Australia - you're standing in it

No attribution? You don't really expect me to take it at face value do you? Anyway let's have a closer look.
* Extremely highly qualified
* Bipartisan, having worked in the George W. Bush administration.
* Progressive economic views in some ways similar to the New Deal

Sounds like a great candidate and very much needed after decades of maladministration by neolibs of various kinds. Of course I expect you would prefer a return to the gold standard and an extra dose of neolib nonsense to keep the dollars flowing upstream but I think.tbose days might just be done old cock.

Brutus-"BB it looks like to me that greed is the cause of recessions and depressions....the rich elite know that they can manoeuvre the system for their gain . "

Not quite right but close . Greed can ( along with many other factors ) cause asset bubbles and fear ( also with other factors ) can cause crashes . Fear is the stronger emotion by far .

Both these emotions affect all systems as there are imbedded in all humans . Feudalism , Communism , Capitalism .

This is mostly wrong -"the rich elite know that they can manoeuvre the system for their gain . if something starts to go wrong they know they can invest there money in Gold/not bonds for example ".

Not even the rich can pick the top or the bottom of markets !!!

The rich cannot quickly sell their properties , sell the equity ( Twiggy just lost millions with FMG going from $27 to $15 in two months ) , sell their unlisted small business , sell their property developing company etc etc . Many go broke in a recession . Many also are able to hold on to when times change for the better .

Bonds are not a place to hid now . Their prices are 200% higher than equity prices on average . Golds price is affected by crypto currencies but will always hold some value imo . The governments might to what FDR did in the US and make it illegal to hold gold . He confiscated people gold at a very low price .

There are always risks . The more you have the more you are at risk of losing .

The Central Banks did bail out Wall St in the GFC . A tragedy ! Some crap about being to big to fail .

Hundreds of thousands of rich and poor people were smashed by this failure of regulators to regulate . All my clients lost 50% of their wealth in everything ( homes went down less ) but were lucky to be able to hold on . No debt .
.

That is a very narrow view Hutchy. For example the wealthy are more likely to be able to hold onto their assets when prices fall knowing that they will rise again cyclically. Then, they are also well positioned to have the available funds to pick a point close to the bottom and gain wealth as the market rises. Average punters, sorry, investors, are less likely to be able to hold and buy on the upswing. Not to mention the obvious truth that the more you have the more you can lose before it becomes what? Inconvenient?

The bailing out of the banks was appalling but at that point the whole system was on the verge of falling over. There were no takers at all for US treasuries, which was a kind of signal that the end of the financial world was just around the corner.

Hutchy 19 wrote:

Brutus-So what's the "enormous affect on OZ " in Biden nominating a top bank regulator........as it's only a nomination and nothing else....so what are the implications of a nomination , genius?

It all depends on what this women does when she gets the job . Below is her views . She will be a disaster that could stuff up the world .

As the Wall Street Journal editorial board notes, "Ms. Omarova thinks asset prices, pay scales, capital and credit should be dictated by the federal government. In two papers, she has advocated expanding the Federal Reserve’s mandate to include the price levels of “systemically important financial assets” as well as worker wages. As they like to say at the modern university, from each according to her ability to each according to her needs."

In a recent paper “The People’s Ledger,” she proposed that the Federal Reserve take over consumer bank deposits, “effectively ‘end banking,’ as we know it,” and become “the ultimate public platform for generating, modulating, and allocating financial resources in a modern economy.” She’d also like the U.S. to create a central bank digital currency—as Venezuela and China are doing—to “redesign our financial system & turn Fed’s balance sheet into a true ‘People’s Ledger,’” she tweeted this summer. What could possibly go wrong? -WSJ

Hutchy you didn't answer the question......what affect has a nomination on OZ ?

Blindboy - No winning for you again . You are on a streak .

You said . "That is a very narrow view Hutchy. For example the wealthy are more likely to be able to hold onto their assets when prices fall knowing that they will rise again cyclically. "

I said the same fucken thing in my post . Learn to read idiot . Most are not cashed up ( my clients are now ) before a fall so not buying at the bottom which I also said the rich can't predict . I advise the rich and I will admit your and Brutus's guess would be as good as mine .

