How Kevin Rudd destroyed the Australian economy

Ironically from by the AFR, kernel of evil for business parasitism, comes Productivity Commissioner Michael Brennan:

Productivity Commissioner Michael Brennan says destructive rent seeking and a lack of entrepreneurship by business has stalled productivity and wage growth and that trying to fix the issue won’t be helped by reform nostalgia or economic pessimism.

While business groups have already called upon governments to make urgently needed economic reforms to lift productivity, which has fallen from 2.2 per cent in the 1990s to minus 0.2 per cent now, Mr Brennan will say, in one of his first major public speeches delivered on Thursday, that a lack of investment and risk taking by business is where the problem begins.

Mr Brennan has also lambasted lobbying groups and their influence over governments for special treatment.

“Just as we should encourage dynamism through productive entrepreneurship in private markets, we should work to remove the destructive entrepreneurship of rent-seeking,” Mr Brennan will say.

If there has been one feature of the collapse of Australian public policy in the post-GFC period that I have been stunned by most deeply and often it is the swing to rent-seeking.

It began with Kevin Rudd’s bailout of the big banks in the GFC, was entrenched by the big mining coup that ended Kevin Rudd’s prime ministership, and it has been made a way of life by the mass immigration economic model that Kevin Rudd popularised. Now the results are now in:

While workers have steadily lifted productivity since 2003, capital productivity has been an unmitigated disaster as capital shallowing has trailed the shift from a diverse and productive economy to one that produces only dirt and house prices.

This shift has progressively required the capture of policy to continue:

  • public support for over-leveraged banks;
  • undertaxing of resources;
  • mass immigration despite the collapse of every argument in favour of it.

It was John Howard that put these trends into action. But it was Kevin Rudd that entenched them when they were past their use by date.

It is remarkable how much damage that Kevin Rudd did to the Aussie economy in so short a space of time.

David Llewellyn-Smith
Latest posts by David Llewellyn-Smith (see all)

Comments

    • Rudd is to blame as much as any single person in this whole cancer of an economy – although Howard did set the table for it.

    • Howard-Rudd was a Right-Left punch combination that has floored the economy and the culture of this country.
      I hate them both for it.

      • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

        Liberal/Labor – both are different sides of the same Globalist coin. It was them that has done it.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            No – IMHO that is where the cultural values, intellectual framework and (im)morals around Globalism originated from. While the ranks of the elites may be dis-proportionally populated, it is not the case that they are all Globalist in the same way that not every nationalist is a white supremacist. That culture may be where the ideas pool originates, but there are many barbarians and elites from other cultures that have grasped onto those same values and justifications, for their own benefit as selfish individuals.

            While all other religions and cultures are fair game, the issue is more that it is impossible to critque that culture and the correctly ascribe those toxic Globalist ideas as originating from. Instead the insidiousness is that by residing within, yet remaining apart, they get to state that things like Multiculturalism, Market based solutions in all instances (neoliberalism) are OUR values, when in fact they are their values, and quite destructive to our society.

            No relatively homegenous society wakes up one day and say’s to itself “Hey, lets invite heaps of different people and cultures into the society and economy that we’ve built to perpetuate OUR society and values, so they can utilise our resources to project THEIR values forward into the future, compete against us. NONE, EVER.

          • there is no such thing as a “relatively homegenous society”
            what you see as a homogeneous nations are in fact inventions of late 18th and 19th century when ruling classes needed something to keep their failing states together. Once God became absent in securing their right to rule they invented a notion of a nation to keep their large states together. They also created a campaign against self-determination of small ethnic groups that rose following decay of Ottoman empire. They went so far to invent a word balkanisation and give it a negative notion just to discourage local ethic groups to get the same idea.

