat has caused panic in government ranks. A veil of silence has descended and it seems that there are desperate efforts to maintain that silence until a coronial enquiry is completed - and that will be many months away.
John Howard was criticised - but had the support of the majority of Australians - when he came down hard on people smugglers dumping paid passengers on Australian territory. The " Tampa " affair and " children overboard " hit the headlines, but when illegals were subjected to the " Pacific Solution " and processed offshore the public applauded - and stopped the arrivals in their tracks.
When Labor won office it had a different outlook. New arrivals are not automatically processed offshore and at least women and children are not locked up - but allowed to live in the community.
It was a clear signal to the people smugglers. Australia was again a soft touch. It took months to reestablish the supply lines and set up the regime, but before Christmas the first boats started to appear - and now the flow is set to sharply increase.
This could be the turning point for Rudd's popularity. The majority of Australians are opposed to illegals jumping the queue - and demanding to be allowed to settle on our shores. Most may be fleeing war and privation, but they are also people who are paying people smugglers thousands of dollars for their journey - and depriving legitimate migrants patiently waiting in refugee camps for their turn to be considered.
Another factor is the ethnic mix. The vast majority of the new arrivals are from the Middle East - and are Muslims. The Muslims we have in this country have not eased seamlessly into society and there is a perception that they seek to impose their religion on us and want unacceptable change in our social habits.
Some call our attitude racist - and others see it as a legitimate defence of our way of life. Whatever the verdict - there is no doubt that public opinion will harden against the Federal government if it fails to stop this invasion !
Threatening people smugglers with gaol may be good public relations, but it will not deter those making huge profits from the trade. If the government wants to keep on the front foot with the public it needs to act - and it needs no enquiry to understand precisely what brought that inflow to a halt last time.
Rudd needs to balance socialist principles with the facts of life - and make the first of the hard decisions that go with the job of prime minister !
Rudd has had a dream run in the eighteen months he has held office, despite the economic downturn. The impression is that he is a " can do " prime minister and so far he has barely put a foot wrong on many fronts.
The explosion on a refugee boat has caused panic in government ranks. A veil of silence has descended and it seems that there are desperate efforts to maintain that silence until a coronial enquiry is completed - and that will be many months away.
John Howard was criticised - but had the support of the majority of Australians - when he came down hard on people smugglers dumping paid passengers on Australian territory. The " Tampa " affair and " children overboard " hit the headlines, but when illegals were subjected to the " Pacific Solution " and processed offshore the public applauded - and stopped the arrivals in their tracks.
When Labor won office it had a different outlook. New arrivals are not automatically processed offshore and at least women and children are not locked up - but allowed to live in the community.
It was a clear signal to the people smugglers. Australia was again a soft touch. It took months to reestablish the supply lines and set up the regime, but before Christmas the first boats started to appear - and now the flow is set to sharply increase.
This could be the turning point for Rudd's popularity. The majority of Australians are opposed to illegals jumping the queue - and demanding to be allowed to settle on our shores. Most may be fleeing war and privation, but they are also people who are paying people smugglers thousands of dollars for their journey - and depriving legitimate migrants patiently waiting in refugee camps for their turn to be considered.
Another factor is the ethnic mix. The vast majority of the new arrivals are from the Middle East - and are Muslims. The Muslims we have in this country have not eased seamlessly into society and there is a perception that they seek to impose their religion on us and want unacceptable change in our social habits.
Some call our attitude racist - and others see it as a legitimate defence of our way of life. Whatever the verdict - there is no doubt that public opinion will harden against the Federal government if it fails to stop this invasion !
Threatening people smugglers with gaol may be good public relations, but it will not deter those making huge profits from the trade. If the government wants to keep on the front foot with the public it needs to act - and it needs no enquiry to understand precisely what brought that inflow to a halt last time.
Rudd needs to balance socialist principles with the facts of life - and make the first of the hard decisions that go with the job of prime minister !
Saturday, 18 April 2009
Steel - and carbon !
Two decisions seem to be running in tandem in Australia at present. How to save the steel industry - and whether to press ahead with a " cap and trade " carbon reduction scheme.
One school of thought demands that Australian steel be used in major infrastructure projects - and yet to exclude others would clearly be embracing " protectionism " - something we are told brought on the " Great Depression " of the 1930's.
The problem is defining " fair competition ". Australian steel can compete on a level playing field, but in the present economic climate there is every chance that other countries will try dumping surplus production on world markets at cost - and sometimes even below cost.