Again you show you don't know how the real world operates OR acted . You said "The bailing out of the banks was appalling but at that point the whole system was on the verge of falling over. There were no takers at all for US treasuries ".

Who do you think has been buying all the US treasuries since the GFC ? It is not mum and dads it is the fucken FED . Check again who owns the FED !!! I bet you didn't even read my post about who owns it !!

There was no major individual player put in jail for this travesty . Not one senior bank manager and not one senior regulator . As you said "the end of the financial world was just around the corner" and I will say many bankers and regulators thought their end was near .

But they got off scot free with ALL the ill-gotten gains .

I liked Gladys...worked her guts out...shame she fell for the idiot boyfriend back in the day. I think Dominic will be really good as well and maybe even better. Shes a noble character by standing aside but the ICAC timing is unbelievable during an important crisis. You think they could wait a couple of months for a probable useless result anyway as I doubt she will have mud stick on her. Time will tell I suppose.

"I said the same ..... thing in my post"

Well no you didn't. What you did say was:

" The rich cannot quickly sell their properties , sell the equity ( Twiggy just lost millions with FMG going from $27 to $15 in two months ) , sell their unlisted small business , sell their property developing company etc etc . Many go broke in a recession . Many also are able to hold on to when times change for the better ."

Pretty much the exact opposite except for a little qualifier at the end. Oh and what a tragedy for Twiggy, down to his last $15 mill oh no my mistake down to his last $15 mill in THAT investment.

BB I said " Many also are able to hold on to when times change for the better ."

You said "For example the wealthy are more likely to be able to hold onto their assets when prices fall knowing that they will rise again cyclically. "

You said "Pretty much the exact opposite " . Read the two sentences as they DO say the same thing . No fucken qualifier .

I will say you have no ability to comprehend what I write and just want to find fault to feel that you are right . How poor !!!

Improve or else you will piss me off again .

Gee hutchy , we don;t want to piss you off the might start writing in CAPITALS........but could you please answer the simple question.." .what affect has Ms Omarova nomination on OZ ?

Hutchy 19 wrote:

BB I said " Many also are able to hold on to when times change for the better ."

You said "For example the wealthy are more likely to be able to hold onto their assets when prices fall knowing that they will rise again cyclically. "

You said "Pretty much the exact opposite " . Read the two sentences as they DO say the same thing . No fucken qualifier .

I will say you have no ability to comprehend what I write and just want to find fault to feel that you are right . How poor !!!

Improve or else you will piss me off again .

Ha ha ha twice in one day Hutchy, or was it three times. Never mind you'll get over it. Now go, pick up the dummy and give it a good rinse before preparing to spit it again.

A new snowflake contender…blowin might have to give up his title and pass the baton onto princess snowflake hutchy19.

Roadkill wrote:

A new snowflake contender…blowin might have to give up his title and pass the baton onto princess snowflake hutchy19.

You do realise that both the fella posting above you and the fella posting below you are both recently off the bench after drenching their nappies?

A couple of tantrums for the ages. Bed wetting for Australia those two. One of them even threatened to sue me he was so aggrieved over a few words on the internet. True story. That’s the level of character you’re looking at.

interesting

Clive Palmigana announced Glady being embroiled in an ICAC investigation weeks ago... the media was deathly silent and most others had their head too far up their arse to face listening to what Clive said.

Brutus . You wouldn't understand and I won't waste my time .

I posted some of her beliefs and any knowledgeable person who have understood the red flags .

Hutchy 19 wrote:

Brutus . You wouldn't understand and I won't waste my time .

I posted some of her beliefs and any knowledgeable person who have understood the red flags .

well c'mon genius explain it to me...what are the red flags for Australia....you don't have a clue do you?

Won't waste my time Brutus .

Having a person with commie type views , wanting to have authority to control everything is going to be great choice for the top Banking regulator in the US .

