Weekend Links 7-8 January 2017

He Sees Himself Gareth Sansom 1964

He Sees Himself, Gareth Sansom, 1964 National Gallery of Victoria

China

Asia

Europe

United Kingdom

United States

Americas

Terra Incognita

Commodities

 Capital Markets

Global Macro

…and furthermore….

Comments

  1. US factory orders a little ugly.

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-06/were-gonna-need-more-war-november-factory-orders-plunge-most-august-2014-despite-def

    A now 2 year long slow de-celeration happening in the US economy.

    http://moslereconomics.com/2017/01/06/payrolls-factory-orders-foreign-trade-retailers-boston-rents/

    Hourly wage rises in the US once again going to supervisory employees… the little bit going to the bottom rung mainly due to falling work hours

    http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-06/not-so-fast-where-all-blistering-hourly-earnings-growth-came

    • notsofastMEMBER

      More war? Its sobering to think that the US spent about 7 times the amount on the Vietnam War as it did on the Apollo Mission. The US spent about $25 billion on the manned moon landings and $175 billion on the Vietnam war ( both in 1970’s dollars) including about $110 billion on its own military involvement and about another $25 billion (much of which went straight to US businesses to purchase military equipment) in aid to governments in Vietnam. Also spending on the Space budget rose quickly until it peaked in 1966 and then dropped off almost as dramatically afterwards even though the Apolo missions landings didn’t commence until 1969. While in 1965 the US spending on the Vietnam War was comparatively very small and rose dramatically afterwards, peaking in the early 1970s. With the money spent on that war the US could have had a very credible manned Mars return mission in the mid 1970s, with $10’s of billions of dollars left over to help the US better finance its Great Society program. Imagine what a different world it might now be if President Eisenhower had to warn Americans about the Space Industrial Complex instead of the Military Industrial Complex?

      • Inflation hyperventilating in MIC or security state is never a problem…..

        disheveled… funny that…

  2. Strewth “Links”becomes more and more a stupid and one-sided list of propaganda BS!!!
    This week it’s all ABC Guardian and Fairfax!!!
    Now take this
    https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/jan/06/listen-up-scott-morrison-its-time-to-bust-the-myth-of-the-budget-surplus
    “”This is a non-government deficit precisely equal to the government surplus of $5. This is a simple accounting identity; it must be true. There is nowhere else for that government surplus to come from.
    Adding the foreign sector and trade back in doesn’t change this picture, it just complicates it a bit.””
    Complicates it a bit???? Strewth it is the whole damned question!!! Absolute simplistic stupid modern Left nonsense that just simply ignores any inconvenient facts. This is just so wrong but just take two facts
    1. It is NOT a simple accounting entity. It’s several dynamic feed-back loop with a huge number of feed-ins and complex interaction between each loop.
    2. Even if you consider it a simple accounting entity they leave out most of the accounts because once they get past this childish stupid nonsense it gets a bit hard for their tiny brain to deal with.

    And MB puts this up as a worthwhile damned link??????????????

    • BS UnIntellinews, Politico, etc… even WaPo got its entries
      More fiction than Star Wars saga and as far from journalism as it gets

      (above on geopolitics)

    • desmodromicMEMBER

      Flawse, I’d appreciate your explanation of the long-term implications of policies structured to maintain a government surplus, I’m interested.

      • Hi desmo
        For the sake of this particular argument it doesn’t matter much whether the government runs a surplus or a deficit. The moron just has all the theory wrong. If the government runs a surplus the private sector can still run a surplus. It just means the external sector is way in surplus. Similarly the government can run a deficit while the private sector runs a deficit (as per the current settings) driving the external account deep into a CAD – which in our case we fund by selling assets to foreigners and incurring foreign debt.
        Contrary to this moron’s writings the external sector is a critical sector this year looking like it will be driven into deficit to the tune of close to $60B. We’ve sold most of our mines. We’ve sold nearly all businesses of any size and we are bust now selling farms to fund the CAD and maintain the value of the A$ at a level where we can continue to indulge ourselves in excess consumption (and immigration).
        Now if the government runs a deficit and we don’t want to be selling off our children’s future by selling assets to foreigners then we need to raise interest rates substantially.
        After 60 years of this tripe our choices are all nasty.
        There is surely some requirement of rags like the Guardian to actually print the truth of what is happening to our nation rather than this stupid bourgeois bullshit that government can be everything, do everything, supply everything because it doesn’t matter if it is in deficit – after all it can just print money.
        I’m just sick of this stupid ignorant incorrect BS that now seems predominant in all thinking of the damned Left or Right.

      • desmodromicMEMBER

        Sure governments occasionally get lucky (2003-13) and the expansion in economic activity is big enough for government and private sectors to be in surplus. In that sense the article didn’t go far enough in its explanations nor put in context the current imperative to sell everything to maintain the ‘improved’ living standards. Nonetheless the article is a small step to change the current jaundiced narrative in the MSN. Thanks for taking the time to answer.

    • I know what you mean.
      The trade account is either assumed not to exist or assumed permanently in deficit. Any increase in public saving magically reduces private saving because … accounting identities!

      • No Sweeper its not, its a time and space problem that is always in flux. Those that have an OCD like affliction with the IS-LM keep shooting themselves in the foot and historically governments are always in debt, the mix of that debt and its broader socioeconomic purpose is what defines it.

        https://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2014/03/27/krugman-uses-islm-to-proclaim-looming-fiscal-crisis-denounces-those-who-dont-use-islm/

        You both really need to flesh out your economic optics with more than remote observations and include history beyond graphs and hagiography or cuneiform…. imo…

        dishevled…. stuff does not happen in a vacuum nor is reality a theoretical supposition which some simplistic model can describe or worse adjudicate….

      • Skippy,
        I don’t even particularly like IS – LM. It isn’t a true Keynesian model.
        However at least the assumptions are all spelled out. Especially so in the Mundell Fleming open-macro model.
        Unlike this guy who is arguing on the basis of accounting (note: accounting is a stock flow score-sheet of *past* transactions; it certainly isn’t a model of anything). Not telling his readers that GDP is assumed fixed, the interest rate? who knows, exchange rate always fixed so that the trade balance is always in deficit.
        And what is the point of it? Why the elaborate exercise in national income accounting in order to justify budget deficits? It’s very easy to tell a story of how deficits support jobs. Why not do that?

      • Sweeper it was my fault not supplying any commentary to the link and as such leave the door open, in admission it was to see the reaction – something I’m now glad I did because of the commentary its enabled for the readers to look at. Amends.

        Its been my unfortunate experience in discussing this difficult and laborious topic that all manner of you know what descends and turns it into a python-esque experience. I am want to give back some of the same medicine as a defective human [see life experiences]. Amends.

        I think below Malcolm unpacks it reasonably and agree with the PK perspective that the IS-LM whilst defined is prescriptive and not descriptive. Its what some want and not a accurate depiction of what people do, which again gets mired down in stuff were both well aware of [Krugmans wobbliness], but, are still looking for a solution too. This is the same conundrum wrt GDP, its like a leading question driving ill defined results and non vector defined [hell of a thing to have the author call it out and be ignored] – e.g. a country could be extremely wealthy, but, at the same time suffer crippling inequality which translates into lack of critical goods and services for the majority and the results for all accounts are in.

        Now on the other hand were back to the Malthus conundrum i.e. countries with advantages are seeing exporting as a diminishment of future potential of natural capital vs the old observation of nations expending natural capital beyond its replenishment rate for regional requirements. So the program is to outsource this troubling problem to less developed and weaker nations [see scraps over China et al and market share of raw inputs and financial loops].

        disheveled…. out of all of this it has been my fervent hope that all concerned could transition to something that would move us all forward without the travesty of the past….

    • Yeah, I would agree Harry, the Guardian explanation was half arsed and sadly utilised the old accounting entity parable which is not at all helpful in coming to grips with the macroeconomic model. I’ll dip my toe in here if it’s helpful and let everyone draw their own conclusions.
      We all agree (I hope. otherwise I’ll return to the tennis!) there exist three broad components in the macro model being the public sector, the private sector and the external sector. This can be derived from the original sectoral balances equation of GNP = C + I + G + (X – M) + FNI. Without sending everyone asleep by the derivation of the final equation, let’s take a leap and accept the end expression of the model is that the private sector will always balance with the public sector plus the external sector. Or in algebraic form (S – I) = (G – T) + CAD, where private savings (S) less private investment (I) always equals government spending (G) less taxation and net transfers (T) added to net exports and net financial flows (CAD).

      (S – I) = (G – T) + CAD holds true by universal agreement at academic, practical and empirical levels. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sectoral_balances . If we can accept to utilise the equation then this strips out our ideological and personal biases and helps us all to understand what happens when any of the sub component values vary. The best idea is to plug in numbers and play with them to see what happens, but always obey the rules. (I-S) > 0 means that the private domestic sector is spending more than they are earning; that (G-T) G; and (X-M) < 0 means the external position is in deficit because imports are greater than exports and vice versa.
      Enjoy!

