The Politics/Religion/Conspiracies Deathmatch Thread

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

well look the decision on penalty rates will be made by the independent umpire and both sides have declared they will accept the decision so your vote won't matter there.

i believe there should be a strong union movement because the powerless should always be represented when negotiating with the powerful.

but.

if you think there is one iota of difference between the union bosses and the bosses of big business then you are sadly mistaken.
the same levels of corruption, greed and self interest spread across all levels of power.

we need unions, we need business.

we don't need shitcunce.

they aren't all sitting on one side of the fence.

---

Five Star Post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by GazFish35

Bit like blaming doctors for Cancer.

---

4-methylimidazole (4-MEI) is Known to cause cancer.
Dr Pepper contains 4-methylimidazole (4-MEI).

/thread.

Anyone who drinks that dr pepper shit deserves anything that comes their way. ;)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

well look the decision on penalty rates will be made by the independent umpire and both sides have declared they will accept the decision so your vote won't matter there.

i believe there should be a strong union movement because the powerless should always be represented when negotiating with the powerful.

but.

if you think there is one iota of difference between the union bosses and the bosses of big business then you are sadly mistaken.
the same levels of corruption, greed and self interest spread across all levels of power.

we need unions, we need business.

we don't need shitcunce.

they aren't all sitting on one side of the fence.

---

So we are in agreeance here?
You need a balance in all walks of life, once it goes to far to one side problems start to arise.
I know from some stories my father tells me how particularly in the 70's and 80's the Unions could call a strike from the drop of a hat.
Now things have gone too far the other way where employers have the upper hand in many cases.
The neo-Conservative movement which started with the Thatcher government in the late 70's has spread to many countries in the western world, destroying the power of Unions, privatising and selling off everything state owned. If this is the pinnacle of Capitalism, then it certainly is not good.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stopper2

So we are in agreeance here?

---

oh look man, id be shocked if a great percentage of our population aren't in agreement that union representation is essential for a significant portion of the workforce.

but

the downfall of the argument is some of these unions don't want to be governed under the same rules as corporations despite having access to, and being responsible for massive amounts of money and power. its a dangerous situation when the people in power go unchecked. whether thats a CEO or a union boss its all the same.

also, a huge majority of the union bosses are in the top 1% of income earners in this country. (yes, the top 1%)

but here they are doing a good job at convincing the 'workforce' they are rallying agains the 1%ers despite being front and centre of that group.

id love to see one set of rules for everyone.at the moment there isn't.

id actually love to see one freaking tax rate no matter what you earn, be it from business, wage, investments or super.
find the average, tax them all and there can be no grounds for complaint.

having tax rates range from 30%-48% only invites people to try and bend the rules.

and as someone who bends them as far as I can its quite sad what you can get away with in this country (legally) with a half decent accountant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by stopper2

So we are in agreeance here?
You need a balance in all walks of life, once it goes to far to one side problems start to arise.
I know from some stories my father tells me how particularly in the 70's and 80's the Unions could call a strike from the drop of a hat.
Now things have gone too far the other way where employers have the upper hand in many cases.
The neo-Conservative movement which started with the Thatcher government in the late 70's has spread to many countries in the western world, destroying the power of Unions, privatising and selling off everything state owned. If this is the pinnacle of Capitalism, then it certainly is not good.

---

It's not Capitalism it is a Plutocracy.
Capitalism is a system whereby those that own the means of production seek profits and those that work with the means of production resist wage cuts.
When Neo-Liberalism took away the power of Unions to resist wage cuts the system was broken.
If you look at time series data for wages and productivity you can see that up until the early 1970's wages increase pretty much perfectly tracked productivity gains.
This was good because Capitalists could make more by increasing output, workers made incremental gains in income so they could purchase the output - and overall, both parties had an incentive to work.
From the 1970's gains in productivity have not been matched by increases in wages. Therefore, those working with the means of production have not had incomes sufficient enough to purchase the goods and services produced. The Capitalists, even though they have more money, they also have a much lower propensity to spend and therefore spending is at a lower level than it would have been if those working with the means of production gained their fair share.
By the late 1980's the Neo-Liberals came up with a solution called Financial Engineering which saw credit at levels we had never before seen available to pretty much anyone capable of signing on the dotted line.
Now the Capitalists could have their cake and eat it to and those taking up the credit on offer could pretend they could actually afford the lifestyle they had now become accustomed to.