But - in all fairness - wouldn't our steel industry go after a world order on similar terms if the opportunity offered ?
Our proposed " cap and trade " carbon reduction scheme has degenerated into little more than a " dog's breakfast " !
The guy who the government chose to conduct an enquiry - Professor Ross Garnaut - is now having second thoughts and thinks we might be wise to defer it to a later time.
Garnaut suggested a higher target. The government cut that in half - and yet the Greenies are screaming for an impossible level that would be economic suicide if implemented. There is absolutely no consensus on a carbon reduction level - and that seems a clear recipe for a bad decision !
There is an old adage that says - " When in doubt - don't ! "
The best plan would be to defer any carbon decision for twelve months - when the world economic picture will be clearer !
And without embracing protectionism - make sure the present anti dumping legislation on our books is rigorously applied and enforced.
With a bit of luck and a following breeze - we might survive and reach better times !
One school of thought demands that Australian steel be used in major infrastructure projects - and yet to exclude others would clearly be embracing " protectionism " - something we are told brought on the " Great Depression " of the 1930's.
The problem is defining " fair competition ". Australian steel can compete on a level playing field, but in the present economic climate there is every chance that other countries will try dumping surplus production on world markets at cost - and sometimes even below cost.
But - in all fairness - wouldn't our steel industry go after a world order on similar terms if the opportunity offered ?
Our proposed " cap and trade " carbon reduction scheme has degenerated into little more than a " dog's breakfast " !
The guy who the government chose to conduct an enquiry - Professor Ross Garnaut - is now having second thoughts and thinks we might be wise to defer it to a later time.
Garnaut suggested a higher target. The government cut that in half - and yet the Greenies are screaming for an impossible level that would be economic suicide if implemented. There is absolutely no consensus on a carbon reduction level - and that seems a clear recipe for a bad decision !
There is an old adage that says - " When in doubt - don't ! "
The best plan would be to defer any carbon decision for twelve months - when the world economic picture will be clearer !
And without embracing protectionism - make sure the present anti dumping legislation on our books is rigorously applied and enforced.
With a bit of luck and a following breeze - we might survive and reach better times !
Friday, 17 April 2009
Pirates !
Events off the coast of Africa are reaching a more serious stage. Pirates from Somalia have been successful in seizing ships and extracting huge ransoms for their release, but now the first deaths have occurred.
The Americans killed pirates threatening to kill one of their nationals, and the French rescued a yacht crew with the death of an innocent yachtsman - and the pirates who had seized the yacht.
It is a crucial turning point. For months a stalemate has ensured. The pirates have been scrupulously careful not to kill or injure captive crews - and the ransoms have been forthcoming precisely as demanded.
Now there is almost certainty that the pirates will move the game up a notch. Already an attempt was made to destroy - not capture - an American ship. Clearly a message from the pirates that they will not tolerate rescue attempts that kill their people !
These pirates are also rapidly increasing in sophistication. They are now using " mother ships " as a base to extend their ability to operate further from land, and the loot raised from ransoms is being used to buy faster attack boats and more sophisticated weapons.
There is no government in Somalia. The state descended into chaos and in effect the pirate gangs are a de facto government. If so, this is a government at war with the rest of the world !
If the government of a country permitted attacks on maritime trade by an unofficial navy there would be a reaction from the rest of the world. There would be a declaration of war and that country would come under attack.
That is precisely what is now needed against these pirates. There is no reason why the rest of the world should not conduct unrestricted war against Somalia - including destroying any vessels of any type moving from it's waters and laying waste to port and supply facilities serving these vessels.
Piracy was once the scourge of the seas. It almost disappeared in recent times and it must not be allowed to resurrect and destroy world trade. If Somalia is allowed to run a pirate kingdom unchecked - how long before other countries under financial stress follow suit ?
The decision is one of who rules the waves - the navies of the world - or pirates !
The Americans killed pirates threatening to kill one of their nationals, and the French rescued a yacht crew with the death of an innocent yachtsman - and the pirates who had seized the yacht.
It is a crucial turning point. For months a stalemate has ensured. The pirates have been scrupulously careful not to kill or injure captive crews - and the ransoms have been forthcoming precisely as demanded.
Now there is almost certainty that the pirates will move the game up a notch. Already an attempt was made to destroy - not capture - an American ship. Clearly a message from the pirates that they will not tolerate rescue attempts that kill their people !
These pirates are also rapidly increasing in sophistication. They are now using " mother ships " as a base to extend their ability to operate further from land, and the loot raised from ransoms is being used to buy faster attack boats and more sophisticated weapons.