            Prior to invention of nations in the west (UK, France, US, Italy, Germany …) ethnic groups living in those states were more diverse than people in new Balkan or aspiring Baltic states were, often not being able to understand each-other when speaking native tongue. Over time they were naturalized in a same way immigrants in USA were. This forceful naturalisation destroyed numerous languages and cultures, and changed ethnic map of Europe,

            So, if they managed to do that back than with limited propaganda machine imagine how easy is going to do it now … in a few decades there will be no Anglo Australian culture but there is not going to be Chinese or Lebanese one … we’ll all become a new property speculation nation … with money as our new lord and saviour

          • “in a few decades there will be no Anglo Australian culture but there is not going to be Chinese or Lebanese one … we’ll all become a new property speculation nation … with money as our new lord and saviour”

            We will all worship Mammon while simultaneously giving lip service and virtue signalling relating to other “issues”.
            The winners and losers will be divided by those that are smiled upon or frowned upon by the god(s) of Mammon.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            I’d disagree – imho it was fairly homogeneous in terms of ethnicity and culture, as being derived from the same broad religious faith which form the bedrock of a societies values are based. Subtle differences in religious faith, that may appear superficially alike can produce a society of profoundly different values. A single example in relation to forgiveness for example, as expounded upon by a Rabbinical philosophy student:

            https://www.firstthings.com/article/2003/02/the-virtue-of-hate

            Also, despite regional dialects, most people still lived in the same place that their ancestors had:

            https://www.thetimes.co.uk/article/gene-map-shows-that-scots-stay-put-for-centuries-n26wsqd2n

            Most European populations are also descended from the Yamnaya people who migrated into the region and took it over, around 4,000 to 5,000 years ago. They probably did what invading tribes usually do, killed all the men and boys and took the women and land and their prize, so while there are some localised genetic variation from legacy maternal populations, nearly all the male Ys are Yamnaya:

            https://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-6814183/How-men-Spain-completely-wiped-4-500-4-000-years-ago.html

            Four thousand years is only something like 200 generations, this is long enough to produce small differences (hills) but not long enough to produce large group population differences , like say Sub-Saharan Africans, who were genetically isolated for 70,000 years or 3,500 generations (mountains).

            Language is one of the most malleable cultural artifacts, it evolves continuously and at a high rate, such that differences in language usage are notable between the very oldest and youngest generations – so the fact that regional dialects often made communication harder, isn’t surprising.

            However, in the matters that matter most, values on on things such as honesty, forgiveness, who it is owed to, trust, aesthetics, notions of beauty, the role of the family, etc, they were all fairly similar in terms of being based around Christian cultural values.

            Obviously this didn’t prevent wars, but compared to the warfare conducted at cultural and ethnic fringes of Europe, the middles east, Africa and Mongolia, they were practically civilized. (The word ‘Slave’ is derived from Slav, as in the Slavic nations of Eastern Europe. When the ‘civilized’ Muslims invaded their stamped their authority by cutting off all the noses of the men and boys, while invading India the had competitions to see whose army could build the biggest pyramid of head).

            But I am in agreement with you, the unique Australian AngloCeltic Protestant/Catholic society that they built for themselves and their children IS being replaced. It’s notions of welfare and social justice are being replaced. Those coming here don’t bring enrichment, but act as solvents dissolving both their culture and ours, and what will be left with will simply be the Economic Zone Formerly Known as Australia.

          • Stewie; the way things are going, at some point in the future I can see a significant proportion of the Australian population hoping and praying that Climate Change decimates this country back to the Stone Age as the only means of solving the status quo.

          • have a look:
            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Languages_of_France
            it’s not dialects, it’s dozens of languages from completely different families of languages French is as far from Basque as it’s from Chinese, and Breton is as different as German is. Same with Welsh or Gaelic and English or Sardinian and Italian. When Germany got “united” people in Hamburg were speaking language more similar to Dutch, Swedish or even old English than Bavarian. Culture, customs, traditions, … were as diverse

            what you call homogeneous nations these days are artificial creations created by force not so long ago (not more than 200 years ago).

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Again, you are returning to language as though that entirely defines culture – language is the most malleable cultural artifact, often changing radically between generations, yet totally ignore cultural values based around common religious belief and the fact that ethnically, these nations were mainly populated by people who have lived there for the past 5,000 years as opposed to being forcefully injected in from completely different cultures and ethnicities.

