| ||
| A place where I can express my views on Australia and its possible future directions. I'm not aligned to any political side. I feel issues are more important than political sides. However whichever way you put it issues involving Australia's future have to become political to be of any use. The nature of issues is such that I will comment on them as I think about them. Thus some issues will be more trivial and others more significant, however all issues will be covered as I come across them in my daily life. |
| ||
| I have just found out from a Telstra shop agent that Next G is actually just CDMA with a different name. Is there anyone else out there who can confirm this? Sure its probably got a few more bells and whistles but so what. Telstra have presumably decided to follow the Windows model and create new systems that require you to forcibly upgrade so they can make extra money from the sales of the new phones. Undoubtably they could have keep CDMA phones in the loop if they had wanted to, but hey where is the money in that right! And also where is the so called telecommunication watch dog in all of this? All you digital phone people should not feel so smug, its only a matter of time before they realise that if they can get away with this on CDMA, just think of how much more money they will get by doing it with digital. Of course all of the providers will have to collude to do this. But thats never been a problem in the past has it. The government watchdog's toothless tigers will easily be conned by the argument of a newer more advanced technology. So just like Windows we can now expect a new generation of phone to come out every few years or so, that of course will be designed not to be compatible with the old system right! One has to wonder is this really an efficient use of the Earth's resources. In this modern day and age these types of company policies are looking more and more like dinosaurs, yet still they persist, and if anything are becoming more main stream. Its definately a worry for the future and the environment, and it is up to the Australian government as the peoples representative to fix it before it gets out of hand. | ||
| 0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link |
| ||
| The Australian prime minister has said in the news this morning and I
quote "I believe that it would be against Australia's long-term
economic interests to roll back Work Choices,". But what he didn't say
is in whose best interests and exactly for how long. Work Choices quite obviously favours the rich in the short to term. And it is a very short term vision in my opinion. In the long term more people with lower wages means decreased buying power from the Australian public, which is bad for most businesses in Australia. If you look at trends world wide, it is when the bulk of a population have wealth that a country is at its strongest economically. The liberal government's Work Choices quite apart from being morally bankrupt, is also not in Austrlalia's own long term interests. It can only in the long term lead to a weaker local economy, which in fact has always been the back bone of the Australian business wealth. The Export industries in Australia are prodiminantly resource based due to a lack of vision by successive Australian governments. There is no way even by a reduction in wages that Australia will become competetive with the likes of China or Korea in manufactured goods. The only way for richer economies to compete in manufactured goods is to go up-market and produce high quality luxury goods using highly mechanised processes to minimise labour costs. These luxury types of manufactured goods are much less sensitive to the changes in labour costs and much more dependent upon branding, quality and marketing issues. Perhaps Mr Howard's mates will be better off for a short time under these new IR laws. After all greed is what this is all about. However, It is certainly not in the countries best long term interests. Nor is it morally right in a country as wealthy as Australia not to share the wealth. And economically it make sense too. What do you think? | ||
| 2 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link |
| ||
| As well as solving many of the worlds needs the "Greed is Good" policy
of western nations also has many problems. Too many problems in fact to
cover here, so at the moment I will just cover one issue of the future
in Australia. Increasingly we are seeing the effects of the rush for
wealth meaning that many Australian's will now find the cost of buying
a home has become out of reach. Having bought my home years ago, during a period often referred to for its 'so called' rampant inflation you would think from the current governments crowing that I should be the one who would be worse off. However despite the 'so called' inflation of that time, the most expensive item on most peoples list i.e.the home, was easily paid for out of just one wage packet back then. The cost of a home in many areas in Australia nowadays can cause even two income families to struggle. The reason for these spiraling house prices is simply greed. Greed from rich people who just keep buying houses and send the prices up (come on how much wealth is enough guys?). Greed from the home builders. And finally greed from land developers who very carefully squeeze evey drop out of land that originally didn't even belong to them at all. How the cost of housing in Australia remains outside of the governments inflation rate I don't know (thats another issue all together). However as a percentage of peoples wages packets the home has become significantly more expensive in recent years. Still we have low inflation right!? I do worry about this issue not for my own sake, but for the sake of my kids and all the other Australian's just starting out in life. I would like to think that our "Greed is Good" policy could solve it, but I'm afraid I have some doubts. What do you think? | ||