There is no government in Somalia. The state descended into chaos and in effect the pirate gangs are a de facto government. If so, this is a government at war with the rest of the world !
If the government of a country permitted attacks on maritime trade by an unofficial navy there would be a reaction from the rest of the world. There would be a declaration of war and that country would come under attack.
That is precisely what is now needed against these pirates. There is no reason why the rest of the world should not conduct unrestricted war against Somalia - including destroying any vessels of any type moving from it's waters and laying waste to port and supply facilities serving these vessels.
Piracy was once the scourge of the seas. It almost disappeared in recent times and it must not be allowed to resurrect and destroy world trade. If Somalia is allowed to run a pirate kingdom unchecked - how long before other countries under financial stress follow suit ?
The decision is one of who rules the waves - the navies of the world - or pirates !
Thursday, 16 April 2009
The meaning of words !
The states are trying to put together common legislation to smash criminal motorcycle gangs. It is proposed that being a member of such a gang be an offence punishable by imprisonment, and that gang members be prohibited from serving as an executive of any legal business to prevent them using that front for money laundering.
This sounds similar to the American RICO laws, but those with concern that our civil liberties may become casualties of too much vigor are right to be alarmed.
It all depends on how those laws are worded - and who interprets those words !
Fortunately, all our laws are subject to judicial interpretation. Whatever laws are passed by parliament are sure to be challenged in the courts - and that challenge may go all the way to the High court if a significant issue is involved.
The problem is the use such laws can be put to !
What constitutes a " gang " ? Is it two or more people ? The union movement might ponder how it could be interpreted. What is the definition between a " gang ", a " club " and a " union " ?
Does it mean any person convicted - or just accused - of a crime could become ineligible to serve as an executive in a family company ?
With ill will, could draconian laws intended to thwart an evil in our midst be used by a later government to persecute political enemies ?
We certainly have a crime problem with criminal motorcycle gangs, but in trying to bring the law into focus could we create a new monster that would reduce civil law protection ?
By all means strengthen the law - but do so with caution and with the full scrutiny of how these amendments will be used by the law enforcement agencies.
It is a case of the old adage - " Be careful what you wish for ! "
This sounds similar to the American RICO laws, but those with concern that our civil liberties may become casualties of too much vigor are right to be alarmed.
It all depends on how those laws are worded - and who interprets those words !
Fortunately, all our laws are subject to judicial interpretation. Whatever laws are passed by parliament are sure to be challenged in the courts - and that challenge may go all the way to the High court if a significant issue is involved.
The problem is the use such laws can be put to !
What constitutes a " gang " ? Is it two or more people ? The union movement might ponder how it could be interpreted. What is the definition between a " gang ", a " club " and a " union " ?
Does it mean any person convicted - or just accused - of a crime could become ineligible to serve as an executive in a family company ?
With ill will, could draconian laws intended to thwart an evil in our midst be used by a later government to persecute political enemies ?
We certainly have a crime problem with criminal motorcycle gangs, but in trying to bring the law into focus could we create a new monster that would reduce civil law protection ?
By all means strengthen the law - but do so with caution and with the full scrutiny of how these amendments will be used by the law enforcement agencies.
It is a case of the old adage - " Be careful what you wish for ! "
Wednesday, 15 April 2009
Nanotechnology.
Over a century ago asbestos was hailed as the wonder material. It was a very effective heat insulant and the ideal material for car brake linings.
Unfortunately it also killed people !
Now we are entering a new age with nanotechnology.
This is a science where incredibly small particles - as small as one tenth of a human hair - can be manipulated to perform functions that were not previously possible. They are finding commercial use in sun screens and many cosmetics.
Questions are now being asked about their safety. It is possible that such tiny fibres floating free could be as damaging as asbestos fibres, and we certainly don't want another episode of an unrecognised killer decimating thousands of people because of public apathy.
Some people have another concern about nanotechnology. It is thought that particles can be taught to behave in certain patterns by a " herd effect " syndrome. This is as basic as turning left or right - acting as a switch - in electronic applications.
Some see this as the first basic of teaching non living matter to think !
The problem with such a concept in many minds is the inability to limit the range of thinking in non-human matter - and just where that could lead us.
There is a chance that nanotechnology may open up whole new worlds of science, but we should approach with caution - and certainly the first requirement should be to ascertain what health risks are present.
A repeat of the asbestos disaster would be a preventable tragedy !
Unfortunately it also killed people !