You can believe it will have no implications in Oz .

Hutchy , how am I wasting your time you are here all day ?

, just wanting clarification on another one of your stupid/thoughtless comments that you cannot explain ....so now a nominated person in the USA has commie views ,LOL.......and is going to have a big affect on Australia......hahahaha....just admit it , you don't know what you are talking about?

Hutchy 19 wrote:

Won't waste my time Brutus .

Having a person with commie type views , wanting to have authority to control everything is going to be great choice for the top Banking regulator in the US .

You can believe it will have no implications in Oz .

Quick check under the bed! Those bloody commies are at it again trying to perve ert our wundefool societee with one of them edjerkated wimmin what shuld be home cookin and cleenin. She don't fool me I know she worked that low down dirty commie George W. Bush

Brutus - You are acting so dumb on this issue . Most BIG things that happen in the US , China and the World have implications on Australia .

BB - You have proved your character to me . A deliberate Liar and unwilling to admit mistakes . Things I rate very badly .

So rude you bring sexism into it . Poor character again demonstrated . We were probably trying to infer racism as well .

It was her views that I am concerned about .

You seem intelligent but you are definitely a F..k Wit !

Fluoridation of water? Mandrake: Uh? Yes, I-I have heard of that, Jack, yes. Yes. Ripper: Well, do you know what it is ...
You know when fluoridation began?...1946. 1946, Mandrake. How does that coincide with your post-war Commie conspiracy, huh? It's incredibly obvious, isn't it? A ...

Hutchy 19 wrote:

Brutus - You are acting so dumb on this issue . Most BIG things that happen in the US , China and the World have implications on Australia .

No Hutchy it's because you cannot answer , as BB said , you better check for commies under your bed...back to McCarthyism which is the practice of making accusations of subversion and treason, especially when related to communism and socialism......so what are BIG things again?
Hutchy I have some time off today so I thought lets have a hutchy day....hahhaLOL

Brutus - to save you from making a fool of yourself ALL day I will do what I usually do .

Not spend my all my time on SN and do some other enjoyable activity .

How is your theory regarding porosity going ? I think it needs some work and I will enjoy seeing your progress later .

Hutchy speaking to you all day would make me a fool, but I am not speaking to you I am questioning you and you are unable to back off , or offer any glimmer of substance......

Hutchy 19 wrote:

Brutus - to save you from making a fool of yourself ALL day I will do what I usually do .

Not spend my all my time on SN and do some other enjoyable activity .

How is your theory regarding porosity going ? I think it needs some work and I will enjoy seeing your progress later .

HUTCHY, THE WORD POROSITY/porous, that you used to describe Australia's borders and how aborigines and the first settlers were able to come to Austrlia...FFS ...here's the definition........Porosity is the percentage of pore volume or empty space in a formation that can contain fluids. Porosity is a measure of the relative volume of void space in rock to the total rock volume. These spaces or pores are where oil and gas accumulate; therefore, a formation containing a high percentage of porosity can contain more hydrocarbons.
So would you call Australia and empty space in a formation that contains fluids?

Brutus - I never said we were speaking . Thanks for providing the real definition of porous but you wasted your time as I already knew it .

Try checking porous country borders as this is where you have a problem . Just google it as porous and borders come up a lot . It is worth you knowing as at the moment you have no idea .

I am sorry that I didn't think like you " I have some time off today so I thought lets have a hutchy day."

I also had time off today and when thinking of what to do you didn't even enter my thoughts .Sorry mate !

Hutchy just curious what did you get up to before you discovered Swellnet and started annoying the bejesus out of everyone?

Libs gotta go .Cant see Labour as much better. We used to have a public service that know how to do things like quarantine in a pandemic and extract people from dangerous situation OS - we used to own an airline remember- but they've privatised all that and replaced people with decades of experience with consultants whose allegiance is not to Australian citizens but to shareholders.

