Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

[LuvtheKangas]

Ironically there is one thing on the market around here that has barely seen a price change in the last thirty years.

There are all sorts of interesting discussions that could be had around that lack of inflation.

Boils down to the old supply and demand thing.

In said market, I suspect supply has increased due to some 'technology' advances.

 

[ferball]

Manage?

Successive governments have allowed the majority of the natural resources to be shipped overseas for peanuts, whilst allowing the same companies to gouge the sh*t out of the Australian population.

This is why people like me loath corporations. The net benefit of us having gas for example, does not go to Australia. It goes to a few big corporations, much of which is owned by overseas entities.

It is disgraceful, both sides do it and it has to stop.

Yep I completely agree.

If we'd been clever about it (or hadn't been screwed) we could still provide cheap electricity, manage our CO2 budget and export gas, and get more return than we are getting now. It's hard to follow everything that went on a decade ago with those gas contracts but it wasn't good.

There has been a bit of fuss in the media about it lately but this is exactly years too late. WTF happened and why didn't anyone listen to some of us a decade ago?

 

[ferball]

Sure, that's just one example of the many aspect of the economy that could be managed better.

I was just making the simple point that capital is scarce, and as soon as a chunk of government capital is used for one asset / program, then by definition there is less for other assets / programs. There is no imperative for governments to own these assets, but there must be appropriate regulation. It's a balancing act to optimise the outcome (have I said that already?).

Honestly capital isn't scarce. It's invented. The scarcity is artificial.

 

[B4Bear]

Sure, that's just one example of the many aspect of the economy that could be managed better.

I was just making the simple point that capital is scarce, and as soon as a chunk of government capital is used for one asset / program, then by definition there is less for other assets / programs. There is no imperative for governments to own these assets, but there must be appropriate regulation. It's a balancing act to optimise the outcome (have I said that already?).

Where are you getting 'capital is scarce' from?

There has never been more liquidity than there is today. Banks can not shovel it out the door fast enough. Governments have been throwing billions in cheap money at multiple projects.

Interest rates are low, and are projected to remain there for at least a decade.

The fiscal conservatives have decided that debt is no longer an issue per se. So why not use it to the benefit of all, not just the few?

 

[ferball]

The free world gets to choose between a television conman or an Alzheimer's patient.

.......and to think there's folks who actually argue over the positive merits of either party.

How did we end up here?

Who owns the DNC?

I know Americans who say the Democrats deliberately sabotaged better options/candidates cos they were essentially to far to the left. (Ie somewhere in the middle politically.)

Seems a fairly reasonable argument.

The hierarchy of both US parties is owned by Wall St (it's a catch all term for big business) and there is a revolving door between the positions in Presidential admins and the boards of large dominant Wall St companies. Have a look at Obama's appointments after the GFC.

 

[ferball]

The worst part about is, they’re so polarised, there’s going to be some battles on the streets.
And you can see what’s going to happen a mile off, █████ will win on election night, mail in votes will come in declaring Biden the winner, off to the Supreme Court for a verdict.. regardless of which cracker gets in, the American people lose.

Have you seen this? we’re looking back to the future.

https://news.yahoo.com/jews-█████-car-parade-stirs-011203127.html

Can you say cracker on this website?

I guess they are both pale, stale and pretty bland.

 

[ferball]

The worst part about is, they’re so polarised, there’s going to be some battles on the streets.
And you can see what’s going to happen a mile off, █████ will win on election night, mail in votes will come in declaring Biden the winner, off to the Supreme Court for a verdict.. regardless of which cracker gets in, the American people lose.

Have you seen this? we’re looking back to the future.

https://news.yahoo.com/jews-█████-car-parade-stirs-011203127.html

I often bring this up re American politics... Have you ever seen that 70s uk tv show The Tomorrow People, specifically the episode where everyone decides to identify with blue or green?

 

[ferball]

You can definitely blame the Dems for the majority of that, and yet they turned their backs on the best candidate that either party could put forward!!!

View attachment 995582

I just don't get it, and I assume that U.S. politics is the same as Australian politics, in that the parties exist to serve the personal agendas of the people in them, and not for the greater good of the common people.

It's a ****ing terrible state of affairs. The people are getting short circuited by the political parties.

Gore Vidal once described us politics as one party (the property party) with two cosmetically different wings.

That answers your question re Bernie.

Tho alot of the US people I know feel he sold out anyway given he had the profile to run as an independent after 2016. That is a fair point.

On the other hand Col Sanders has injected a whole lot of otherwise unpalatable ideas into the modern US political discussion. And a lot of younger people are listening to them and taking them seriously despite the negative, socialist connotations.

So he may be playing a longer game himself, hoping the ideas he champions last longer than he does and a generation of people run with them when they see the current system fail.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Honestly capital isn't scarce. It's invented. The scarcity is artificial.

Where are you getting 'capital is scarce' from?

There has never been more liquidity than there is today. Banks can not shovel it out the door fast enough. Governments have been throwing billions in cheap money at multiple projects.

