Weekly GFC Roll for May 29th 2009

Flattr this!

Thanks again to blog member Evan Harris for compiling this weekly list, and for blog members passing on their suggestions. If you see any article or blog entry that you think deserves recording for posterity, send the link to gfcwrap at gmail.com.

And a reminder for any blog members in Sydney that I’ll be speaking at Politics in the Pub tonight at the Gaelic Club in Devonshire St Surry Hills, starting at 6pm.

The Pool Room – Week Ending Friday 29th May

Australian-Related Links:

Housing & Housing Finance: The View From Australia & Beyond, Luci Ellis [RBA Research], Dec 2006

Blog member Tom contributes some RBA howlers. From the “Rising Indebtedness” section: “The most important lesson to draw from recent international experience is that a run-up in housing prices and debt need not be dangerous for the macroeconomy, was probably inevitable, and might even be desirable.” “These relatively benign outcomes point to the underlying robustness of the financial systems in these economies.” Priceless.

The Australian Experience with Inflation Targeting, Guy DeBelle (speech), 15 May

Oh God. A neoclassical disciple of interest-rate setting defends the religion against upstart infidels. The first line of the conclusion sums up the dogma: “Inflation targeting in Australia has coincided with a period of low and stable inflation, and a prolonged economic cycle with a high average rate of growth, which has only recently come to an end.” So if we exclude the greatest financial meltdown since the Great Depression (many say worse) then the experiment since 1993 has been a great success!

Size of First Home Owners’ Loans Inflating, news.com.au, Nick Tabacoff & Joe Kelly, 25 May

The FMOG keeps the real estate Ponzi scheme alive at the expense of young people who are taking on a larger debt burden in a period of job uncertainty. Sourced from Bubblepedia.net.au.

 Bendigo Banks $ 615m Exposure To Great Southern, SMH, 26 May

Bendigo markets itself as a “Community Bank”. So how does it benefit the community to offer its customers leveraged loans to invest in dedicated tax-avoidance schemes? And how does it benefit the community to acquire Macquarie’s margin lending business? More like the Community Bubble Bank.

 The Great Mortgage Gamble, Robert Gottliebsen, Business Spectator, 26 May

Excellent article examining the different lending strategies within our robust and conservative banking cartel. Sourced from Bubblepedia.net.au.

Global Bust Hits Home: Prices Diced For Iron Ore Exports, SMH, 27 May

Deflation watch – cuts of up to 44%. These cuts are bad news for our Terms of Trade. Michael Strutchbury writes a sensible article bemoaning our inability to save in the extraordinary commodities boom of the last few years.

Councils To Pick Up Toxic Return, Clancy Yates, SMH, 29 May

“Councils across the state – from Canterbury to Coffs Harbour – put up to $625.6 million into toxic debt products through Lehman and its predecessor, Grange Securities.” All investments were rated AAA by those “tough customers” at S&P. Earlier in the week they had the temerity to ask the courts to see Lehman’s insurance policies but the courts turned them down. They will only recoup between 2 and 13 cents in the dollar. Any connection to councils charging like wounded bulls to make up lost revenue? “In a stand-off between big businesses owed money by Lehman and dozens of councils and charities, the big end of town won the day.” Lehman executives bonuses were paid out by administrators ahead of council claims.

Business Investment Plunges, Chris Zappone, SMH, 28 May

“Investment by companies plunged a record 8.9 per cent in the first three months of 2009, the sharpest reversal in more than 12 years.” Time for those green shoots pundits to declare that everything’s turned around since the lows of Q1, so there’s nothing to worry about.

Housing Recovery Soon: Housing Industry Association, Chris Zappone, SMH, 28 May

“The HIA projects the total number of completed homes in Australia will rise from 129,500 in 2009 to 139,200 homes in 2010” That doesn’t sound like much of a recovery to me. The Big Picture enjoys fighting its way through the nonsensical press releases from the [US] National Association of Realtors.

Suncorp’s Calamity Painfully Emerges, Ian Verrender, SMH, 28 May

“The slump in commercial property markets, particularly in Queensland, has started to bite. Troubled loans rose to $1.241 billion in the nine months to the end of March, up from $986 million to the end of December. Bad debts have risen to $491 million.” And the differences in wholesale funding costs, backed by the Federal government, are resulting in less competition for the cartel – never waste a crisis.

