The election thread - Two middle-late aged white men trying to be blokey and convincing..., same old shit, FFS.

Who will you vote for?

  • Liberals

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Labor

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Nationals

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • Greens

    Votes: 21 31.8%
  • Independant

    Votes: 15 22.7%
  • The Clive Palmer shit show

    Votes: 4 6.1%
  • Shooters and Fishers Party

    Votes: 1 1.5%
  • One Nation

    Votes: 0 0.0%
  • Donkey/Invalid vote

    Votes: 3 4.5%

  • Total voters
    66

The Dude

Wasn't asking to be banned
so I'm no economonomonist but I did hear the other day that if we taxed mining, or perhaps our exports higher (properly) and limited our exports and increased local imports then inflation would come back within target rates and the economy would get back on track quick an easily.

Apparently with the mining boom many years ago it was political suicide to even talk about such an idea given so much money was being made by mining/FIFO etc. Now the Labour government is too scared to even consider the idea for potential political damage.

I just struggle with the fact that the economy has an easy fix but a couple of dozen people are so scared of losing their jobs millions instead have to lose theirs and 10s of millions have to do it tough and leave hand to mouth as a consequence.
Like to Qld Gov just did?
Then we are barraged by ads telling us "The Government wants our money and everyone will lose their jobs!"

OK. If you say it's now not viable, F#ck off and let someone else mine your claim

But no, we can keep mining, pay the increased tax/royalty, and spend bazillions on this advertising campaign
C#nts!
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
Like to Qld Gov just did?
Then we are barraged by ads telling us "The Government wants our money and everyone will lose their jobs!"

OK. If you say it's now not viable, F#ck off and let someone else mine your claim

But no, we can keep mining, pay the increased tax/royalty, and spend bazillions on this advertising campaign
C#nts!
...and not invest in renewable energy. Don't forget that!
 

Oddjob

Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
so I'm no economonomonist but I did hear the other day that if we taxed mining, or perhaps our exports higher (properly) and limited our exports and increased local imports then inflation would come back within target rates and the economy would get back on track quick an easily.

Apparently with the mining boom many years ago it was political suicide to even talk about such an idea given so much money was being made by mining/FIFO etc. Now the Labour government is too scared to even consider the idea for potential political damage.

I just struggle with the fact that the economy has an easy fix but a couple of dozen people are so scared of losing their jobs millions instead have to lose theirs and 10s of millions have to do it tough and leave hand to mouth as a consequence.
In other words you would increase unemployment to reduce inflation. This is what interest rates do, just more efficiently with less job losses.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The exporting of manufacturing jobs has created room for the massive increase in services.

The hand to mouth side of things is more a factor of wealth redistribution being quite limited. If governments did more wealth taxes like death duties and land tax, to fund more social housing and skills training that didn't suck you would see a big dent put into poverty.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk
 

Oddjob

Merry fucking Xmas to you assholes
I broke up with a previous girlfriend for this reason, I mean yeah she was also bat shit crazy but because of negative gearing too.

was a few elections back but I was mighty pissed of Lib's got in, when she asked why I said it was because I wanted negative gearing (among other things) outlawed to make the housing market cheaper and allow first home buyers to get into the market.

She carried on that her dad had worked hard all his life so he deserved to have 5 houses he rented out, 2 of which he rented cheap to his kids for that extra bit of negative gearing, because that's what their family deserved. I mean he also bought these houses cheap, got a free University education etc etc. When I asked why he deserved 5 houses but I can't afford 1, she had no response even after I asked her to leave and go back to the cheaply rented house her daddy gave her.

It's infinitely worse now for people. There's no way our kids will be able to afford a house as we can't afford to buy one for them and without significant wage rises to boot. I envy people who were able and had the foresight to think ahead and buy rentals whilst they were cheap.
Affordable housing is more down to NIMBY local zoning than anything else.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk
 

pink poodle

気が狂っている男
Affordable housing is more down to NIMBY local zoning than anything else.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk
Those people need accessible housing...over there, here is full.