The big winners in all this - BANKS. Even the capitalists in the traditional sense of the word are an endangered species because once households realise they need to reduce their credit holdings [and this has been happening for a while now consumption spending on anything but essentials has plummeted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

It's not Capitalism it is a Plutocracy.
Capitalism is a system whereby those that own the means of production seek profits and those that work with the means of production resist wage cuts.
When Neo-Liberalism took away the power of Unions to resist wage cuts the system was broken.
If you look at time series data for wages and productivity you can see that up until the early 1970's wages increase pretty much perfectly tracked productivity gains.
This was good because Capitalists could make more by increasing output, workers made incremental gains in income so they could purchase the output - and overall, both parties had an incentive to work.
From the 1970's gains in productivity have not been matched by increases in wages. Therefore, those working with the means of production have not had incomes sufficient enough to purchase the goods and services produced. The Capitalists, even though they have more money, they also have a much lower propensity to spend and therefore spending is at a lower level than it would have been if those working with the means of production gained their fair share.
By the late 1980's the Neo-Liberals came up with a solution called Financial Engineering which saw credit at levels we had never before seen available to pretty much anyone capable of signing on the dotted line.
Now the Capitalists could have their cake and eat it to and those taking up the credit on offer could pretend they could actually afford the lifestyle they had now become accustomed to.

The big winners in all this - BANKS. Even the capitalists in the traditional sense of the word are an endangered species because once households realise they need to reduce their credit holdings [and this has been happening for a while now consumption spending on anything but essentials has plummeted.

---

Good post, what you have stated makes a lot of sense Dunster. Yes Banks, expecially the big Banks have been the big winners in this new world order.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

The big winners in all this - BANKS.

---

Dunsts, lets discuss national debt, where the money went (wasnt all on trade), who do we owe and can we write it off if we hand over some uranium, ala Brazil and forests?

or not you egotistical wankerers

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Couscous

Not disputing this idea, but I couldn't find good data to test it. The ABS times series don't go back that far.

---

You need to use the labour Productivity index and wages index data. To complile this data you also need to understand the difference between a stock and a flow, and the difference between a real and a nominal value.

Did your graph come from the ABS or did you create it using data you found on the ABS website ?

This is what you need:

http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/xls/h04hist.xls
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....res1Dec%202014

Below is this data put together by Billy Mitchell at COffee.

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blo..._1978_2010.jpg

Below is the international story

https://anticap.files.wordpress.com/...-wages-g20.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Couscous

No, I don't need to understand that (even though I do)!

Whether the data is real/nominal is irrelevant because I'm using ABS indices. We're comparing Australian wages and Australian labour productivity. So inflation doesn't matter because, if I adjusted the data to put it into real terms, both datasets would be adjusted equally. It would matter if I was doing an international comparison, as in your graph, but I'm not. And nor do the stock/flow differences matter because, again, I'm using ABS time-series indices that are designed for longitudinal comparisons.

I used the ABS's wage price index data and industry multifactor productivity estimates (for labour productivity, I used gross value added per hour worked).



My graph.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not disputing your historical point. Australia had a relatively high level of income equality until the late 1970s, but it's worsened since then. But the reasons behind that are pretty complex. Don't ask me to explain why the Australian example in more recent times differs from the international example (as seen in your graph), because I can't. But it is different.

---

It's not different at all.

Use these: http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/xls/h04hist.xls
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@....res1Dec%202014

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blo..._1978_2010.jpg

The gap explains changes in income distribution away from labour to Capital. Pretty ****ing simple even for someone like yourself.