Interest rates are low, and are projected to remain there for at least a decade.

The fiscal conservatives have decided that debt is no longer an issue per se. So why not use it to the benefit of all, not just the few?

Of course capital is scarce, in relative terms. It's also finite. If it wasn't, no-one in the world would live in poverty.

Say the government raises $10 billion in revenue this year and spends $8 billion on an infrastructure asset, then it is left with $2 billion, which clearly restricts the amount of social services it can provide. The pool is limited. To get more than $10 billion, it needs to either raise taxes or sell assets. I'm OK with the former, but many aren't - either way, it comes from another source of capital and reduces that source's pool. The overall point is, the capital pool is finite and must be appropriately allocated for the optimal outcome (a difficult, but worthy, objective to pursue).

You don't get it if you equate capital to liquidity, which is driven by market cycles - it is not the same thing. In some cycles, it's near impossible to get loan funds, in others they are freely available. Currently, we are in a prolonged cycle driven by other factors (obviously). In the late 1980s, interest rates hit 20% (the same 1980s where utilities - and coffee - were cheaper than today). Throughout the 1990s it was a win if you could lock in your mortgage rate at 10%.

Just prior to the GFC, debt was (too) widely available. Sub-prime lending was a key trigger of the GFC and in the following year or two, credit was very tight and many companies went out of business due to lack of liquidity.

No-one who understands it has decided that debt is not an issue; it is a huge issue. It's just that currently, it is preferred to the alternative. It sounds nice to say "why not use it to the benefit of all, not just the few?" but do you know how to make this happen? If so, I'm all ears.

 

[B4Bear]

Of course capital is scarce, in relative terms. It's also finite. If it wasn't, no-one in the world would live in poverty.

Say the government raises $10 billion in revenue this year and spends $8 billion on an infrastructure asset, then it is left with $2 billion, which clearly restricts the amount of social services it can provide. The pool is limited. To get more than $10 billion, it needs to either raise taxes or sell assets. I'm OK with the former, but many aren't - either way, it comes from another source of capital and reduces that source's pool. The overall point is, the capital pool is finite and must be appropriately allocated for the optimal outcome (a difficult, but worthy, objective to pursue).

You don't get it if you equate capital to liquidity, which is driven by market cycles - it is not the same thing. In some cycles, it's near impossible to get loan funds, in others they are freely available. Currently, we are in a prolonged cycle driven by other factors (obviously). In the late 1980s, interest rates hit 20% (the same 1980s where utilities - and coffee - were cheaper than today). Throughout the 1990s it was a win if you could lock in your mortgage rate at 10%.

Just prior to the GFC, debt was (too) widely available. Sub-prime lending was a key trigger of the GFC and in the following year or two, credit was very tight and many companies went out of business due to lack of liquidity.

No-one who understands it has decided that debt is not an issue; it is a huge issue. It's just that currently, it is preferred to the alternative. It sounds nice to say "why not use it to the benefit of all, not just the few?" but do you know how to make this happen? If so, I'm all ears.

Or you borrow the $8 billion for infrastructure, and repay it over the course of eight years.

Meaning that you get to use $9 billion each year (ignoring interest obviously) instead of just the $2 billion in your example.

Then if that infrastructure is increasing the revenue, which it should, so much the better.

 

[ferball]

Boils down to the old supply and demand thing.

In said market, I suspect supply has increased due to some 'technology' advances.

About thirty years ago technological changes influenced the market to make it less seasonal. Then prices stabilised. I don't think they have changed since, could find out for sure next time I catch up with some friends. I think demand always outstrips supply (to a point) in this particular case too but that in itself is stable.

 

[ferball]

Of course capital is scarce, in relative terms. It's also finite. If it wasn't, no-one in the world would live in poverty.

Say the government raises $10 billion in revenue this year and spends $8 billion on an infrastructure asset, then it is left with $2 billion, which clearly restricts the amount of social services it can provide. The pool is limited. To get more than $10 billion, it needs to either raise taxes or sell assets. I'm OK with the former, but many aren't - either way, it comes from another source of capital and reduces that source's pool. The overall point is, the capital pool is finite and must be appropriately allocated for the optimal outcome (a difficult, but worthy, objective to pursue).

You don't get it if you equate capital to liquidity, which is driven by market cycles - it is not the same thing. In some cycles, it's near impossible to get loan funds, in others they are freely available. Currently, we are in a prolonged cycle driven by other factors (obviously). In the late 1980s, interest rates hit 20% (the same 1980s where utilities - and coffee - were cheaper than today). Throughout the 1990s it was a win if you could lock in your mortgage rate at 10%.

Just prior to the GFC, debt was (too) widely available. Sub-prime lending was a key trigger of the GFC and in the following year or two, credit was very tight and many companies went out of business due to lack of liquidity.

No-one who understands it has decided that debt is not an issue; it is a huge issue. It's just that currently, it is preferred to the alternative. It sounds nice to say "why not use it to the benefit of all, not just the few?" but do you know how to make this happen? If so, I'm all ears.