Hutchy so porous borders it is......this from Thesaurus, definition of PB,. porous - allowing passage in and out; "our unfenced and largely unpoliced border inevitably has been very porous"

So Ok it was easy for the original Indigenous people to come to Australia, as it was for the first settlers.......wow , incredibly confronting and really Australia does not have huge cliffs all the way around Australia....so it's easy to land in Australia....were you up all nite poring over the porousness of Australia relative to people coming here.

Hutchy day for me means , calling out all your right wing Trump/Abbott bullshit and making you own your statements by trying to get you to explain them , which you can't....

Hutchy 19 wrote:

Brutus - I never said we were speaking . Thanks for providing the real definition of porous but you wasted your time as I already knew it .

Try checking porous country borders as this is where you have a problem . Just google it as porous and borders come up a lot . It is worth you knowing as at the moment you have no idea .

I am sorry that I didn't think like you " I have some time off today so I thought lets have a hutchy day."

I also had time off today and when thinking of what to do you didn't even enter my thoughts .Sorry mate !

h

Brutus - so glad you were finally able to work out what porous borders means .

I know it will take a huge step for you but by stopping the boats and building a wall stops , as you said "unfenced and largely unpoliced border inevitably has been very porous".

I know you have trouble understanding my statements but I hope like porous borders you can get this .

I am making a real effort to keep my statements at level were you can understand them . Would using more CAPITALS help ?

Hutchy & Info the conjoined imbeciles constantly splashing down the shallow end of the gene pool. Infinite ignorance. #there’salwaysanothercomment

hutchy , but what does porous borders have to do with the arrival of the first Nations people and the colonialists ?

what are you trying to say?

Hutchy 19 wrote:

Brutus - so glad you were finally able to work out what porous borders means .

I know it will take a huge step for you but by stopping the boats and building a wall stops , as you said "unfenced and largely unpoliced border inevitably has been very porous".

I know you have trouble understanding my statements but I hope like porous borders you can get this .

I am making a real effort to keep my statements at level were you can understand them . Would using more CAPITALS help ?

Brutus - I was responding to a comment that said a porous border was what made America great . I agreed with that and it did make Australia great . But as I said times have changed .

A porous border in the time of terrorists , people smugglers and covid is a disaster .

Stopping the boats and walling up the US southern border , ie plugging the leaks , were very hard decisions to make , those that made them copped heaps of abuse ( from people like you ) and took balls of steel to go through with .

If you were up to date you might have understood what context the comment was in .

Again I have to waste my time explaining to you what you already should know . And you ask me if I have read the article ? I will do it when I have the time and you could help by not asking me stupid questions .

I'd hazard to guess that everyone in these forums approx my age (mid-late 40s) or older will know about, and even recall living through, Australia's path of economic reform in the 80s and 90s (well...it's still going really...).

These reforms were termed economic rationalism or economic liberalisation, and roughly started with the Hawke govt. They included things like privatisation of government assets, labour market and financial system deregulation, globalisation and reduced trade protections, reduced restrictions on international capital flows, a general reduction in the welfare state, microeconomic reform, enhanced competition policy, deregulation of various industries such as transport and telecommunications and airlines, tax reform, etc.

The motivation for economic rationalism would also be well known and possibly have been experienced by some: inflation and stagflation in the 70s and 80s, influence from ideas from economic theory particularly the benefits of free trade, compared to nowadays relatively volatile boom-bust swings in the business cycle, the perceived need for global competitiveness and in general a focus on increased economic efficiency, a rise in free market ideology and belief in the power and effectiveness of markets, a belief that these reforms would drive sustained long-term gains in productivity and wages, etc.

The inflation of the 70s and 80s was definitely one of the main factors, and it also had a big impact on the why the Reserve Bank's (nearly sole) focus of monetary policy is inflation targeting. And crush inflation they did - it stood no chance at all against these domestic reforms aimed at increasing competition combined with significant international competition and relentless inflation targeting...! And our economy is very resilient and stable, and has very impressively withstood some major economic shocks in the past few decades: Asian financial crisis, sovereign debt crises, tech/dot-com bubble, GFC, now covid, etc...

