Good Debt, Bad Debt

Here's some "Bleeding Obvious Hidden In Plain View"

1) Is too much bad for you? Yes that's what too much means.

2) There's good time for borrowing, a bad time for borrowing but there is never ever ever a bad time for paying debt off.

That's the bleeding obvious that's over looked, forgotten or obscured when the market is artificially distorted...such is the case now.

Interest rates have been going down and then frozen for a very long time. Here's an explanatory chart and although you'll see there has been a few spikes since 1989, it has as a trend line been declining since 1989. So what's normal? Well its always going to vary, there is no set normal. There's many influences on the economy and interest rates is only one of them, but the effects of interest rates on the average Australian is probably one of the most prominent.

1989's 17% was not what should be normal but it was what it was and if you had a mortgage then, or a loan as a business some of you were paying 25%. It had to go to that mad extreme but it wasn't sustainable, something had to give. Many did go broke.

If you think the current interest rates are the "new norm" you are very much mistaken and possibly in financial peril as interest rates rise. And they will rise.Whilst we can & have intervened and stall the changes, these artificial stall points are temporary and the longer we stall the changes the worse the transition will be.

At present many people are already suffering mortgage stress and default.
If we get 4 interest rate rises in a row then many economists will claim its the economy growing and in some respects that's right & wrong. They will remain very positive through those first four rises (when they do come) even though its going to wipe some borrowers out, push some close to default & possible bankruptcy.

If your loan cannot survive a 3% rise in interest rates then your loan is probably unsustainable even though you're not in default now. If interest rates rise soon, they will probably only rise .25% in a month. Now when they last dropped banks were very reluctant to pass on savings to lenders. Now when they rise, you can expect them to be passed on in full, probably plus some. They'll be passed on not just swiftly, more likely immediately.

Right now there has never ever been a better time to pay off debt.
Be mindful, interest rates do influence the housing market prices and as interest rates do rise, the housing sales/prices will stall then fall reducing people's equity in their home or investment property and making their loan more unsustainable.

People will either personally know, or know of others that were offered more cheap lending as property prices grew in recent years. As property prices grew banks realised that people's equity grew so more debt could be sold to them...or in other words, more product sold to consumers.
It was fine over the short term but over the long term unsustainable & artificial. It may well curve back sometime soon. Sooner than we think and not doubt harder than we think.

And here we sit, peril is on its way and like every other bubble we've seen before many will be caught unawares. Totally unaware and afterwards many economists caught unaware will say they read the signs before but no one listened.

We've seen busts before and its often come a year or two after the first smart people send up the warning flares. The really smart money will be paying off and/or converting some of it into cash.

So if you have big debt will it survive interest rises?
If it can't survive a rise of 3% now then its definitely time to get your equity up as fast as you possibly can so the bigger rises will be survivable.

It is the problem that people complain that young people's literacy and numeracy is not what it should be, but doing sums is just one part. We rarely see financial literacy taught in schools.

If we're to future proof the nation going forward we have to have greater financial literacy so those least likely to afford losses can avoid them.

The next financial wave is coming. Spot & pick your 5 favourite economists you see on social media or in the media, find their comments on the economy's state of health...and screen shot it.

It'll make a heck of a travelling picture over an extended period leading up to the upcoming "correction"

Interest rates have been manipulated by the reserve bank for good reasons, but holding them down has had the negative side effect that the housing market has been largely distorted into higher unsustainable prices.
In Sydney the stories are rife that investors dominant the housing market and people who want to actually just buy & live in their own home cannot compete.

Nothing stays the same, except the same old changes & the timing of the changes and the severity.
Now is the time to consolidate and position yourself financially in a better place for the impending thud.
There has never been a better time to pay off debt.

The banks won't like it, but your job is to best position yourself, not subsidise banks.

I got called out on Exegesis view...

So a view was expressed on the Twitter-Spitter and I was called out. My view is pretty simple. You're either Christian or you're not & enjoy the privilege of free will and free choice. Thing is changing God's Word so "Christianity" lines up with you and your lifestyle or preferred temporal view isn't very genuine. Its fake and its not Christian.