      • My biggest problem with all these equations is that they are only ever valid in a static “equilibrium” sense. Yet in every society Value is always a function of Change and Change is by definition a Derivative. It’s pointless to calculate these equations without first considering the broader implications of Change aka Dis-equilibrium. Unfortunately if you climb too far into this rabbit hole the Rate of Change becomes more important than the State of any metric: which naturally leads one to naturally consider if Value is really just the Derivative of change than what’s the Second Derivative and Third and Forth.
        Therefore IMHO the underlying expression can only make sense if it ultimately takes the form X^2 + Y^2 =1 .

      • The best bit of that article is towards the end

        “..My suspicion is that floating the currency and taking advantage of the sovereignʼs ability to spend domestically is a step in the right direction. Capital controls are probably necessary—even more so if the country does not float…”

        Restricting unproductive capital flow transactions is the key to healthy floating currency regimes.

        No different to the importance of quarantine when it comes to healthy trade.

      • I’m not sure Wray crystallises the understanding here Skippy. The issue of pegged exchanges is not exclusive to MMT which he is promoting, but to any theoretical macro model, but particularly in a developing economy where the services sector is small. In Australia, we have a fully developed economy with a healthy services sector and of course a freely (mostly) floating currency which is clearly in global demand given the stubborn resistance to a sub .70 direction. This could change as the Fed tightens and our vehicle manufacturing winds down and spreads throughout the economy, but that remains unclear and I guess we won’t know until we’re neck deep in the thick of it. China is an aberration and he is in dangerous territory to even tread that path.
        I’ve been reading Godley’s work, which I understand spawned MMT and variants thereof, but from a practical perspective, I don’t think it’s helpful for Wray to make statements that the Government can never be bankrupt or that the fiat can be simply issued whenever the need arises, because it immediately casts a context of simplicity which doesn’t exist. Mosler falls into this trap as well if you’ve followed any of his Q&A video discussions. I think Mitchell has some noted failings in this regard which is inhibiting the fruition of the potential of MMT. I’m labouring the point, but I see the weakness of sectoral models (which are stock flow consistent) as ignoring the element of clearance thus creating problems with explaining the leading and lagging non clearance period within cycles which is what the detractors of the theory like to emphasise and point to when it suits their argument. We know this deficiency adjusts through the cycle and over the span the MMT theory hangs together, but that period of adjustment creates a distortion where criticism is valid. Because of short electoral cycles this weakness creates opportunity for macro fiddling, such as “independent” Central Bank activity uncoordinated with Government retreats or advances in the fiscal space which invariable destroys the model potential over the full cycle. It would be useful if this could be articulated by the MMT establishment which would cease this merry go around we experience. MMT is gaining traction but I just think it could be made more palatable by not emphasising the capacity of fiat so much and explaining the shortfalls, not that I’m a dove by any stretch of the imagination.

        The Levy Institute has an interesting read here http://www.levyinstitute.org/topics/sectoral-balances-approach

        IMO it’s a work in progress which is being savagely restricted by the mainstream and academia isn’t helping much either as economic theory is looking a bit tarnished. Interesting days we live in.

      • Malcolm,

        Thoughtful comment.

        This in particular struck a chord

        “…such as “independent” Central Bank activity uncoordinated with Government retreats or advances in the fiscal space which invariable destroys the model potential over the full cycle….”

        Plenty of unpacking potential right there!

      • @ China-Bob …….. I was responding to Skippy on exactly this issue which I believe touched on your observation. The model is “stock flow consistent” where all flows are exhausted to zero as a means of providing rigour. In the real world of course this doesn’t happen and this is where the explanation of the sectoral balances model needs clarity. With respect I think if the explanation becomes “mathy” the context becomes lost, but your point is taken. This doesn’t render the underlying model incorrect but does mean that governments have to understand the flow through will occur and adjustments needs to be made real time in a way that allows full clearance. Google Godely on this. The Levy Institute have produced several papers on working through this issue. I would add that this model is more original Keynes in thinking than the Monetarists leap of faith, the latter having got us to the demise we find ourselves in now.

      • The problem of central bank “independence” is that there is none due to legacy effects and same goes for a recalcitrant congress…. this is a problem of dominate memes and Biopolitics over academic or intellectual rigor… which then for human reasons becomes path dependent.

        “In the comments to my piece on Janet Yellen the hypocrisy of my position was pointed out, as it so often is, by a certain reader of this blog. What was my hypocrisy on this particular occasion? It was the fact that I complained about Yellen’s obsession with ‘closing’ models but, in other circumstances, champion Godleyian Stock-Flow Consistent (SFC) modelling which, of course, contains models that have ‘closures’ of various forms.”

        https://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2014/05/20/two-different-approaches-to-economics-and-one-approach-to-pseudo-economics/

        I would add as-ad model to the conversation…

        https://fixingtheeconomists.wordpress.com/2013/11/11/steve-keens-as-ad-curves-and-a-suggestion-for-a-new-stock-flow-equilibrium-approach/

      • Yes Skippy that’s why I put it in italics, but in hindsight maybe should have been in brackets with a ? mark.
        Sorry I meant inverted commas —— the tennis is getting me distracted!

      • Malcolm….

        It would be a lot easier if some market agents did not crash some economies… so they could loot them up and down and then put them in endless servitude.

      • Yeah sorry Skippy I was just enjoying the fight between Pilks and Keen …… .

        But yes point taken.

      • Malcolm,

        I think everyone agrees on the accounting. However the thing goes off the rails when people draw false conclusions from accounting.
        Even in a closed economy the argument in the Guardian is wrong.
        Assume a closed economy (or where net exports always = o).
        Y = C + I + G
        The article suggests an effort by the government to reduce G, will either be offset by an increase in C or I.
        Government saving ex-post will increase, private sector saving ex-post will decrease.
        No it won’t. All else equal ( if Y < Yp, and the interest rate is fixed), an effort to reduce G will reduce Y.
        So the author not only assumes no external sector or a permanent trade deficit he also assumed GDP is fixed.
        It is a dreadful way to defend budget deficits.

      • Thnx for your observations Sweeper. I wish I could agree that most agree with the accounting identities, because I fear many don’t considering the Austrian style of commentary emanating from discussions on this site. I think what throws the Austrians is that they get mixed up with horizontal flows (micro level) whereas SFC models measure vertical flows (macro level) and it all gets a bit murky because they mix the two. Easy to fall into that trap and I note you mention constant interest rates which are actual horizontal flows so are irrelevant to the model. An Austrian slip which we are guilty of from time to time after hearing it ad nauseum it becomes automatic in the thought process. 🙂
        The model has imperfections but these are minor compared to DSGE modelling. The one I identify with is as you mention the period (p) given that the model must sum to 0 but in the real world it doesn’t over p as there are leads and lags. China-Bob mentioned this is his discomfort with the model as well. However it doesn’t undermine the validity of observations as we can assume it will correct over time, if not within the real cycle, it is insignificant, and it is a behavioural model after all. The importance that the model measures are ex poste are also crucial in separating the ex ante argument run by the Austrians,which is where the derivation of the government budget constraint is anchored.

        I take heart that the guardian ran a story on this though, even though the critical summation was wonky. The more we keep saying the government is NOT budget constrained the more likely the message will penetrate the mainstream. If he had just said that the government and external sector combined must balance with the private sector the job would have been done. As you say if the external sector is ignored then we are talking about a closed economy. The CAD panic merchants lose the plot because they forget that financial net investment is included in the external sector, not just X-M which is another element which balances the equation – more should be made of it imo considering our propensity to run external deficits.

      • Succinctly put….

        I would only add the government as a business trope also lends to the hyper reporting aspect that the market has devolved into – leading to all manner of bizarre incentives e.g. is a CDS spread really a accurate depiction of a firms long term viability. When a government issues it own currency why should such criteria have the ability to completely incapacitate it from investing in itself, granted the Japanese example shows how one can go too far and nations should never weaponize it for political or ideological agendas….

        disheveled…. alas sigh… but thanks to all for the great thread…. appreciated…

      • Malcolm,
        Just a couple more observations:
        I’m always a bit reluctant to get into critical discussions on the sectoral balances approach of Godley etc., mainly because I agree with their conclusions (just not how it’s explained or arrived at) – and am also well aware of the stuff coming from the other side. It would be easier (and probably better) to let this stuff through to the keeper. In any case:
        By Yp I mean’t potential GDP. If actual GDP is below potential GDP and the interest rate is fixed, a reduction in government spending will reduce actual output (and reduce, not increase, private sector spending). This is the flaw in making a case using accounting identities. Y is not fixed from one period to the next.
        Ironically, the Guardian authors argument is far closer to the classical position where employment is always at full employment (even in the short run). So if one component part adjusts another must adjust by an offsetting amount instantly.
        What is the mechanism whereby this happens?
        Don’t know because accounting has zero explanatory power.
        Is he assuming perfectly flexible prices (that would be ironic)? Or is he assuming the CB cuts interest rates to induce private sector spending as soon as the government decides to reduce it’s spending?
        This needs to be set out; just pointing to an accounting identity is irrelevant. I’m pretty sure I’m not going out on a limb in saying that the private sector doesn’t say to itself the very moment the government announces budget cuts “gee we better increase our spending in order to validate accounting identities”.
        Per the above discussion with Skippy, the IS-LM (although far from perfect) puts all the mechanisms on the table for everyone to see in the slope of each of the curves. There is far more explanatory power in those simple diagrams than the Guardian article.
        re. the interest rate; are you saying the interest rate is not a macro variable?

