Shocked To be Sitting Here: Penalty rate cuts fail to stimulate jobs!

[spinynorman]

Clearly they need to be cut further.

 

[Bombermania]

But the Financial Sector is growing faster relative to other sectors, which demonstrates that the munny is falling into the Financial Sector munny cesspool, where it gets trapped.

Most of the two thirds are just a relict, of a past more reasonable time in Australian history, we are at the stage where the 5th decile income earners cannot buy a house, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and then finally 10th will go soon.

So once Aconex takes off house prices will drop by what, 80%?

I’m not sure what the point of your last paragraph is? Is this to still demonstrate the finite nature of the budget, not propped up by the Financial Sector?

1- The finance sector is not trapping money from the economy, the only money that the banks keep on their balance sheet is the capital requirements as set out by the Basel frameworks, like any business it will have retained earnings which in time are spent.

2- Of that two thirds of the population you describe as being a relict of some mythical time, about a half of that population or one third of the total adult population currently has a mortgage and a large percentage of mortgages are ahead of their repayment schedule, you seem to have a very low bar for what constitutes being wealthy.

3- Property prices are not related to innovation in the tech sector.

4- The Australian government has been in existence since 1901 and has had fewer than twenty budget surpluses, the Victorian government has carried some level of debt since the gold rush days, it has nothing to do with propping up the finance sector and is simply the result of what government by its nature does as a major user of funds for capital works and services.

 

[RupieDupie]

1- The finance sector is not trapping money from the economy, the only money that the banks keep on their balance sheet is the capital requirements as set out by the Basel frameworks, like any business it will have retained earnings which in time are spent.

2- Of that two thirds of the population you describe as being a relict of some mythical time, about a half of that population or one third of the total adult population currently has a mortgage and a large percentage of mortgages are ahead of their repayment schedule, you seem to have a very low bar for what constitutes being wealthy.

3- Property prices are not related to innovation in the tech sector.

4- The Australian government has been in existence since 1901 and has had fewer than twenty budget surpluses, the Victorian government has carried some level of debt since the gold rush days, it has nothing to do with propping up the finance sector and is simply the result of what government by its nature does as a major user of funds for capital works and services.

1. Yet the Financial Sector is growing much faster relative to other sectors = munny cesspool

2. The age I’m talking about didn’t end ages ago, they ended in ~the year 2000, and it was still possible for people in the 5th decile to buy a house from ~the year 2000 until a certain year later by playing limbo, how low can they make their cost of living go (like eating cat food, after all in any regulatory body’s eyes, it’s not like median income earners are people)

3. I thought the tech had something to do with property and was innovative? What is innovative about it then?

4. I’m afraid you’re taking this away from the point, that the Gubmint isn’t propped up and growing in pace with the Financial Sector = munny cesspool

 

[Bombermania]

1. Yet the Financial Sector is growing much faster relative to other sectors = munny cesspool

2. The age I’m talking about didn’t end ages ago, they ended in ~the year 2000, and it was still possible for people in the 5th decile to buy a house from ~the year 2000 until a certain year later by playing limbo, how low can they make their cost of living go (like eating cat food, after all in any regulatory body’s eyes, it’s not like median income earners are people)

3. I thought the tech had something to do with property and was innovative? What is innovative about it then?

4. I’m afraid you’re taking this away from the point, that the Gubmint isn’t propped up and growing in pace with the Financial Sector = munny cesspool

1) The finance sector is not hording money from the economy, the reason it is growing is the result of a growing economy, increasing business profitability and strong growth on financial markets.

2) The bottom of the income ladder has never been able to buy their dream house or in their dream location, they have always had to rent or buy something far below their aspiration, even today many people are entering the property market by looking beyond the inner city or buying a unit or smaller property than they might have preferred.

3) Innovation has nothing to do with property prices, innovation can be many things from creating a new product or a new way of doing something.

4) I never said the government was being propped up and I repeat my earlier point, the nature of government means it pretty much always carried debt and the finance sector is not hording money for the simple reason that if money is not put to work then it loses value.

5) If anyone is hording money it is the corporate sector which has seen its balance sheets grow strongly however they have been hesitant to invest or have preferred to return profits to shareholders.