Its super simple, Scripture interprets Scripture and using out of context false exegesis don't make it so. So a fellow named Stephen called me out said

"Fine. So instead of making general comments, criticise the analysis with alternate facts. You can't, of course, so you won't"

Well it being twitter bit hard to go deeper but seeing he called me out here it is. Below is just some of Stephen's blog titled "Why is the Church Anti-Gay - Well This Is What I Think"
Half right & wrong already. Wrong= The Church is not Anti-Gay, if it follow Scripture properly we're all sinners...all. The Word of God explicitly warns against getting involved with homosexual acts. Bit of a difference. The church is anti drugs, murder, adultery, drunkenness, theft...but its not against those people who have done those sins and have turned away from them (as Scripture instructs).
Sin & Sinner are two different things. As for the half right bit... Right=  "Well This Is What I Think"
Yes its what he thinks, not what Scripture actually says.
There's the big mistake. A Christian is supposed to be Berean like, checking the Scriptures daily to see if it is so, Stephen is more concerned with what he thinks. He has used Scripture but sparingly, selectively and even then used out of context exegesis to get the Scripture twisted enough to get it say what he has otherwise decided he wants it too. But anyway in brackets is the entire blog of Stephen's ( https://wellthisiswhatithink.com/2017/04/26/why-is-the-church-anti-gay-if-the-bible-isnt/amp/ )
I'll leave his blog "article" below in black & answer in Red. To be honest be pro Gay or anti gay or Christian or atheist its really up to the individual. You just shouldn't twist a belief system so it fits your own personal needs. That's false church territory and Stephen maybe should do a Bible Study on 7 Letters to 7 Churches. Here Stephen starts...

Many ordinary Christians are deeply conflicted by their desire to embrace homosexual brethren in the fellowship of the church, when some of their leaders are telling them that these people are sinners.
They are sinners. We all are. Bible is very clear it is an abomination. Its a sin and if you continue to practice any sin then you're not really a Christian. Christians are ALL sinners, all. Their real difference is they are Saved. To be saved they have done what they're supposed to do to be saved. Accept Christ as Lord & Saviour, that He died on the cross for our sins, repent of sins and turn away from your sins. That's it in a very small nutshell.

If you're still keen to keep sinning then its not repentant and you're not saved. There are saved sinners and lost sinners. Christian aim is to not be the latter.
Numbers of people feel very discomfited by the current debate.
Pastors are to preach the Good News not change things to make it more comfortable.
So what is the “Biblical” teaching on gays?
Opponents of homosexuality almost always treat scripture as being “literally true” in a historical sense. Certainly, that is the case currently.
And straight away Stephen falls foul of his own thinking. He mentioned he has a Theology Degree. Not sure from where but its not helping. When people ask "Do you read the Bible literally?" my answer is simple "I literally read it seriously"
Some parts are meant to be read literally some aren't. There is over 200 literary devices being used in the Scriptures. Stories, allegories, history, types, shadows, fore shadows...
Read the literal bits literally...read it all properly
It follows, therefore, that any rebuttal of their claims should also adhere to this assumption, if it is to convince them that they are wrong.
God's Word is right and its us that is likely to be wrong. Use Scripture properly and find God's meaning not a pre-decided position. Its not about who of us is right or wrong, its about whether or not we're reading and using God's Word properly
I personally believe the early stories in the Bible are no more “literally” true than ancient Norse myths.
Our personal view isn't using Scripture to prove Scripture. Norse gods are non relevant and non related. If you're supposedly a Christian scholar and you're using false gods to prove the Judaeo-Christian God is what you'd prefer Him to be there's a big problem ahead.

But I am prepared to put that aside for one moment, and consider this issue under the rules that the “literalists” would apply, because many argue that the oft-trotted-out “Biblical” case against homosexuality simply doesn’t appear to “stack up”.
This is going to go from bad to worse I think...

