GDAA calls for more support

Interesting to note what people waste on the pokies..

That's who im voting for;)

If you want a better idea of what a government needs to be doing and how the Liberals have failed us, try the book:

"Ozonomics -- Andrew Charlton"

That's a really good read and explains a whole lot quite simply :).

If you want a better idea of what a government needs to be doing and how the Liberals have failed us, try the book:

"Ozonomics -- Andrew Charlton"

That's a really good read and explains a whole lot quite simply :).

That's who im voting for;)

If you want a better idea of what a government needs to be doing and how the Liberals have failed us, try the book:

"Ozonomics -- Andrew Charlton"

That's a really good read and explains a whole lot quite simply :).

If you want a better idea of what a government needs to be doing and how the Liberals have failed us, try the book:

"Ozonomics -- Andrew Charlton"

That's a really good read and explains a whole lot quite simply :).

That a lot of the economic success has actually come about due to what the Labor government set in place prior to the Liberals taking over -- they've only fiddled with these and added to them to make some improvements. That Labor saw what was coming and how it was inevitable, so they put things in place that though were tough in the beginning (people losing jobs due to progress), have been fruitful in the long-run (economic growth).

Much of the foreign "debt" they keep on going on about that the Labor government left over, has actually moved into other forms of debt, and we actually owe more now than we did then -- in fact there is no way to escape this, as all "business" (economies) borrows in order to fund growth.

That "private" debt (personal as in credit cards and loans) has become a very big problem as well as homeownership for first-time buyers -- basically the boomers have bought up big whilst cheap and this has caused a supply shortage and price increase, due, to incentives the Liberals put in place, but not only due to this. That one is a major f*ck-up that they don't seem to have done much about but instead left to get worse.

That there are two schools of thought, one is to deregulate and open up completely to private (corporate) control and the whims of the markets (the Liberal way), and, the other is that we sandbag with tarrifs to protect our dying industries from the tidal wave about to hit our shores (this is reminiscent of Pauline Hanson's: One Nation).

Neither way will work. China isn't going to go away as is the rest of Asia. There is no point in providing safe guards and investment to industries that can no longer compete with other regions of development -- they will have to change in some way to become healthy again, it is inevitable. Nor can you deregulate so that business can apparantly be more "competitive" with these burgeoning regions of development, like China -- due to their society, they have a hell of a lot of unskilled workers that will work for a lot less, and put up with very poor working conditions.

That the best way to go, is to move away from an unskilled (industrial) workforce and moved into more specialised skilled workforce -- as we moved away from a farming / mining workforce to an industrial one. That it has a lot to do with a services based society, aiming for the top rather than aiming to compete at the bottom with China's cheap labour. So instead of manufacturing / producing goods cheaply, you are creating high-quality and more original designed goods that are then manufactured in places like China -- I haven't explained this very well, but that is kind of what he said, that and becoming a more "services" based economy.

So they've actually gone way too far with their new "workplace agreements" -- the idea is to retain our level of quality of life, not diminish it in order to compete with China.

The Liberals have focused on short-term profit sources rather than longer-term ones, like investing in our future with education and other schemes -- to create a skilled workforce, in fact, they have offered no new initiatives in this area, labor have. Rather than reducing funding for education, like our Universities -- the idea being that this will lead to innovation that then leads to economic growth and new industries for a skilled / specialised workforce to fill.

The Liberals main focus seems to be selling our resources off, but that can't last forever, nor is it good for our environment, if not the global environment. The other thing they are big on, is privatisation, but that can only be taken so far before it breaks down, nor can you apply it to every case.

The guy who wrote it, has very solid credentials in economics -- I clearly don't :). I might also point out, that the book is not pro-Labor either.

I'm not sure who I'll vote for yet, either labor or the Greens is likely. All I know is that the Liberals have nothing new in the bag other than to strip Australia of its quality of life, and to sell off everything they can, even our futures. They just need to go in my opinion, before they do any more long-term damage and support regime-change failures.

That Unions aren't that great, because they are sandbaggers -- trying to stave off the inevitable. But removing them entirely and the safe-guards in place for workers, is just stupid -- in the end the result will have to be the same, the road will just of been harder ;).

The 'green fields' effect that Mike Fegan is talking about is not a unique phenomenon, but what is occurring is an unrepeatable event, once you take into account China's population, economy and culture. One billion people, plus cheap workers both eager and smart, plus a national work ethic that defies belief when compared to our laconic lifestyle, equals the next capitalist colossus flexing its fists for a fight.