 

[RupieDupie]

1) The finance sector is not hording money from the economy, the reason it is growing is the result of a growing economy, increasing business profitability and strong growth on financial markets.

2) The bottom of the income ladder has never been able to buy their dream house or in their dream location, they have always had to rent or buy something far below their aspiration, even today many people are entering the property market by looking beyond the inner city or buying a unit or smaller property than they might have preferred.

3) Innovation has nothing to do with property prices, innovation can be many things from creating a new product or a new way of doing something.

4) I never said the government was being propped up and I repeat my earlier point, the nature of government means it pretty much always carried debt and the finance sector is not hording money for the simple reason that if money is not put to work then it loses value.

5) If anyone is hording money it is the corporate sector which has seen its balance sheets grow strongly however they have been hesitant to invest or have preferred to return profits to shareholders.

1) but then all sectors will be growing just as fast...
2) I’m not talking about the bottom rungs, I’m talking about the median salary of the class of people who the Gubmint considers to be Australia’s biggest scumbags, teachers, nurses, police, soldiers etc
3) but why point out an IT company who works in construction as being innovative if the prices of construction are not plummeting as a result, what are they doing that is innovative?
4) this cannot be true as the Financial Sector is investing in the Financial Sector, to make many many munny, and tomorrow if the Financial Sector wanted to, they could magically increase interest rates and make more munny, why would they invest anywhere else? Additionally they don’t seem to be giving this munny away - due to the munny cesspool that they are
5) isn’t this a whole which includes the Financial Sector?

 

[Jello_B]

1) but then all sectors will be growing just as fast...
2) I’m not talking about the bottom rungs, I’m talking about the median salary of the class of people who the Gubmint considers to be Australia’s biggest scumbags, teachers, nurses, police, soldiers etc
3) but why point out an IT company who works in construction as being innovative if the prices of construction are not plummeting as a result, what are they doing that is innovative?
4) this cannot be true as the Financial Sector is investing in the Financial Sector, to make many many munny, and tomorrow if the Financial Sector wanted to, they could magically increase interest rates and make more munny, why would they invest anywhere else? Additionally they don’t seem to be giving this munny away - due to the munny cesspool that they are
5) isn’t this a whole which includes the Financial Sector?

Aconex is an information sharing system similar to outlook. There is no relevance to the value of constructing a house.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

1) but then all sectors will be growing just as fast...
2) I’m not talking about the bottom rungs, I’m talking about the median salary of the class of people who the Gubmint considers to be Australia’s biggest scumbags, teachers, nurses, police, soldiers etc
3) but why point out an IT company who works in construction as being innovative if the prices of construction are not plummeting as a result, what are they doing that is innovative?
4) this cannot be true as the Financial Sector is investing in the Financial Sector, to make many many munny, and tomorrow if the Financial Sector wanted to, they could magically increase interest rates and make more munny, why would they invest anywhere else? Additionally they don’t seem to be giving this munny away - due to the munny cesspool that they are
5) isn’t this a whole which includes the Financial Sector?

Mate, you clearly aren't that across how the economy works and yet you're spending pages trying to push a theory in the face of people who have sensible rebuttals. Your theory is as silly as your use of "munny" and "Gubmint". Let it go or spend your time trying to get the Liberal's Royal Commision into the financial sector to be a serious one and not another ideologically-spiked sloshing of money.

 

[RupieDupie]

Aconex is an information sharing system similar to outlook. There is no relevance to the value of constructing a house.

Not according to their website, why would they even build a software platform if it did not “value-add” to the construction process?

But also, that’s why I asked the question, I couldn’t personally see any innovation, I’ve seen similar software before(?), but I wasn’t the person who brought it up as an example of innovation.

 

[Jello_B]

Not according to their website, why would they even build a software platform if it did not “value-add” to the construction process?

But also, that’s why I asked the question, I couldn’t personally see any innovation, I’ve seen similar software before(?), but I wasn’t the person who brought it up as an example of innovation.

Yeah I use Aconex, it is a value add but it wouldn’t reduce the cost of housing. It’s a handy package, but hardly revolutionary. And not accusing you of promoting this package, just letting you know what it is.