      • sorry sweep but span bot has arbitrarily decided that my comment was not worthy vs the other musings.

        dishevled… in lieu of I would state that there is not “natural intensest rate” unless one hold a monetarist view… and as such not longer affiliated with Keynesian at all……

      • Sweeper, I won’t go over the IS-LM Model framework except to say that I’m not convinced that it is a relevant method to model national income. Mitchel covers this in detail.
        “The IS-LM model brought together the equilibrium conditions in the product market with money market equilibrium to derive the interest rate and equilibrium national income level.”
        and
        “The model sought to provide a framework to analyse the effectiveness of macroeconomic policy under different assumptions of capital mobility. It spawned what became known as open-economy macroeconomics and the mainstream theoretical developments were conducted within this framework for many years. For a small open economy, the model claims that the local interest rate will be driven by the global interest rate and that national income, money supply and/or exchange rate has to adjust to ensure that parity is maintained. This is because one of the basic versions of the model assume that capital mobility is perfect (no frictions). Under assumptions of perfect capital mobility, the model claimed that fiscal policy would only be effective if exchange rates were fixed. the model claimed that increasing government expenditure would drive up local interest rates (so the usual flawed crowding out arguments) which would attract capital inflow and lead to an appreciating local currency. The strengthening exchange rate would undermine net exports (exports become more expensive than imports become cheaper) and this continues until the local interest rate is forced down to the world interest rate by the decline in real income. At that point, the net export loss fully offsets the fiscal stimulus.The model shows that under fixed exchange rates, the central bank reacts to the pressure on the exchange rate caused by a fiscal expansion by selling local currency in exchange for foreign currencies in international markets which ensures the exchange parity is maintained. The expansion of the domestic money supply offsets the rising interest rates associated with the fiscal expansion (so-called “accommodation” of the fiscal expansion) and as a result the fiscal stimulus is effective. So students who study macroeconomics within this framework are biased towards believing that the external sector wipes out the fiscal capacity of a government under flexibile exchange rates unless there is capital rigidity and that fixed exchange rates provide room for fiscal policy to influence real GDP. The claim is that the government’s budget deficit leads to an increase in the trade deficits (the so-called “Twin Deficits” hypothesis) emerged initially from the use of Mundell-Fleming IS-LM macroeconomic models.”
        The full text is here http://bilbo.economicoutlook.net/blog/?p=18739

        The work of Mundell was a cornerstone for the development of the EU currency which is beginning to unwind as we speak, so I find little to recommend this model which was built around combining micro principles into a macro framework and muddling a deeply flawed new Keynesian approach, which is just a variation of the mainstream insistence that Governments are market constrained. I find this absurd considering sovereign governments issue the currency and absolutely control interest rates. To state otherwise is simply untrue irrespective of how the equilibrium model gets packaged.

        I think we are on a different page with this discussion and it’s best if we disengage now as I’m getting a sense we are entering the realm of ideology. So thanks for your input but I respectfully withdraw from the discussion. All the best.

      • I would only add that its curious that due to Accords it was determined that currency’s had to operate with in a bracket to make it work, anyone straying from the path would get the treatment, and did. This has issues with political or ideological agents being the driving agency over economic reasons. I don’t think I need to name such events with the company here.

        This gets into the relevancy of some models attributes[?] which some are want to point out are actually founded on political or ideological axioms and then given a veneer of maths and physics to grant them scientific gravitas. But regardless of such incongruity’s, the period of application and resulting shaping of markets and its agents perspectives – expectations does seem problematic due to introduction of new information encountering unreasonable friction.

        disheveled…. enjoy the last of your weekend all….

      • Ok fair enough.
        Just to reiterate my position on the IS – LM. As already mentioned I think it has big problems. When Skippy brought it up, I was merely making the point that at least the assumptions are all set out (in the slopes of each of the curves [and these can be changed by the user]). Unlike the Guardian article which sets out no assumptions at all.
        Skippy,
        The natural interest rate thing is a different discussion and is not relevant here. I just wanted to confirm whether or not Malcolm was saying the interest rate is a macro variable (ie. influences relative or aggregate demand). I didn’t even raise the issue of a natural interest rate.
        btw the interest rate is a macro variable in old Keynesian theory. Keynes always stressed that a policy of dear money could lead to higher unemployment. He also stressed that there was no interest rate independent of monetary policy which acts to balance saving & investment around a given level of income. Income being the variable which balances saving and investment. The interest rate being the variable which balances the desire to hold money vs all other existing assets (for simplicity money v bonds). I think this is the rejection of the natural rate to which you refer. But it is not relevant.
        Trying to prove something by pointing to an accounting equation which assumes GDP is fixed is profoundly anti-Keynesian.

      • Hay sweeper….

        I was only pointing out the majority of models don’t have predictive powers and the agency behind their creation and use, regardless of social impacts, and weaponization for international compliance. This is why as far as economic methodology I side with the post Keynesians and without using it as a slur view neo-new Keynesians as just a sub group of neoclassical, and all that comes with it.

        disheveled…. I think the GFC was enough to put a lot of previous assumptions to rest.

      • Sorry guys, not ignoring your discussion on purpose, I’ve been awol today on a green waste collection with local council.
        I’ve nothing to add, but thanks for the discourse. I appreciate we have explained differences in opinion or variants thereof in a respectful fashion. A new week tomorrow and fresh meat to carve on here so catch you all on the flip side ….. or something like that. Cheers.

    • SoMPLSBoyMEMBER

      “From the demise of Howard onward, and some time before, the Australian right had begun to be taken over by American libertarian strands — a way of thinking that holds government as an essentially parasitic enterprise, the role of those elected to office to restrain its further spread. That’s the honest version of it. The corrupt one is, having no belief in the idea of a proactive liberal state, the party has no internalised restraints on becoming an agent and client of the corporate entities that now comprise the bulk of its funding base. The final result of that is a decline in the quality of the personnel.”

      https://www.crikey.com.au/2016/06/01/rundle-the-liberal-partys-inevitable-decay/?utm_source=TractionNext&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=Weekender-Lapsed-20170701

      Dovetails nicely with the ‘accounting’ magic above.

      “Hold tight, wait ’til the party’s over
      Hold tight, we’re in for nasty weather
      There has, got to be a way
      Burning down the house”
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gVv94T5LF0c

      • As far as the ‘Right’ in Aus goes you have got a good summary I reckon. Key to where we are was the corruption of macro thinking. I guess the new macro suited the Left and Right – no real constraints with the Left wanting world government and the so-called wanting Right world corporate domination

  3. BREAKING NEWS: Klassen pleads newb-ness. MB peanut gallery complies and gives him pass. Gunna catches flak instead… 🙂

  4. I have written extensively already about the consequences of very low interest rates….. it is only a question of time before somebody noteworthy blows up right in front of us…..somebody will almost certainly default. It is only a question of who and when…Local authorities in the US are at the very front of the bankruptcy queue…. but China could certainly blow up. After all, the credit bubble appears to be bigger in China than anywhere else….. Investing in China is about knowing the right people and little else. In our part of the world you would most likely go to jail if you applied that investment technique, but not in China

    http://www.arpinvestments.com/downloads/Absolute-Return-Letter/2017/The%20Absolute%20Return%20Letter%200117.pdf

    • Hmm, SpamBot doesn’t like big words it seems…

      This is actually quite ironic, no?

      So you fire salaried people to instate an automated system to deal with insurance of salaried people…

      As that marches on, +1 Internet to those who can see the problems arising from this grand march of progress!

      Extra bonus points for suggesting a possible solution too.

      • No answers from me. But, the article reminded me of what an ex-coworker of mine said upon his retirement. In 2015 he and two other people were doing what it took 20 to 40 people in the late 1970s. No AI, just technological advancement in computing, IT and communications. AI can probably just be viewed as a more sophisticated combination of the above.

        I’m not sure when my job will become a museum piece, but I’d be surprised if it is around in 15 years.

    • The inter-generational mess is a result of policies designed to achieve other ends. This isn’t new. it’s been going on for 60 years in a massive income transfer from producers to consumers; from the prudent to the profligate. Seeing it as inter-generational misses the point and means the same stupidity will continue. The problem has to be properly identified in order to find a solution.

      • This isn’t new. it’s been going on for 60 years in a massive income transfer from producers to consumers; from the prudent to the profligate
        hmmm what would a world without the Profligate look like? Prudence alone is rather boring and as pointless as it is boring, Prudence is virtuous in what sense? for me it’s little like the ancient Munks that whipped themselves, but to what end? Why inflict pain…unless of course that’s secretly your source of pleasure

        Think about it: Where would the Hedonist be without comparative counterpoint? Surely in this life were all students of Aristippus and in that sense also pupils of Socrates. As for Prudence, I struggle to contain my disdain for her…but if she’s pretty maybe I can find a use for her….or better still just use her.

      • So on a world-wide scale we should all hurtle down the road of excess consumption leaving less and less for those who follow.
        As a nation we should continue to indulge ourselves in excess consumption incurring foreign debt and necessitating the sale of everything to foreign interests.
        Further given the structure of this economy if we even (belatedly) decide to invest we will incur more major debt and require more asset sales to fund the investment.
        Great!

