Does Anyone remember what it was Like to live under a federal Labour Government???

Question

Intrest rates were 21%...Unemployment was at all time higns...Unions ran the country...And our national debt was the laughing stock of the free world...The resession we had to have...Unemployments benifits were abused, Our living standards were far from what they are today...You werent rewarded for working harder...Income taxes were higher...Our nations exportors were ham strung by unions...Dont send our country back 20 years...Remember the past if you cant look it up...

Answer 1

yeah pensioners on tv bitching about eating pal dog food thats labour for you

Answer 2

What I can remember is that labor unions built this country, although I am not a big fan of them. I don't agree with all of the money they take out of peoples' paychecks, and it's basically for nothing. They can't guarantee jobs.
Our economy IS the laughing stock right now and problably at its lowest it has ever been.
Jobs aren't as plentiful as the Labor Dept. and this Administration would like you to believe. Service jobs should not count as making a living, because they are so poorly paid.
Gas prices are at the highest they have ever been, many of our Constitutional rights have been terminated using 9/11 as an excuse.
We get harassed at airports, can't fly with certain everyday items, told to take our shoes off, and delayed sometimes for more than two hours.
Also, we ARE in a recession, but no one wants to admit it.
And we are the brokest country, quickly gaining a third world title. China will eke out the U.S. next year as the richest country in the world.
And yes, people were rewarded for working harder. With today's wages, people are slaves.
I believe life was better then-unions or not.

Answer 3

I just turned 50 last month so I can remember back to when Whitlam was elected. " Gough is God" people used to say. Three years later he got tossed out by those same people
( don't jump up and down - he was kicked out by Kerr but lost a democratic election after that). Although I was too young to vote, I certainly remember 16 and 17 percent interest rates. Deja vu during the Hawke and Keating years. Will Rudd and his team take us down the same path? Will the unions get control again? I don't know and neither does anyone else but I hope not.

Answer 4

Yes I certainly do I also remember living under Malcolm Fraser and I also remember Paul Keatings economic policies that set Australia on the road to recovery.

I also remember the last 12 years introduction of GST ,privatization of our major companies,deregulation of the Aussie film and TV industries , the booming mineral and gas in the north of my state WA, the water debacle, the new IR laws but most of all I remember we use to be a country of fair go now we are a country that blindly follows USA in everything even an illegal war.

Its easy to manipulate the unemployment figures you just make all the kids stay at school till year 12 then you place them in tafe.
We have now become a nation of educated idiots who need to import skilled labour because we don't have any apprentices to fill these places.

Yes I remember even though interest rates were high we still could afford to buy house on one wage so I could raise my children and I could also afford to put petrol in my car.

Answer 5

I remember what it was like to live under a state Liberal government as well, I remember watching 15000 jobs go in the Latrobe Valley I remember how John Howard has avoided the Issue even till last week when an answer to joe hockey got violated over this issue I could not vote for the Liberals with a clear conscience hows that for memory

Answer 6

i think of human beings affiliate Gordon Brown with each and every of the Labour mess ups. as a remember of actuality the social gathering itself is the problem and is hated, no longer Gordon Brown. he's in basic terms purely a small component of the equation. No offence however the faster Labour is long previous the extra applicable. and alter of management is in basic terms too previous due at this element in time, because of the fact that its no longer the chief that's the extremely problem.

Answer 7

Interest rates were not set by the Government but the world market

Answer 8

Yup - it's so much better now. No exports at all, foreign owned factories - reloacted labour in india and mexico. locked down borders, fear and loathing of muslims, no health car, HUGE petro dollor debts and intractable wars.

Go america.

Answer 9

*sigh*

You are another sad case of somebody who has had the Liberal Party crap forced so hard down your throat that you believe it.

The entire argument here surrounds two questions: did Australia really "need" to have that recession, and do governments really have much control over the economy?

The answers are pretty much yes and "sort-of" respectively.

