AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.
B_ddsqsU8AAPQwz.jpg:large
Click to expand...
.
 
Funnily enough, what could have been a measured call to discuss over-prescription and the bizarrely fashionable trend of self-diagnosis turned into crazy ramblings about some leftist conspiracy that defies belief.
 
I was in coles today and they had a bit on their 'radio', they warned people not to start a gluten free diet until they spoke to their gp in case they actually did have a problem with gluten. (Basically not to self diagnose and see if you actually have a problem with gluten)

It was refreshing.
 
If the chip on Latham's shoulder towards the "left" ever fell off, it would crush a small town. An ego-manic forever desperate to blame his own failings on someone else.
 
Shandy said:
Funnily enough, what could have been a measured call to discuss over-prescription and the bizarrely fashionable trend of self-diagnosis turned into crazy ramblings about some leftist conspiracy that defies belief.
Click to expand...

Yeah.

And really one of my beefs with labour over the years has been how its left had evaporated and it jumped to the right. Which I guess is what caused me to start voting Green in the end. Both the LNP and Labor lurched right whilst I didn't move.
 
hidys said:
Even if Mark Latham is crazy I'll still defend that book as one of the most important books written on Australian politics and how power works in this country.
Click to expand...

He's an extraordinarily intelligent man, a fantastic writer, immensely knowledgeable about Australian Politics but just refuses to admit any fault of his own. See conspiracies where there are none etc...
 
bobnowhere said:
He's an extraordinarily intelligent man, a fantastic writer, immensely knowledgeable about Australian Politics but just refuses to admit any fault of his own. See conspiracies where there are none etc...
Click to expand...

Pretty much.

But I maintain that people should read The Latham Diaries.
 
I remember when Xenophon was proposing this plan.

Here is a warning given by a Canadian who voted for such a scheme.

http://www.greaterfool.ca/2014/08/06/no-kidding/

When combined with dirt-cheap mortgage rates (I notice Aussie banks just slashed five-year rates to an all-time low) and voracious, carnivorous bankers, it’s helped push home prices into the clouds. The cost of an average detached house in two of our major cities now exceeds $1 million.
Click to expand...

But it gets worse. The evidence also shows when you allow this kind of distorting financial activity to take place, people respond badly. They borrow their brains out, Nicky. Total horniness. As I wrote on this pathetic but repentant blog recently, the kids aren’t even paying this money back – which means we’ve not only goosed houses, increased the risk of a serious correction and skewed the condo economy further – but there are billions less being saved and invested for our pensionless future.
Click to expand...
 
trinest said:
Is there anything they can legit do to stop him though?
Click to expand...

Nope. International Treaties are enforced by the equivalent of peer pressure, so unless someone is likely to get hurt politically or economically by a treaty failing to be upheld they have no teeth. And the current record on torture to foreign nationals amongst the significant world powers at the moment is such that they'll be more than happy to ignore it (even if its one of their own citizens its a citizen that's fleeing that country for some reason, so negative incentive is basically a positive).
 
Hockey's really milking this defamation case with Fairfax. They made his Dad cry. It's a bizarre tactic as everyone knows the core of the issue, cash for meetings, is dodgie. Not illegal, but fucking dodgie. Whatever he gets from Fairfax, he'll loose in votes. Hockey playing the sympathy card is not going to work.
 
Myansie said:
Hockey's really milking this defamation case with Fairfax. They made his Dad cry. It's a bizarre tactic as everyone knows the core of the issue, cash for meetings, is dodgie. Not illegal, but fucking dodgie. Whatever he gets from Fairfax, he'll loose in votes. Hockey playing the sympathy card is not going to work.
Click to expand...

If I could place a bet on the outcome of that trial I would bet that he will lose and look even worse as a result.
 
Myansie said:
Hockey's really milking this defamation case with Fairfax. They made his Dad cry. It's a bizarre tactic as everyone knows the core of the issue, cash for meetings, is dodgie. Not illegal, but fucking dodgie. Whatever he gets from Fairfax, he'll loose in votes. Hockey playing the sympathy card is not going to work.
Click to expand...

It might have worked well for him twelve months ago. Maybe.

Back then Hockey was seen as a bit more of a softie and a pragmatist. He was the guy who cried in Parliament about the idea of children in detention. He was the guy who looked like the capable negotiator of reaching across the aisle to negotiate the debt ceiling being eliminated with the Greens.