But one spectacular failure has been productivity and wages growth - this promise just didn't materialise. And this may also be reflective of more general, broader social and cultural realities of a nation having gone through a few decades of economic reforms focused on increasing competition: Australia seems to be going down the path of becoming an increasingly one-dimensional, socially and culturally bankrupt nation focused solely on creating an increasingly competitive, dog-eat-dog, rat-race society in which it's a struggle just to survive and put food on one's plate.

I just wonder: all the economic reforms focused on deregulation, efficiency and competition - but at what social and human cost?

And this is coming from someone who has been fortunate to do well enough to semi-retire in my mid 40s.

I know this might be a reflection of living on the Sunshine Coast which is currently seriously heaving, straining and bursting at the seams from population growth - seemingly a bunch of opportunistic, zero care factor city people with no connection to the place. But I see most people around me increasingly hammering away and working their arses off in an increasingly competitive, cut-throat, ruthless society but largely getting nowhere, just going around in circles, spinning their wheels, and the walls just closing in around them, barely staying afloat. And I see a significant portion of society being left behind.

I also wonder about these things after having travelled to northern Europe, especially the Nordic/Scandinavian countries, and experienced their cultures and way of life. I have to say, the social, cultural and living standards outcomes in those countries seem much better and more balanced that in Australia, the US and the UK... Actually I've travelled through a lot of Asia and a thought I regularly had was I really only saw extreme poverty in the US. And of course the Nordic countries all rank the highest on world happiness, development index, etc reports (I know Aus also ranks fairly well too), and I can see why.

The thing I find strange is now a lot of nations are having a rethink and there is possibly paradigm shift taking place, such as in the US Biden administration, but the kickback and resistance to the economic ideas and principles that make the Nordic countries great places is just fierce. There seems to be full blown warfare like tactics from many corners of society of mass misinformation, propaganda, smoke-and-mirrors, diversions and distractions etc all aimed at sabotaging, undermining and discrediting the consideration of these economic realities of these really well developed northern European nations. These Nordic countries are also regularly termed as communist/socialist, which is completely absurd.

I think there is a lot to be said for Australia just stopping, taking a good hard look around at what's going on in the world, and choosing a more intelligent way forward economically, culturally and socially - including moving away and distancing itself from the US model - instead of continuing to go down the path of a one-dimensional nation focused on creating a society based on extreme competition.

great post GSCO

+1

Not sure about the re-think in policy though, at least here in Australia.

A good portion of the nordic countries success could probably be tied to their education policies. Here in Australia that isn’t likely to change. We’re actually gearing up to make it easier to import skilled workers rather than making it easier to train/ educate our own

Agree with everything else though. You’re lucky to have seen it first hand

Thanks gsco, another great contribution. I will throw my 2c worth in later.

No idea how happiness index's are worked out, but id take them with a big grain of salt, each to their own but i wouldn't live in one of those countries if you paid me.

But if you could measure things in Australia you would expect if you compared city populations with regional areas, im betting cities would rank low and regional areas that still have access to services rank much higher.

We have already seen people figure this out, first came the sea change/tree change type thing, now with Covid we are getting a second type wave of people moving from cities to regional areas for a better lifestyle.

I think most people are happy when they have a well balanced life, work life balance and surrounded by family and friends and also can get out and about in some degree of nature, rather than being trapped in a concrete jungle and a one hour commute home in stop start traffic too tired to even spend any time with kids etc. (oh and a sense of community is important too)

Problem these days is most families need both partners to work to achieve the things they want, which leaves less time to spend with family, so even though equality of the sexes has had many positives, the break down of traditional roles has also caused us other problems.

I see this in Indonesia where roles are more traditional and family more important, same deal with community, despite negatives of being a developing country they get a lot of other things right, like helping each other and looking after their parents (elderly) rather than seeing them as a burden and putting them in an aged care home etc.

