Support NeoGAF

[Yagharek]

Because I'm a fan of evidence-based beliefs rather than just thinking from my gut.

https://grattan.edu.au/report/hot-property/

The effects of reducing NG by itself aren't that much. Even combined with CGT changes it wouldn't have much of an effect.

Your article says it removing it "won't cause a collapse" but recommendeds it be phased in over time to prevent one. Clearly prices are related to NG for them to make that recommendation.

It says prices will fall about 2% right there. Obviously government policies can cause problems in the markets, especially changes. Which is why any change should be phased in. But don't expect these changes to have a large impact.

2% of $500k is $10k. I wouldn't describe my assets devaluing by tens of thousands of dollars as "very little" but that's a boring language interpretation argument, so I'll leave it at that.

I thought the 2% figure came from a study that projected in a given period where house prices were growing by 7% they would instead go up by 5%. That's not a 2% loss, that's a slower rate of increase.

It's the same logic as climate change denialists saying there is a global cooling because the temperature only went up 0.1 degrees every year for a decade.

Anyway here's the article on the negative gearing projection:
http://www.abc.net.au/insiders/content/2015/s4458073.htm

(Insiders transcript)

BARRIE CASSIDY: Now just on negative gearing, why do people deliberately structure an investment to make a loss and why does the Government support them when they do?

SCOTT MORRISON: Well this provision is a normal income tax principle that's been around for more than 100 years and ...

BARRIE CASSIDY: But why is it - why is it normal when you can do it deliberately and then the Government helps you out?

SCOTT MORRISON: Because Barrie - it's a simple tax principle. If you're spending money and it's costing you to earn an income, you can offset it against the income that you have in terms of the tax you pay. It's not something that just applies to property, Barrie; it applies right across the tax system. Two thirds of Australians, one in five police officers actually utilise this long-standing tax arrangement to provide a future for their families. And it is another alternative to the other savings methods that are out there and it is really helping mum and dad investors and particularly small business investors. What Labor is doing is putting what is in effect a housing tax right across the board with this. It will undermine house values. And I hear people say even at the modest level, that it might only be, say, two per cent. Well, two per cent on the value of someone's home. I mean, that can be anywhere between $10,000 and $20,000. I mean, that's someone's entire interest payments and more in many cases.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Yeah, yeah. But the example ...

SCOTT MORRISON: I don't think they'll take too kindly for that to be just wiped off the value of their home.

BARRIE CASSIDY: The example that was given there is that rather than the value of your home going up seven per cent, it will go up five per cent.

SCOTT MORRISON: Well, what people like John Daly were saying is it could undermine house values by about two per cent.

BARRIE CASSIDY: Yeah, that's what he said.

SCOTT MORRISON: Now, the problem with that, Barrie, is that household consumption is what is driving our economy. In the December quarter national accounts, 0.4 per cent out of the 0. 6 per cent growth, that was related to household consumption. Now if you want to crash confidence in the economy, go and play around with the value of the family home, which is what Labor's proposal, their housing tax proposal does. So it has two negative impacts. One, it doesn't do anything about housing affordability. It doesn't do anything material about supply issues. I mean, this applies to people buying shops and factories. But secondly, it really does undermine confidence in people's own - the value of their own home which can affect their consumption, Barrie, and that's the last thing we do that.

BARRIE CASSIDY: How does it not do anything about housing affordability if you're saying that it's gonna take value off the cost of the house?

SCOTT MORRISON: Well what it does, Barrie, is when you go and buy this home, the minute you put the key in the front door of a new home under Labor's housing tax proposal, it turns into an old home. And that means the investors or others you're going to sell it to perhaps down the track to get into your next property, well, they won't be there and it's gonna become harder and harder as you go forward. The family that Malcolm and I visited the other week, he was a plumber. There were a very modest family living in a weatherboard home not more than 20 minutes drive from where I am today. They've been able to use these arrangements to get themselves into the home they are now, to pay down their debt and to buy their next home. And this is a ...

BARRIE CASSIDY: Is that the family that bought the house for the - that's the house that bought the family for the one-year-old?

So basically it's reducing speculation driven increases in prices by Scomo's and Daly's own account.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

The bigger issue is the CGT concession rate and allowing depreciation.
The value of a house may have been written off completely since 1996 yet quadrupled in value.