Solved. Next!!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Couscous

On reflection, my graph might be improved by looking solely at labour productivity in non-mining industries. A lot of economists say the mining industry's unusual cycle over the past two decades distorted wage/productivity data.

---

That's been the case forever . As far as a lot of economists go when you agree with the majority of them more often than not you will be wrong.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Couscous

Geez, mate, I don't even disagree with you but you're a goose.

Make your own table using the very data you provided to back up your argument and, voila!, you'll see how f***ing simple it is even for someone like yourself.

---

Quote:

---

To understand the significance of the gap between real wages growth and labour productivity growth the following points should be noted:

Employment is measured in persons (averaged over the period).
Labour productivity is the units of output per person employment per period (in this case per hour).
The wage and price level are in nominal units; the real wage is the wage level divided by the price level and tells us the real purchasing power of that nominal wage level.
The total economy-wide wage bill is employment times the wage level and is the total labour costs in production for each period.
Real GDP is thus employment times labour productivity and represents a flow of actual output per period; Nominal GDP is Real GDP at market value – that is, multiplied by the price level. So real GDP can grow while nominal GDP can fall if the price level is deflating and productivity growth and/or employment growth is positive.
The wage share in national income (GDP) is the share of total wages in nominal GDP and is thus a guide to the distribution of national income between wages and profits.
Unit labour costs are in nominal terms and are calculated as total labour costs divided by nominal GDP. So they tell you what each unit of output is costing in labour outlays.
Real unit labour costs [RULC] are calculated by dividing Unit labour costs by the price level to give a real measure of what each unit of output is costing. RULC is also the ratio of the real wage to labour productivity and is equivalent to the Wage share measure.
From the last point, if real wages growth is above productivity growth then RULC are rising, which is the same thing as saying that national income is being redistributed to wages (workers).

However, if real wages growth is below productivity growth then RULC are falling, which is the same thing as saying that national income is being redistributed away from wages (workers) to profits (capital).

It can get a little more complicated if the share that government claims changes but that is normally stable, which means the dynamics of national income distribution are between wages and profits.

---

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=33031

http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blo...ember_2015.jpg

I honestly don't know what more I can do to help you here.

It would appear I'm not the only one that is getting it all wrong.

https://www.austrade.gov.au/images/c...ION-3_pg31.png

Couscous needs to get down to AUSTRADE Headquarters and sort them out as well it would seem.

Then we go to the ABC who use some very well known Economic mongs for all their information and low and behold we get this:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/548...x2-940x627.jpg

Lmfao at Chris Richardson and the other usual suspects the ABC use for their information.

To say this graph is misleading is an understatement to say the least.

The ABC is an absolute disgrace when it comes to the economy and finance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Couscous

Dunster, go back to your own RBA data. Tell me: in the period for which you have data, how much did wages rise, and how much did labour productivity rise?

Again, I ain't your adversary, so lay off with the purge, comrade.

---

Holy crap you don't know how the graphic was compiled from the data do you ? Man this is too funny. Unless I posted the wrong link - then it's understandable.

http://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/tables/xls/h04hist.xls

The link is correct. Think really hard - there is something you are missing.

Are you looking at hourly real wages and labour productivity per hour ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Couscous

Sigh. Here you go. Your data, from your spreadsheet. As you can see, trend wage growth is above trend labour productivity.

http://i.imgur.com/XCURkqB.jpg

I'll leave it here. Like I said, I don't necessarily disagree with some of what you said. I was just interested in what the data showed, because I'd heard the opposite about wages and productivity in recent years.

But have a read back at what you've written, comrade. You're a coin-operated ad-hominem machine. I can post your response for you if you like:

"ZOMG he still doesn't get it! I've never suffered such ignorance!"

---

Nice graph. Not taking the piss here but why didn't you use the index data ? Serious question.

The Real wages index over this period has not increased anywhere near as much as LFP index has.

From the graph I posted above the real wage index and labour productivity indexes have a base year of 1978.