Now we are entering a new age with nanotechnology.
This is a science where incredibly small particles - as small as one tenth of a human hair - can be manipulated to perform functions that were not previously possible. They are finding commercial use in sun screens and many cosmetics.
Questions are now being asked about their safety. It is possible that such tiny fibres floating free could be as damaging as asbestos fibres, and we certainly don't want another episode of an unrecognised killer decimating thousands of people because of public apathy.
Some people have another concern about nanotechnology. It is thought that particles can be taught to behave in certain patterns by a " herd effect " syndrome. This is as basic as turning left or right - acting as a switch - in electronic applications.
Some see this as the first basic of teaching non living matter to think !
The problem with such a concept in many minds is the inability to limit the range of thinking in non-human matter - and just where that could lead us.
There is a chance that nanotechnology may open up whole new worlds of science, but we should approach with caution - and certainly the first requirement should be to ascertain what health risks are present.
A repeat of the asbestos disaster would be a preventable tragedy !
Tuesday, 14 April 2009
The " Alcohol " question !
The Federal government is under pressure to adopt either or both of two approaches on the consumption of alcohol by young people.
One school of though suggests hiking the price to restrict access and the other wants the legal drinking age raised from eighteen to twenty-one.
There is no doubt that we have an alcohol problem and that binge drinking by young people is both a source of danger and a health hazard. The big unanswered question is why the proponents think either of these options would bring about change ?
Twenty-one used to be the legal drinking age - until the Vietnam war raised an interesting question.
Why was it legal to conscript a young man on his eighteenth birthday, hand him a gun and a uniform - and sent him away to war, and at the same time insist that he was not mature enough to either have a drink or vote for an elected representative in government ?
The answer to that was to reduce the majority age to eighteen.
The price hike suggestion is nothing more than a opportunistic tax grab. It would be a collective punishment for the overwhelming majority of adult drinkers who do not abuse alcohol under the thinly disguised cover of righting a social wrong.
The suggestion of increasing the legal age to drink alcohol to twenty-one would simply introduce a new offence for our badly over worked police force. If they can not stop young people smoking marijuana, what makes the authorities think they would have any more success banning alcohol ?
There is a strange lure to many people when anything is banned. Price is not a deterrent because if something is out of reach then illegal means - and that often means stealing - becomes the answer to it's provision.
Both of the suggested options would bring smiles to the faces of the church people and those who profess to be so called " experts ", but in reality we already have existing laws that are being widely ignored.
Drinking alcohol to excess seems to be a right of passage to adulthood for young people. It has always been so in the past - and there is little chance that it will change in the future - whatever unenforceable laws pass through the parliament.
There will be casualties and alcohol will ruin some lives, but that is simply the world we live in - and most people out live their wild years and go on to become respectable citizens.
Attempts to change nature are invariably a failure !
One school of though suggests hiking the price to restrict access and the other wants the legal drinking age raised from eighteen to twenty-one.
There is no doubt that we have an alcohol problem and that binge drinking by young people is both a source of danger and a health hazard. The big unanswered question is why the proponents think either of these options would bring about change ?
Twenty-one used to be the legal drinking age - until the Vietnam war raised an interesting question.
Why was it legal to conscript a young man on his eighteenth birthday, hand him a gun and a uniform - and sent him away to war, and at the same time insist that he was not mature enough to either have a drink or vote for an elected representative in government ?
The answer to that was to reduce the majority age to eighteen.
The price hike suggestion is nothing more than a opportunistic tax grab. It would be a collective punishment for the overwhelming majority of adult drinkers who do not abuse alcohol under the thinly disguised cover of righting a social wrong.
The suggestion of increasing the legal age to drink alcohol to twenty-one would simply introduce a new offence for our badly over worked police force. If they can not stop young people smoking marijuana, what makes the authorities think they would have any more success banning alcohol ?
There is a strange lure to many people when anything is banned. Price is not a deterrent because if something is out of reach then illegal means - and that often means stealing - becomes the answer to it's provision.
Both of the suggested options would bring smiles to the faces of the church people and those who profess to be so called " experts ", but in reality we already have existing laws that are being widely ignored.
Drinking alcohol to excess seems to be a right of passage to adulthood for young people. It has always been so in the past - and there is little chance that it will change in the future - whatever unenforceable laws pass through the parliament.
There will be casualties and alcohol will ruin some lives, but that is simply the world we live in - and most people out live their wild years and go on to become respectable citizens.
Attempts to change nature are invariably a failure !
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)