It's not just negative gearing. It's a combination of things.
NG + CGT + Depreciation. You throw those together in 1996 with super low interest rates and Bob Carr pushing for "urban consolidation" in Sydney and shit went bananas.

Land stopped getting released. Infrastructure stopped getting built.
The price of land doubled by 2003. Why would you invest in the stock market?
You could get a better return on the ASX but nowhere near as safe.
So Sydney prices just exploded. Any investors squeezed out went to Melbourne and Canberra. The investors squeezed out of Melbourne went to Hobart and Adelaide.

It was ridiculous but not as ridiculous as no-one in federal or state government doing anything about it for 20 years.

 

[legend166]

The mental gymnastics required to support negative gearing is amazing.

And when Morrison talks about two thirds of Australia, is he just saying two thirds of Australians claim a tax deduction against their income? That's such a dumb argument.

 

[D.Lo]

And when Morrison talks about two thirds of Australia, is he just saying two thirds of Australians claim a tax deduction against their income? That's such a dumb argument.

Morrison must be outright lying to say two thirds of Australians. I think he's a bit dim, not very good at maths, and just spouting talking points his handlers gave him honestly.

5.3% of Australians (10% of tax payers) claimed rental losses on their tax return last financial year.

 

[Mr_Moogle]

I swear the Liberal party thinks if they keep saying the word "innovation" it will suddenly just happen out of thin air. I'd like to know what policies the party is driving which will supposedly lead to an age of innovation.

Even more hilarious watching boomers tell me they think my generation is entitled. They don't have a clue what it's like out there these days.

 

[D.Lo]

Even more hilarious watching boomers tell me they think my generation is entitled. They don't have a clue what it's like out there these days.

.

 

[bobnowhere]

I swear the Liberal party thinks if they keep saying the word "innovation" it will suddenly just happen out of thin air. I'd like to know what policies the party is driving which will supposedly lead to an age of innovation.

Even more hilarious watching boomers tell me they think my generation is entitled. They don't have a clue what it's like out there these days.

Well it was slightly more evolved than the current and familiar ploy:

Boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats unions boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats boats...

 

[darkace]

So basically it's reducing speculation driven increases in prices by Scomo's and Daly's own account.

That's interesting, thanks.

It's only a tax increase if you're rich enough to have the borrowing power to buy multi hundred thousand dollar investments.

It's a tax increase, and I'm not really sure it should be controversial to say. You can claim removing the ability to use it it is good for society (and I will, almost all deductions should be removed over time), but it's still an increase.

It's like the carbon tax. You can call it whatever ('price on carbon'), but it's still a tax. The debate shouldn't be over whether or not it's a tax but whether or not removing or implementing it increases societal welfare overall.

And when Morrison talks about two thirds of Australia, is he just saying two thirds of Australians claim a tax deduction against their income? That's such a dumb argument.

I wouldn't be surprised. Negative gearing is only one of many deductions you can claim. That it's only two-thirds is more surprising to me. Although I imagine the bottom third probably wouldn't make enough taxable income to claim deductions.

 

[jellies_two]

Because I'm a fan of evidence-based beliefs rather than just thinking from my gut.

https://grattan.edu.au/report/hot-property/

The effects of reducing NG by itself aren't that much. Even combined with CGT changes it wouldn't have much of an effect.



Our housing prices are largely driven by supply factors.

There is no "evidence based beliefs" for not removing negative gearing because it hasn't been done yet. There is no evidence to look at, just cherry picked pdfs.

But it is clear that any tax increase on property investors removes a proportion of them from the market. This isn't a gut feeling, it's economics 101.

If you remove a proportion of bidders at the table the result is lower prices. 101 again.

The Libs are basically using this reasoning to block changes to ng: don't touch it! It will threaten the savings of 1 in 5 police officers and other worthy battler investors. It will shake the market.

So the only question is: do we actually want lower prices and less capital tied up in property, or do we like higher prices and more capital tied up in property?

The current government want to appeal to the hip pockets of their base - this is easy, by promising not to change the sweet tax break they get, but the twisted part is they are also trying to appeal to the confused renters and first home buyers - by lying and obfuscating.

 

[darkace]

There is no "evidence based beliefs" for not removing negative gearing because it hasn't been done yet. There is no evidence to look at, just cherry picked pdfs.