The 'green fields' theory does not scale down anywhere near as effectively for a population as small as Australia's. We are a small population, with little respect for learning and academic achievement, and judging by the cutting of tall poppies and racial slurs I hear bandied about daily, a very small-minded and xenophobic culture. This is not the kind of environment that spawns 'green fields' of game developers as far as the eye can see. It is more akin to a few weedy bushes struggling to survive in a desolate wasteland.

The financial incentives will not attract large companies to establish large bases of operations; we are too small, without any clear advantage other than being a fantastic importer of American culture. Not only that, but the proposed incentives are designed to help established companies maintain their stake in the market, while explicitly doing nothing to allow new ventures to be seeded. You can't have any sort of 'green fields' effect if there is no money for new ventures.

Australian industries are going to get steamrolled no matter what. All you can do is hope the games industry is agile enough to avoid the wreckage and reinvent itself as something other than a fee-for-service dumping ground.

Furthermore, they aren't just begining to match these goods in quality, technology and design. They are actually beginning to surpass it.

One day "Made in China" is really going to be a big deal ;).

However the good news is, if you can call it that, is that it is easy to have high growth and results when you are a region that is playing catch-up to the rest of the world. So they will end up like Japan and the others. They'll get to around were the rest of the developed world is, and then their growth will level-off.

That's still a ways to go and even then, don't expect things in Australia to be the same, especially for game development :).

If the world opens up and genuinely globalizes, then talent will become a more liquid resource (that is, it can cross borders and cultures more easily in search of greener pastures). China, India and Eastern Europe cannot maintain senior talent without paying them enough so that they aren't tempted over to countries like Australia.

By that theory, the nicest places to live and work will ultimately win in the talent wars, and the cost of senior talent will tend back to a reasonable equilibrium position that balances all factors.

So if the world opens up further, and Australia offers a great place to live, along with an established industry that can utilize talent effectively, then there shouldn't be any long term lack of competitiveness. However, in practice things are much more complicated and short term issues could last for decades. If we lose out in establishing brilliant capabilities before the industry matures then it will be remarkably difficult if not impossible to catch up, and without a viable and organized industry, there will be no political will left to even try to do so.

I guess I am not saying much, except that the threat is not cheap labor as such. It is just that cheap labor and benevolent government policy is giving some countries an advantage in growing a 'brilliant' industry. I think maybe what the GDAA is looking for is to act now to ensure that when the smoke clears and our industry moves into a more 'mature' stage of development, Australia will have a good piece of the pie. However, even with the absence of supportive policy and cheap labor, we have enough momentum and talent to see some pretty amazing business results emerge here.

Furthermore, they aren't just begining to match these goods in quality, technology and design. They are actually beginning to surpass it.

One day "Made in China" is really going to be a big deal ;).

However the good news is, if you can call it that, is that it is easy to have high growth and results when you are a region that is playing catch-up to the rest of the world. So they will end up like Japan and the others. They'll get to around were the rest of the developed world is, and then their growth will level-off.

That's still a ways to go and even then, don't expect things in Australia to be the same, especially for game development :).

If the world opens up and genuinely globalizes, then talent will become a more liquid resource (that is, it can cross borders and cultures more easily in search of greener pastures). China, India and Eastern Europe cannot maintain senior talent without paying them enough so that they aren't tempted over to countries like Australia.

By that theory, the nicest places to live and work will ultimately win in the talent wars, and the cost of senior talent will tend back to a reasonable equilibrium position that balances all factors.

So if the world opens up further, and Australia offers a great place to live, along with an established industry that can utilize talent effectively, then there shouldn't be any long term lack of competitiveness. However, in practice things are much more complicated and short term issues could last for decades. If we lose out in establishing brilliant capabilities before the industry matures then it will be remarkably difficult if not impossible to catch up, and without a viable and organized industry, there will be no political will left to even try to do so.

I guess I am not saying much, except that the threat is not cheap labor as such. It is just that cheap labor and benevolent government policy is giving some countries an advantage in growing a 'brilliant' industry. I think maybe what the GDAA is looking for is to act now to ensure that when the smoke clears and our industry moves into a more 'mature' stage of development, Australia will have a good piece of the pie. However, even with the absence of supportive policy and cheap labor, we have enough momentum and talent to see some pretty amazing business results emerge here.

And as for our games industry. It will most likely collapse. When America start's giving the licences to their games. Over to asian country's that most likely have larger talent pools.