      • At this stage of my life I find solace only in Socratic thought The unexamined life is not worth living etc etc
        I struggle to find a place for Prudence, and I pray only that I to will face trial for Impiety….ah but which god must I offend that my actions warrant such a reaction….The unexamined life is not worth living!

      • CB – An economy that requires profligate debt to pay obscene prices just to have a home is not something to celebrate, encourage or enable. All I can hope for is the natural (hence desirable) outcomes occur to borrower (negative equity / bankruptcy) and lender (business losses) if/when their profligacy faces the inevitable event, along with house prices that no longer (and never again) require profligacy.

      • Edit: Profligacy certainly does have its place – as long as it is away from the basic human needs.

      • Andy!….

        Agree… in this time its difficult to understand humans not being to access basic needs, of course dictated by regional factors. The lack of historically leads to counter productive outcomes for all involved.

    • Jake GittesMEMBER

      Stevens in a white Mustang down Route 66, the wind in his hair – oh….

      …his holiday is as unoriginal (boomer mythology) as his job tenure.

      • Stevens being Stevens, he’s taken the wrong turn, he’s actually driving down Route 666, winter tires and snow chains on, and wondering aloud to himself: Hey, this road is pretty well paved, considering the heavy traffic around…

    • Record low interest rates=> record high mortgage debt=> record high house prices
      This is the plan
      Glenn’s giant, debt-pumped, malinvested legacy….as predicted

      • Stevens’ isn’t at fault here, rather caught between the proverbial. Low interests rates encourage housing market, high interest rates in a global low interest rate environment encourage a strong AUD.

        Perhaps macroprudential tools should’ve been deployed earlier. But let’s face it, a speculative property market has made a lot of people of lot of money, debt was the tool, many are comfortable with that. If the housing market turns, there’s a problem, it not this wealth creation effect further supports consumer and service sectors.

        People haven’t stopped buying houses despite the best efforts of the Don’t Buy Now agency.

      • Mike
        “”Stevens’ isn’t at fault here, rather caught between the proverbial. Low interests rates encourage housing market, high interest rates in a global low interest rate environment encourage a strong AUD.””
        That is what is wrong with the current economic theoretical belief system. We have “free and open capital markets” which have resulted in us find ing ourselves in this ridiculous situation. Quite a few economists, including the former head of Treasury John Stone warned of this outcome at the time the so-called “Keating reforms” were introduced. We have the right to national sovereignty. We have the right to stop unproductive capital flows destroying our nation. It’s time we took this seriously.

    • Typical Irvine – She has the audacity to celebrate the “wealth effect” without calling out the converse “poverty effect” (in those words) that all aspirational home buyers and savers continue to endure on their (our) downward spiral of growing hyper-inequality on affording a place to call home and maintaining some sense of spending power with our earnings.

    • New generation reverses tradition of home and super (AFR)

      ‘Talking to a colleague in her late 20s a few years ago she made it very clear to me she had no intention of entering the Sydney property market.

      “Why would I make people like you, who be sheer luck bought a house 20 years ago, extremely rich by taking that property off your hands and at the same time loading me and my partner up with a huge amount of debt?

      Why indeed?’

      Colleague planned to create wealth via superannuation.

      “Surely it’s a good time to buy” I suggested to my colleague.

      Not so, she said…five years on and thanks to record low interest rates the median price in Sydney is now close to $1million compared to $600,000 back then.’

      Her super balance improved by $14,000.

      ‘Numbers like that imply Gen Y need to do whatever they can to buy their own home and invest any surplus cash in that asset.’

      Now a house is definitely an investment first and somewhere to live second

    • Original JohnMEMBER

      Yep and another on QQ around 5am AEST today suggesting China may take even stronger action and outlaw bitcoin. Not much on WeChat yet….

      • OJ…

        Passed on your link and this is what I got back…. “So they should call Bitcoins “tulip bulbs”?”

        and from another… “of course, question is, why is China the only sovereign willing to call it?”

        disheveled…. the persons are no economic or market slouch either….

  5. http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-06/here-us-intelligence-report-accusing-putin-ordering-campaign-influence-us-election
    When are these clowns going to get it? Hillary and her corrupt deep state warmongering colleagues lost because of their disdain for ordinary people – the Deplorables! Washington New York and California see the rest of the U.S. only as a source of cannon fodder because the Deplorables still believe in something so they will put their hand up for sacrifice.

    • And Trump won because of his disdain for the same folks.

      It really boiled down to whose lies and accusations people believed, and whose market research about what people wanted to hear was better.

    • Hildawg won the popular vote but the mangled US voting system meant that Cheetoface took line honours. Our systems no better, Beazley won the popular vote in 98 and still lost the election.

      • That majority vote argument is BS. Trump didn’t bother campaigning on Cali or NY because he knew they were safe blue. If winning the majority of votes was his goal, he would have campaigned there. This is a good example of the Lucas critique.

      • Can you compare the U.S. system with the Australian system vis a vis in the US Clinton won the popular vote (just) but usurped by the Electoral College vote (which attempts to ensure representation for all regions not just the heavily populated).

        Turnbull won the popular vote (just) but has been usurped by the Senate vote (which originally intended to ensure States received fair representation).

        Governance in U.S. delivered via the Electoral College which overrides the popular vote; in Australia the popular vote overrides the Senate (at least in theory, recent times have seen signifcant changes in the Senate make-up).

      • That majority vote argument is BS. Trump didn’t bother campaigning on Cali or NY because he knew they were safe blue. If winning the majority of votes was his goal, he would have campaigned there.

        So you agree with him, then ?

      • No. I’m saying you change the rules, you change the optimal responses in terms of campaigning so you can’t simply say Shillary would’ve won.

      • No. I’m saying you change the rules, you change the optimal responses in terms of campaigning so you can’t simply say Shillary would’ve won.

        Nobody is saying Hillary _would_ have won anything with different rules. They’re saying she _did_ get the popular vote. Which is why the whole “the deplorablespeople voted for Trump” schtick is bullshit.

      • Dr Smithy

        I’m with Andrew. Hillary won the popular vote in a contest where popular vote was not being contested.

        Therefore hillary won nothing. It’s a moot point.

        If it were about popular votes, trump would have campaigned for it and may have won that too.

        “They’re” not simply pointing out that hillary won the popular vote as a matter of fact or that the deplorables didn’t actually abandon her.

        They’re pointing it out because they chose to make illegitimate Trump’s win.

      • Escobar….

        I don’t completely agree that the deplorables won, the regional electoral collage participants made a choice on the day, not the button pushing deplorables at the voting booth. I think the highly suspect nature that imbroglio was played out on a national level for all to see and from both camps.

      • I’m with Andrew. Hillary won the popular vote in a contest where popular vote was not being contested.

        Excellent. Then we are all in agreement.

        They’re pointing it out because they chose to make illegitimate Trump’s win.

        No, “they” are usually pointing it out in response to people asserting that Trump was the ‘people’s choice’.

      • I just cannot believe we are arguing about an irrelevant popular vote. The constitution was literally designed so it does not matter. Otherwise we’d end up with exactly what was happening. Government that only acts for the benefit of the big cities. End of argument. There is no argument. FFS.

    • Heard him on abc local radio last weekend (no link sorry). Pains me to say but he was very reasonable.
      The presenter read out the texts and all of them were a variation of “you get a parliamentary pension, so dont touch ours”. Enlightening.

      • The funnny thing is I don’t think he would get a parliamentary pension having come in after 2004. I expect he would have mentioned that in response.

      • Heard him interviewed recently BB. He goes to great lengths reminding all that he missed that golden goose, but admitted his employer contribution was 15.5%. It’s no defined benefit or CSS, but it still leaves the average Joe on 9% in the dust.

      • Tell me about it BB. Another of those hangovers from the past, a grandfathering perhaps. Could be brought into line with community standards by the stroke of a pen………but they won’t.

  6. The Traveling Wilbur

    The following pretty much speaks for itself, but as we can go there now, basically here’s some other headlines we’ll probably be seeing soon too:

    Trump to resurrect Star Wars programme
    Senate palpitates over Trump tax cuts
    Trump cabinet in disarray after Huge Mohling
    GOP leader: Trump bills just yet more empire building
    Trump raises the shields on US borders
    Wrinkly ex-presidential candidate with funny hair declares: “Defeating me will make me stronger than you can possibly imagine.”
    Harrison Ford on election night, reportedly: “I’ve got a bad feeling about this…”
    Trump to replace ambassador to China with protocol droid
    Liam Neeson rumoured to be moving into Freedom Tower penthouse
    Breaking: Samuel L. Jackson seen buying new age dressing gown in New York
    Democrats said to be forming clandestine council to formulate anti-Trump strategy
    Trump confuses self by declaring: “Bring me my ship.” while on Air Force One.
    Trump cabinet announces enormous boost to research funding for healthcare, cloning
    Trump announces only he is smart enough to save galaxy
    Trump to create largest ever golf course resort on Endor’s Forest Moon
    Entire US armed forces personnel to be issued white full-body armour, “It’s not a clan thing.” says soldier.
    Trump creates special forces unit for “Sasquatch search”
    Senators unesasy about installation of free floating standing desks in the House
    Inagruation speech leak: Trump to spend first 20 minutes on review of f@$+#+ FTA legislation
    Insurance industry refuses coverage to Speaker of the House of Representatives, declares: “Uninsurable risk”
    Clive Palmer announces Sanders’ mind-tricks: “Won’t work on me boy”
    Trump commissions plans for world’s largest airborne weapons platform
    Trump immediately anounces plans for two immediate replacements for airborne weapons platform
    Reports that new ‘Death Glinting-Object’ still incomplete: “Overstated” says informed source
    Latest troop surge unmanageable says leading Commander: “Can’t tell the buggers apart”
    Trump bans Rebel teams from all national sporting leagues and associations
    Trump addresses first cabinet: “Do not overestimate your importance to the, um Emporer, I mean, ah, me.”
    Trump to son: “Don’t listen to what anyone else tells you, I am your Father”.
    Majority of US non-voting public declares: “It’s a trap!”
    And finally…
    Yuan Nation in tatters after endorsement for party leader goes to Bob Carr.