Rising Bond Yields A Sign of Good Times Returning, Charlie Aitken, The Australian, 28 May

Charlie “pastries” Aitken is back! The whole world bemoans the threat of exploding US treasury yields on the US property market and the broader economy (lots on this below) but Charlie says this is great news! Mike Shedlock begs to differ offering a polar opposite interpretation (also below).

Sales slide at an end, says Myer, Jamie Freed, SMH, 29 May

Remember the quote: “I think this is the start of a very slow burn up in retail… and particularly department store retail.” Remember the company: Myer. Remember the CEO’s name: Bernie Brookes. Remember the date: 28 May. All locked in so we can make use of this quote over the next few years.

Global Economy:

Lost Vegas [25min video], Vanguard, 13 May

Absolutely sensationally brilliant must-watch video examining the collapse of Las Vegas. Contains excellent analysis of the root causes of this crisis. Email it to your friends.

[Californian] Government Plans To Completely Eliminate Welfare, LA Times, 21 May

“… for families, medical insurance for low income children and cash assistance for college students.” Bet those Austrian economists will love this one. Also read the comments below to gauge the mood of the US. It looks like some readers have been listening to Alan Jones: “How about drug testing all individuals on welfare?”

Inflationisms Seductive Battle Cry, Doug Noland, 22 May

Brilliant piece by Doug Noland of Prudent Bear. I suggest you skip through to the last section.

San Francisco Fed Concerned About Consumer Deleveraging, Zero Hedge, 22 May

Contributed by blog member Chris. “Regardless of how many treasuries are issued, and how much additional debt the U.S. incurs, the demand side for credit is just not there, sticking banks with basements full of shrink-wrapped packages of hundred dollar bills, that will sit dusty and unused for years.”

CSL Expansion Plan Thwarted, Eli Gleenblat, SMH, 26 May

“The US Federal Trade Commission has indicated that it is likely to block a planned $US3.1 billion takeover of Talecris Biotherapeutics.” When was the last time a US corporation was unable to purchase an Australian company based on a pro-competition argument? It looks like CSL needs to invest more in lobbyists as this result just doesn’t make the grade.

Case-Shiller: [US House] Prices Fall Sharply In March, Calculated Risk, 26 May

“Prices are still falling [2% in March] and will probably fall for some time.” But don’t worry as US Consumer Confidence leaps to an eight month high! The reality gap goes unreported in the oz media.

The Worst Is Over For the Economy, Yahoo Finance, 27 May

“The stimulus is kicking in and the housing, manufacturing, employment, and consumer-spending trends are beginning to improve…” Thank GOD for that.

Mortgage Market Locks Up, Mike Shedlock, 28 May

Explains the ominous links between a steeper US treasuries yield curve, US mortgage rates and the US housing market. 

Mortgage Delinquencies, Foreclosures, Rates Increase, Bloomberg, 28 May

US housing market bottoming? It doesn’t look like it to me. “The U.S. delinquency rate jumped to a seasonally adjusted 9.12 percent from 7.88 percent, the biggest-ever increase, and the share of loans entering foreclosure rose to 1.37 percent.” “Prime fixed-rate home loans to the most creditworthy borrowers accounted for the biggest share of new foreclosures at 29 percent.” “The figures show that the mortgage crisis has shifted from subprime to borrowers holding the safest type of mortgages.” As Calculated Risk notes: “We’re all subprime now!” On the same news day, The Australian reported via it’s Dow Jones feed that demand picks up in the US economy.

Global Banking/Finance:

Credit Where Credit is Due, Mike Whitney (“they said you’d never make it”), Counterpunch, 19 May

Brilliant, must-read article discussing the structural problems behind claims that the economy will re-bound at the end of the year. “The problem is the breakdown in the securitzation markets which has cut off the flow of easy credit to consumers and businesses.” It is crucial to understand that the credit securitisation market, headquartered in Wall St and the pinnacle of a vast and corrupt pyramid selling scheme, determines the price of your house, the balance in your superannuation fund and impacts Australian GDP more than any other metric. Add in immense de-leveraging and you’re left with a very bearish forecast, irrespective of short-term bounces in the stock market and government smiley faces.

The $1.4 TRILLION Commercial Real Estate Tidal Wave, Clusterstock, 24 May

Nothing like a catchy headline. Lots of “mays”, “mights” and “coulds” but if the little boy who cried wolf is warning of an actual wolf this time around then it will be interesting. The comments below the story also had useful information.