Have you ever read David Graebers little essay Debt: The first 5000 Years? I posted a link to an online copy a little way upthread.

It doesn't change the practical issues outlined in your post but it's a very subversive take on debt.

 

[ferball]

they need an external enemy to unite against.. a boogieman.

Turrests!!!!!!

 

[LuvtheKangas]

Or you borrow the $8 billion for infrastructure, and repay it over the course of eight years.

Meaning that you get to use $9 billion each year (ignoring interest obviously) instead of just the $2 billion in your example.

Then if that infrastructure is increasing the revenue, which it should, so much the better.

Meaning you reduce the availability of funds for social services over the next eight years by $1 billion plus interest. Which is a higher reduction than the $8 billion if you used it in one go this year, as you can't ignore interest. Anyway, you have just illustrated that an optimal allocation decision has been made and it might be valid to do it this way in these low interest times. But it might not.

The government now owns an asset that it needs to operate and maintain, more efficiently than the private sector could because the only reason the government owns the asset is to provide its services cheaper than the private sector would. Which means, in reality, that the government is subsidising the cost of the service by artificially keeping it's revenue low. That's fine and good for the community, but the cost of the subsidy reduces the pool available for all other government services and assets.

The idea that the infrastructure is increasing the revenue is incompatible with the idea that the government is providing services more cheaply to the community - not sure you thought that one through.

The government also retains the risk of operating the asset, which would be transferred to the private sector if they were to own it. As someone who has worked in risk management, you would appreciate the benefits of risk transfer.

You're basically supporting my point about the extra costs of doing it via the government, and also the fact that capital is scarce and finite.

 

[ferball]

This can not be emphasised enough. The vast, vast majority of trade apprenticeships were through large government organisations, electricity, councils, military and the like.

Now, business refuses to pick up the training liability they need for there to be sufficient homegrown trades. So what do they do? Some dodgy visa scheme with the backing of government and the business council.+

I know so many older people who did apprenticeships is a govt department of some sort (including .mil) and went on to have amazing interesting careers because the quality of their training was so high.

 

[ferball]

So where does money come from?

 

[rickety]

Would there be a market for Danny Andrews style pinadas filled with those mini bottles of alcohol, obviously aimed at a New Year's Eve celebration market?

 

[ferball]

Need investors?

 

[B4Bear]

I know so many older people who did apprenticeships is a govt department of some sort (including .mil) and went on to have amazing interesting careers because the quality of their training was so high.

I started as an apprentice electrical mechanic. Retrained as an avionics technician. After 20 years back to uni as an electrical engineer. Now ten years doing that, risk management and operations.

Been great. Literally three careers over nearly 40 years with the one organisation.

And it all started as an apprentice with a government entity.

 

[ferball]

Another great left-leaning artist. I often wonder if it sucks for your average right wing type to know that the vast majority of quality music out there has been made by artists with left-leaning proclivities and/or social justice concerns. Guess they just tune out the lyrics. Far easier than indulging in self-reflection or questioning deeply-entrenched political beliefs.

What about Ted Nugent and the lead singer of Spandau Ballet?

 

[goalieboy82]

 

[ferball]

I know people here think I have some pretty radical ideas on the economy, but the purity spiralling from the left in the US election is bizarre (Greens have a habit of doing that here, too).

Biden is a sh*t candidate but in terms of covid response, climate change and the minimum wage alone is a huge improvement on what they've got. I guess the logic is that he might lure some of the swing voters across. I'm pissed Bernie got shafted again too, but they tried purity spiralling last election (Hillary worse than Biden) and we've tried four years of █████. It hasn't done the left any favours.

Bernie folded IMO, but I think he is playing a longer game.

Biden is a shit candidate all round.

Until 2011 Libya was a refuge in N Africa against anti black racism. It was a modern nation with incredible infrastructure built under Gaddafi. Now it's a shit hole with the first openly trading African slave market since the 1800s. Because of a decision Biden helped make.

Gaddafi is no hero of freedom, but he isn't the bogey man he is made out to be either, and especially wasn't in the age of Guantanamo, Extraordinary Rendition and the US legalising the building a worldwide network or kidnapping and torture. Biden's government played a crucial role in bringing Gaddafi down, using the same Islamic fundy fighters Reagan had set up in N Africa specifically to fight the Libyan government. (This was around the same time they set up the Afghani networks that became Al Quaeda naturally those two groups networked, with or without US support.) And "off the books" use of US military assets.

 

[Joycey]

Bernie folded IMO, but I think he is playing a longer game.

longer game...he barely has any time left. He almost died on the campaign trail due to a heart issue.

He sold out again and decided to take it easy in his advanced years. Biden should have done the same after Obama left office.

 

[Joycey]

4 year anniversary of this great tweet

 

[Hojuman]

Apparently our 12 new submarines costing $90 billion will be ready by 2054