Grattan isn't well known for cherry-picking evidence. And economic modelling is more than capable of, you know, actually modelling things to some degree of accuracy.

The effect will be to the tune of 2%. You can use your gut feelings(tm) to argue otherwise, but I'll just go with the best think-tank in Australia.

Negative gearing has very little to do with housing prices. It's more to do with supply, which my dank prax says comes from zoning laws more than anything.

 

[D.Lo]

So the only question is: do we actually want lower prices and less capital tied up in property, or do we like higher prices and more capital tied up in property?

The current government want to appeal to the hip pockets of their base - this is easy, by promising not to change the sweet tax break they get, but the twisted part is they are also trying to appeal to the confused renters and first home buyers - by lying and obfuscating.

Yeah exactly. Can't have it both ways. Either changes will be good for current non-homeowners (lower prices), good for current homeowners and investors (higher prices), or stay the same.

We have a mess due to a variety of factors, some of which are market distortions because of government intervention (Howard's gift to the old and the rich - the CGT discount), some of which are state planning mistakes, some of which are external (Chinese investors looking to dump money around the world), some of which are due to poor policing of regulations. We also have to look at immigration levels, which are ridiculously high (3rd world level population growth) and another reason for jacked up prices.

The government's role is to intervene in the economy when it benefits the country. And I really can't see how the massive transfer of wealth from the young to the old that has been the property boom can be good for Australia's future. Making all the stuff that was already there 15 years ago quadruple in value for no practical (or productive) reason makes no sense.

Negative gearing has very little to do with housing prices. It's more to do with supply, which my dank prax says comes from zoning laws more than anything.

So you're saying Malcolm Turnbull is lying, or stupid, when he says removing negative gearing will 'take a sledgehammer' to property prices?

 

[Candescence]

Negative gearing and the capital gains tax discount are two of the biggest factors causing what is essentially a massive housing bubble. If nothing else, Labor's policies could cause house price rises to flatline. That being said, how investors react if such changes do go into law is somewhat complicated, but my guess is that a lot of people will try to get out of the bubble as soon as possible once they realize that selling before the changes take effect will be better than seeing their properties potentially lose value rapidly.

Still, something needs to be done to at least deflate the bubble. Even a crash around this time would be preferable to a crash later on, the conditions here are actually worse than in Ireland and the US at the height of their recent bubbles. There's not many other options left - the problem isn't in supply despite what the property lobby claims (if anything, our property market is oversupplied), there's just too many investors trying to claim a piece of the pie, and first home buyers these days have no hope of competing with them.

 

[darkace]

So you're saying Malcolm Turnbull is lying, or stupid, when he says removing negative gearing will 'take a sledgehammer' to property prices?

All politicians lie or argue against their beliefs for the parties in Australia. Penny Wong argued against gay marriage. It's politics. You can argue passionately for or against something within the party room, but once a consensus or majority is reached, or a position decided upon, then you should be for it, regardless of your personal beliefs.

I also think the case for a bubble isn't as strong as it used to be: http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/fsr/2015/oct/graphs/graph-2.6.html

Borrowers are making their repayments ahead of schedule at record rates. Something about median wages vs housing prices seems too simplistic to me to tell the full story, but I don't really have more to go on. APRA and ASIC are some of the best regulators in the world, much better than the shit they had in the US prior to the crash, or in Ireland. There is no evidence of wide-spread fraud or inappropriate lending behaviours on the parts of either the banks or the individuals applying for loans like we saw in the US.

 

[30yearsofhurt]

...

The government's role is to intervene in the economy when it benefits the country. And I really can't see how the massive transfer of wealth from the young to the old that has been the property boom can be good for Australia's future. Making all the stuff that was already there 15 years ago quadruple in value for no practical (or productive) reason makes no sense....

Let's think of it another way.
The total amount owed to resident ADIs for investment property is roughly $530 billion (approx 35% of the total of nearly $1.5 trillion).
Approx. 90% is individuals. Approx 8% of new investment lending is for new construction (~$11b a year).
At a cheap 5% per annum that's ~$24b that's getting written off rental and PAYG taxable income currently versus ~$550m if the system changes. Assuming an approximate marginal tax rate of those borrowers of approx 30% you could ask could our cash strapped public sector do with up to $7b or should we be giving that subsidy to people wealthy enough to buy houses?

