Dick Smith is cranky and so am I

[xcvator]

There is another way too, but it involves a bit of planning in advance, at least a year. Simply pick out the hotels/resorts that look like they fit your budget and get on their mailing lists, especially the bigger places. We have saved literally $100's per day by doing this. :Y: :Y: :Y:

 

[Swinging & digging]

I always use sites like Trivago, Trip Adviser, Wot If etc to research and look at visitors photos and reviews.
Then,
Ring the establishment direct.
Always get a cheaper price than the above sites have on offer.

What he says is quite correct and I use the sites to find a motel in my range, then ring the motel. However I have been making bookings this week and have actually found that some places will NOT even meet the on-line prices, and also will not match the "cancel free until two days before" type deals offered on-line. So you need to investigate fully - everyone wants to make a buck (although I support the motels if they will equal the deals).

Overall I guess I find Dick Smith fairly on the mark. However I have some reservations about someone who was worth $60 million (no longer) criticizing wealthy foreign businessmen - it does correlate a bit with his business interests. When he had his Dick Smith electronics stores he said about Tandi being "a foreign firm ...allowed by the Australian Government to take over the Australian market from the Australian people" (his stores went under, as did much of his wealth...and ultimately Tandi). When he started Dick Smith foods he made comments about Aldi and 1930s Germany, their immense greed and siphoning money to Germany - he then had to close his stores. I see he is involved with eco-resorts now....

Nevertheless I think he is on the mark on this issue.

What Dick Smith, is saying is correct. now we have the cloud. The earth is smaller than before. Easier for larger companies to make more profit, Here in Manila. The money has to stay here no returns are sent back to the main company, Australia Goverment needs to catch up. If you do business in Australia the profit stays in Australia if not its taxed to hill

Doesn't really work like that with any countries' foreign investment, including the Philippines (which has few restrictions - the Philippines has no restriction in remitting dividend income back overseas). Countries (including Australia) require foreign investment because there is not enough money in the country for investments in MAJOR projects. So people like Dick Smith castigating foreign investors for taking their profits out are really just blowing hot air (well, they are trying to get investors here to invest in their own small local companies, itself perfectly desirable, by appealing to patriotism - again desirable within the limits of the small amount of money Australians have to invest). And of course larger Australian companies also invest overseas, but it depends on the type of investment opportunity available and the company's expertise (mining companies tend not to invest in yoghurt manufacture because they don't understand it). Foreign companies invest to make a profit and most of their shareholders are in another country. If they cannot get their profits out of a country, the companies do not invest in it. Otherwise they would be simply throwing their money away. Foreign economies had a total of $3.3 trillion invested in Australia at the end of 2017 - contrary to popular belief, Belgium is the third biggest investor (after the USA and UK) - China is only the 9th biggest (only 2% of all foreign investment in Australia - Belgium's investment is six times larger than China). But you won't hear pollies complaining about Belgian investment here...it doesn't sell as well as anti-Chinese sentiment. All largely politics, the politicians know that our economy could not survive without foreign investment (but it gets votes).

Maybe if we need foreign investment so badly, rules should be changed so the foreign countries don't obtain direct control and ownership?
I am suggesting that they would be allowed to invest here like buying units in a managed fund, rather than buying our farms, houses, gas pipelines and mineral mines outright for their own needs and wanting to change our rules and regulations in doing so.

I feel Dick Smith and other Australians are right in voicing their concerns at foreign investment and ownership.

Investment seems to be an election issue? Ok you say Australians can't provide enough money for investment here? Why is our next PM making out Australian investors to be the bad guys then? Negative gearing, franking credits, self funded retired persons? Battlers PM hay? Numerous sources say Bill Shorten has a net worth of $60,000,000 AUD? He is as rich as Dick Smith? But no where near as rich as Kevin Rudd who's wife kept her maiden name due to the massive wealth she owned? Her companies were under paying workers while Rudd made out he was workers best friend?