            Germanic may have indeed been cobbled together from thousands of principalities 200 years ago, but it practically existed as Germany for nearly a 1000 year previously as the new Holy Roman empire… as this time sequence map shows, most of the ‘nations’ of Europe have existed in one form or another, in the generalised locations that they currently exist for over a thousand years, broadly defined by culture, ethnicity and natural barriers.

            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxDyJ_6N-6A

            Stop pretending that we’ve always been Globohomo in order to justify its imposition on us now.
            https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uxDyJ_6N-6A

            You totally ignore my

          • you are confusing early middle ages state with ethnicity
            how people who speak languages from different families of languages (e.g. Romance and Germanic, or Germanic and Celtic) can share common ethnicity. They belong to different cultures and came from different places
            Theory that they all lived there for 5,000 years is just a fairy tale. While some were coming from various parts of Europe, moving around and mixing with others coming from Asia and middle east.
            Using some weak genetics arguments is poor indication because they all mixed in past few hundred years

            the only thing that unifies various ethnics groups in large European nations was Christianity but thanks to splits and fights within Christianity even that was often doing the opposite.
            These ethnic groups were not seeing each other as the same or even similar until being forced, oppressed and indoctrinated by force over the last 200 years or so. In some parts where oppression was not so bad like Italy, Spain or UK ethnic groups still don’t see each other as ethnically homogeneous
            your theory of homogeneous nations in Europe is only based on weak understanding of ethnic identity so specific to a new world resident.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            The “Fairy Tale” has been proven by genetics and languages – most languages in Western Europe, parts of the middle east and India are all referred to as Indo-European, are have been traced back the steeps people (Yamnaya) from about 4,500 years ago.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proto-Indo-European_language

            Again, languages are the most malleable cultural artifact changing significantly within a generation – the deeper cultural of Europe [honesty, forgiveness, who it is owed to, trust, aesthetics, notions of beauty, the role of the family, etc] are all based around the same broad Christian values, and have far more in common with each other than Africans, Aztecs, Japanese or any other grouping.

            The fairy tale is that White People don’t exist as a distinct ethnicity or cultural grouping.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            The fact that various population groups within Europe may have historically viewed themselves as separate and non-homegenous is perfectly understandable when they are comparing themselves to each other (hills), however, when comparing their rich European culture to African, Middle Eastern, Chinese, North American or South American people (mountains) they were relatively homogeneous.

            You are making a fallacious argument that because localised differences exist within European population groups (hills) then there is essentially no difference between that and the enormous differences (mountains) between European cultures and other located in other parts of the world.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Most of the cutting edge research being done in this area is by David Reich, his book “Who We Are and How We Got Here.” is a fantastic read and is broadly from where I get most of my views from.

            FYI one of the most fascinating observations made is that the “Out of Africa” evolution of modern Humanity, is most likely false and derived from religious overtones of Adam and Eve. It is the more unlikely Multi-regional evolution of different population groups that is in fact more likely to be the correct theory in terms of explaining the evolution of modern man and the more significant differences observed between population groups separated by significant natural barriers – i.e. Continental differences.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            LOL – it is a fascinating subject. When it came to decide on a career or interest after finishing the HSC it was a coin toss between going into this stuff or economics – needless to say that I chose poorly by thinking I was chasing the money 🙁

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Part of the issue in my and DrX’s convo is the lack of agreement on what we are arguing over – the degree of granularity that we are speaking of in respect of homogeneity.

            X is obviously arguing from the “Hill” perspective in terms of there being a lack of homogeneity within Europe, which is perfectly valid, if you wanted to define culture down to the finest setting you can easily argue that different towns in Europe sitting in adjacent valleys are entirely different cultures. However I’m arguing more from the “Mountain” or big picture perspective, which is that on key cultural values and in terms of broad genetic ancestry, Europe is far more homogeneous.

            Indeed the greatest deal of actual genetic and cultural diversity is found in Africa, and in terms of genetic relatedness, Europeans have far more in common with South American Indians then they do Africans.

          • compared to Japanese all Europeans look the same but that doesn’t mean they are homogeneous
            for a group of people to be homogeneous only relative difference matters because they have to feel to be the same not different. Objective homogeneity even if something like that exists is irrelevant.
            Have a look into former Yugoslavia, the difference between Serbs and Croats is almost non existent (beside sectarian Christianity division), they have same language, names, customs, history, … yet they don’t think Yugoslavia was “homogeneous” , but those non-existent differences (relative to Japanese or Aztec) were enough for them to go into a bloody war to kill each other.