Now go and look how much the resident ADIs owe to the rest of the world.
It's about $880 billion. Most of that is book building to fund their mortgage books.
They pay about $13b a year interest on this.

Now I want you to consider that in 2002 when people were already complaining about rising house prices the total amount owed to ADIs was only $326 billion of which $95 billion was for investors. So around 400% growth.

Our population has grown by less than 25% in that time and total dwellings by ~20%. The CPI has increased ~40%.
Yet we owe nearly 5 times as much.
This is beyond stupid, this is a national calamity.

If you think sinking so much money, time and energy into inflating the price of our homes is not a dumb thing then you're an idiot. Anything that can be done to turn this stupid path round surely has to be worth considering. The question should also be asked why we aren't doing more.

 

[Yagharek]

I swear the Liberal party thinks if they keep saying the word "innovation" it will suddenly just happen out of thin air. I'd like to know what policies the party is driving which will supposedly lead to an age of innovation.

Even more hilarious watching boomers tell me they think my generation is entitled. They don't have a clue what it's like out there these days.

It will be innovative if australia can grow it's economy without science research from csiro and without any manufacturing. But that's the world the lnp are creating.

 

[Elaugaufein]

It will be innovative if australia can grow it's economy without science research from csiro and without any manufacturing. But that's the world the lnp are creating.

Also they aren't exactly putting forward the kind of education policies that would be necessary either.

 

[Omikron]

Following along, but I am already over it. Probably because it feels like the election campaign started with Turnbull took over.

reiterating. what a shambles.


and fwiw, it doesn't appear that dutton was speaking out of line.

 

[Fredescu]

The effect will be to the tune of 2%. You can use your gut feelings(tm) to argue otherwise, but I'll just go with the best think-tank in Australia.

Negative gearing has very little to do with housing prices. It's more to do with supply, which my dank prax says comes from zoning laws more than anything.

So, I'm trying to figure out what your point is. I read back a couple of pages and it doesn't seem like you're out and out against changes to CGT and negative gearing, right? I mean "Australia's best think tank" recommend it in the report you cite. The modest impact to prices is cited as a good reason to go ahead with it. Changes are not "just a tax increase" but important as part of the policy goal of housing affordability:

"The Australian Government should not shy away from a sound policy because it generates modest house price corrections. This is especially true given that affordable housing is an avowed policy goal. It is difficult for governments to address housing affordability for new buyers while continuing to offer generous tax breaks to investors that bid up house prices."

It sounds like you're trying to downplay the effects of the policy change, as potentially an argument for not implementing it, while citing a report that is in favour of it? Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

[Shaneus]

The question should also be asked why we aren't doing more.

Because "fuck you, I've got mine".

 

[darkace]

It sounds like you're trying to downplay the effects of the policy change, as potentially an argument for not implementing it, while citing a report that is in favour of it? Correct me if I'm wrong.

I'm for removing it. And decreasing the CGT discount (although I'd be more in favour of dropping the top marginal tax rate and eliminating more deductions, the problems are borne from the disparity between our marginal tax rates and the CGT discount rate, not the CGT discount by itself. And increasing taxes on investment is almost always bad). I just think people should temper their expectations as to what it will result in.

It'll result in a very modest correction in housing prices and a larger increase in government revenue.

Also Abbott removing subsidies from manufacturing and allowing it to die was the sole good thing his government achieved. There is no reason we should subsidise or protect inefficient mature industries.

 

[Elaugaufein]

Because "fuck you, I've got mine".

Sort of ? I mean some degree of self-interest is a good thing, which means that phrase is overused. But it does capture the essence of investment distortion by government action, such actions automatically create a class of people who are both now more powerful politically (because wealthier) and invested in making sure the distortion doesn't end. They aren't always sufficiently well off enough to have "got theirs" though. This is especially true of property investment with negative gearing , some of those people are dangerously overleveraged (which yes is dumb), which means things like the end of negative gearing or rising interest rates could cause them to go from having wealth on paper to being bankrupt (because they can no longer afford the repayments on their property portfolio).

 

[Rubixcuba]

Is Dutton the worst politician in Australian history?

 

[Fredescu]

I just think people should temper their expectations as to what it will result in.

Right. One thing that shits people is people praying for a property crash. Uh no, you don't want that. That would be bad for you, even (especially?) if you don't own property .