Our own leaders are as dishonest as the Chinese communists. :N: 8.(

 

[user 4386]

Not sure who you mean by the next PM (I don't have a crystal ball), but Party politics isn't appropriate here, especially at election time (Shorten's wealth is put at $2.4 million, but who knows).
http://www.the-net-worth.com/2016/08/bill-shorten/
However they cannot change our rules and regulations, only we can. Same as we can't force them to invest here of they don't like our rules and regulations. So it is a tricky game for a politician of any persuasion to find a balance - no company would invest a cent in such a managed fund as you suggest. And we are able to simply not develop our mines etc if we don't want to (if we are happy to have our export income decrease by 40%). Without foreign investment we would have a standard of living much like the third world (where things like Medicare , pensions and unemployment benefits don't exist). I don't think further restrictions on foreign purchase of land would affect things, but already if you are a foreign resident you cannot buy an established residential dwelling in Australia, either directly in your name or through a trust relationship or company structure (you can only build new ones). However around 15% foreign ownership does seem high. So I don't think we can have it both ways, no foreign ownership could never be an alternative, and no company exists that would give away its right to make its own corporate decisions (it would probably be illegal to do so). I don't think "just give us your money and we will invest it" would be a big seller (it also ignores the fact that major investments involve foreign expertise not just money - telecoms, resource development, the new electronics...). As for things like negative gearing, even the USA is more restrictive than us - it is not really a left versus right issue. But I agree that there are always some things we could look at modifying.

However Party politics is not appropriate here, especially this week - the broader topic of foreign investment is really separate from party politics as all parties want it (whether they claim to or not). Think of the tax that governments (we) get from the $3.3 trillion in foreign investment here. Australia's total wealth was AUD$8.9 trillion as of June 2016, so it is 37% of it. We have a high standard of living because we use their money.

I would also like the world to be different in many ways, but I have to live with the reality of the way it runs.....we are a little fish in a big sea.

 

[Heatho]

C'mon, you know the rules about politics here.

 

[Ward69]

Life in Manila. You cant buy a house , it has to be in your partners name, you cant buy a business, it has to be in a local name, but you can buy a condo and pay high maintenance fees.

 

[Magilla]

Hotel managers mustn't like my phone voice, I have never found one that will even match the prices available on line, let alone beat them. I like Dick Smith but I doubt he has ever had to bargain for a cheap room.

 

[Swinging & digging]

Not sure who you mean by the next PM (I don't have a crystal ball), but Party politics isn't appropriate here, especially at election time (Shorten's wealth is put at $2.4 million, but who knows).
http://www.the-net-worth.com/2016/08/bill-shorten/
However they cannot change our rules and regulations, only we can. Same as we can't force them to invest here of they don't like our rules and regulations. So it is a tricky game for a politician of any persuasion to find a balance - no company would invest a cent in such a managed fund as you suggest. And we are able to simply not develop our mines etc if we don't want to (if we are happy to have our export income decrease by 40%). Without foreign investment we would have a standard of living much like the third world (where things like Medicare , pensions and unemployment benefits don't exist). I don't think further restrictions on foreign purchase of land would affect things, but already if you are a foreign resident you cannot buy an established residential dwelling in Australia, either directly in your name or through a trust relationship or company structure (you can only build new ones). However around 15% foreign ownership does seem high. So I don't think we can have it both ways, no foreign ownership could never be an alternative, and no company exists that would give away its right to make its own corporate decisions (it would probably be illegal to do so). I don't think "just give us your money and we will invest it" would be a big seller (it also ignores the fact that major investments involve foreign expertise not just money - telecoms, resource development, the new electronics...). As for things like negative gearing, even the USA is more restrictive than us - it is not really a left versus right issue. But I agree that there are always some things we could look at modifying.

However Party politics is not appropriate here, especially this week - the broader topic of foreign investment is really separate from party politics as all parties want it (whether they claim to or not). Think of the tax that governments (we) get from the $3.3 trillion in foreign investment here. Australia's total wealth was AUD$8.9 trillion as of June 2016, so it is 37% of it. We have a high standard of living because we use their money.

I would also like the world to be different in many ways, but I have to live with the reality of the way it runs.....we are a little fish in a big sea.

I think your referring to Large Corporations investing in Australia?
But in the interests of our own Country & People we should not allow foreign ownership and investment in Houses and the sale of farms to foreign interest.