Tony Abbott was seen as the authoritative leader, Hockey was more of the conciliatory second, the Hand of the King to wipe up the King's shit. So attacking him for something that was a necessary evil when he was the only guy in cabinet getting on with the job might have been unpopular.

But then we got the Budget.

And then the stuff about his opposition to paying $250 in administration fees for his degree back in the 1980s when he's trying to deregulate uni fees and stick students with exorbitant degree costs.

Then we got his thoughts on the poor and their driving habits.

And suddenly he stopped looking like a decent bloke being dragged through the mud and more like another bastard who could dish it out but couldn't take it.

I'm honestly surprised someone hasn't pulled him aside at this point and told him to settle it quietly because the government really doesn't need this circus in the next few months given he's the fucking treasurer and this budget is basically their last hurrah, but then again I'm surprised at how badly this government handles most things.
 
Looks like Abbott's dead cat bounce has er... bounced back!

Party Preferred: L/NP 45 (-2) ALP 55 (+2) Newspoll

https://twitter.com/GhostWhoVotes/status/574895854957510656

Obviously it's foolish to compare week-to-week movements within the error margin, but I suspect it might take the spring out of Abbott's step if it is repeated across the rest and wake up the backbench again. Not that people like Andrew Laming need waking up.

I think the most interesting guy regarding polls is Peter Lewis from Essential Media. He very accurately predicted the 2013 result even when they were bouncing wildly. He said the polls had stagnated between about 53.5 and 52.5 to the coalition for a year leading up to the election and he was right. Last week he said while he could see maybe a 1% swing to the coalition, results like the 51/49 were fanciful. He has it at somewhere between 55/45 and 53.5/46.5 and there was no real movement.

Though I suppose tomorrow News organisations will devote far too much time to the polls instead of, you know, actual journalism!
 
I remember hearing Xenophon present the superannuation-as-deposit for first home buyers proposal a couple of years ago and thinking it was a great idea. I'm not as convinced now, but I think it's got some merit.

Obviously there are some solid arguments against it, the biggest of which being that it's again another band-aid to the demand-side of housing rather than fixing the supply issue. But I don't some of the other arguments.

Firstly, I don't understand the idea that it would negatively impact superannuation savings in the long term (like Keating was arguing in the SMH today). The money is still going into an asset. And my Super is already invested in property. Just in this case, it means I'd also get to live in property.

Sure, the property market could experience a downtown, and having a chunk of savings in one area is a risk, but the same can be said of any investment area. And with the proper safeguards in place, i.e. a limit of $50k or something that then has to be paid back into the fund once the property is sold, a lot of that risk is reduced.

It would be interesting to see some statistics on length of first home ownership and the rate of growth over that time, and how it compares to superannuation growth over the same time. I've had a quick google but I can't find any stats. I'd have to imagine it would be fairly low - most people would upgrade at some point in their lives. So the chance of the money never being paid back into super would have to be pretty low.

So I don't buy the argument that it would have a negative impact on superannuation savings. It seems like the group that would be impacted the most are the commercial superfunds because it would take a significant chunk of money out of their managed funds and they wouldn't be able to extract fees from it.

The argument that it simply wouldn't have any impact on the affordability of housing because it would just push up prices to an equivalent degree is something that makes more sense. And that's where that Canadian article makes some good points - but there seems to be some major differences in their scheme that wouldn't apply to us:

- Their definition of a first home buyer is simply someone who hasn't purchased a home in the last five years. So you can use the scheme more than once (as long as the first debt is paid back to the savings account).

- They didn't put any cap on the purchase price of the home to be eligible for the scheme. It stands to reason that if you're buying a million dollar home for your first home, you probably could just save up the deposit yourself.

- From what I can see, they don't have forced retirement savings. They money they withdraw comes from a Registered Retirement Income Fund, which from what I can tell is entirely optional savings plan - it's more equivalent to a 401k in the US than a Superfund here. I think this is important because let's say I'm a 27 year old who takes part in the scheme - I've still got 40 years of forced contributions into a superfund. So it's not exactly going to destroy my long term savings to take out say, $30k to go to a deposit.

You could also tie it in with limits on the leverage of the mortgage. Let's say in order to qualify for the scheme, you have to have a total of a 15% deposit (including the money borrowed from super). So you can push people away from these stupid 95% mortgages.