JP Morgan $29b WaMu Windfall, Bloomberg, 26 May

Alarmingly honest account of how dodgy accounting standards allows Wall St banks to fabricate profits. “One of the beauties of purchase accounting is after you mark down your assets, you accrete them back in.” Remember that it was bogus “surprise profits” claims in early March (coordinated with a positive media and government blitz) that started this bear market rally. As always, it pays to look at the fine print.

Deep Thoughts From Bob Janjuah, Zero Hedge, 26 May

Seems like a sensible analysis of stock market expectations to me. Makes strong predictions for a continuation of the bear market rally through to July then a 30/40% crash. Long gold and oil.

The Greatest Swindle Ever Sold, The Nation [US], 26 May

Excellent summary of the corruption behind the TARP. “Here, then, are six of the most blatant and alarming ways taxpayers have been scammed by the government’s $1.1-trillion, publicly funded bailout.” Here, here.

The $4 Trillion Housing Headache, CNN Money.com, 27 May

From blog member Lyonwiss, “after 32.2% of house price decline (Case-Shiller index) since July 2006, the US mortgage debt to GDP at 73% has hardly budged from its peak of around 75%”. That’s debt deflation for you.

It Is Failing: ALL OF IT, Karl Denninger, 27 May

Denninger has called the end of civilisation a few times now (most notably on March 5 this year) but in this post he notes that the 30-year fixed mortgage rate increased by 30% in a single day. This will have huge impacts on the US economy as the Fed has already set interest rates to zero so can not manipulate retail mortgage rates down further to stimulate the economy. Zero Hedge provides an analysis of bond supply and demand: Time for QE2.

Bond Carnage, Muddled Inflation Thinking & Fed Options, Naked Capitalism, 28 May

A more in-depth look at this week’s top story. Key quote: “if the Fed were to step up purchases systematically, it could very well wind up owning the market. How many investors would decide to sell into its bid? So QE would indeed create inflation, but might not control bond yields as much as the Fed hopes unless it is willing to buy whatever it takes to hold a given interest rate.” Note that Vockler’s surging interest rates in the early 80s was a major catalyst in bankrupting of the US savings and loans industry. The banks had sold 30-year fixed mortgages at, let’s say 10%, but their financing pipeline came from short-term rates. So when the wholesale mortgage interest rates rose to 20% they became instantly insolvent.

Regulators Should Require Bond Bank Buffers, Bloomberg, 28 May

You scratch my back, I’ll scratch yours. The Fed/Treasury didn’t create $12.8 trillion and give it to the banks for nothing. This is shadow QE: the Fed buys Treasury bills with the stroke of a keyboard; the Treasury bails out the banks; banks use the bail out money to bail out the Treasury and Fed. Problem solved. There’s been some chatter in the blogosphere about the Fed using shock and awe to push the yields back down. Watch this space.


Loud Paradigm Shift Rumblings, Jim Willie, Goldenjackass.com, 22 May

I’m a bit nervous linking to Jim Willie as he often comes across as an unhinged crank. But this is a great post, so long as you take a few claims with a pinch of salt. It presents a very compelling view of the state of the US relative to other emerging powers. If you have a spare six months, you could also check out an annotated version of the same article on Market Skeptics (complete with razor blades and pain killers).

China Unveils First Sovereign Credit Rating Standards, China View, 23 May (via Market Skeptics)

One to watch. “The sovereign credit rating standards would be able to evaluate the willingness and ability of a [foreign] central government to repay its commercial financial debts as stipulated in contracts.” How will they rate US government debt (like “tough customer” Moodys)? Or Australia’s for that matter, now that we’re running $70b deficits. How would China rate Westpac’s latest bond offering?

Russia’s First Persian Gulf Naval Presence Coordinated With Tehran, DEBKAfile, 26 May

More bad news for the USD: “… this is the first time a Russian flotilla will have taken on provisions and fuel at the same Gulf ports which hitherto serviced only the US Navy.” Kind of important, don’t you think? But don’t worry; readers of the mainstream press were kept up-to-date on breaking Russian news when a small girl was found behaving like a dog.

Bookmark the permalink.

64 Responses to Weekly GFC Roll for May 29th 2009

  1. sPurf says:

    Philip & Tel,

    Just to clarify a few points about your “greedy doctors” argument.