| 0 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link |
| ||
| I was thinking about the David Hicks thing and what it means in
relation to Australia's future. I in no way condone his past actions,
however because he hasn't been brought to trial I'm not quite sure what
those actions were. None of it has been tested in a fair court. However I think what the David Hick's case says about Australia is disturbing. Our government has seen fit not to push for the rights of an Australian to a fair trial. Therefore if it can happen to one Australian it could happen to any Australian. What I am saying is that it should not be up to the government of the day to determine what an Australian's rights are! I have always 'hummed and ho-ed' in the past when other people have talked about a 'bill of rights' for Australians. However I am coming to the point of view that a bill of rights for Australians is just what this country is going to need - now and in the future. Under a bill of rights the government would have been forced to act in the Hick's case to see that he was entitled to a fair trial, just as the British government was forced to do. What do you think? | ||
| 2 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link |
| ||
| Just received this text message from Telstra on my CDMA mobile. I
suppose it was bound to happen now Telstra is privatised. So now once
you get outside of the cities, you won't be able to contact anyone
anymore. With CDMA I could be in the middle of nowhere and still make
contact with the outside world. What now?? Well there is sat phone you say. Yeh but not at digital mobile prices. I suppose I'll have to dust off the old CB radio. Wonderful how advanced Australia is becoming isn't it. We all knew that once Telstra got privatised this would happen. What next? Well obviously the country phones don't make enough money, so they will sell off all the country phone lines, or even dig them up for the value of the metal. The value of which used to belong to all Australians. The rich just got richer again. When does the greed stop. But thats another story altogether. | ||
| 5 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link |
| ||
| I've just received the Qld governments new Eat Well, Be Active campaign
material in the mail. This is all well and fine, but I can't help the
cynic in me saying, that the poor nutrition they refer to occurs as a
direct result of the inaction of governments themselves. As they say in the brochure "we are now facing an alarming increase in chronic health conditions such as type 2 diabetes, heart diseases and certain cancers as a direct result of poor nutrition, a lack of physical activity and increasing levels of obesity". All too true, so what are our governments doing about the excessive amounts of sugar (diabetes) and salts (high blood pressure causing heart disease) added to processed foods? Nothing! Shouldn't they be legislating maximum amounts for the addition of extra sugars and salts to foods? As an example from my own household. Chocolate. Most chocolates have become so sweet nowadays that my nine years old son won't even eat them. Is it really necessary for the company making the chocolate to add so much sugar to their chocolate. Obviously its to addict people onto the sugar so that they will eat more chocolate. However it can backfire also. Our household eats less chocolate than we otherwise would because it is just too damn sweet. In fact small amounts of chocolate can be good for you, but only if it doesn't contain excess sugar. Excess salt is another unnecessary addition to foods. With vacuum sealing capability it is no longer necessary as a preservative but is added to excess to make the product more tastee. The more salt you eat the less it stimilates your taste buds, and the more you have to add to get that salty taste. Its a vicious cycle. If all companies are legislated to reduced salt content, all of the food will taste even better. The next topic in hand is a lack of physical activity. Once again this is a case of governments needing to put their money where their mouth is. The potential economic and social burden is huge, so putting up a few dollars now will save Australia a lot of money in the long run. Increasingly, particularly the young are unable to access affordable leisure activities. So governments should be building facilities that Australian kids can use for free. The obvious place to start is from schools, increased sporting facilities, that are then also able to be used outside of school hours. As an example I remember when I was a kid we could play on the Tennis courts at school at any time. Nowadays your lucky if the school even has a Tennis court. Its all become big business and is in competition to the commercial tennis courts. Only thing is more courts = more tennis player = more dollars for commercial operations in the long run. Of course this is just one example from my own experience, there are numerous other sports out there in just the same position. So for my opinion its legislate the removal of excessive sugars and salts out of processed foods & spend up big on free sporting facilities for kids. | ||
| 1 Comments | Post Comment | Permanent Link |