Everything I wrote may be completely flimsy because I basically just wrote it down as soon as I though of it, and I'm no economics expert, but I think the idea is worth discussing rather than just using it like Keating did, an ideological bandwagon to jump on to say the LIberals hate superannuation rah rah rah.
 
legend166 said:
The argument that it simply wouldn't have any impact on the affordability of housing because it would just push up prices to an equivalent degree is something that makes more sense. And that's where that Canadian article makes some good points - but there seems to be some major differences in their scheme that wouldn't apply to us
Click to expand...

This is definitely the main reason why it's a terrible idea. You can't generate more demand and expect prices not to go up. The benefit will be entirely to the vendors. It happened to the FHoG and it will happen to this.
 
I can certainly see it having the potential to cause issues. Allowing super as a deposit would cause lending to increase dramatically which in turn would cause housing prices to increase creating a housing bubble. Housing bubbles are almost always extremely unstable. Issues like increasing house princes or first home buyers being unable to pay back their loans could make it burst.
 
There's a huge danger of popping the property bubble. It might work out, but it's extremely riskie. There are so many other areas that are so much safer and have long term benefits even if their economic drivers fail. Sustainable energy and public transport come to mind. Low risk, a high chance of great returns and a myriad of non economic benefits.
 
Super has essentially died on teh vine under conservative governments. Look at the intergenerational report, the pension as a proportion of population will remain almost static. Super has done nothing to stem that due to kowtowing to the financial industry, removing super increases.... etc....

Our super funds are some of the highest fee wise. We need to address that, billions is being taken out of super and being put into the profits of the banks and co, the banks and co which are making billions in profits every quarter. The money is meant to take pressure off government as people retire and reduce the need for the pension. Its not doing that. Yet Aboot is doing nothing, instead, reduce services, reduce corporate tax rate. Australias open for business.
 
Bubble, no bubble, you don't even have to approach the bubble question for the super thing to be a bad idea. If your goal is to get more people to afford housing, the solution shouldn't involve driving up prices.
 
You dont need to burst the bubble. Just deflate it. Hell, not even deflate it, just pause it for a decade or so.

Reduce immigration. 200k a year means 1million extra people every 5 years.

Remove negative gearing.

Disallow purchasing of land unless you are a permanent resident or citizen.
 
Myansie said:
Hockey's really milking this defamation case with Fairfax. They made his Dad cry. It's a bizarre tactic as everyone knows the core of the issue, cash for meetings, is dodgie. Not illegal, but fucking dodgie. Whatever he gets from Fairfax, he'll loose in votes. Hockey playing the sympathy card is not going to work.
Click to expand...
It's also a great way of highlighting how monies funneled into Liberal coffers in the very state an election is underway!

DrSlek said:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-03-1...y-fund/6292868

What the fuck is the point of this?
Click to expand...
A mix of boosting the woefully incompetent Libs chances in a future SA election + the slim hope car manufacturers put off closing down the factories with the lower AUD.
 
markot said:
You dont need to burst the bubble. Just deflate it. Hell, not even deflate it, just pause it for a decade or so.

Reduce immigration. 200k a year means 1million extra people every 5 years.

Remove negative gearing.

Disallow purchasing of land unless you are a permanent resident or citizen.
Click to expand...

Alternatively you could tie the retirement funds of the less well off to an asset class already considered inflated, making it politically very difficult to introduce any measures aimed at actually improving housing affordability. Nice idea if you already own a lot of said asset class.
 
Real estate is a rort in this country essentially.

No government is going to do anything to threaten, in any real way, the upward inflation on house prices.

The banks are in on it. The real estate industry. Unions.

Can you imagine someone even suggesting removing negative gearing from a srs political party?

Just look at what the mining industry did when the government dared to suggest that more of the profits should go back to the country. Imagine that times 100.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-30/australian-banks-most-profitable-but-still-vulnerable/5559960

The most profitable banks in the world.

Its a huge gravy train, and its only getting worse.

Given the Government's refusal to conduct an inquiry into the scandal-plagued sector, despite almost daily revelations of fraud and misconduct, the omission is hardly surprising.

Our pool of national savings has grown to more than $1.8 trillion. But the fees being gouged out of the system are obscene. It is a system designed for the benefit of those who manage the money rather than the beneficiaries.

"Wealth management" has become a booming industry for the nation's big banks and AMP. Not surprisingly.

Three years ago, research firm Rainmaker estimated more than $17 billion was skimmed off the top of the super pool in fees. That was in a year when about $135 billion flowed in from workers' salaries and when the total pool was about $1.4 trillion.