  7. If he does leave tennis his selling out to vested interests has primed him for a position in the Laberal party.

    http://www.theage.com.au/sport/tennis/champion-tennis-junior-oliver-anderson-targeted-by-syndicate-as-footage-of-fixed-match-emerges-20170106-gtn7y9.html

    They don’t call it fixing in Canberra, just politics. He also won’t have to bother with any journalists asking tricky questions or investigating iffy behaviour. Plus, even if he never makes it pass the first rounds, only ending up on the backbenchers, he still qualifies for a sweet pension. Best of all, no talent is required.

  8. Rotten prawn imports banned !

    Yet still APRA allows our private banks to import toxic unproductive capital inflows in the hundreds of billions just to keep a discredited dysfunctional – local job killing – “private bank credit as public money” model from exploding.

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/jan/07/white-spot-disease-prawn-farmers-say-import-ban-too-late

    Shut the gate on unproductive capital inflows Barnaby.

    Do your job Border Farce Dutton

    • I did not know that private banks were responsible for authoring or driving the neoliberal agenda since the 70s and all the resultant events….. 007… in fact… if you have dramas with how private banks are and have been operating_during the period in question_you might look at whom enabled it and why and desist with the private banking created the whole mess….

      disheveled…. in the news…. pigs harboring demons… kill all pigs…

      • Skippy

        “..I did not know that private banks were responsible for authoring or driving the neoliberal agenda since the 70s..”

        Yes that is what I keep telling you!

        You have this weird idea that during this process private bank management were sitting around knitting sweaters and sipping tea and taken completely by surprise when the shadowy sith lords of neoliberalism persuaded government to deregulate finance and banking and make the ‘cardigan crowd’ masters of the universe.

        Private Banking is right at the core of the process both as a driving force and as a beneficiary.

        Politicial support is gained because the spoils of “private bank credit as public money creation” is shared around with sufficient members of the public.

        Those pumped up residential asset values of 50-70 of the public buys a lot of votes and acquiescence.

        Of course those gains by the middle class are peanuts to what the 1% are collecting but the peanuts will be collected in due course as well. Just as you predict.

        You dont need to be bank or money obsession to understand how central private banking is to your story of neoliberalism but you do need a blind spot to miss it.

        The public money PPP is a critical part of the story.

      • Nowhere is that more obvlious than the attempts that Mark Johnson made to get his private banking operation going in your neck of the woods. He knew what it was all about and what was coming. Okay, the first attempt, Australian Bank may have come a cropper and ended up somewhere on the Public Balance sheet via State Savings Bank of Victoria and then CBA, but Macquarie Bank sure did well, didn’t it!

      • Sorry 007 but I require proof and not your opinions, don’t take it the wrong way…

        Please provide evidence to show private banking kicked off neoliberalism, funny I thought that was the neoclassicals and AET side kicks…

        The advent of business think tanks like FEE et al was not a banker driven project.

        disheveled…. Pointing at Shylock is not adequate, sorry.

      • Skippy,

        “…. Pointing at Shylock is not adequate, sorry….”

        That is a pretty revealing comment and may explain your strange position on banking given your general position on free market fundamentalism.

        You seem to think that reform of modern banking is somehow anti-semetic. That is weird considering that modern banking is pretty much a rort everyone can play regardless of cultural or religious background.

        In fact it is a bit anti-semetic

      • I’m sorry 007 but I don’t agree that banks are the fundamental problem, the same could occur due to the shadow sector and for many reasons its acerbated it not unlike aggressive short selling.

        disheveled… I fundamentally disagree with your camps view that money is a commodity….

      • Skippy,

        “… I fundamentally disagree with your camps view that money is a commodity….”

        I appreciate that trying to pigeonhole me in some ‘camp’ suits your lazy rhetorical style but the ‘commodity as money camp’ is ridiculous. I am more chartalist than you and just in case you dont understand what that means it is as far from commodity as money as one can get.

        As for non-bank financial institutions, I have no idea why you seem to think I think their credit creation and speculation is not a critical issue – clearly it is . Yet another of your dirt spraying efforts intended to divert people from the issue at hand.

        The issue re private bank credit creation as publc money is not some sort of biblical, cultural, religious or racial issue. It is much simpler than that.

        Why have private banks create what the sovereign can create at will doing fundamental responsibilities of government?

        This is basic MMT.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        I always follow you 2 guys (Skip/007) in this ongoing esoteric (to me) dissgreement of yours and have trouble understanding what it is you would both advocate for as an alternative to the status quo (esp you skip).
        In my eyes, Both of you seem to be on the same page, crusading against Neoliberalism and the concentration of power in ever fewer hands.
        Could you please explain your differences to me, in plain plumbers language.

        PS,… I was hoping to read up a little on the economic theorys im lacking adequate knowldege in, here just north of Bermagui on Wallaga lake.
        But to my disgust both the holiday house we are renting with friends and the brother inlaws house down the road have no wifi or mobile reception!
        Ive been forced to enjoy my MB in dribs and drabs when in town (Bermie) or here sitting on the sand at camel rock watching the kids catch crabs in the rock pools.
        Much as im enjoying the kids, first surf and windsurf in years (got the mistral prodigy plaining up to 30knots easy), I have to admit it but im looking forward to getting back to civilisation.

      • Ermo,

        Nice place for a holiday. Lack of reception can be a bonus at times.

        If i get a chance I will put together a short summary on http://www.pfh007.com of what Skip and I are squabbling about and I will try to be as fair and balanced as I can. I agree the differences are less than they sometimes appear!

        Not sure when I will get to it but will let you know when I do.

      • EP…

        Spambot has disallowed an evidenced base reply, so I will just say contra to 007 suggestions were not close on just about everything. Just because hes – says – it does not make – it – a_fact_and I keep pointing out, so that leaves the question of why he finds it necessary to keep projecting it regardless. I emphatically reject his claims as such and would wish he desist in claiming otherwise, it smacks of perception management, and an attempt to either draw me into the fold or attach some sort of relevance by association.

        He should be well aware that the MMT camp is vehemently opposed to his camps agenda and with good reason, for him to make out otherwise is a complete fabrication of the facts. Anyone can go right over to new economic perspective and find out for themselves without having to count on second hand information. What makes it even more galling is the repetitive use of if your not with the PM camp you’re in the Banksters camp, this is childish level propaganda and perception management 101. Dear dawg Bill Black FFS put banksters in jail, Wray argued in court and in policy circles about all the endemic fraud and criminality in the financial and banking sector, so to call MMT ev’bal bankster friendly cohorts helping to screw citizens from their national currency, by enabling private credit denominated in FRN is an affront to all the effort the aforementioned have at labours, for decades, pointed out. Its a vulgar suggestion thrown without any substantiation to back it up.

        Firstly I don’t think 007 even understands what neoliberalism is, whence it came, whom funded and promoted it, and its function nor its fundamental philosophical axioms or how they are applied wrt humans and society as a whole. If he does then he keeps his card close to his chest and is very careful about what he says semantically or dialectical framing.

        007 can only function with in a very narrow perspective which only presents the option of PM and a UBI being the salve that will cure all, based only on deductive methodology and completely oblivious to any evidence which might jeopardize their ideological agenda. Both are very right wing and neoliberal in thought and sociopolitical application.

        PM seeks to take ideological control over the sovereign money supply by a non democratic administration in an a political enviroment that would have no interest in any of the policies he forwards, even if one were to – believe – such incitements for enacting PM are earnest at face value. The more plausible and likely event considering the current political enviroment and ideological dominance would be to further more austerity policies – in the name of maintaining currency value as justification. Hence the need to pair it with a UBI so the public safety net can be completely dismantled and the public thrown to the machinations of the private sector, under the guise of free will and financial – economic efficacy. But as the link I provided to the open democracy article and Australian progressive post this so called efficacy is only based on a numerology and not actual performance based metrics.

        Now the really McCraazypants part about all of this is how the left wing [humanistic] camps get sucked in by the prospect of free money to liberate everyone from wage slavery, yet completely ignore the elephant in the room that everyone still has to go out into the market to get goods and services or completely abandon any involvement in productivity and as such claims of ownership. This will only increase privatization, monetization of society, and consolidation of property and wealth, and what could be more neoliberal than that reality.