    Philip the link you posted refers to Government actions to restrict medical graduate numbers. When have you known Govt. to put in place policies to increase the wages of their employees? I am not sure which profession you work in but I doubt you think that their should be unlimited entrants into University for the degrees you have. I am comfortable knowing that it isn’t easy to get into Medical School, Specialist training etc. Show me where good Doctors have been trained by using a Neoclassical competitive model?

    The AMA is without a doubt one of the weakest Unions in Oz. If you have ever been to an Enterprise Bargaining negotiation for Salaried Hospital Doctors you would realise this. For example, the NSW Award for Staff Specialists has clauses such as an expectation to perform “reasonable overtime and on-call” with no provision to remunerate for this. This allows hospital bureaucrats to force Doctors to work outside their rostered hours without extra pay and using this as a justification for not hiring extra staff. Ask any hospital doctor whether they would like more or less doctors working there and you may be surprised with the response. Additionally the AMA does not negotiate for nurses, that is the ANF and they are comparatively a superior Union and consistently achieve good outcomes for their members.

    Extolling Medical Tourism as a method of driving medical costs in Oz down is the same as advocating Chinese slave labour to make our undies. You maybe surprised to learn that in India the ratio of Doctors wage to Average Wage is much larger than the same ratio in Oz. If you want a fairer comparison you should get health care from countries who pay their doctors like every other civil servant (Eastern Europe) and then tell me which system you would prefer? Or maybe your “alternative therapies” will fix you right up after your car accident or from your appendicitis.

    Using Neoclassical marginal cost of labour theories makes guys like Jayant Patel seem like heroes. I think you will agree paying greedy local doctors an incentive wage to work in regions that can’t attract them is a superior and cheaper solution given how expensive that debacle cost and is still costing taxpayers, not to mention the suffering of the patients who received his economically competitive care.

  2. MMitchell says:

    Having had a look at Kari’s site, I the following article seems a good summary of some of Karl’s major ideas:


  3. MACCA says:

    Reuters also picking up on the move to short dated US Treasuries. And possibly not because of a pickup in inflation expectations , as Setser points out.

    The Fed sounds worried- and so should it be. Rising long bond rates will quickly derail any chance of a US recovery.

    Federal Reserve puzzled by yield curve steepening

    “But the Fed is not really sure what is driving the sharp rise in long-dated bond yields, and especially a widening gap between short and long term yields.

    Do rising U.S. Treasury yields and a steepening yield curve suggest an economic recovery is more certain, meaning less need for safe haven government bonds and a healthy demand for credit? If so, there might be less need for the Fed to expand the money supply by buying more U.S. Treasuries.

    Or does the steepening yield curve mean investors are worried about the deterioration in the U.S. fiscal outlook, or the potential for a collapse in the U.S. dollar as the Fed floods the world with newly minted currency as part of its quantitative easing program. This might be an argument to augment to step up asset purchases.

    Another possibility is that China, the largest foreign holder of U.S. Treasury debt, has decided to refocus its portfolio by leaning more heavily on shorter-term maturities.”

  4. Philip says:


    Health and medical services are demand inelastic. An increased supply of health and medical professionals of course would cost the government or private health insurers more as an aggregate measure, but this doesn’t mean much because lower wages mean that insurers gain on a transaction-by-transaction basis. The point is that increased competition in highly-paid services would serve to drive down wages, even if it results in only small decreases, and pure efficiency gains would be realized as well.

    A good overview:

    Baker, Dean. 2003. “Professional Protectionists: The Gains From Free Trade in Highly Paid Professional Services”, Center for Economic and Policy Research, Washington D.C.



    Nowhere will you find that I said there should be unlimited university enrollments for any profession. My profession is ICT, and it is reasonably easy for people to receive an education is this area. Medical enrollments are small because of the limited supply of medical educational placements at universities and the difficult score needed to gain a placement.

    Given that this severely restricts supply, it doesn’t make sense for government to go one step further and restrict supply even further.

    The reason why so much of our manufacturing is done by Chinese slave laborers is because they can do it much more cheaply than Australians can. Recent trade agreements, such as the Uruguay round of the WTO, have gone a step further to facilitate the flow of goods between countries. They sharply limit the ability of countries to impose safety or environmental standards on imported products – in effect requiring that such standards can be subject to scrutiny by a trade panel, which has the power to assess whether the rules put in place by governments are acceptable.

    International trade negotiations have made no comparable effort to standardize rules in order to facilitate trade in highly paid professional services.