Genesis 19: 1-28
The ancient story of Sodom and Gomorrah has been used throughout the centuries as a condemnation of homosexuality, to the point where anal sex is referred to as “Sodomy”.
And that’s the problem. It’s become a cliché. We assume it’s true, because it’s been around so long.
Check the New Testament 2Peter 2:6 & others. The apostles mention it as was a real event that happen to real cities. According to Scripture it happened.

The verses in this story most commonly referred to as proof that the Sodomites were homosexual are verses 4 and 5: “Before they could lie down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, surrounded the house,from boy to old man, all the people in one mob. And they kept calling out to Lot and saying to him: ‘Where are the men who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may have intercourse with them.”
Examining this scripture, the first thing we see is that all the people, in one mob, demanded that Lot bring out the visitors to them. If we are to believe that the account of Sodom & Gomorrah is a condemnation of homosexuality, then we must also accept the conclusion that the entire city consisted of homosexuals.
What Scripture was clear about was the entire population was depraved, from boy to man they wanted sex with the 2 strangers. Other verses show God's view on homosexual acts. Its not difficult.
Now if Stephen or anyone else wants a short cut go here to get some Bible Study done, read up and go to a Bible Study group instead of making things up https://www.gotquestions.org/New-Testament-homosexuality.html

But if we look in the previous chapter, Genesis 18: 16-33, we see an account of Abraham negotiating with God to spare the people of Sodom, with the final outcome of God promising “I shall not bring it to ruin on account of the ten” (verse 33).
God promised Abraham that Sodom would not be destroyed if only ten “righteous men” could be found I the city.
If we are to accept the previous logic, this would mean that the “righteous men” referred to were, per se, heterosexuals.
No depraved, homosexuality would have been just one of the depraved acts God was against. Were they all homosexual? We don't know, we know they were ALL depraved except Lot & his family. We know all from boy to man gathered at the house to have sex with the 2 strangers. Notice, "BOY" to man...there's children then. All Sodom are not strict homosexuals they are breeding as well...but they are all depraved.

Now it is a matter of Biblical “fact” that God (or rather, his angels) didn’t find anyone at all worth saving. But at this point, we then need to ask ourselves: what would be the odds of less than ten people in the entire region of Sodom & Gomorrah being heterosexual?
The obvious answer is “impossible”, of course.
Well they found Lot & his family...but no not 10 men. Impossible? Ok you know what is and isn't possible with all people from 1000s of years ago and God from all time. Big big call...and false.

If for no other reason than to ask, “where did all the population come from?” They were all gay immigrants, presumably, begat by parents left behind in other places that were heteroesexual? We think not.
Seriously? Depraved committing depraved acts in defiance of God...doesn't exclude breeding.

So if homosexuality was not being referred to in this passage, then what was? Looking at the scriptures in Hebrew, we find an interesting usage of a couple of different words.
When the mob cries out “Where are the men who came in to you tonight?”, the Hebrew word that is customarily translated men is actually ‘enowsh which, literally translated, means “mortal” or “human”.
No it doesn't it means "male human being"


This indicates that the mob knew that Lot had visitors, but were unsure of what sex they were.
We can divine this because the Hebrew word for “man” (utilized in this same passage in Genesis 19:8) is entirely different. And one really has to ask: why would homosexuals want to have sex with two strangers if they were unsure of what sex they were?
They knew, just possibly didn't know they were angels. The city was depraved, utterly & totally...that's why it was totally destroyed. You know that right?
Trying hard to disbelieve what the text clearly spells out.

The passage translated as “Bring them out so that we may have intercourse with them” needs further examination as well.
Other Bible translations read “so that we may know them”. The Hebrew word that is commonly translated as “have intercourse”, or “know” is yada.
But this word, yada, appears in the Hebrew Scriptures a total of 943 times. And in all but ten of these usages, the word is used in the context of getting acquainted with someone.
Had the writer intended for his reading audience to believe that the mob wanted to have sexual intercourse with the strangers, he could simply have used the Hebrew word shakab, which vividly denotes sexual activity.
Many people argue, therefore, that the correct translation should be rendered something to the effect of: “Where are the people who came in to you tonight? Bring them out to us that we may get acquainted with them.”
So then, if the story of Sodom & Gomorrah was not a condemnation of homosexuality, what was it trying to convey?
It was convicted of vile depravity...that's why it was destroyed, they showed their depravity by wanting to have sex with the 2 strangers...from boy to man from the city.
The denial here is strong...but facts of Scripture is very clear.