 

[Elaugaufein]

Is Dutton the worst politician in Australian history?

No. He's obviously a very good politician because somehow he's kept his job despite there being no conceivable reason for this to happen. The man must either be a backroom powerhouse or know where all the skeletons are buried.

 

[Shaneus]

Sort of ? I mean some degree of self-interest is a good thing, which means that phrase is overused. But it does capture the essence of investment distortion by government action, such actions automatically create a class of people who are both now more powerful politically (because wealthier) and invested in making sure the distortion doesn't end. They aren't always sufficiently well off enough to have "got theirs" though. This is especially true of property investment with negative gearing , some of those people are dangerously overleveraged (which yes is dumb), which means things like the end of negative gearing or rising interest rates could cause them to go from having wealth on paper to being bankrupt (because they can no longer afford the repayments on their property portfolio).

I just see those people who could be bankrupted by the end of negative gearing as people who are looking for a quick/easy buck by buying something they really can't afford to pay off in the hope that someone else will. IMO if you can't afford to buy a property without relying on heavy tax concessions to do so, you shouldn't be doing it. Investment or otherwise.

That's why if ever my partner and I ever manage to buy a house (the suburb we currently live and want to buy in has over 50% of properties as rentals) and have an investment we can actually afford, it'll likely be a small flat that gains very little if any (over inflation) value. Because it's something we'd be able to afford without having to exploit the tax system.

 

[Fredescu]

Also Abbott removing subsidies from manufacturing and allowing it to die was the sole good thing his government achieved. There is no reason we should subsidise or protect inefficient mature industries.

Eh, I'm in two minds about that. The car industry specifically, maybe not. Manufacturers need high volumes of similar models, they're a lot less fragmented by region than they used to be. There is no reason to make models specifically for Australia anymore, and even when the dollar is more reasonably 60s and 70s, I can't see us competing with the likes of Thailand for the business of making mass numbers of hatchbacks for the region.

I do think there's a role for government to retain some sort of diversity in the kind of jobs that are available, and the places they're available in. Our dollar was high for a while which put pressure on the ability for manufacturing to stay competitive, even selling into the local market. I definitely think there should be subsidies there, probably pegged to the dollar and other economic factors. If those conditions improve, the subsidies are removed, etc.

 

[darkace]

Eh, I'm in two minds about that. The car industry specifically, maybe not. Manufacturers need high volumes of similar models, they're a lot less fragmented by region than they used to be. There is no reason to make models specifically for Australia anymore, and even when the dollar is more reasonably 60s and 70s, I can't see us competing with the likes of Thailand for the business of making mass numbers of hatchbacks for the region.

I do think there's a role for government to retain some sort of diversity in the kind of jobs that are available, and the places they're available in. Our dollar was high for a while which put pressure on the ability for manufacturing to stay competitive, even selling into the local market. I definitely think there should be subsidies there, probably pegged to the dollar and other economic factors. If those conditions improve, the subsidies are removed, etc.

The problem with subsidies is that while that sort of thing sounds good, in the end it removes the incentive driving innovation in the private sector. It reduces wages in the long-run and reduces the efficiency of labour allocation. While economic diversification is something we should pursue, subsidisation of mature industries isn't the way we should do it.

There are much better ways of promoting diversity than direct subsidisation, especially of mature industries. Government-subsidised investment in start-ups, government working with business to build areas that attract talent, removing barriers to investment in the economy, etc.

Australia wont ever be able to compete on the global manufacturing stage with our wages. Implementing subsidisation, regardless of what they're predicated on, will be a waste of government resources that would be much better used elsewhere.

 

[Fredescu]

in the end it removes the incentive driving innovation in the private sector.

Not if you tie it to economic conditions that are potentially temporary, like a high dollar for example. If the subsidy has a defined endpoint, it is in the businesses interest to remain efficient.

 

[darkace]

Not if you tie it to economic conditions that are potentially temporary, like a high dollar for example. If the subsidy has a defined endpoint, it is in the businesses interest to remain efficient.

I always question how temporary these temporary subsidies really are. It sets a bad precedent. Not to mention that my real problem with this is that there are better ways we could use these resources than subsidisation.

We'd be better off re-skilling those hurt by global economic factors.