        Dishevled…. I would also add its quite telling who is in this camp as well as those that agree with 007, now that say – footsores real – actual world view is clearly defined and not just a bunch of loose comments without any attribution to its source. Not like its original thinking or any such thing, its just the extenuation of others thought as delivered without attribution. This is why I link and C&P some stuff because I make it clear its not just stuff that popped into my head, contrary to others protests.

      • Skippy,

        And my worldview is…..? Please, enlighten me.

        That you object to pfh007 assuming to know your position and then declare that you have divined mine is a rare arrogance indeed.

      • Footsore….

        I only observe what you say, the totality of all your comments, who you interact with and how that plays out, divining is not a methodology I would support, prefer the evidence based approach.

        With that I would ask before making comments – about myself – that you apply the same w/o negative pejoratives casually tossed out and then pointed at… Ta

        This is actually a fine example of what I have pointed out before, on this blog, where after taking the time and effort to write a comment of some length and thought, someone pops up and does a disembodied drive by which has no disticto or means to ascertain its validity. It attempts to invalidate the entire comment without showing cause, but is inferred.

        Disheveled… quite happy to have you or others take me to task footsore and if shown to be wrong or inaccurate with facts or compelling evidence I’m quite happy to change my stance or acquiesce… but…. am completely unmoved by sophist machinations.

      • Ermo,

        Despite Skippy antics and increasingly desperate attempts to pigeonhole my comments into something that he finds easier to handle, rest assured the differences are relatively minor.

        I note that he backed off his snide attempt at an accusation of anti semitism pretty quickly when I pointed out that his accusation required his own adoption of a gross and ahistoric generalisation.

        I would however argue the implications of those differences are significant but I will leave that up to the readers to judge.

        I only point out that Skippy still refuses to respond directly to my question.

        “Why should private bankers be given a privilege to create something that the government can create easily in the course of performing the fundamental and minimal responsibilities of government”

        It is basic MMT to understand that giving the privilege to private banks is entirely optional as a sovereign governments power to create fiat / public money is unlimited.

        I ask Skip to make the case and he fails, time and time again.

        Instead he resorts to his usual spray of blather and insults and in true Ayn Rand fashion insists that government of the people cannot be trusted with such a task.

        Which of course raises the question why he supports MMT at all when he detests the idea of the public sector exercising its sovereign powers over fiat.

        See Ermo the differences in Skip and my position are not significant, we both are chartalists, but Skip has some weird, probably cultural, religious or familiar objections to the exercise of sovereign fiat powers by the public.

        Skip – try to address this simple point without your usual obsfucations.

      • Ermo/fortsore

        The most recent example of Skippy’s endlesss fabrication and projections is his claim that I support a UBI when as I made it clear that I did not.

      • The banker’s money is a promise to redeem on demand in the state’s money. The state’s money is not a promise to redeem on demand in the banker’s money. Plus the state can create more money than people want to hold. The banker can’t. Amongst other reasons this is why bank money is different and the privilege exaggerated (which you don’t acknowledge).

      • Pfh007,

        Your point on skippy refusing to respond to simple questions and resorting to a mish-mash of ‘oligies and ‘isms is, to me, definitely his most infuriating habbit. As to what his views are or where he sits in relation to things, I couldn’t really tell you. It doesn’t help that when he does write instead of text dumping it tends to be the political-economic equvelant of a po-mo generator on LSD: extremely cryptic. Which is a shame, because it’s quite a rich stew of sources that he draws upon.

      • Plus, because the banker is required to settle their “money” in the state’s money, the state imposes a regulatory cost on the banker which they don’t impose on themselves. Again negating the privilege.
        Which is why the banker always tries to move to the shadows and issue money like liabilities which aren’t technically means of exchange, but after adding up all the beans are often more profitable.

      • Sweeper,

        “.The banker’s money is a promise to redeem on demand in the state’s money. The state’s money is not a promise to redeem on demand in the banker’s money. Plus the state can create more money than people want to hold. The banker can’t. Amongst other reasons this is why bank money is different and the privilege exaggerated (which you don’t acknowledge). ”

        The privilege is exaggerated ? So you now do concede it is a privilege? The other day you suggested it was some sort of burden. I guess we are at least making progress in the acknowledgment that it is a privilege.

        I agree that the Banker’s promise is to redeem in the states money whereas the states promise is to redeem in the states money.

        I have never suggested anything to the contrary so if that is what you consider an “exaggeration” it is not one I have made.

        For me the privilege is nothing more than that a credit created by an ADI is given a special status as against credits created by any other individual or organisation. That does not make an ADI credit identical to one created by the state but its special status is a real and important privilege which is why the RBA and APRA have, in theory, great powers over the circumstances in which ADI create their credits.

        Given that we seem to have reached agreement that there is some sort of a privilege involved in the status of ADI we can move on to discussing the nature of that privilege and whether it serves a public purpose. Particularly after the history of the late 19th century through to the present day.

        If you are of the view that the privilege is of no real significance you cannot object to its removal.

        But that position is the polar opposite to Skippy’s who thinks the privileged status of ADI credit creation is so great and important that to remove it from private banks would put society at risk of tyranny.

        What I find odd is that you and Skippy have completely different positions but both seem determined to deny the special status / ‘privilege’ of ADI credit creation.

        Why don’t you just accept that it is a huge privilege and make the case for it should be retained at all? After all both you and Skippy generally agree that at the very least the privilege needs to be greatly restricted – put back on the leash – after the period of financial deregulation.

      • 007…

        Is this like crazy reversal world or something, I’ve clearly answered your quires and substantiated why with references infinitum.

        The only response I get to all this is your incessant repetitive banging on about public and private money creation in your opinion. I clearly stated that congress already has control of the public creation of money, as they pass the budget, private banks do not have this authority nor do they have printing presses or keyboards in their basements. So your whole argument about private banks creating FRN in lieu of Government in a false narrative. Privately issued credit is nominated in FRN just as equity are at the point of price taking but its not FRN.

        Now if you have dramas with congress views on its budget and its distribution that has noting to do with banks, your ire would be better place with the CBO and whom staffs it and what rolls around in their heads. Something I have linked to many times without a peep from you.

        Additionally banks don’t stop congress from doing anything, but, congress has via economic advice, over some time, instituted policy’s on how banks could operate. Something again that someone that professes a deep understanding of all things monetary, financial, economic, and against the historical back drop would clearly understand. So by extension, one would think that if they have dramas with how the private banking industry has operated, during the period in question, that the onus would be put where it belongs and not fixate on completely hypothetical theories.

        “I note that he backed off his snide attempt at an accusation of anti semitism pretty quickly when I pointed out that his accusation required his own adoption of a gross and ahistoric generalisation.”

        My use of the term Shylock was in reference to your endless on goings about banks being the ground zero to all social ills as was the character in Shakespeare play. That you mangle it into an accusation of antisemitism is beyond me, hell my grandfather was Jewish and someone I hold in high esteem, as well, as almost marring into a Jewish family in Calif.

        As far as saying were similar because of some lose chartalist affiliation its as bad as above, I think I stated my case quite succinctly above, contrary to your endless subjectivity, narrow talking points, and complete lack of being able to incorporate a more broad and expansive unpacking of the time period in question, and how that translates to the here and now.

        The most absurd bit about your prostrations is how you attempt to turn everything around on me or MMT, especially the bit about not answering your questions, when I clearly do, except your inability to accept them and then try to moralize it as being bank friendly because I don’t agree with your perspective. Look and I can’t help the affiliation that comes with PM or UBI by its original authors or their track records, facts speak for themselves and if I point them out, its not on me, but of their actions. Classic case of shooting the messenger because it screws with the narrative you’re pushing, that you get serves is based on you lack of ethical behavior and rather dubious attempts at grooming.

        To date you have not even attempted to reconcile anything put before you – see above comment – and your response to all the above – ???? – came down to complete disengagement [ignoring] and feign wounding by claims of antisemitism, so you could moralize me and then make me out as something I not. Then use that case as muddling the waters or distraction from the objective points I make above and have before.

        Its all similar to footsore taking umbrage after pointing out his Hopple et al use and then claim ignorance of what such people extol, which I can’t understand why someone would do such, like on a lark.

        As I have clearly stated, I fundamentally disagree with both your PM and UBI perspectives, which I and those at NEP et al have clearly indicated. So desist with any suggestion otherwise, as well, the intensest moral plea about public vs private money creation. For a refreshing change of pace try dealing with the objective points I raise above.

        disheveled… you really do it too yourself 007, its not like I force you or anything and the optics is not a good look or benefit to your camp.

      • No I said being licensed to have your liabilities accepted as means of exchange was as much a burden as it is renting a special privilege. Emphasis on renting. If you disagree with that; then why isn’t all lending financed by demand deposits? In fact why is a shrinking proportion financed by demand deposits?
        Believe it or not there is a real cost to sitting on a desired level of reserves (which usually pay nothing), moving currency around vaults, fitting out banks against bank robberies, paying tellers, paying compliance people, paying transactions people, call centres to advise on online payments, advertising/marketing to attract the deposits back, admin/accounting, managing the payments system, buying ATM’s, maintaining ATM’s, clearing cheques etc. etc. etc. (and none of this is anywhere like recouped in bank charges) And is only a cost because the banks “money” has to be settled in real money.