Two verses in Exekiel sum up the story this way: “Look! This is what proved to be the error of Sodom your sister: Pride, sufficiency of bread and the carefreeness of keeping undisturbed were what happened to belong to her and her dependent towns, and the hand of the afflicted one and the poor one she did not strengthen. And they continued to be haughty and to carry on a detestable thing before me, and I finally removed them, just as I saw [fit]”. (Ezekiel 16: 49, 50.)
It is commonly assumed, because we’re referring to Sodom, that the “detestable thing” referred to in this passage is homosexuality.
But in fact, the Hebrew word utilized here is tow’ebah, which translated literally means “to commit idol worship”.
No it doesn't - It means detestable things abominations, ( https://www.biblestudytools.com/lexicons/hebrew/nas/towebah.html )
This is half the problem the view is set before the explanation is deliberately created. In regards to idol worship, remove God and anything that takes up the vacuum is an idol. Idol worship doesn't just mean a carved statue or an obelisk. Its anything that separates you from God or replaces God.
Its beginning to get very sad at this point...

This can be seen in the original Genesis passage, chapter 19, verse 8: “Please, here I have two daughters who have never had intercourse with a man. Please let me bring them out to you. Then do to them as is good in your eyes.”
One has to ask: If Lot’s house was surrounded by homosexuals, which presumably he’d know as everyone in the entire region was gay apart from him and his family, why would he offer the mob women?
They weren't gay they were utterly & completely depraved. Sex is clearly and specifically designed for within the confines of marriage. That's a man and a woman. Anything else is adultery. Having a mistress, a prostitute, a rent boy, a lover of any sort is adultery. 2 men couldn't marry back then so homosexuality is adultery. DeFacto relationships were adultery.
The New Testament is very clear on this and homosexual acts.

Note also that these women were virgins. And that the Sodomites were pagans.
Virgin sacrifices to idols were a common practice in this era. Therefore, it can easily be concluded that Lot was offering his daughters as a virgin sacrifice to appease the mob in an effort to protect the visitors.
Easily concluded if you ignore the Scriptures completely and decided a personal assumption is valid explanation. Sorry duded out again

In the Greek scriptures, the story of Sodom is summed up this way: “and by reducing the cities of Sodom and Gomorrah to ashes he condemned them, setting a pattern for ungodly persons of things to come”.
This corroborates Ezekiel’s summation, once again showing that these were “ungodly persons”; in other words, idolaters, they were not worshippers of the true God.
If we have difficulty with the logic of 100% of any population being gay, can we rather believe in 100% of a population being adherents of a particular pagan cult? Yes, we certainly can. If for no other reason that there was no tolerance of those who didn’t share pagan beliefs in many early societies. Not to agree was to invite exclusion or execution. You were in, or you were out. The Jews themselves exercise this attitude continually throughout the Old Testament.
Utter rubbish twisted like a wet rag. Lot & his family were not depraved like the rest of the city, that's why they were saved. This is a massive and detailed conclusion based on no data or evidence at all.
Dangerous lack of exegesis & personally concocted.

So the story of Sodom and Gomorrah, therefore, is almost certainly intended as a condemnation of idol worshippers, and of a greedy and inhospitable society that sought to treat visitors in a threatening manner – which was also a sin, to the early Jews, by the way.
Many people argue, therefore, that it is perfectly reasonable to propose that this key text on the judgement of this region had nothing, absolutely nothing to do with homosexuality!
Some people argue the earth is flat but that's a load of rubbish too.
In all these cases verses are selected in isolation and twisted with false premise to provide a false version of what was being said...to suit someone who isn't God but is wanting to modify Him to suit their own view lifestyle.