    Conjuring up an example of a rotten apple like Patel serves no useful purpose. One of the reasons why he has gained publicity is because he is an exception, not the rule. Competition is not going to start creating medical monsters, what he did was due to a lack of ethics.

  5. sPurf says:


    The restriction described in that post refers to the 20% of graduates who are rural bonded. These graduates must work in rural areas after graduation for a minimum of 7 years. Despite this there are still significant doctor shortages in these areas as it is hard to attract people to these areas when Governments refuse to pay beyond the rate payed for the same or relatively easier work in Metropolitan areas. The shortfall is made up my cheaper overseas graduates (cheap as the costs of training are free) who are given restricted visas preventing them working anywhere else. Further savings are made by classifying many of them as trainees rather than specialists even if there is no training taking place. Ironically, these areas of need are often more demanding and with less support than well staffed areas and sending people with little domestic knowledge is a recipe for disaster. It may be easy to see Patel as jut a bad guy with a “lack of ethics” but the reality is more complex. Also saying that he is the exception rather than the rule is also naive…I could tell you some horror stories. Sure, he is probably someone you wouldn’t have a beer with be he isn’t the Unabomber either. The major issue is that his employer didn’t want to know that he was underqualified for the position and chose to ignore concerns that were raised later. If there wasn’t a motivation for Governments to be “economically competitive” they would have ensured that they secured a senior specialist able to work in remote and challenging circumstances. This would obviously cost more than the Patel option.

    Ultimately I think it is very difficult to apply a competitive model to some professions. Would you apply this to the Police or the Military? Maybe outsource law and order to a competitive militia? In many ways they are similar to the medical profession as neither produce easily measurable products and therefore difficult to see who is more efficient than another. For example one GP can see an average of a patient every 5 minutes and while another takes 30 minutes. The first GP will charge Medicare less per patient but I would hardly call him or her more efficient.

    If you delve a little deeper you will see that most medical organisations want more not less doctors trained.


  6. Philip says:


    Clearly we share concerns about the professionalism of doctors. I don’t think its naive to call doctors like Patel an exception, because I believe that the majority of doctors, as in any other profession, are honest, ethical and will do the right thing.

    It may be difficult to increase competition in some professions, but clearly there are steps the government can implement to increase the supply of doctors. The most obvious is to allow more overseas-trained doctors into Australia, on the basis of having been certified to Australian standards. Of course there will always be bad apples that get through but properly implemented certification will ensure that this will be kept to a minimum.

    I think that state-imposed trade restrictions are based upon labor quotas, not certification, though I could be wrong.

    It would not surprise me in the least if universities, the federal and state governments, and the AMA have constructed agreements to restrict supply over the decades while at the same time crying about shortages.

    Universities impose tough restrictions in terms of a tertiary score to get into medical placements, usually >=98. However, there really is no great difference between a high school student that achieves 90 or one that achieves 98. It is to ensure that supply is restricted and that hundreds of eager students are turned away. I’m sure the argument can be made that if medical entry scores are lowered it will result in less-intelligent students getting in, but I don’t see how it could apply to students who score >=90.

    It is generally pointless to take the word of any organization at face value because the leaders will always proclaim they have the best interests of society at heart. The question that must be asked is what are their policies?

    Under-supply results in doctors dealing with too many patients, which may compromise quality of service. With more doctors in the country, then the demand can be distributed more evenly between doctors.

  7. evan says:

    Another fantastic video (under 20mins) from deepcapture.com:


    In places like India they pay off politicians with paper bags full of cash (literally). In the west they do it this way:


    (The article is from 1994 and will only make sense after watching the video and understanding the role of REFCO.)

  8. sPurf says:


    I could only speculate whether collusion is going on between Govt and Unions with regard to doctor numbers. I can honestly tell you that doctors on the ground do want more staff and don’t think much about this pushing wages down. Junior staff are still doing shifts that for all intents and purposes are illegal and senior staff are having to forgo leave to maintain service levels. Doctors still have the highest suicide, drug abuse, divorce rates etc of any profession…obviously all that cash they are rolling in doesn’t hug you back.