 

[RupieDupie]

Mate, you clearly aren't that across how the economy works and yet you're spending pages trying to push a theory in the face of people who have sensible rebuttals. Your theory is as silly as your use of "munny" and "Gubmint". Let it go or spend your time trying to get the Liberal's Royal Commision into the financial sector to be a serious one and not another ideologically-spiked sloshing of money.

I’m afraid just stating that I don’t understand how the economy works doesn’t mean I don’t understand how the economy works.

I’m a hyper-realist because I’ve seen through the game, and if you’ve ever seen kids playing as “grown-ups” before, that’s what we’re talking about here, it is all airy-fairy-pretence.

 

[RupieDupie]

Yeah I use Aconex, it is a value add but it wouldn’t reduce the cost of housing. It’s a handy package, but hardly revolutionary. And not accusing you of promoting this package, just letting you know what it is.

Fair enough, I read up about it on the innernet.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I’m afraid just stating that I don’t understand how the economy works doesn’t mean I don’t understand how the economy works.

I’m a hyper-realist because I’ve seen through the game, and if you’ve ever seen kids playing as “grown-ups” before, that’s what we’re talking about here, it is all airy-fairy-pretence.

I fully stand by my analysis that you don't understand how the economy works. It's been revealed repeatedly in your wide-of-the-mark queries and rebuttals ITT. You may wish to dismiss reality as "airy-fairy-pretence" in order to comfort yourself, but it doesn't actually change reality.

 

[RupieDupie]

I fully stand by my analysis that you don't understand how the economy works. It's been revealed repeatedly in your wide-of-the-mark queries and rebuttals ITT. You may wish to dismiss reality as "airy-fairy-pretence" in order to comfort yourself, but it doesn't actually change reality.

Just because people have responded to my posts, it does not mean I’m wrong, for example, how come the financial sector is growing faster relative to other sectors? Where is a lot of income going due to the level of household debt? Etc etc

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Just because people have responded to my posts, it does not mean I’m wrong, for example, how come the financial sector is growing faster relative to other sectors? Where is a lot of income going due to the level of household debt? Etc etc

I didn't say all your questions were wrong. Just that your replies revealed a substantial lack of understanding. e.g. "Innovation" in an industry does not mean prices should drop. They are separate concepts. Maybe you are fixated on your own perception of what investment should be, and that's why you were talking about money being 'stuck' in the economy (both housing and the financial sector can have money shifting substantially 'on paper' without a reason other than perception), but that view is so skewed or lacking in depth as to make it hard for people to explain where you're going wrong. Because you keep thinking it's 'stuck' investment or "munny" being hoarded by the financial sector. It isn't. A lot of R&D is directed by the financial sector's investment.

You should investigate why you're making these errors (i.e. look for confirmation bias, think harder about how much research and understanding you have of these fields, etc) rather than just repeating yourself in the hope that others will agree with your view.

 

[RupieDupie]

I didn't say all your questions were wrong. Just that your replies revealed a substantial lack of understanding. e.g. "Innovation" in an industry does not mean prices should drop. They are separate concepts. Maybe you are fixated on your own perception of what investment should be, and that's why you were talking about money being 'stuck' in the economy (both housing and the financial sector can have money shifting substantially 'on paper' without a reason other than perception), but that view is so skewed or lacking in depth as to make it hard for people to explain where you're going wrong. Because you keep thinking it's 'stuck' investment or "munny" being hoarded by the financial sector. It isn't. A lot of R&D is directed by the financial sector's investment.

You should investigate why you're making these errors (i.e. look for confirmation bias, think harder about how much research and understanding you have of these fields, etc) rather than just repeating yourself in the hope that others will agree with your view.

Well, it is usually what happens with innovation, look at what has happened and is still happening to the cost and size of computing as innovations have been made in the industry.

Comparatively look at what is happening to the size and cost of the Financial Sector...

The reason you cannot explain why I’m wrong is due to your own last paragraph, you have a “feeling” that somehow I must be wrong, but this is only because you have been blinded by the fabrication, the first stage when confronted by the truth is denial, and most people usually stay in this stage proportional to the amount of energy they have invested in the illusion. Just let it go man, stop being a pleb.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

Well, it is usually what happens with innovation, look at what has happened and is still happening to the cost and size of computing as innovations have been made in the industry.