We should really have an Australian version of the TAA regardless of why. I don't think I've heard any major party talking about trade adjustment legislation, which I don't really get. The ALP should be all over this.

 

[Dryk]

It's worth noting that manufacturing dying is also bad for innovation because it makes fabrication of low volumes of new goods a giant pain in the arse.

Aside: As someone who has spent this entire government term in research I would agree with the sentiment that the government seems to think that if it yells the word innovation loud enough it doesn't matter how many of their other policies stifle it.

 

[Fredescu]

I always question how temporary these temporary subsidies really are. It sets a bad precedent. Not to mention that my real problem with this is that there are better ways we could use these resources than subsidisation.

Consider it more like an investment with an expected return, rather than just burning money that could be used elsewhere. Employed people generate more tax revenue than unemployed people. If external factors make a previously viable business difficult to sustain, it makes sense to help the business to smooth out the bump, so tax revenues aren't affected too much and you have the resources to allocate to whatever skills training (ie subsidising the training industry) might be useful.

There's no reason to rule out subsidies in principle, even if there may be examples of where they have been poorly implemented.

 

[darkace]

Consider it more like an investment with an expected return, rather than just burning money that could be used elsewhere. Employed people generate more tax revenue than unemployed people. If external factors make a previously viable business difficult to sustain, it makes sense to help the business to smooth out the bump, so tax revenues aren't affected too much and you have the resources to allocate to whatever skills training (ie subsidising the training industry) might be useful.

There's no reason to rule out subsidies in principle, even if there may be examples of where they have been poorly implemented.

But people employed in industries that aren't subsidised give more tax revenue over the long-run. It's not like the people in the manufacturing industry who lost their job wont find another one. They will, and it's likely it will be better paying given they're not low-skilled workers.

I don't have a problem with bailouts for companies struggling after a demand-shock (e.g. GM after 2008), but medium-term subsidies are very inefficient as a method of helping the labour force. If we, for instance, subsidised the car industry while the AUD was above 85c then we would have committed to subsidising them for more than half a decade. At that point we're better off letting them fail.

 

[Fredescu]

But people employed in industries that aren't subsidised give more tax revenue over the long-run.

Which is why subsidies should have a defined endpoint.

I don't have a problem with bailouts for companies struggling after a demand-shock (e.g. GM after 2008), but medium-term subsidies are very inefficient as a method of helping the labour force.

Eh, so we basically agree anyway.

 

[Omikron]

Is Dutton the worst politician in Australian history?

Turnbull has confirmed that he is a fantastic Immigration Minister and agrees with his take.

 

[Jintor]

so which is it, are they illiterate uneducated slobs here to leech our welfare or are they hardworking bastards out to steal our below-minimum wage centerlink jobs?

 

[elfinke]

so which is it, are they illiterate uneducated slobs here to leech our welfare or are they hardworking bastards out to steal our below-minimum wage centerlink jobs?

Peter Dutton's deliberately incendiary claim that refugees are often innumerate and illiterate, that they would take Australian jobs, and become a net drain on the economy, reeks of the Tampa-like exaggerations of 2001. And it appears every bit as calculating. Obviously the specifics are different, but the broad subject matter of asylum seekers is the same as is the political motive: to bring to the surface community anxiety that hordes of intruders could overwhelm Australia taking our jobs, and changing our way of life

Decent line. I keep waiting for the inevitable South Park jerbs.gif, or for a similar Trump gif to appear in sync with Dutton.

What a gross human being.

 

[Fredescu]

so which is it, are they illiterate uneducated slobs here to leech our welfare or are they hardworking bastards out to steal our below-minimum wage centerlink jobs?

If you fear one, you'll ignore that the other contradicts it.

 

[darkace]

so which is it, are they illiterate uneducated slobs here to leech our welfare or are they hardworking bastards out to steal our below-minimum wage centerlink jobs?

Schrodingers immigrant.

 

[laoni]

Schrodingers immigrant.

I snorted my coffee out my nose. But, ugh, Dutton. He's just coming up with more and more terrible things to say every week I swear.

 

[Yagharek]

To be fair to Dutton, modern australia was founded on a tradition of boat people taking the jobs, land and opportunities away from the locals.

A tradition that began in 1788.

 

[Arksy]

God I hate economic arguments. Is there a field of study as full of shit in the world as economics? I'm honestly starting to think that astrology has greater predictive power than economics.