They could just be honest & say I'm Christian and the Bible is very clear about wanting sinners, all sinners (including homosexuals) to turn from their sin and find salvation through Christ or...

Or perhaps be honest and say they're not Christians, they don't believe in god, they reject the bible and think anyone can do whatever they want to do as long as no one gets hurt or no law is broken.

Changing the Bible to Vers. 2.0 to suit your own pre-suppositional view is appalling.

All the while there's a dozen verses that have been side stepped completely...

1Corinthians 6:9-10.

9 Or do you not know that the unrighteous2 will not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived: xneither the sexually immoral, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor men who practice homosexuality, 10 nor thieves, nor the greedy, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers will inherit the kingdom of God.Have to confess, there's more to the twisted Scripture filled "article" and I've only brought half of it across. Poor Hebrew transliteration, twisted interpretation with no sola scriptura exegesis...its not going to get any better.

Make up your mind, be a Christian and read, use Scripture properly with proper in context exegesis or go do your own thing away from the Word without twisting it to suit your own idol filled motivations. Stephen may be a top bloke, who knows but he's not just got the wrong end of the stick, the stick is a snake and he's using it to lecture other people about sticks.

I understand he works for an advertising agency.
Somehow I think the claimed theology degree was either lost, non existent or wasted.
Now if Stephen wants to return volley I guess we can deconstruct the rest of the blog.
At that point it'll be the same, God's Word compared to "his" view of what "he" thinks God meant.
If homosexuality is not a sin against God, as Stephen suggests then he needs to do a blog on why it is that God owes Sodom & Gomorrah an apology.

Now if you're gay and you have decided to stay gay, in a gay lifestyle with your gay partner that is entirely up to you. Its not my place to call you a good or bad person because of your choice. But if you alter God's Word to suit your own lifestyle then yes you are pretty bad. The Bible is also pretty clear about false churches and there are many out there. Far too many. Most of them will fail as churches and we should just call them civic clubs.
If a religion cannot properly live by its own teachings then it should be stripped of its "church" status.

The Current Breach of Acts by Senior Bureaucrats

Yep its kinda looking like its happened and if it is as it appears, then we have a very serious legislative breach that undermines our legal & legislative framework.  Now this is not Zimbabwe but side stepping the law in the smallest possible manner is just as serious and the worst may be yet to come.

How & what's happened in WA?
Well Australia Post, our official national post entity, has somehow been dropped as an "Official Carrier" by the WAPolice for freighting firearms around Western Australia. Information how this has happened or why is pretty scant to say the least. We're told that the upper ranks of WAPol beaurcracy have claimed that "by post" as set out in Section 30A of the Firearms Act means couriers, not just Australia Post...which they dropped anyway.
That's still very debatable as most people are going to argue quite easily that "by post" is not couriers with the "EXCLUSION OF AUSTRALIA POST"...not in any way, any shape nor form.

Now whilst you're digesting this be aware no other state in Australia has determined Aust Post is not to be an Official Carrier...none. If you have a firearm sent from the eastern states you can post it to WA but you cannot post within WA.
How's that work because a firearm posted in Sydney, Canberra, Brisbane, Melbourne or even anywhere else in other states of territories is 100% legal. A dealer in other states breaks no law in their state nor in WA if they use Australia Post to post to WA.
It is the strangest of situations as WAPol is of a differing view.

However with over 20 LAWFUL gun dealers and even more private gun smiths in REGIONAL WA the financial impost is massive. They cannot get stock delivered as usual by Aust Post and have to use a set group of Approved Couriers. None of which transport to all of WA. Some are without any possible avenue of delivery.

Some of these rural businesses are going to the wall as we speak. If they're within 4 hours of Perth they'll be driving directly to the Perth delivery depot/s, picking up stock and driving directly home. If they're 6 hours from Perth they probably aren't going to risk it with a 13+ hour round trip.

But how is it that the senior bureaucrats in the WA Police can get this so wrong. I'd argue that Aust Post is actually enshrined in the Act whilst WA Police's position is it isn't enshrined in the Act.