The recession under Keating was due to two reasons: a turbulent international market at the time that resulted in many nations going through a difficult economic period, and because he floated the dollar. The second point is especially important - the gold standard had been failing since WWI due to depleted government gold reserves and a general incompatibility with emerging modern economic models. Up until Keating, the importance of floating the dollar to making Australia friendly to international investors and markets was always there, but no politician was brave enough to do it, because our existing currency had been set so artificially high that a massive short-term impact on the economy was inevitable, which would almost certainly get them booted out. This proved to be true, but floating the dollar was like "bitter medicine", so to speak. Much of our economic prosperity now is thanks to Keating, because much of the investment from foreign markets that contributes massively to our economy is only because we have finally floated our dollar, exposing it to real international market values.

Unfortunately, with most people having absolutely no understanding of economics, Howard back in 1996 was able to hammer the massage that Keating was a bad economic manager, and thus win the election. The attack on debt was particularly appaling, and only shows that either he was lying through the teeth in his claims that it was bad, or he really knows nothing about macro-economics either. (look all this up in a standard economics text-book if you don't believe me, by the way) Economics on a governmental scale more closely resemble a corporate model, but the pollies have really convinced many that a country should be run like a household (economically). The claim that debt=bad is completely wrong: on the contrary, on a national scale, debt (while not in itself good) in recession is necessary if gigantic reserves aren't available, because money needs to be constantly pumped into the public sector to get the economy moving again. In fact, in a corporation, there is a general policy to maintain a level of something like 5% debt - debt is viewed as a sign that investment is being made, which is a good thing, when you leave household economics. Thus, our debt was far from "the laughing stock of the world", it was pretty tame actually compared to many others, such as Japan (even currently they have huge debt, but they have one of the strongest economies in the world). However, excessive debt, and of the wrong kind, is bad, and under Howard our net foreign debt has reached around $500 billion, which would absolutely kill Australia if an international recession were to hit us again like the Great Depression (and it will; natural economic cycle).

However, on the whole, a capitalist government can't do that much to improve the economy. At this stage, all of the major necessary reforms (removing tariffs under Hawke, floating the dollar under Keating) have been made, so beyond this it's really left to virtually uncontrollable international conditions. But, poor economic policy can still hurt us, but this can only result from putting in place this poor policy intentionally (only the biggest of imbeciles could possible do such a thing unintentionally while thinking they're doing good - macro-politics really is that simple on the whole)... such as the huge tax (edit: CUTS, not rebates (doh!)), which are about pleasing the electorate in the short-term, not good policy. Maintaining good international relationships for trade is important, and again they're not too likely to be mysteriously sought out to be damaged by a new Labor government. Unions have never been that bad, either, and they in fact really do a lot of good. Look into their role in helping asbestos victims currently. The view that unions and Labor damage small business is just silly - that would hurt the economy overall, and just inevitably get them kicked out of power - no government is so stupid as to do that, even if they were the "lapdogs" of the unions (again, which they are not, it is a view that is shoved down the electorate's throat by the Coalition).

Now don't get me wrong - I'm not a Labor supporter myself either (and I actually find them in many respects nearly as bad as the liberals, but as a progressive myself I simply can't stand that kind of conservatism), in fact I support minor parties. My intentions here have been to try and show you that there is much more to Australia's political and socio-economic history, and economics, than the dogma paraded by both the major parties.

Please, do yourself a favour. Enlighten yourself - go out and read (not excessively biased, such as not affiliated with political parties) about Australia's socio-economic history and macro-economics, become more politically aware instead of just repeating what you hear others spew-forth (usually also just mimicking someone else). It doesn't take much, and you will feel content in knowing the truth behind most of the lies the major parties weave. Political unawareness is the greatest blight upon Australian (indeed, most nations') political scene.

Sorry about the wall of text by the way, but I feel really strongly about politics and political unawareness, so I was compelled to rant :D.

Edit: BTW the low unemployment figure is absurdly misleading. Look this up: in Australia "employment" is now defined as work for a minimum of only 1 hour per week, and it extends to including non-for-profit voluntary work.

P.S. Why thank you miss schlonky, it's nice to see my time-consuming rants go recognized :D

Answer 10

Alex G's answer said it ALL!
Alex, you're my YA hero :)