            More importantly, you didn’t get my point, what I was trying to say is that the same way Bretons and Occitanians were made French just 200 years ago, or Germans, English, Irish and Italian made Americans 100 years ago, all people who live in Australia or wherever are going to be made something new in 50 or 100 years.
            Nationalities and religions are way more malleable cultural artifacts than languages and ethnicity.

            Your attempts to create a common white European identity reminds me of a communist attempt to create an unifying proletariat identity not so long ago. Identities are manufactured in the same way almost everything is these days, people think what they are made to think so soon new Australian nation will rise united about it’s common belief in greed and money

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Mate – I’m saying the nations in Europe CURRENTLY in recent times were relatively homogeneous, both within and to a lesser degree without.

            You’re saying No, No. No they’re all different, no such thing nah, na, na, na, nah, na. YOU were the one to bring up their historical construct, I merely extended it back further

            Your being argumentative, for no other purpose other than to oppose me, no either grow up or phuck off..

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            lol – go back to my first post before Witch Doctor X started took exception to my statement on the relative homogeneity of European nations, prior to the mass migration being inflicted on them.

            Honestly, I argue in good faith, and WDX has used a variety of tactics arguing over micro or macro differences, shifting the time scale to suit his argument, NOTHING he’s said or stated in this whole thread has invalidated this statement:

            No relatively homegenous society wakes up one day and say’s to itself “Hey, lets invite heaps of different people and cultures into the society and economy that we’ve built to perpetuate OUR society and values, so they can utilise our resources to project THEIR values forward into the future, compete against us. NONE, EVER.

            Be that culture or homogeneity that exists between different European Valley’s or between different nations – NO ONE invites people in to compete against them.

          • Stewie GriffinMEMBER

            Nationalities and religions are way more malleable cultural artifacts than languages and ethnicity.

            WDX you’re an idiot – the major religions have existed for thousands of years, and the values they’ve taught have remained broadly constant in that period. Language changes so quickly that you often hear old people saying they have no idea what a young person of today has just said.

            You’re just an ignorant D!ckhead.

      • HadronCollisionMEMBER

        So on reflection, Howard ought to have abdicated, and vacated for Tim Costello’s less capable brother, and then what?

        Might have had a carbon/AGW mitigation plan, AMIRITE

      • it was all staged nicely,
        Howard a poor liberal and Rudd rich Labor boy – just to get rid of class so people can be screwed more efficiently

  1. Spot on HnH, You would have to give Tony Abbott the Silver medal. On second thoughts, maybe it was Malcolm and his submarines.

  2. And continues to do damage with his talks around the world about how good the CCP is. I get plenty of videos in my youtube feed with him being interviewed in the US media and on forums.

    • John Howards Bowling Coach

      Yes, me too. I watched one the other day and he was still wrong and as boring as ever. Kev is all about himself, always was.

    • It should be obvious that rent-seeking destroys entrepreneurialism.

      The question is always: how can I make my capital work for me?

      And the answer, over the past decade or two has been ‘buy property’. When the Govt explicitly tells it citizens to get on the rent-seeking bandwagon (wink, wink) then the implied risk diminished while prospective returns increase.

      There are still people willing to risk building businesses, working hard and risking capital, but these people often have the Govt working against them in some fashion (presumably unintentionally), whereas every muppet knows the Govt has property flippers’ backs. It’s an absolute crime – and history will record it as such.

  3. To be fair to Rudd, the bank guarantee was forced onto Australia by Ireland’s decision to bail out their banks : any country that doesn’t follow suit would have seen uncontrollable capital flight. What Rudd did wrong however is to let the banks off without any kind of punishment, and allowing the smaller banks to be consolidated shows that once you’re ‘too big to fail’, all is forgiven.

    Gillard’s decision to remove the cap on university opened the international student floodgate. Along with backstabbing Rudd and giving tax revenue away to the mining companies, I would say she did far more harm than Rudd.