This is pretty serious on several fronts. Obvious is we have some rural businesses that are suffering unnecessary financial hardship and even in some cases a complete inability to have any stock delivered. Those that can use the listed couriers are paying far more than Aust Post do...if they can deliver to them that is.

If that's not enough there's another thing...having trade restricted by having the enshrined carrier dropped whilst the Act actually specifies them.

Stop and digest that.

We have some senior bureaucrats who have decided to created baseless reasoning to side step and contravene the Act to the detriment of rural business.

There's something very serious happening here. Bureaucrats are now able to ignore or deliberately contravene the Act. How you going digesting that...if its a precedent.

The minister has no choice whatsoever. Michelle Roberts MLA MUST reinstate Aust Post as a firearms carrier as it was prior to the legislative over reach by the Bureaucrats and identify who made this very serious breach, this Legislative Over Reach.
When? Pretty much immediately.

Acts of Parliament are detailed and set & no officer of the law can contravene them.

The WANationals are onto this as are the other Upper House cross benches but the Labor/Liberal Duopoly are out to lunch entirely.

Direct from the WALabor Twitter page states...

"@MarkMcGowanMP and Labor will be a Government for you. Delivering for your community and our state."
Well they appear to be doing little in the way of delivering. They're allowing free contravention of Acts of Parliament to the detriment of rural businesses.

This is not Government. This is very dangerous.

How's your Constitution?

Organisations generally have similar problems.

Everyone in a Organisation will agree at some point they need a Committee to Review the Constitution. If its bigger than the average club then I firmly believe what they REALLY need is a lot more than just a Constitutional Review Committee. What's more often needed is a full time Governance Committee that when needed, takes submissions from any part of the Organisation and reports directly to what is the Board of Management, the Company Directors.

This means we'd have a mechanism that deals with compliance issue if & when they happen can mitigate & reduce risk and legal exposure to both the Organisation & indiviuduals and officers of the whole organisation.

A constitution or Articles of Association are living documents which need to be in a state of constant or regular review. A constitution is a reflection of what an organsation is and how it does what its supposed to.

Corporate Governance distilled down is nothing more than the systems & processes you have in place to ensure your organisation or company does what it's supposed to do, in the required manner its supposed to do it.

Remember its still possible, even with the new Incorporations Act (in WA) to have a Act compliant & Department approved Constitution and still have serious breaches of Corporate Governance.

In previous times the Incoporations Acts of all states were really only the legislative framework to allow a Not For Profit legal entity to exist. Where there were gaps in the respective state based Acts, the over arching Act was the federal Corporations Act. Its also here that rights roles & repsonsibilities of Company Directors (Management Committee members) were set out and applied to anyone in charge of a For Profit or Not For Profit legal entity. This is still the case but the new WA Act now covers more than it ever did before.

Still we need to know having a good constitution is only part of the remedy for most State Based Not-For-Profit organisations. The Corporate Governance levels need to be addressed and maintained continually. This cannot be done with JUST a constitution review once every 8 or 10 years. Organisations need a governance committee that sees to the maintenance of their Constitution in an ongoing basis and not wait until 6 or 10 years of out of date matters need a massive & critical re-write. A Governance Committee must also over see our operations to make recommendations to reduce our individual and/or combined risks & legal exposure.

Good news is if your group's constitution isn't compliant with the new current Act fear not. You have until July 1st 2019 to get complaint with the Department.

But what will you do to ensure good Corporate Governance in a governance model that suits your organisation?

Also note, having a complaint constitution doesn't mean your management committee is immune from breaching their fiduciary duty or failing in its rights, roles & responsibilities. An ongoing reporting committee of vigilance is essential.

If you have the numbers (and most certainly if you have a number of committees and working groups) get proper charters for each so everyone knows their knitting, safe from legal angst. Remember the Not-For-Profit that's complaint can be sued for what it has, but people in positions of management or decision making can still be personally liable. Get covered, get compliant and get on with the more important things like the aims of your association.

https://www.commerce.wa.gov.au/consumer-protection/associations-new-law