BTW. Competition is completely natural, it's why we are human and have evolved to what we are, we strive to be better and evolve, competition plays a big part in this.

gsco wrote:

I'd hazard to guess that everyone in these forums approx my age (mid-late 40s) or older will know about, and even recall living through, Australia's path of economic reform in the 80s and 90s (well...it's still going really...).

These reforms were termed economic rationalism or economic liberalisation, and roughly started with the Hawke govt. They included things like privatisation of government assets, labour market and financial system deregulation, globalisation and reduced trade protections, reduced restrictions on international capital flows, a general reduction in the welfare state, microeconomic reform, enhanced competition policy, deregulation of various industries such as transport and telecommunications and airlines, tax reform, etc.

The motivation for economic rationalism would also be well known and possibly have been experienced by some: inflation and stagflation in the 70s and 80s, influence from ideas from economic theory particularly the benefits of free trade, compared to nowadays relatively volatile boom-bust swings in the business cycle, the perceived need for global competitiveness and in general a focus on increased economic efficiency, a rise in free market ideology and belief in the power and effectiveness of markets, a belief that these reforms would drive sustained long-term gains in productivity and wages, etc.

The inflation of the 70s and 80s was definitely one of the main factors, and it also had a big impact on the why the Reserve Bank's (nearly sole) focus of monetary policy is inflation targeting. And crush inflation they did - it stood no chance at all against these domestic reforms aimed at increasing competition combined with significant international competition and relentless inflation targeting...! And our economy is very resilient and stable, and has very impressively withstood some major economic shocks in the past few decades: Asian financial crisis, sovereign debt crises, tech/dot-com bubble, GFC, now covid, etc...

But one spectacular failure has been productivity and wages growth - this promise just didn't materialise. And this may also be reflective of more general, broader social and cultural realities of a nation having gone through a few decades of economic reforms focused on increasing competition: Australia seems to be going down the path of becoming an increasingly one-dimensional, socially and culturally bankrupt nation focused solely on creating an increasingly competitive, dog-eat-dog, rat-race society in which it's a struggle just to survive and put food on one's plate.

I just wonder: all the economic reforms focused on deregulation, efficiency and competition - but at what social and human cost?

And this is coming from someone who has been fortunate to do well enough to semi-retire in my mid 40s.

I know this might be a reflection of living on the Sunshine Coast which is currently seriously heaving, straining and bursting at the seams from population growth - seemingly a bunch of opportunistic, zero care factor city people with no connection to the place. But I see most people around me increasingly hammering away and working their arses off in an increasingly competitive, cut-throat, ruthless society but largely getting nowhere, just going around in circles, spinning their wheels, and the walls just closing in around them, barely staying afloat. And I see a significant portion of society being left behind.

I also wonder about these things after having travelled to northern Europe, especially the Nordic/Scandinavian countries, and experienced their cultures and way of life. I have to say, the social, cultural and living standards outcomes in those countries seem much better and more balanced that in Australia, the US and the UK... Actually I've travelled through a lot of Asia and a thought I regularly had was I really only saw extreme poverty in the US. And of course the Nordic countries all rank the highest on world happiness, development index, etc reports (I know Aus also ranks fairly well too), and I can see why.

The thing I find strange is now a lot of nations are having a rethink and there is possibly paradigm shift taking place, such as in the US Biden administration, but the kickback and resistance to the economic ideas and principles that make the Nordic countries great places is just fierce. There seems to be full blown warfare like tactics from many corners of society of mass misinformation, propaganda, smoke-and-mirrors, diversions and distractions etc all aimed at sabotaging, undermining and discrediting the consideration of these economic realities of these really well developed northern European nations. These Nordic countries are also regularly termed as communist/socialist, which is completely absurd.

I think there is a lot to be said for Australia just stopping, taking a good hard look around at what's going on in the world, and choosing a more intelligent way forward economically, culturally and socially - including moving away and distancing itself from the US model - instead of continuing to go down the path of a one-dimensional nation focused on creating a society based on extreme competition.

Boom. thats it thank you gsco for the ability to express the reality which many face but can not put into words.