EDIT:I just opened the spreadsheet I linked and note that it doesn't go back to 1978 and is in fact indexed to a base year of 2013/14 rather than 1978 as I had assumed. :blush:

My apologies. I'll be burning all degrees and qualifications before sunset.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

It's not Capitalism it is a Plutocracy.

---

I'm sure this post had some great insights etc but seeing it was a novel, and only read this first sentence, I couldn't help but just instantly think of this :rof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pv4

I'm sure this post had some great insights etc but seeing it was a novel, and only read this first sentence, I couldn't help but just instantly think of this :rof:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rAaWvVFERVA

---

I like your style PV4. Great movie

http://www.acting-man.com/blog/media...-to-income.png

Both major parties are responsible and I doubt you will even hear a whisper over the election campaign about how to fix this problem for young people looking to own a home.

move to adelaide stupid

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Both major parties are responsible and I doubt you will even hear a whisper over the election campaign about how to fix this problem for young people looking to own a home.

---

Yeah I find this an interesting discussion. I am buying at the moment and everything seems to be tied back to supply. Prices in Newcastle are comparable to Melbourne which is ridiculous but all the info we are getting is that there will be a huge correction here in next few years with about 1500 new units to be built (hence an oversupply like in Melbourne).


I mean, in a country like ours how do you legit 'favour' one group of people without it negatively impacting another when it comes to affordability?

the Cameron parks of this world (and people who buy there) are doing more damage to the housing market than any Chinese investors ever could.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by q-money

move to adelaide stupid

---

At least you'll be able to comfortably afford the house you'll eventually be murdered in.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Yeah I find this an interesting discussion. I am buying at the moment and everything seems to be tied back to supply. Prices in Newcastle are comparable to Melbourne which is ridiculous but all the info we are getting is that there will be a huge correction here in next few years with about 1500 new units to be built (hence an oversupply like in Melbourne).


I mean, in a country like ours how do you legit 'favour' one group of people without it negatively impacting another when it comes to affordability?

the Cameron parks of this world (and people who buy there) are doing more damage to the housing market than any Chinese investors ever could.

---

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/b...-0915-3-10.gif

http://www.rba.gov.au/publications/b...-0915-3-09.gif

Pretty much backs everything you said Plague.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

the Cameron parks of this world (and people who buy there) are doing more damage to the housing market than any Chinese investors ever could.

---

I genuinely don't understand this comment, and am extremely interested in an explanation if you've got 5 mins? Very interesting. I know a fair few people in Cameron Park & estates up in Gilleston Heights - would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pv4

I genuinely don't understand this comment, and am extremely interested in an explanation if you've got 5 mins? Very interesting. I know a fair few people in Cameron Park & estates up in Gilleston Heights - would be interesting to hear your thoughts.

---

Cameron park (and further west) will end up the same as the western suburbs of Sydney.

People purchased overpriced land on the back of a mining boom, low interest rates and the wank of the 'great Australian dream'. They are taught to believe that 5 bedrooms and a colourbond fence is what builds their equity when really it's just location that matters (and they ain't in a good one).

Give it 10 years when the boom is over, interest rates settle where they 'should' be (7-9%) and all of a sudden disposable income will be tight. It lessens demand for small/medium business, lack of infrastructure (both natural and man made) means that a whole generation of landlocked kids will grow up with not much to do.

The fact you can buy a decent house on a chunk of dirt 10 mins from the centre of the city and some of the most beautiful beaches in the country for $100-$150k less than what these western suburbs homes are 'worth' says everything.

There will be a huge correction one day and if people are leveraged to the hilt out there then it's not good news.

people will then be faced with selling and losing money (in real terms) or staying and dealing with the consequences.
Go look at the suburbs surrounding Maitland that were established 20-25 years ago and their current 'value'. Cause that's what's coming to Cameron Park.

jetskis bro, jet skis

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

Pretty much backs everything you said Plague.

---

So wouldn't an easy fix be to just increase supply (to a point) rather than legislation on 'foreign' buyers and handouts etc?

State Libs claiming they have increased approvals massively and that state Labor were the ones who stalled it back then.