        • I don’t want to offer a view on that.

          But the theme of today’s article seems to be a belated acknowledgment of my prophecies and warnings.

          Many many times I have warned that if you bail/save someone from the consequences of their stupidity FIRST and THEN hope they will not misbehave later, you are bound to be sorely disappointed.

          FIRST you must have real pain dished out, THEN you come in and offer sympathy and some support as they convalesce.

          Failing to be cynical enough upfront is a sure recipe for sore disappointment later on.

          Recent history is now littered with examples, some of which Dave notes in his piece (e.g. public support of banks).

          Other classic examples are:
          – cheering lower teh rates and hoping that MPLOL will prevent all undesirable side effects
          – cheering revised skills shortage list and hoping It won’t be fakepolicy
          – cheering Henry
          – cheering Malcolm Turnbull
          – Cheering Ardern/Twyford
          – cheering Labor 2019

          • Ps. Rudd is in there too, with his heroic school halls and $900 cheques. Heroically and ingeniously lofted us right over the crisis.

            Lofted is right over the crisis ….the crisis that we desperately needed, as it turns out!

          • you forgot cheering on the banking RC that was gonna fix everything, and to top it off directly fter that calling for an RC into the building industry.
            Talk about not learning a lesson.

          • Agreed on all points, esp MPLOL. My favourite.

            However, I think it should be noted that Labor governments are naturally inclined to ‘bail out’ rather than punish, as history shows. Everybody knows the routine by now: the bosses of some ailing industry normally show up at Parliament House, caps in hand, to ask (beg) for assistance to save their well-paid jobs (pardon me, the jobs of ‘ordinary’ workers) and Labor govts generally cave in as they won’t tolerate the sight of the working classes being given the boot on their watch. Besides, it’s not their personal money being shoveled into a black hole (my bad, ‘invested in the country’s future’). So, out comes the cheque-book.

            People may not have fond memories of Thatcher but she is the only leader in modern in history to actually have the balls to tell these parasites to get fvcked. Outside of her we’ve had one big pile of wet lettuce. (Obviously, I exclude ‘developing nations from this as Vlad the Impaler is a fairly impressive statesman as is Victor Orban, who actually have their own minds and refuse to bend over for the globalists)

          • Dom, all I need to know about Maggie I learned from Billy Elliott.

            ‘‘Twas quite clear that she liked nothing better than raping the working class.

  4. Rudd. FFS, can it get any worse than that bloke?

    Most of all Rudd wrecked the Labor party. Ergo Australian politics. Ergo our kids futures. Ergo our country.

    Rudd has the honour of having destroyed Australia, and he’s still spruiking a big Australia.

    If Australia allows the Labor party to continue we’re losing everything we’ve got.

    • Keep telling yourself that rich. Hawke and keating started the privatisation sh!tstorm that has led us to where we are, with an “AEMO Integrated Energy Plan” that is completely meaningless because power generation is now a “free market” that will be guided by price signals. How exactly are we going to get private entities to build the parts of the plan, without being able to provide any long term incentives? Or are we simply going to let private operators run the profitable parts of the network while government is forced to build and run the unprofitable ones required to keep the power on? The classic privatize the profits and socialise the losses. Thanks Hawkey

      • It’s hard to deny that he destroyed his own party, though. And he did it out of ego and retribution. Talk about asymmetric damage…

  5. Howard destroyed both our culture and economy. We don’t tax resources enough… Oh Really. Blind Freddy knew that for decades… World banks and USA corporations rape our resources. The mining and oil companies are largly owned by the world banks, it is they who control governments. Who owns and operates the world banks?

      • No need for personal insults just because you don’t have the intellect or facts to refute my claim. Which is a fact by the way. Look at our royalty arrangements to USA oil n gas. Its a fact in writing so i guess you are forced to not have an argument in reply.

        • You don’t state facts. You state opinions. And you state them as if you have no sovereignty – or two brain cells to rub together.

      • You’re just angry that someone shared the Protocols of the Elders of Zion with him and not you.

        • Realistically; it is not (((THEY))) alone.
          There are the collaborators that have happily sold themselves out for the cash, prizes, and power.