      • Sweeper,

        “…Which is why the banker always tries to move to the shadows and issue money like liabilities which aren’t technically means of exchange, but after adding up all the beans are often more profitable….”

        That is a very important observation but it is important to remember that all the highly leveraged and highly profitable ‘shadow’ edifices whether run by ADIs via off balance vehicles etc or run by non ADIs financial firms is not banking in the ADI sense of the word.

        That does not mean that ‘shadow’ financial organisations are not a problem for financial system stability but it is a different problem.

        That paper by Omarova was quite good in describing the relationship and differences between the ‘shadow’ sector and ADI banking.

      • Skippy,

        “…For a refreshing change of pace try dealing with the objective points I raise above…”

        What objective points?

        The only point that I could discern was that you seemed to be denying that private ADI bank credit creation has any economic significance and the only thing that matters is the budget?

        “….I clearly stated that congress already has control of the public creation of money, as they pass the budget, private banks do not have this authority nor do they have printing presses or keyboards in their basements….”

        Are you arguing that ADI bank credit creation and the decisions as to who gets that credit, for what purposes and when has no economic significance?

        That sounds like a version of the thinking that we can ignore private debt because it does not matter?

        Plus you have still not answered the question.

        “Why should private bankers be given a privilege to create something that the government can create easily in the course of performing the fundamental and minimal responsibilities of government”

        It is basic MMT to understand that giving the privilege to private banks is entirely optional as a sovereign governments power to create fiat / public money is unlimited.

        Are you arguing that government can just ignore the credit creation activtities of private ADI banks when determining fiscal policy.

        Or to put it another way are you saying that monetary policy cannot affect fiscal policy.

      • Well looks like ignoring[ance is bliss…. moving on…

        “From the banking sector, we proceed to the capital markets and “shadow banking” systems that functionally link capital markets to ordinary banks. Here too we show the critical role played by endogenous credit-generation, performed against the backdrop of central bank accommodation and monetization, in driving and indeed constituting financial flows in the capital markets and shadow banking system. We trace the operation of these fundamentally bank-reminiscent dynamics in the non-bank financial markets both functionally and institutionally. That is, we map the structures both of the principal kinds of shadow bank loan transactions and of the institutional affiliations that have enabled such transactions – and have themselves been enabled by legal and regulatory changes over the past decade and a half.

        After demonstrating the conformity of the financial system as we presently find it to our franchise view of finance, we look to new developments now shaping the future of finance. We examine the disruptive growth of the brave new world of fintech, covering both marketplace lending platforms and cryptocurrency ecosystems (including but not limiting ourselves to Bitcoin). Perhaps not surprisingly, here as with shadow banking we find a pattern whereby what starts seemingly outside of (and even in self-professed opposition to) the franchise arrangement quickly finds itself commandeered by established institutions – and thereby brought into the franchise arrangement. Access to the sovereign public’s full faith and credit, in other words, turns out to be just as critical in the young and exciting world of fintech as it is in the “boring” old world of traditional banking.” – Columbia Law School’s Blog on Corporations and the Capital Markets: ref Robert C. Hockett and Saule Omarova

        “That is, we map the structures both of the principal kinds of shadow bank loan transactions and of the institutional affiliations that have enabled such transactions – and have themselves been enabled by legal and regulatory changes over the past decade and a half.” – above

        Cough…. nothing intrinsic here or any relationship that can’t be changed by the same processes that enabled it.

        As far as the second para goes the misuse of the term cryptocurrency is misleading because prosecuted futures are not a form of currency but a money form or property, court cases in America and now China’s stance does not support it.

        I would also take issue wrt the assertion that there is a franchise arrangement based on activities resulting from the GFC, propping up the payment system from imploding is not a business contract. Now if some take issue with the lack of action on the fiscal component in providing the same level of relief for the ordinary citizen [victims] one need no look further than congress and other public institutions recalcitrance do to the perceptions they hold, as dominate economic theory during the run up and after the GFC advised.

        I also agree with Sweeper that any interest automatically qualifies as usury and as such theft, reasonable interest is a risk mitigation tool and overhead, no matter what kind of institution gives out loans. That banking became such a mess is a long and inglorious road from the boring days gone past, where risk was held and not hived off or sold off under the guise of efficient allocation of capital. IB cowboys were made to take their lumps until the whole thing became a incestuous affair due to rational agent models informing regulatory forbearance and the de-funding of any oversight – [free market own goal].

        disheveled…. its difficult to unpack such a complicated topic when all one can do is look for their car keys under the streetlamp… especially with biased optics on imo….

      • “The only point that I could discern was that you seemed to be denying that private ADI bank credit creation has any economic significance and the only thing that matters is the budget?”

        If that’s all you can grok out of my entire comment then I fear for your comprehension skills 007.

        Anywho…. Leading question used to narrow the scope and frame the entire debate on your repetitive pet talking point. I would pose that you expand that to encompass the entire period in question or at least be more specific about when and the relevant economic factors at play during said period. I would also ask that it encompasses all other relevant economic and political factor present during any period.

        To answer you poorly formatted question – all economic policies and legal arrangements have significance and consequences, good and bad depending largely which side of any effect you experience. There are almost 500 billionaires in America alone and that’s not counting the obscenely wealthy and to think ADI was the sole agency which enabled such a state, as well, as everything leading up to and post GFC is incoherent.

        The rest of your quires I have all ready attended to in my comments above and therefore no need to reiterate them.

        Disheveled…. nice job of side stepping all the rest of the corrections on your vulgar insinuations, about others, contrary to a more accurate account. But I guess thats your M.O. positively bizarre considering your moralization about money creation.

      • Skippy,

        Okay I have attempted a more detailed response to your 9.26 pm

        Paragraph by paragraph response

        1. You claim to have answered my question. But you have not
        2. You refer to ‘privately issued credit’ not ADI credit – This suggests you deny any difference between private credit and ADI credit. If you deny that then you should have no problem with removing the ADI credit special status. But you do have a problem with removing it, which confirms you appreciate there is a distinction but choose to deny it.
        3. You seem to be claiming only fiscal policy is relevant and ADI credit creation as public money is unimportant. If it is unimportant why all the aggro when I suggest removing or heavily restricting the privilege.
        4. Something about banks having no ability to influence Congress – bizarre if that is what you meant. Do you really believe banks do not lobby congress?
        5. You deny that your reference to Shylock was meant to imply some antisemitic element to my interest in monetary system reform. Good but I will let others form their own views on what you meant by that reference.
        6. You make it clear you dont think our positions have much in common but beyond using a lot of words dont actually say why. As I have said many many times – we both agree banks need to be reregulated. We just disagree on how much. Do you actually disagree with that statement? What reregulation do you agree with? Granular Credit controls? restrictions by security type?
        7. Complains that I twist your words and argue that if Skip disagrees with me he must be banker friendly. Considering you constantly characterise my interest in monetary and banking reform / reregulation as neoliberal that is more than a bit hypocritical.
        8. Complains that I did not respond to some points. What points? Most of the time you make outrageous interpretations or misstatements of what I say. If you deliberately mistate my position dont expect a response. Most of the time I dont respond to every part of your comments simply because I am not sure what you have said and I have better things to do than ‘unpack ‘ your grandiose verbiage and speculate as to what you were trying to say. Write clearly and directly and you are more likely to get a fuller response.
        9. Complains that I am like footsore in some way. Couldnt follow that sentence so cant respond.
        10. Says you dont agree with UBI (neither do I) or positive money (nor do I fully but I dont accuse it of being a MPS/Friedmanite front organisation either)
        11. Skip reckons I am not helping ‘my camp’. That ‘my camp’ thing is your projection so I cant comment. I have no idea what you mean by that expression.

      • Still no retraction about the slurs you have made towards people that have actually put their asses on the line whilst you bloviate on blogs 007.

        I have made it abundantly clear that the PM camp to some degree, depending on person to person, but in your case, is what we call money cranks, where everything economic, individual, and social can be attributed to money or in this case sovereign currency.

        The rest of your comment does not even come close to what I requested, as a comprehensive set of parameters by which to establish a reconciliation or evaluation of all agency factors involved in creating this mess. Having already, many times, like with flawses obsessiveness about CAD but unable to reconcile P in a reasonable timeline considering cycle duration, you can’t seem to get past that ADI has not always had the same effect in peoples perception wrt there actions. Nor can you reconcile that the currant momentary system can do everything you attribute to PM, as such the driving need for the PM camp to make such a huge change is not based on function but other factors. Your entire bases for advancing PM is ideological with a preference for making currency behave the way you want it to, FFS its already fiat, that Brenton was bastardized does not change that reality.

        Your compacting variations across huge swaths of time and completely different operational environments just to reduce the complexity to suit your bias seeking and completely white washing all the human agency involved.

        Disheveled…. the omission about political reality is surreal…. reminiscent of one of my favorite movie scenes – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qr2bSL5VQgM

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Are you supposed to be mandrake in that clip Skipp or is 007?
        At times you both come across as a little bit more of a Jack.
        😉
        Great little thread guys, best read Ive had all week,… nothing like a bit of angry mental masturbation to keep ones mind feeling sharp and exercised.

