Comments on: Confidential government contracts

By: kelly liddle

kelly liddle — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 09:34:26 +0000

anything that overran budget was syphoned off to another ‘hidden’ Account, to make it look like there were no cost overruns.

Helen so we shouldn’t throw stones when talking about developing nations as we are just as bad by the sound of it. You have made me think even a little less about our governments than I already did.

By: Helen Armstrong

Helen Armstrong — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 03:49:15 +0000

Department, can’t

By: Helen Armstrong

Helen Armstrong — Thu, 24 Jan 2013 03:48:37 +0000

It is true, Kelly. I worked in the Finance Depoarment in the Government Department (Housing and Construction) that managed the GP when SA had it, anything that overran budget was syphoned off to another ‘hidden’ Account, to make it look like there were no cost overruns. But there always were. I cant remember how much but it was a lot at the time.

I guess the Government thought it was worth the expense for the spin offs that came with it, advertising for Tourism etc, forcing Victorians to visit SA, and it did have a certain pride for the locals, apart from a few whingers who complained about the pre-race traffic and the noise on the day.

It was a great spectacle, with the F111′s blowing out the glasshouses at Virginia and the atmosphere in the leadup was very exciting, but for me, the one time I went, on a paddock pass, I could see about 3 feet of track when standing on a chair, so left, sold my ticket full price outside and went home and watched it on the telly.

And of course, it made the other states terribly jealous.

By: kelly liddle

kelly liddle — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 11:18:34 +0000

I have a couple of questions. The above does not seem likely to me and if true then governments can literally hide billions in expenditure. What do they put this down as in the books? I am aware of how it is done in Thailand but I thought we were a little more transparent. So if the above answer is the government can’t really hide it then isn’t the real issue that the government can write contracts that have future liabilities which can’t be scrutinized such as the secret “co-investments” in the car industry?

By: Charles

Charles — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 10:47:45 +0000

Bernie has given us a salutary lesson in the sucker/non sucker dichotomy.

Thank you Mr Ecclestone.

By: WhaleHunt Fun

WhaleHunt Fun — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 08:16:54 +0000

Came to me yesterday. Odd coincidence. Pls pardon the silly joke. Just that it is topical

The Fence Repair – Sounds Very Familiar…
Three contractors are bidding to fix a broken fence at Government House.
One is from Cabramatta, another is from Marrickville, and the third is from Lane Cove.
All three go with an official to examine the fence.

The Cabramatta contractor takes out a tape measure and does some measuring, then works some figures with a pencil. “Well,” he says, “I figure the job will run about $900, $400 for materials, $400 for my crew and $100 profit for me.”

The Marrickville contractor also does some measuring and figuring, then says, “I can do this job for $700. That’s $300 for materials, $300 for my crew and $100 profit for me.”

The Lane Cove contractor doesn’t measure or figure, but leans over to the government official and whispers, “$2,700.”

The official, incredulous, says, “You didn’t even measure like the other guys. How did you come up with such a high figure?”

The Lane Cove contractor whispers back, “$1000 for me, $1000 for you, and we hire the guy from Marrickville to fix the fence.”

“Done!” Replies the government official.

And that, my fellow tax payers, is how a Government Stimulus plan works.

By: WhaleHunt Fun

WhaleHunt Fun — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:47:16 +0000

There’s always the right of a state to introduce of retrospective criminal laws mandating a severe penalty. A state is quite entitled to retrospectively make a prior act illegal and quite entitled to enact a severe punishment, preferably one where the body forever more bears witness.
One would only need to do it once and thereafter the risk would constrain the behaviour of future carpetbaggers.
So the moral question becomes: does the financial disembowellment of tens of thousands of persons by self-promoting leeches justify the caning of just one leech.
If Singapore can execute people whose drug trafficking destroys the lives of dozens or hundreds, then surely we can merely flog someone who has bullshitted a whole state.
There would be a long list of volunteer floggers.

By: Leigh Lowe

Leigh Lowe — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 07:28:25 +0000

The post below “Nanny’s agenda exposed” cites Eric Crampton having a crack at “economists for hire” producing bullshit reports inflating the intangible costs of [insert name of social scourge here] to suit their client’s agenda (usually government).
I commented on that one about the Butterfly Foundation commissioning a report from Access Economics “finding” that the cost of the Foundation’s pet cause (eating disorders) is $70 billion per annum.
“What harm does this do?” one might ask.
Well, the Ecclestone subsidy illustrates the harm.
That is, Governments pissing away millions based on a dodgy economists report of inflated Grand Prix “employment creation” and “indirect multipliers”.

By: Jim Rose

Jim Rose — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 06:23:23 +0000

you misunderstand auction theory and agent-principal conflicts. auctions aid collusion and prevent multiple rounds of hard bargaining to push prices down.

auctions remove discretion of junior officials in organisations with soft budget constraints.

By: Dan

Dan — Wed, 23 Jan 2013 05:24:46 +0000

Well’ Lewis Hamilton got done for hooning in 2010 and paid a fine. That money in the bank right there