 

[darkace]

God I hate economic arguments. Is there a field of study as full of shit in the world as economics? I'm honestly starting to think that astrology has greater predictive power than economics.

Meteorology. Seismology. Climatology. Lacking strong predictive power doesn't disqualify something as a science.

I generally go to psychologists for psychology related problems, even though as a field of science it is far less 'scientific' than economics.

A friend of mine once said: You know what the problem is with being an economist? Everyone has an opinion about the economy. Nobody goes up to a geologist and says, 'Igneous rocks are fucking bullshit.'

And really, if we don't follow the thinking of people who actually study econ, what do we follow? Peoples random ideological priors?

 

[jellies_two]

Those other fields actually do have predictive powers: weather forecasts come with a certainty percentage and gain accuracy as data input increases, climate is increasingly well understood, and earthquakes are also well understood only the lack of data makes key inflection points hard to nail down.

But economics? Get a bunch of economists in a room and get completely opposed opinions as to the direction of literally everything one could make or lose actual money on. Ask a bunch for input on government policy and get similar completely divergent opinions. Perfect market theory and models are overturned for insights from the field of psychology.

"Ask five economists and you'll get five different answers - six if one went to Harvard."

 

[Yagharek]

Meteorology. Seismology. Climatology. Lacking strong predictive power doesn't disqualify something as a science.

I generally go to psychologists for psychology related problems, even though as a field of science it is far less 'scientific' than economics.

Oooof. This is displaying as much if not significantly more ignorance than the frequent dismissal of economists' perspectives (that said, economists deserve it for collectively establishing a fake nobel prize for the field).

Meteorology - UK Met Office hit > 90% accuracy for 2 day forecasts

Climatology - Temperature forecast chart compared to observations from a forecast issued in 1981 matches up pretty well to today's observations since. Bonus picture:

I'd argue more in favour of seismology but I believe there are some geologists on the forum who could add more. But you already know that dealing with craton-continent scale features and stress buildup within them is pretty challenging and the nature of a prediction in seismology is different to a stock market forecast. It's also less likely to be made with conflicts of interest.

 

[legend166]

Oh the other side, I think about 3 people predicted the GFC?

 

[Arksy]

I think the problem with economics as science is that they're trying to account for near infinite inputs and variables. It's the same reason that turbulent flow in physics still hasn't been solved. The sheer number of inputs and variables makes the whole thing unfathomably difficult. However even then, turbulent flow can be treated as a closed system. To treat an economy as a closed system to me seems like a fatal flaw.

I have no idea. All I know is that I constantly read predictions from economists which turn out to be very wrong.

 

[Fredescu]

On state matters, pesky democracy was getting in the way of development, but it turns out you can just dissolve councils and replace them with your own people and no one will care too much. https://medium.com/@bitcloud/from-baird-to-worse-b415189c320a

Can hardly blame him. Council approvals are a hassle and democracy is a bit shit anyway.

 

[Jintor]

article dropped the same day they announced they were axing the free opal pass transport... not that has anything to do with the election, but I figure auspol will be a bit dead for the duration.

btw I registered for my postal vote, hopefully that sticks with the aec

 

[Arksy]

On state matters, pesky democracy was getting in the way of development, but it turns out you can just dissolve councils and replace them with your own people and no one will care too much. https://medium.com/@bitcloud/from-baird-to-worse-b415189c320a

Can hardly blame him. Council approvals are a hassle and democracy is a bit shit anyway.

Unfortunately, councils are a creation of state legislative power and therefore can be interfered with at the state level in any manner and for any reason. (However, they can not interact with the federal government for pretty much any reason, there was a High Court case on this).

Ultimate democratic legitimacy here rests with the state parliament. I disagree, I think democracy should just trump it, but whatever. I don't make the rules.

Edit: Same thing happened here in SA with the Rann Labor government. They just stripped the power of the Adelaide City Council to approve anything for ten years. There was a shit storm back then too.

 

[Candescence]

Economics is a soft science, mainly because humans can be unpredictable, there are multiple economic schools of thought, and while there are hard rules, there's a lot of vested interests in the whole mess and various economists of varying schools of thought trying to prove each other wrong.

And yeah, Baird is being is a massive scumbag over Westconnex. Fuck that guy.