Wouldn't reducing exports and increasing imports blow our GDP out of the universe as well?
 

nathanm

Eats Squid
In other words you would increase unemployment to reduce inflation. This is what interest rates do, just more efficiently with less job losses.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The exporting of manufacturing jobs has created room for the massive increase in services.

The hand to mouth side of things is more a factor of wealth redistribution being quite limited. If governments did more wealth taxes like death duties and land tax, to fund more social housing and skills training that didn't suck you would see a big dent put into poverty.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk
How would this increase unemployment? I'm sure that fat pig of a human Gina Reinhert (or however you spell that piece of garbages name) could afford to literally make a billion or two less, with that wealth being spent on housing, education and health. You know, the important stuff to all but the rich.

I didn't mention exporting jobs, though again I'm not educated enough to understand the flow on effects of increasing taxation, but I don't believe its about exporting jobs, just taxing companies that have high levels of profits higher. I did see something about taxes on "super-profits". Particularly given we are pulling materials out of Australian soil just to export it for high prices, as well as the profits often going overseas as well, most likely as a consequence of political funding and kickbacks.
 

Freediver

I can go full Karen
In other words you would increase unemployment to reduce inflation. This is what interest rates do, just more efficiently with less job losses.

There's no such thing as a free lunch. The exporting of manufacturing jobs has created room for the massive increase in services.

The hand to mouth side of things is more a factor of wealth redistribution being quite limited. If governments did more wealth taxes like death duties and land tax, to fund more social housing and skills training that didn't suck you would see a big dent put into poverty.

Sent from my M2012K11AG using Tapatalk
That's how it works, full employment leads to increased wages which means more has to be charged to maintain profits. That's inflation. Increasing the cost of money decreases amounts invested which leads to higher unemployment.
That's basically first year economics in 2 lines.
 

Squidfayce

Eats Squid
But look at the example where he kept having a go over the "majority of wealthy Australians support a repeal on the tax cuts" because it was less than 50% who did. He knows the electorate doesn't work that way, he knows if there was a vote on it his preference would lose based on that survey (over 50% of all people surveyed supported), but he kept at it, as if donkey votes are counted and only the view of beneficiaries of the cuts matters.
If you're going to put words in my mouth, you may want to at least be accurate about it.

What I ACTUALLY said was a minority of those surveyed support repealing, which is correct (47%).
You can't count the non responses in the support for repeal either. You can't make assumptions about their decision not to vote either.

Quote below for reference
But lets just unpack the 150k earners for a sec - 47% support repealing, 29% oppose and the other 24%? Probably abstained from answering so as not to have communists jump down their throat for opposing (don't blame them :p). But in all seriousness without knowing where the other 24% stand, we can say that a minority has supported repealing them, being 47% and all.....if i had to be technical.
I also didn't say that only "only the view of beneficiaries of the cuts matters". The assertion I made (which was to counter the unsubstantiated claim that the majority of wealthy people support repealing) was the only data that would objectively prove that the "majority of wealthy people support repealing" would be a survey exclusively made up of those that actually stand to gain the full breadth off cuts, for which the data doesn't exist.

1666241992590.png


A nationally representative sample by definition tells you that the demographics in the sample will be more weighted to lower and average incomes. Why wouldn't the majority of that demographic surveyed feel poorly and a minority feel positive towards tax cuts for the rich? The survey demographic basically dictates the result. Anything that is nationally representative where only a the wealthy stand to directly benefit something will come up with same results.

If you surveyed only billionaires with yachts if they should donate them to the low and middle income segment of society, most of them would tell you to get fucked. But you surveyed only the "normal" part of society that would never ever own one or likely even ever step foot on one, if billionaires should sell their yachts and donate the money to them, they'd likely overwhelmingly vote yes.

If you get a nationally representative sample and ask the same question, a large proportion of them will vote for "give me your yacht money, cunt" and smaller proportion will be "no way".

Why is this difficult to grasp?

Anyway this is a dead horse. If you have blinkers when discussing this stuff and cant work within context, then most positions taken are going to be biased
 
Last edited:
Top