I have no data if that's the truth but if it is why isn't Turnbull out there ramming this stuff down Shortens throat? It only seems to be a sydney issue regarding affordability but no pollies are offering up anything as a solution?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

Cameron park (and further west) will end up the same as the western suburbs of Sydney. People purchased overpriced land on the back of a mining boom, low interest rates and the wank of the 'great Australian dream'. They are taught to believe that 5 bedrooms and a colourbond fence is what builds their equity when really it's just location that matters (and they ain't in a good one). Give it 10 years when the boom is over, interest rates settle where they 'should' be (7-9%) and all of a sudden disposable income will be tight. It lessens demand for small/medium business, lack of infrastructure (both natural and man made) means that a whole generation of landlocked kids will grow up with not much to do. The fact you can buy a decent house on a chunk of dirt 10 mins from the centre of the city and some of the most beautiful beaches in the country for $100-$150k less than what these western suburbs homes are 'worth' says everything. There will be a huge correction one day and if people are leveraged to the hilt out there then it's not good news.
people will then be faced with selling and losing money (in real terms) or staying and dealing with the consequences.
Go look at the suburbs surrounding Maitland that were established 20-25 years ago and their current 'value'. Cause that's what's coming to Cameron Park.

---

Doom and gloom shock treatment wont work. At worst there,ll be single figure correction and a load of yrs with no growth eg Japs lost decades.

best growth right now for those not in the boys club is from a wage. having 3 jobs wont kill ya, i did it and so did our "privileged" forefathers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by plague

So wouldn't an easy fix be to just increase supply (to a point) rather than legislation on 'foreign' buyers and handouts etc?

State Libs claiming they have increased approvals massively and that state Labor were the ones who stalled it back then.

I have no data if that's the truth but if it is why isn't Turnbull out there ramming this stuff down Shortens throat? It only seems to be a sydney issue regarding affordability but no pollies are offering up anything as a solution?

---

If the investors [ bad choice of word] can be driven out of the market then the supply problem will be lessened somewhat.
Merely, increasing the supply on its own won't do as much because the investors will continue to compete for these properties given the massive tax breaks they can receive.
Reason: the investor class of buyer has a massive advantage over the non-investors as the former's purchase is somewhat subsidized by government and the more they earn the bigger the subsidy.

Overall, greed and laziness make the property market very desirable to the leisure classes of which Shorten and Turnbull are most certainly card carrying members.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

If the investors [ bad choice of word] can be driven out of the market then the supply problem will be lessened somewhat.
Merely, increasing the supply on its own won't do as much because the investors will continue to compete for these properties given the massive tax breaks they can receive.

---

Yeah this is legit point I forgot.

So increase supply, gradually reduce negative gearing.
We are getting there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawk

best growth right now for those not in the boys club is from a wage. having 3 jobs wont kill ya, i did it and so did our "privileged" forefathers.

---

Not all of us are multi millionaires married to supermodels though Hawk.

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...e72ffab80d.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Dunster

https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...e72ffab80d.jpg

---

Lucky hawk being able to afford manicured gardens*

*I assume from the picture

That darn extension cord is on the road again. get that someone

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hawk

That darn extension cord is on the road again. get that someone

---

http://archive.meguiarsonline.com/fo...00/BiffWax.jpg

religions preaching hatred towards people of different sexual preferences has it's natural conclusions

gun control played a major part too

this isn't a mental health issue, this is the result of religions preaching hatred and using the mentally ill to spread hatred and murder - like the Lindt cafe moron, like this douchebag, like that stupid child in Parramatta

once you've taken the step towards believing some holy book tells you to hate gays, this sort of thing is inevititable

The highlight out of this was everyone else being like "is it a hate crime or is it ISIS" and Fox News is like "WHY CANT WE HAVE BOTH"!!!

On a legit serious note though one thing the last few years of paying attention to US politics, I have developed a genuine soft spot for people defending the right to bare arms.

The loud 1% lunatic fringe can go eat a bag of them but man there's some people putting forward some valid arguments.

next time there's a massacre with a musket ring me up