Comparatively look at what is happening to the size and cost of the Financial Sector...

The reason you cannot explain why I’m wrong is due to your own last paragraph, you have a “feeling” that somehow I must be wrong, but this is only because you have been blinded by the fabrication, the first stage when confronted by the truth is denial, and most people usually stay in this stage proportional to the amount of energy they have invested in the illusion. Just let it go man, stop being a pleb.

No, mate. I know you're wrong because you are saying things that are demonstrably incorrect. There is no obligation for "innovation" to equate with price reductions. That is just silly. A lot of innovation costs more money initially. For obvious reasons. It is new and needs to be stream-lined by consumer feedback, production line limitation (and/or innovation), economies of scale and competition.

One pertinent reason why you should spell things correctly is because it will allow you to look up their definitions in a dictionary.

 

[Bombermania]

Well, it is usually what happens with innovation, look at what has happened and is still happening to the cost and size of computing as innovations have been made in the industry.

Comparatively look at what is happening to the size and cost of the Financial Sector...

The reason you cannot explain why I’m wrong is due to your own last paragraph, you have a “feeling” that somehow I must be wrong, but this is only because you have been blinded by the fabrication, the first stage when confronted by the truth is denial, and most people usually stay in this stage proportional to the amount of energy they have invested in the illusion. Just let it go man, stop being a pleb.

Not sure why you are so obsessed with the finance sector, without the finance sector then financing would be more restricted and more costly, I sometimes wonder if the anti-finance crowd understand that or whether they are so blinked (I am not saying that you are).

Earlier you asked about "why don't all sectors grow at the same rate? Quite simply difference sectors have difference business cycles and as such will grow at difference rates, for example the heath sector is different to the mining sector.

The use of Aconex was simply an example that there is innovation despite your earlier suggestion that the finance sector was hording money so there was no innovation. I am not sure why you thought innovation in tech would equal lower house prices also you mentioned nurses and teachers not being able to own their own home, it just happens that I know several such people and they do own or have a mortgage on their own home.

The problem with the home affordability debate is that some people are using statistics to hide behind them being unable to buy in their preferred location, so whilst Sydney is no doubt a bubble, it is false to say that the rest of the Australian housing market outside of Sydney and the inner suburbs of Melbourne is excessively expensive or unaffordable, some people need to look at something smaller than they might have liked or they need to move outside of their favorite areas.

To show how people can paint a nice picture using stats, the way some people go on you could be forgiven for thinking that in the good ole days there was no poverty or homeless in Australia which unfortunately was never the case.

 

[RupieDupie]

No, mate. I know you're wrong because you are saying things that are demonstrably incorrect. There is no obligation for "innovation" to equate with price reductions. That is just silly. A lot of innovation costs more money initially. For obvious reasons. It is new and needs to be stream-lined by consumer feedback, production line limitation (and/or innovation), economies of scale and competition.

One pertinent reason why you should spell things correctly is because it will allow you to look up their definitions in a dictionary.

Well if you look up the word “money” in the dictionary and also look up “government” in the dictionary they have a different form and function to the reality. The want of munny exceeds that of its utility and at the detriment of a society, does not make it money, the Gubmint’s want of munny and to please key stakeholders over that of the Australian citizens does not make them a government.

Well look at something innovative that started at ~same time that Australia’s housing prices increased relative to salary, genomics, check out the industry then vs now, why hasn’t housing costs plummeted in the same time? There is a massive amount of munny going into the property (I need to change the spelling of this word as well...) market, a lot of investment and a lot of compound interest, yet it seems the only thing that is happening is dilapidated houses are getting more expensive due to investors wanting many many munnys. Note how one doesn’t even equate with the other, one has a large amount of innovation and the other is just a cesspool.

 

[Bombermania]

Well if you look up the word “money” in the dictionary and also look up “government” in the dictionary they have a different form and function to the reality. The want of munny exceeds that of its utility and at the detriment of a society, does not make it money, the Gubmint’s want of munny and to please key stakeholders over that of the Australian citizens does not make them a government.