          • (((THEY))) are statistically over-represented in the circles that we are hinting or talking about.
            (((THEY))) are also Cultural Termites par excellence and given enough time will hollow out the culture they attach themselves to while maintaining and gaining in strength for their own.

            There; I said it.

  6. So captain krudd holding 20 million plus in real-estate assets did the two things to keep house prices from collapsing. Gave the banks a guarantee and opened the flood gates to the entire 3rd world. Wonderful.

    • Agreed – it was Rudd’s decision to let foreigners buy Australian existing property that was his worst decision. It let the cat out of the bag.

      • In the 90’s the japanese were buying everything in sight, especially on the gold coast. did Krudd cause that too?

        Those who forget history are destined to repeat it.

      • The trouble is every government since has been able to plug the gap in the dyke and no one has had the guts.

  7. I’m not sure when it all started but it is true that the GFC was the critical turning point.
    Personally I see Australia as an Economy shaped by rapidly changing Social attitudes rather than a society shaped by a rapidly changing Economy.
    The difference between the two depends on what’s really desired. Do I want a job that’s worthwhile (an undertaking deserving of my time, my focus and my interest) or do I simply want a good stable job that enables me to be on the Property ladder. I’ve talked to a lot of recent High school graduates and I’m sorry to say it but for most kids it’s the latter. The job is not what they’ll build their life and their career around, stupid as it sounds their raison d’être has shifted and with it our Economy has shifted.
    There’s little doubt in my mind that this social shift is something that has been brewing for a long long time, but post GFC it became impossible to deny, Truly Productive enterprises (make things businesses) were the last thing in the world that a smart Aussie should be involved in…the absolute last resort, everything was a huge social step up from making stuff. I’m still kind of a believer that small increases in Economic productivity were always a side effect of large increases in Manufacturing Productivity, so without Manufacturing Productivity to lead the way, it’s hardly surprising to me that Economic Productivity prints negative results.
    This social change has been building for the last 30 years (at least) it’s just the capitulation finally came on Riudd’s watch.
    We can’t turn this around by tweaking Monetary levers because it’s fundamentally not an Economic problem, It’s a social problem. The fix (if we want a fix) must begin in Primary school and be carried right through High school and on to University. The Education mix, that which our kids really study (and strive to learn), is one of the first things that needs to change and again it is a Social agenda…I know what I’d like to see happen, but I’m smart enough to understand that I’m in the minority, so what I want doesn’t actually matter.
    I’m of the opinion that it’ll take hardship the like of which no Aussie alive can even imagine, before our social attitudes (and desires) really change. In the mean time we’ll try every witch-doctors home brew before they make us sick enough to accept some real medicine and real life style changes.

    • The fix isn’t in education. Plenty of people in Australia want to have a go and make stuff. Any of them that are successful end up having to go overseas. The regulatory environment here is simply not conducive to making stuff whether people want to or not.
      Hence most people are forced to accept a job they can get, rather than one that is worthwhile.
      We are churning out stem graduates by the tonne. The opportunities to actually go out and apply and enhance that knowledge and interest are few and far between though.

    • Basically your saying young people want to “work to live rather than live to work”. I see this as a positive development where work is seen as a means to an end rather than the end itself; no one on their death bed states that they should of worked more. Many young people have seen the effect of over work from people they know and saw that it didn’t really often get them anywhere; and many success stories have never done a hard day’s work.

      Fortunately/unfortunately a house/a place to call their own has always been wanted by people for many reasons (e.g. security, safety, family formation, lifestyle, etc). and therefore something that people will always want independent of their career; it isn’t a mutually exclusive thing like you suggest. A good economy is one that provides a job that as long as you can work hard you can also pursue the other things that make life worth living.

      • I think it’s more going for jobs that have security, even if they are BS jobs in the destructure FIRE sectors.

        They still do crazy hours – working to live, to get the house and financial stability they are required to get now.