I personally don't like China owning our Gas pipe distribution network and that view is shared by many Australians.

Rumour has it Penny Wong stayed the Night at Parliament House and has already moved into her new Office, Foreign Affairs Minister, a cleaner who can speak Chinese herd her chatting all night to Bejing on some new really good deals for Chinese investment in Australia, she has offered a good chunk of the Countries resources to them at a 70% Discount as our political system becomes more closely aligned with China. :N:

 

[user 4386]

I'm referring to the fact that we don't have the money to invest in large-scale projects ourselves and that 37% of our economy is foreign investment (only 2% of that Chinese). The citizens of any country should have the right to decide what is sold to foreign entities, but must also bear the consequences of their decisions (if you want the standard of living of Portugal or Ecuador you can ban most foreign ownership - I suspect that is one reason that Russia only has an economy the size of Australia despite having seven times the population).

It is possible that sale of houses and farms might have some impact on any country - 7% of Australian housing is foreign owned but we already have major restrictions on foreign purchases (bans on buying existing homes). In agriculture the top four foreign landholders in Australia are the United Kingdom, followed by the United States, Netherlands and Singapore. China is only fifth on the table, just ahead of the Philippines, with 1.5m ha, just 2.8% of the total of foreign owned land (Anna Creek station alone is double that area, so it is not a large area that they hold). And we have already banned them making substantial further purchases. Only 20% of the agricultural land under "foreign ownership" by all foreign countries is actually owned, with 80% under lease only (so is only "owned" for a certain period of time). As for gas pipelines, I don't really see how ownership matters much - gas is a finite resource so ultimately the pipelines become redundant and worthless, and in the meantime it would be impossible to use them against Australia's interests because we do have other laws that limit what you can do with housing, pipelines, agricultural land etc.

I'm all for Australian ownership where we have the money to invest in projects, but I would not like to see our economy take a nosedive because we stop building or producing things. Our media and some of our pollies often exaggerate the significance of some of these issues (China is a slightly different situation primarily because the government there has so much control over what its companies do).

 

[Swinging & digging]

So you are saying our Pollies and Media often exaggerate issues? Good observation?
Did you notice the Scuffle between Dutton and Paul Keating this week over claims Dutton's Fathers business went broke in the Recession we had to have?
Shane Oliver and others virtually used the media to deny claims Australia went through a recession in 1989 to 1992?
They evan stated we have not had a recession in 30 years? 1989 was 30 years ago!

I actually contacted Paul Keating myself last night and asked him why the media was been untruthful on this!
His response was to side with the media and in his own words, Dead Burnt buried & cremated.

I guess its not something they want brought out in a week before the election?
WOW amazing situation indeed. :lol: 8.( :idea: :bomb:

 

[user 4386]

So you are saying our Pollies and Media often exaggerate issues? Good observation?
Did you notice the Scuffle between Dutton and Paul Keating this week over claims Dutton's Fathers business went broke in the Recession we had to have?
Shane Oliver and others virtually used the media to deny claims Australia went through a recession in 1989 to 1992?
They evan stated we have not had a recession in 30 years? 1989 was 30 years ago!

I actually contacted Paul Keating myself last night and asked him why the media was been untruthful on this!
His response was to side with the media and in his own words, Dead Burnt buried & cremated.

I guess its not something they want brought out in a week before the election?
WOW amazing situation indeed. :lol: 8.( :idea: :bomb:

I think the last recession was June 1991 from memory....so they seem a bit out as you say,

 

[Swinging & digging]

It started in the Last half of 1989, and got worse through to 1993 /93.
Was a transitional period in Australia's economy, removal of tariffs and other factors saw rapid decline in many Blue Collar manufacturing Jobs.
Many companies either shut up shop, moved overseas or re structured to survive.

I have often heard we are now a 2 speed economy: Some people are doing really well and others are not.
School leavers don't always go from School to paid full time employment, often spending years on welfare.
These are the people the government has ignored for almost two decades.

I went through severe hardship in the 89 to 93 recession, i don't want to see the Country that way again.
I recall the Government actually knocking back large Industrial Projects on perceived environmental grounds
back then, so very little sympathy for the people wanting the work, 8.(