Well look at something innovative that started at ~same time that Australia’s housing prices increased relative to salary, genomics, check out the industry then vs now, why hasn’t housing costs plummeted in the same time? There is a massive amount of munny going into the property (I need to change the spelling of this word as well...) market, a lot of investment and a lot of compound interest, yet it seems the only thing that is happening is dilapidated houses are getting more expensive due to investors wanting many many munnys. Note how one doesn’t even equate with the other, one has a large amount of innovation and the other is just a cesspool.

Increasing property prices are usually a sign of a healthy economy, I say usual because there is a difference between healthy growth and boom/bubble conditions and ultimately innovation has little to do with property prices, if anything a more active innovation economy will lead to higher property prices as we see with Silcon Valley in the U.S. It was Sydney's obsession with becoming an international city which started the post 2000 property price rises and whilst the investment environment has been very favorable although that has started to change.

 

[RupieDupie]

Not sure why you are so obsessed with the finance sector, without the finance sector then financing would be more restricted and more costly, I sometimes wonder if the anti-finance crowd understand that or whether they are so blinked (I am not saying that you are).

Earlier you asked about "why don't all sectors grow at the same rate? Quite simply difference sectors have difference business cycles and as such will grow at difference rates, for example the heath sector is different to the mining sector.

The use of Aconex was simply an example that there is innovation despite your earlier suggestion that the finance sector was hording money so there was no innovation. I am not sure why you thought innovation in tech would equal lower house prices also you mentioned nurses and teachers not being able to own their own home, it just happens that I know several such people and they do own or have a mortgage on their own home.

The problem with the home affordability debate is that some people are using statistics to hide behind them being unable to buy in their preferred location, so whilst Sydney is no doubt a bubble, it is false to say that the rest of the Australian housing market outside of Sydney and the inner suburbs of Melbourne is excessively expensive or unaffordable, some people need to look at something smaller than they might have liked or they need to move outside of their favorite areas.

To show how people can paint a nice picture using stats, the way some people go on you could be forgiven for thinking that in the good ole days there was no poverty or homeless in Australia which unfortunately was never the case.

The Finance Sector is costly, and a monopoly, for example, the big 4 can do whatever they want, allow the funding of terrorists, allow money laundering, and if the bubble bursts the expectation is the Australian taxpayer will bail them out. Secondly, there actually is a royal commission happening, I thought that royal commissions were a big deal? Or is it just my blinkers blinding me?

The reason I asked why the Finance Sector is growing relative to other sectors was to prove what you were stating, that the Financial Sector exists to strengthen other Sectors was incorrect and that also the Financial Sector is a munny cesspool (I couldn’t say either if it wasn’t). Say if you’re a bank and all your purpose is is to invest in things that give a return that is, munny munny munny, and you have the option between innovation that may not even make munny (let’s say a way for people to generate their own power) or a magic product where a few people sitting around a table can state, “I now pronounce interest rates to be <...>”. Which would you invest in?

Aconex is tech related to construction, residential and commercial, if it is innovative it could have perhaps “disrupted” the construction industry, increasing supply, and driven prices down etc etc

Yeah but you can state all I’m doing is painting a purty pikture, but are you then claiming that median house prices haven’t increased relative to median salary? Should the new median salary home buyer (a huge no. of Australian citizens) only be allowed to buy in the outer suburbs or in the country? Would it be good for the large number of median income earners entering the market in the near future, 50% of the workforce, moving to the country... Why did the Gubmint mention housing affordability as part of their budget action plan, even though they didn’t actually do anything about it, if there is no problem?

I’m using data to support my argument, to demonstrate I’m not talking shite, if you prefer I didn’t, I’m more than happy with that arrangement, it will save me time. I’m not claiming Australia never had poverty, only that housing affordability has decreased, because it has, even with a multi trillion dollar investment.

 

[Bombermania]

The Finance Sector is costly, and a monopoly, for example, the big 4 can do whatever they want, allow the funding of terrorists, allow money laundering, and if the bubble bursts the expectation is the Australian taxpayer will bail them out. Secondly, there actually is a royal commission happening, I thought that royal commissions were a big deal? Or is it just my blinkers blinding me?