      • Yeah Maybe, but I suspect you’re confusing your Job with you’re Career.
        Sure who give a rat’s what happens to today’s job, your life is far more important however a life that has no purpose also isn’t very satisfying.
        I’d say the main reason for young people developing their career is that the specialization and detailed knowledge developed by becoming an expert (in whatever interests them) is what is rewarded over the long run.
        I find it incredibly stressful to believe that my particular labour has no real value, if an employer can insert any warm body into my job and get the same results than I need to worry every hour of every day that the employer will do this. Personally I don’t have that worry because I know that very few people in the world can do what I do, and most of them can’t do it as well.

    • @Fisho / @AK – I agree with both perspectives. Having lived in Europe, been to the US on several occasions and spent time in South Africa amongst a lot of IT based agency/start up’s. I can see a very different mindset in those places. Australia just isn’t conducive to start up culture, it doesn’t facilitate that risk taking and there is no desire for venture capital to invest in it.

      It’s sad, but having also worked in an American firm for the past 11 years and been exposed to their work till you drop mind set I’m a bit burnt out and would love a “regular” job where I can just work on autopilot, punch the card and feck off.

      I actually went through an exercise today with my manager on where i want my career to go and where I am, it is obvious that I get a true sense of job satisfaction from building and making things, but my job doesn’t facilitate it, which is probably why I have found Australia so frustrating after returning from Europe. I genuinely want to build/make and produce things but this isn’t the Environment for it. So my outlet is my cars / hobby. Maybe I should actually be living in China? Of all places..

      • I think that Australia’s start-up culture in itself is fine. The shocking ineptitude of Australian VC is a real problem.

      • It certainly poses a burning question:
        1) Is it a ‘cultural’ thing, or
        2) Has the combination of the resource industry (Dutch disease) and rent-seeking (property flipping) been primarily responsible for the lack of entrepreneurialism?

        The Americans have, IMO, an astonishing appetite for risk – you can find investment for almost anything if you look hard enough for it. We, meanwhile, have (I feel) too much of the British ‘reserve’ – a natural conservatism or suspicion of things. I don’t feel a strong cultural connection with the Septics but they are very impressive from a certain standpoint.The Yanks are 100% a glass half-full society while we are more inclined to the mother country’s glass half-empty view of life.

  8. Rorke's DriftMEMBER

    Why focus so much on Rudd as the cause of our problems. Had someone else been elected would outcomes be different.

    Re the lack of capital investment by business – what about the evil Baby Boomers, who having captured the asset priced gains of the last 30years, then demand business profits paid out as franked dividends to give them a return on their treasure chests rather than investing profits into business expansion or capital investment to give the young people wanting jobs and promotions a go.

    …….. I was going to write an essay on the litany of issues affecting investment and lack of entreprenurship, but tl:dr. Actually, let’s just blame Kevin Rudd.

    • There’s a lot of blame to go around, but only Rudd had the opportunity to de-leverage and blame it on the GFC. And now he’s in exile in Manhattan where the idiots there love him. Sometimes I wish the asteroid would just take us all out.

    • Let’s blame the bunch that are the real cause of the problem, the BOOMERS … all the undesirables mentioned are boomers and as such will always do everything they can to suck the most out of the country at the expense of the populace !

    • Tried investing heavily with private money in a stem business and it was too hard. MT changed this a bit. it is still very difficult.

    • Can we just cut out the middle man and blame labor please? We all know it’s Labor’s fault. What is? Everything!

  9. The destruction of the value generating part of the economy can be traced by to the signing of the Lima Accord which was an early iteration of the globalisation nonsense. The bright idea was to transfer industrial capacity from advanced countries to the Third World, then to provide markets for those countries exports. Keating, Rudd, Howard, etc. just ensured the destruction.

    • Yep, thanks to the great Gough Whitlam and Don Willesee (Mikes Dad) for that one. Those cvnts signed it, then Fraser and his successors saw to the death of manufacturing in Australia.

  10. Rudd stood against all the garbage that is was the Labour power hounds. The hounds won and labour has gone to the dogs. Who else would seek a resource tax for Australia from corporations; who else would remove capital gains allowance from million dollar PPOR homes. The RE lobby worked Rudd from behind the scenes while the miners got stuck in. Rudd sought to do more for the nation’s greater good than anyone, yet the hounds howl for their masters.