Thanks for that analysis gsco. I would make the point that these negative outcomes you describe have not been an inevitable consequence of economic reform so much as the deliberate policies of conservative parties in the UK, US and Australia since the 1980s. Neoliberalism might preach a free market ethos but the reality is very different. In Australia alone, government support for the fossil fuel industry annually runs at around $12 billion with some much higher estimates. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/P1021-Fossi... The current National Gas Infrastructure Plan will probably lead to increases in these subsidies, much of it hidden in vaguely described infrastructure plans such as the one for the port of Broome. https://australiainstitute.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2021/04/P1021-Fossi...

The housing market, which has been distorted by negative gearing to further increase the natural advantages of those who already own property, also shows the trend of interfering in markets. Governments, of course, should interfere in markets, but not to further disadvantage the vulnerable, increase the wealth of the wealthy or to prop up antiquated energy sources.

The graphs in this link show the rise of the top 1%’s share of the nation’s wealth and the decline in wage growth. https://www.actu.org.au/media/1033439/actu-ineqaulity-report-2017.pdf. Again these are the result of deliberate policy. As recent events have shown Australia could easily have afforded higher wage growth and welfare payments above the poverty line over recent years that would have reduced inequality.

Thomas Picketty highlighted some of the issues in Capital and argued that growing inequality was a threat to democracy. Given recent events in the US and elsewhere that looks like an accurate prediction. Even making the highly dubious assumption that neoliberal policies increase economic growth it is clear that, as well as the risk to democracy, the price for this is increasingly paid by the most vulnerable be they gig workers, the under employed or welfare recipients. The arguments that these people are somehow undeserving of better is beneath contempt particularly when it comes from the socially and economically privileged.

Margaret Thatcher famously claimed that there was no such thing as society and then set out on proving her point by doubling unemployment and increasing the child poverty rate to near 30% while increasing inequality to a level it still remains stuck at. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thatcherism#Criticism. That Australia, with all its natural advantages should have followed some of the way down the same path remains a national tragedy.

Australia has the wealth to support its population in comfort. That it does not do so is the direct result of uncaring governments driven by narrow social and economic views that are now rapidly reaching their use by date. The electoral success of neoliberal governments has been driven by a partnership with multinational media organisations mixing propaganda with outright lies to build the wealth of the privileged classes and prevent action on climate change. In the process they have undermined confidence in science and, by divisive attacks on their opponents when they were in power, trust in government. We have been reaping the consequences of these actions for some time now and there is worse to come on the climate front. The next election will be critical and present the starkets choice in Australia's history. A move towards more progressive government to benefit all Australians or further down the road to inequality, division and decreasing democracy.

That’s a great, and easy to follow, little run of analysis. Thanks gsco and bb.

I too wonder why Australia, with its social history and its geographic advantages, trends toward the US approach vice the Nordic. I believe we’d all be some much better off under the latter.

Because the political and business culture has been for go-getters to go and get MBA's and spend time in American think tanks.

And thus import American management/political culture.

ergo, the entertainment industry.

Well said gsco and bb. Couldn't agree more.

bb freeride nailing it. I don't mind poverty of my own making just don't rub my nose in it. The American dream was never my Australian dream yet it is becoming a mirror image in so many ways. Thinktanks are idea and collaborator engine spaces of thinking, how do they work to influence policies here in Australia? Are they a path to change or is that impossible dreaming?

Good mate of mine, very occasional poster on here, recently left his company of 15 years employment for greener pastures. He was on the up in the business. Major cause of the shift was the growth of the company to a point where they now employed a professional ‘managerial class’ of people educated not in the industry but in ‘management and communications’. This crew have no concept of the business they’re now leading.
I’ve seen it in my own workplace, where the experience, qualifications and motivation of existing workforce is wilfully ignored in favour of the glossy presentations and arcane buzzwords of overpaid consultants. Which delivers nada…
My personal hate is ‘facilitated workshops’. Usually some nattily dressed fuckhead speaking a buzzword-corrupted version of English with a whiteboard, butchers paper and coloured pens ‘coaching’ a bunch of professionals through ‘analysis’ that is industry entry level at best. Fuck I hate those things.