The reason I asked why the Finance Sector is growing relative to other sectors was to prove what you were stating, that the Financial Sector exists to strengthen other Sectors was incorrect and that also the Financial Sector is a munny cesspool (I couldn’t say either if it wasn’t). Say if you’re a bank and all your purpose is is to invest in things that give a return that is, munny munny munny, and you have the option between innovation that may not even make munny (let’s say a way for people to generate their own power) or a magic product where a few people sitting around a table can state, “I now pronounce interest rates to be <...>”. Which would you invest in?

Aconex is tech related to construction, residential and commercial, if it is innovative it could have perhaps “disrupted” the construction industry, increasing supply, and driven prices down etc etc

Yeah but you can state all I’m doing is painting a purty pikture, but are you then claiming that median house prices haven’t increased relative to median salary? Should the new median salary home buyer (a huge no. of Australian citizens) only be allowed to buy in the outer suburbs or in the country? Would it be good for the large number of median income earners entering the market in the near future, 50% of the workforce, moving to the country... Why did the Gubmint mention housing affordability as part of their budget action plan, even though they didn’t actually do anything about it, if there is no problem?

I’m using data to support my argument, to demonstrate I’m not talking shite, if you prefer I didn’t, I’m more than happy with that arrangement, it will save me time. I’m not claiming Australia never had poverty, only that housing affordability has decreased, because it has, even with a multi trillion dollar investment.

I did add the caveat that I wasn't saying you were blinked however many anti-finance sector types are blinked.

"the big 4 can do whatever they want, allow the funding of terrorists, allow money laundering"

This is incorrect as the banks cannot just do what they like, the banks are well regulated and have to follow the rules or they are doubt with just as the CBA is currently before the courts over its AML issues so it is absolutely false to say that the banks allow the funding of terrorists and allow money laundering because they are not allowed too which is why the CBA has been charged.

"Aconex is tech related to construction, residential and commercial, if it is innovative it could have perhaps “disrupted” the construction industry,
increasing supply, and driven prices down etc etc"

Aconex provide cloud based services to builders, it wont do a great deal for the supply of housing and innovation isn't always disruptive.

I didn't say property prices haven risen or that Sydney and the inner city of Melbourne had not become expensive, with Sydney it clearly has been in bubble territory however I made the point that elsewhere the market was not as unaffordable, people don't need to move to the country although we do have many great regional centres and depending on which major city we are talking about there are plenty of nice middle and outer suburbs. The only major city with a real problem is Sydney partly because of the geography and how the city has been developed, wheres a city like Melbourne or South East Queensland are more decentralised.

 

[RupieDupie]

Increasing property prices are usually a sign of a healthy economy, I say usual because there is a difference between healthy growth and boom/bubble conditions and ultimately innovation has little to do with property prices, if anything a more active innovation economy will lead to higher property prices as we see with Silcon Valley in the U.S. It was Sydney's obsession with becoming an international city which started the post 2000 property price rises and whilst the investment environment has been very favorable although that has started to change.

I’m pretty sure when the growth outstrips the purpose (housing for Australian citizens) the growth is unhealthy. US housing prices were same / lower when their bubble burst, and the people responsible were bailed out and given medals (large retirement funds), they were the heroes of America. Also some people in the Financial Sector shorted on their own country’s property market as well, to make many many munnys (they made a movie on this with Brad Pitt having a role in it).

Silicon Valley pays the price for this, here’s a conversation happening right now;
Engineer - “I have 100% on my SATs, and went through MIT top of my class, but I now have a large student debt and to buy a house here in Silicon Valley I need heaps of cash”
CEO of WankCorp - <thinks to himself> (yep “him” - no unconscious bias)
<I need this see you en tee to make many many click ads, even though this person has the capability to rid the world of antibiotic resistance, these click ads will only exist to decrease usability and enjoyment of technological products but will make me many many munnys, and if I don’t snaffle him up ShaftFest will get them... but just for people to live in Silicon Valley they also need many many munnys making engineers expensive>

Alternatively,

Engineer - “I have 100% on my SATs, and went through MIT top of my class, but I now have a large student debt, I can’t afford to live in Silicon Valley, oh well I better go rape a massive number of innocent people in the Financial Sector...”