The following year, the fee grab jumped to $21.6 billion. Last year's haul is expected to be another motza.

According to the Grattan Institute, Australians pay among the highest fees in the developed world. Our money managers charge fees that are three times higher than the median for developed countries.

And the cost of running our funds has soared, even as the funds have expanded, for they simply charge a percentage of funds under management. That means the fee grab is enormous, even when performance is abysmal.

The investment focus is heavily oriented towards Australian stocks, rather than long-term investments. Performance is volatile and once the fees are deducted, the industry rarely even keeps pace with equity markets.

On top of that, many borrowers consider their superannuation as an asset when applying for loans, a practice major lenders do not condone but hardly discourage. So you retire, and you then use your super payout to repay the bank. Brilliant! So then what do you live on? The pension.

According to last week's Intergenerational Report, the proportion of Australians receiving the pension is not expected to decline 40 years from now. As Macrobusiness commentator Leith van Onselen laments: All that money, flowing in to a system for decades, for no result.
Click to expand...

Finance is a leech engorging itself on many nations these days, with very little tangible results, other than the boom in the financial sector.

And no one has the guts to get the match to burn the leech off, because too many people are tied to its success these days. So they are too big to fail, too powerful to control, and we end up, almost entirely, servicing this one industry, whos main rationale in any capitalist system ideally, is to serve the rest of the economic system.

And in every single case, it is the poor and powerless who suffer when there is a bump in the road. Because unemployment can rise, jobs lost, budgets slashed, but nothing can interrupt the banks, the finance industry.
 
r1chard said:
So now we're not even allowing mail through to the asylum seekers in detention under our "care".

http://www.theguardian.com/australi...-to-asylum-seekers-on-nauru-returned-unopened
Click to expand...

Burnside followed up with an email inquiry to Nikki Keirven, then the Department of Immigration and Border Protection’s lead service delivery officer at the Nauru offshore processing centre. On 25 June 2014 she replied:

“Thank you for your email. I appreciate you have an interest in knowing whether the letters you have been sending are arriving in Nauru.

“I can confirm that they are arriving and are being distributed to transferees by the service provider [Transfield Services]. This is a work in progress given that letters continue to arrive.

There are also a number of letters which have arrived for transferees who have departed Nauru. Where forwarding addresses are available, they will be forwarded on.”​

What a sad, pathetic lie.
 
So in the continuing saga over the whole Indonesian death row thing, an Indonesian minister has threatened the Australian government with the prospect of releasing ten thousand refugees to Australia. Also, threatening to cut off trade with Australia.

I'll be surprised if they actually follow through on their threats, but if they discreetly shove all those immigrants our way and the navy won't be able to catch them all? That would pretty much cripple one of Abbot's few 'achievements' pretty much instantly. I honestly want them to do this just to see the political clusterfuck it'll cause. Granted, I also think the Indonesians are being overly stubborn about the death penalty just to look 'tough on drugs' (nevermind that the war on drugs is a colossal failure) and that the death penalty is far too excessive in this case (I really don't think the death penalty should be applied at all unless in extremely exceptional cases), but I doubt anyone can really change their minds at this point, and Abbot has handled the whole thing like a drunken truck driver.

Also, from casually browsing Reddit, I've noticed some people are basically saying the government's policies are preferable to Labor's because of refugee deaths at sea... Nevermind that, due to 'on water matters', we have no idea what the death toll during Operation Sovereign Borders is, and considering a lot of refugees are dumped into a lifeboat and then shoved off somewhere else, it might even be worse, especially when they start using those fishing boats they're planning on using instead of the orange lifeboats. Deaths at sea are gonna happen as long as refugees take chances with smugglers, and they'll keep doing that, because staying in their home country is often considered the worst option. Really, the only way to solve the problem of refugees is to fix the problems in their homeland, but, obviously, nobody wants to do that, especially not after the quagmires that is Iraq. Shame the UN is completely toothless and so incompetently formed.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Similar threads

Sports betting |OT|
7
10K
Hideous Snake replied
ItalianGAF |OT| - Italia
3
957
Azzurri replied
Food |OT| GAFeteria
2
77
17K
SLoWMoTIoN replied
Love Boat 2 [Mafia] |OT| Electric Boogalove
97 98 99 100 101
5K
288K
Zippedpinhead replied
  • Locked
What relaxes you the most?
0
4K
Halo is Back replied
Top Bottom