I’m afraid I can’t take a word of what BB says seriously as he relentlessly undermines everything he claims to believe in with his ardent dedication to the cynical neoliberal tool of the mass immigration Ponzi scheme.

He wants to talk subsidies for business, yet fails to mention the outrageous costs imposed on every Australian and our country itself when it is unilaterally forced upon us to accomodating millions more people every few years. The importation of humans is a subsidy for so many rent seeking industries in Australia that it’s ridiculous.

Subsidies of business through the mass immigration model are magnitudes larger than any for the fossil fuel industries. We are talking hundreds of billions of dollars. In reality it’s probably way more expensive than any dollar amount when one considers the true impact which extends from koalas facing extinction all the way to inequality through availability of drinking water and through to hours of lives spent sitting in traffic and the overwhelmed hospitals.

The single most destructive neoliberal tool is mass immigration. Until BB and his ilk acknowledge this and cease their lies, obfuscation and anti-scientific denial of it, we will never be able to address the problem.

BB specifically mentions the $12B subsidy of a fossil fuel industry, which has generated a large share of our collective wealth , but fails to acknowledge that most crowd mitigation infrastructure projects such as Westconnex,which produce nothing more than accomodate for unnecessary and unwanted population growth, routinely cost more than that on their own and there’s dozens of them. Even worse is that the subsidies are never finished as the cost of infrastructure is then further imposed on Australians in the form of private taxes AKA tolls.

“Budgeted at $16.8 billion by the NSW government, the additional costs suggest the true price of WestConnex would be close to $21 billion.“

I liked most of gsco's post .

A few things . Central Banks sometimes get the right outcome eg RBA reducing inflation . They turned us into a "Banana Republic " ( Keating ) in the process increasing rates to 18% . Other factors like GSCO pointed out were also in play ( they ALWAYS are ) like slow real wage growth and productivity . Maybe they were lucky but many Australians did not feel the same as it caused the "recession we had to have " ( again Keating ).

Keynes had a simple view . Save money in the good times and spend the savings when times are tough .

To help the US recover Bernanke , the Chairman of the FED , bastardised Keynes view and brought in QE1 . Pumped a trillion ( not the real figure ) into the system . That didn't do anything .

Rather than think why ( it was that the velocity of money plummeted and people and companies would not borrow no matter how low rates went ) he thought what most central bankers think . I am right but I just didn't do enough , so QE2 another trillion .

When that didn't work ( velocity of money ) same stupid thought process QE3 , two trillion this time .

He has painted the US and the world ( the ECB and now the RBA did the same thing ) into a corner .

Japan's central bank has been trying this experiment for 20 years plus and has not been able to get inflation up .

The Scandinavian countries can show us some things to do . They are very different to OZ but one thing is clear . Norway is going well due to one main reason . They are making billions from selling fossil fuels . Way too many people in Oz don't want us to do the same thing . They even bitch and complain and want to punish our companies that produce iron ore and coking coal the enables the world to make steel and build .

It's not easy being Green .

Unwanted population growth? By you maybe but in a democracy the majority who approve of it are the ones who will be listened to. https://poll.lowyinstitute.org/themes/immigration-and-refugees/ As an immigrant, my default view is to support it but I am also happy to accept changes to the policy if support drops. I think you might want to have a look at your logic there also as your claims on the economic impacts would seem to directly contradict themselves. In terms of the environmental impacts of population growth my view is that the vast majority of our environmental problems have arisen from greed and appalling policies over a long period. Comparisons with other nations with dense populations suggests this.

“ 64%, think the level of immigration in Australia over the past decade has been too high – up from 50% recorded in October 2016.”

No majority there.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/apr/24/australians-growi...

....but 47% still approve of our immigration policy from the link provided. Contradictions like that usually indicate a poor survey but as I said if the majority want a reduction I have no problem. The immediate issue though is how much is too much? I doubt if there is much support for zero given the labor shortages in various industries.