 

[Bombermania]

I’m pretty sure when the growth outstrips the purpose (housing for Australian citizens) the growth is unhealthy. US housing prices were same / lower when their bubble burst, and the people responsible were bailed out and given medals (large retirement funds), they were the heroes of America. Also some people in the Financial Sector shorted on their own country’s property market as well, to make many many munnys (they made a movie on this with Brad Pitt having a role in it).

Silicon Valley pays the price for this, here’s a conversation happening right now;
Engineer - “I have 100% on my SATs, and went through MIT top of my class, but I now have a large student debt and to buy a house here in Silicon Valley I need heaps of cash”
CEO of WankCorp - <thinks to himself> (yep “him” - no unconscious bias)
<I need this see you en tee to make many many click ads, even though this person has the capability to rid the world of antibiotic resistance, these click ads will only exist to decrease usability and enjoyment of technological products but will make me many many munnys, and if I don’t snaffle him up ShaftFest will get them... but just for people to live in Silicon Valley they also need many many munnys making engineers expensive>

Alternatively,

Engineer - “I have 100% on my SATs, and went through MIT top of my class, but I now have a large student debt, I can’t afford to live in Silicon Valley, oh well I better go rape a massive number of innocent people in the Financial Sector...”

The moral of the story being that the U.S had poor regulation and even poorer oversight, the Wall Street banks are very different to the Australian big 4, for a start the Australian banks are commercial banks wheres the Wall St banks are mostly Investment banks or are more like Macquarie Group.

While Australia has had property crashes, the nature of our property market, the banks and regulators is somewhat different to that of the U.S.

 

[RupieDupie]

I did add the caveat that I wasn't saying you were blinked however many anti-finance sector types are blinked.

"the big 4 can do whatever they want, allow the funding of terrorists, allow money laundering"

This is incorrect as the banks cannot just do what they like, the banks are well regulated and have to follow the rules or they are doubt with just as the CBA is currently before the courts over its AML issues so it is absolutely false to say that the banks allow the funding of terrorists and allow money laundering because they are not allowed too which is why the CBA has been charged.

"Aconex is tech related to construction, residential and commercial, if it is innovative it could have perhaps “disrupted” the construction industry,
increasing supply, and driven prices down etc etc"

Aconex provide cloud based services to builders, it wont do a great deal for the supply of housing and innovation isn't always disruptive.

I didn't say property prices haven risen or that Sydney and the inner city of Melbourne had not become expensive, with Sydney it clearly has been in bubble territory however I made the point that elsewhere the market was not as unaffordable, people don't need to move to the country although we do have many great regional centres and depending on which major city we are talking about there are plenty of nice middle and outer suburbs. The only major city with a real problem is Sydney partly because of the geography and how the city has been developed, wheres a city like Melbourne or South East Queensland are more decentralised.

Yeah but none of the people responsible will go to guantanemo bay, and / or the banks would not lose their license or the the people responsible lose their heads, they would just pass off whatever fine they receive to their consumers by increasing interest rates by zero point whatever % and this will magically = fine amount. The consumers will pay the price.

But then it isn’t really that innovative...

It should just be obvious to keep housing affordable relative to median income, what is the point of Australian society? Is it to look after a few key stakeholders? Like I’ve always argued, if this is the case, the Gubmint should be open and honest about it, they should just state that their purpose is to work for these key stakeholders at the expense of the Australian public.

 

[Bombermania]

Yeah but none of the people responsible will go to guantanemo bay, and / or the banks would not lose their license or the the people responsible lose their heads, they would just pass off whatever fine they receive to their consumers by increasing interest rates by zero point whatever % and this will magically = fine amount. The consumers will pay the price.

But then it isn’t really that innovative...

It should just be obvious to keep housing affordable relative to median income, what is the point of Australian society? Is it to look after a few key stakeholders? Like I’ve always argued, if this is the case, the Gubmint should be open and honest about it, they should just state that their purpose is to work for these key stakeholders at the expense of the Australian public.

The median income various from postcode to postcode just as property prices do, if a postcode cannot sustain a certain price then it will fall. When you say a few stakeholders shows that you are overlooking that two thirds of Australians own or are buying so clearly more than a few key stakeholders are involved although I agree that investors have been on a very good wicket, the kind of wicket Steve Smith would make a triple ton on.