    The first step is to create more positions on the ground and then find staff to fill them as we they are all employed by the Government at the end of the day and subject to either State Awards or to the Medicare Schedule. It is the Government that also decides University entrance numbers. Unless this paradigm is changed it matters little how many people are competing for the job as the successful applicant will get payed the same no matter how talented they are. Whether they come locally or from overseas is a matter for debate…but I will warn you that a GP from India will always struggle in rural Australia just like an Australian GP will struggle in India. The difference being that few Australian doctors will put themselves in a position overseas that they are not comfortable with as they aren’t as financially “motivated”. The amount of training required to put such a doctor to a level which would be equivalent to a local graduate would be to long and expensive to be “economically” viable. Hence why you end up with the Patel situation(s)…that is a doctor doing a job not because they are best qualified but because the employing authority needed a bum on a seat.

    Except for UNSW, most Medical Schools are now either post-graduate or use a range of assessments (psychometric etc.) for entrants and relying on lower TERs / GPRs (as low as 80% I think). The previous paradigm was a larger intake with higher failure rates during the degree but this was abandoned as it was felt to be unfair and didn’t result in better graduates.

  9. ak says:


    Unfortunately I can see a potential problem with your proposal. As an IT professional and a migrant I can say that it is relatively easy to get a visa. True, the queue is much longer than in 2003 but it is still much easier to get to Australia than to other countries. The points-based system is simple and probably much less corrupt than in the US (think about getting a Green Card).

    So why should we fix something what is not fundamentally broken?

    I don’t want to comment on doctors but for a psychologist it is still relatively easy to get a registration in Australia provided that that the diploma meets the EU standards.

    Now let’s consider the following scenario:
    We allow for unrestricted immigration of all professionals to Australia. Due to relatively high salaries, the natural beauty of the country and quite tolerant and accommodating society half a million doctors, engineers and other professionals arrive every year. We don’t need local graduates. Salaries can go down and there is perfect competition. However the demand for tradespeople like plumbers or builders can only be satisfied by the locals. We don’t need 1 million Polish plumbers and builders here, do we? So Aussie plumbers can earn more than the doctors. (Not a joke, I saw it in 1988 in Poland).

    OK so in 20 years time all the doctors speak Mandarin/Hindu/Russian/Polish and all the plumbers are locals.

    Is this what we want?

    Disclaimer: I worked as a farm hand 16 years ago in Norway so I highly respect physical work.

  10. Philip says:


    I never claimed that our immigration policy should support completely open borders to any profession. What I did say is that competition should be increased for highly paid professions, not a purely free market.

    Dean Baker is the only economist I know of who has performed an analysis of this type of protectionism (perhaps there are others). His rough analysis predicts that if the supply of four professions (doctors, dentists,
    lawyers, and accountants) were to increase 15% in the US, the consumer gains would amount to $US160 – $US270 billion/year, with a pure efficiency gain of $US12 – $US20 billion/year.

    Allowing a 15% greater supply doesn’t amount to a perfect flow of labor across borders, yet the gains are enormous. Slowing opening the borders to the most highly paid professions in this country is probably the best policy.

    Even by neoclassical standards, corporate executives don’t deserve what they earn (usually hundreds of thousands or millions) until there is a purely free market in the supply of corporate executives. Since they are the most well paid, policy can start with this profession. Then it can move onto managers, lawyers, etc.

    In classical times, it was assumed that capital was fairly fixed and labor was free to move about. These days it is almost the opposite. What passes for “trade” is quite nonsensical and only half the story.

  11. sPurf says:


    You seem to assume that doctors can come into the country and once they have been credentialed they can then put up a shingle and start practicing. The reality is that there is little freedom to start practicing outside the context of a created position by the Governing authority. Dean Bakers analysis may float in the US “user pays system” but it doesn’t work when a 3rd party (Government / Insurance companies) controls both the number of doctors and how much they are paid. As I have explained, bringing more doctors into the country without funding more positions will just result in unemployed doctors with no improvement in wage efficiency.

  12. Philip says:


    In that case, reform on the demand side will have to be changed as well.

  13. Tel says:

    Additionally the AMA does not negotiate for nurses, that is the ANF and they are comparatively a superior Union and consistently achieve good outcomes for their members.

    Oh yeah, that explains why nurses get paid so much better than doctors do, and why the quota limitations on nurses getting into university are so tight.

  14. sPurf says:


    I am not sure if you are being sarcastic with that statement but I can’t see how you can conclude nurses are paid more than doctors. A casual perusal of any state award makes this obvious, NSW Health allows you to view the Awards if you are interested http://www.health.nsw.gov.au

    What would be the logic behind the AMA…an organisation funded by doctors, to have nurses paid more than their members?

Leave a Reply