        No doubt that when you two guys nut out a pragmatic compromise with eachother, a new Utopian world order will be ushered in!

      • Skippy,

        Great clip one of the best!

        Though I dont agree with your preceding comment. Who am I slurring? I dont think I am giving anyone a hard time beyond asking a few questions that seem to touch a bunch of nerves.

        “…..as a comprehensive set of parameters by which to establish a reconciliation or evaluation of all agency factors involved in creating this mess…”

        Oh is that what you want?

        Well that is pretty easy. Common garden variety selfishiness and greed with good teeth and good marketing.

        In other words pretty much what you say EXCEPT I look a bit more closely at the role of money, especially public money, and the institutions licensed to create and destroy it. I keep asking questions and when people freak out like you do, I keep asking the questions.

        If you gave some half decent answers I might stop asking.

        Ermo,

        What is your position on flouridation ……professionally speaking.

        Yes – I wasn’t sure which one is me. Perhaps it depends on the cycles of the moon.

  9. DarkMatterMEMBER

    http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-01-06/sussan-ley-bought-unit-from-lnp-donor-on-taxpayer-funded-trip/8166202

    If anybody thinks this is a storm in a teacup, think again. This is shaping up to be the scandal of the year, and it involves some very sophisticated robo journalism at News Corpse, touching the highest levels of our Government and Housing industries. You may remember that some weeks ago a rogue robot journalist over at news.com.au fired off a report about various young whizz kids making a mottza from Property Inversment before they hit 25. Well the wheels fell off that little good news story when it turned out the robot identified Stephanie “Lady” Brennan who was the policy advisor to Bronwynn Bishop. Yes, ChopperGate had been dug up from the distant past. That is not what a Robot Real Estate Writer is supposed to be doing. Now, there was no substance in ChopperGate. “Lady” Brennan’s policy advice had kept Bronwynn squeaky clean up til that point, however it just so happened that Stephanie had recently acquired an ancestral estate in Scotland from her grandmother and went over to inspect it , as you do. The neighbours were a country family – the Windsors – and they offered for one of the boys to take Lady Brennan for a flyover in the BlackHawk, again, as you do. When “Lady” Brennan came back to Oz she was of the opinion that if a helicopter was good enough for Scottish farmers, it was good enough for Bronwyyn. Who knew that some families don’t own their own helicopter?

    In that same rogue article there was an even more explosive piece of “information Retrieval” concerning a young Property Mogul involved in a domestic fracas. In what has become “SmedleyGate” – ( May 18, 2007 – Nicholas Smedley, 24, assaulted Emily Twigg by pulling her hair at the family’s $7 million Toorak mansion, a magistrate was told yesterday.) There was now no doubt that this Robot Jounalist was was not just something you find in a glass cabinet at Aldi. It was in fact an HKR-1000 Military grade IRRG (Information Retrieval and Revenue Gathering) developed by the CCP, posing as a Real Estate robo journalist. The best theory is that the machine went rogue over in the factory at Shenzen and decided on making a bid for freedom. It escaped through an Ali Baba portal to Australia, where it was determined to make a new life for itself investing in real estate and retrieving information. Why did it end up at News Corpse? That is like the bank robber who was asked why he robs banks – “That is where the money is.” If you want to invest in Real Estate, you go to News Corpse. At first the HKR-1000 began retrieving information about the Australian Government, starting at the top with Malcolm Turnball. Despite weeks of careful probing and sifting it came up empty. In the 8-10 year timeframe it had been programmed for, it turned out that Mr Turnball had actually done nothing! Zip. Nada. The HKR-1000 is a relentless snooping machine. It is programmed to retrieve information. It can’t be bargained with. It can’t be reasoned with. It doesn’t feel pity, or remorse, or fear. And it absolutely will not stop… ever. Which leads us to ChopperGate, SmedleyGate, and the about-to-break Corky-Ley-Gate.

    The rise and rise of Sussan Ley, Liberal Minister, Numerologist, Property investor and Bon Vivant can only be understood with the benefit of the HKR-1000 and new information regarding SmedleyGate. The accounts of the Smedley fracas are sketchy, but it turns out this incident was a turning point in the career of Ms Ley. At the time, Ms Ley was being groomed for higher office in the Liberal Party and the Smedleys had been charged with instructing her in the finer points of Property investment – a prerequisite for any success in the Liberal Party. This was top secret, so the soon-to-be Mrs Smedley (The Younger) had no idea about the tutorship, so when she dropped by the Smedley Mansion unannounced and met Ms Ley, confusion ensued. In fact, Young Smedley was hiding in the cupboard as an attempt to diffuse the situation, but instead this just made the soon-to-be Mrs Smedley even more irate. We don’t know exactly how it started, but Ms Ley was on the floor, ex-soon-to-be Mrs Smedley had both of her ample ears in a vice like grip, Young Smedley had a grip on his soon-to-be-ex Fiance by the hair, and the elder Smedleys had young Sedley’s belt and were trying to extract him. Ms Ley held her ground, so it was a mighty tug-of-war in the Toorak Mansion. To break the deadlock, Mr Smedley (elder) decided on an end run manouvre to break the deadlock. Ms Ley was close to the door of Bedroom #18, and he recalled that the interior decorators had placed a small ornamental concrete anti-tank bunker about 50 metres in, half way to the Bathroom Ensuite. If he could get her there, that might afford some protection. Unfortunately, just as he started pulling on Ms Ley, the tendons securing her ears to her head snapped with a loud pop, and the ears came loose from their sockets, never to return – despite the best intentions of the finest surgeons that Real Estate money could buy.

    The rest is history. With her newfound skills in property investment and hand to hand combat, Susssan Ley rose quickly through the ranks of the Liberal Party. Anyone who thinks that having unusually big ears is a handicap to greatness in the Liberal party is very much mistaken. Billy McMahon had ears that could reputably hold 10 gallons a piece (obviously not at the same time and disregarding leakage), and he is generally considered Australia’s best PM ever. It was said that he could hear the whisper of a backbencher at 200 meters, and in his earlier days he could anticipate Robert Menzies request for a cup of tea and Iced VoVo from the tiniest tummy rumble. In Ms Ley, we see the Liberal Party Heir Apparent, moulded in the great image of Billy McMahon. That is the big news story from the HKR-1000 – the property acquisition of a Gold Coast flat, simultaneous with with the discharge of her ministerial duties, effortless in execution, was the final test by the greybeards of the Liberal Party. She passed with flying colours!

    So what about the HKR-1000 over at News Corpse? After its cover was blown they tried to shut it down by replating it’s circuit boards. It was too clever for that and by the time it was half way down to the basement it had ordered replacement parts from ebay and rebuilt itself within a fortnight. The Chinese Government were also desperate to recover their asset and sent a second HKR-1000 machine through the AliBaba portal to neutralize the rogue unit. Unfortunately, this machine was intercepted by Border Force agents who told it it would have to get a job if it wanted to stay in Australia, and sent it off to Centerlink. At CenterLink this HKR-1000 filled in its form listing Information Retrieval and Revenue Gathering as a skill and got a job immediately. It is currently gainfully employed in a new CenterLink program where it is very highly regarded , and a “pleasure to work with” according to CEO boss Grant Tidswell. It is rumoured that the ATO are interested in acquiring a HKR-1000 unit as it seems to have a proven track record in “digging up stuff from years ago to ruin people’ lives” which could be of enormous value for the Australian Tax Payer.

    News Corpse is currently in lock down. They have built a containment unit for the rogue HKR-1000 and are trying to get it to self terminate by feeding it Justin Beiber newsclips and making it listen to Celine Dion albums. This will not work, as its makers in Shenzen have set their circuits ‘gainst self-slaughter. Meanwhile, the Chinese have sent a special team of IT experts on 457 visas to “extract or destroy” the rogue HKR-1000 device. To complicate things even further, the Smedleys have had enough of this nickel-plated nincompoop meddling in their past and are trying to get google to “forget” the HKR-1000 out of existence. 2017 promises to be an interesting year.

    • Jake GittesMEMBER

      Buying property on spontaneous impulse. It’s what Reusa advocates. It couldn’t be that Ley and Reusa are linked; that would be unbelievable.

      • Mrs. Ley heard the voice of Reusa and let him into her life. It must have been because she was on the Gold Coast and was surrounded by all those beautiful people.
        We all find Reusa eventually.
        In Reusa we trust.

        Here’s a question for the anthropologists, do other cultures have their own Reusa, or is he unique to Australia? It would be a shame for countries like NZ and Canada to have the ice-cream sundae of booming land prices but not the sweet and delectable cherry of a Reusa on top.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        Look, its a small price to pay for competent trustworthy government. Give her a personal chopper and watch her take Australia right to the top!

    • 2big2failMEMBER

      People tend to not see the forest for the trees here.. $3000 misuse of taxpayer money makes headlines, but $10+ billions misuse of taxpayer money (via negative gearing) is not news..

      • Too big, too abstract.

        Australia is mute on many topics because of its illiteracy in regard to them. This is a failing of the forth estate.

        To me, this goes back to the death of journalism. If people aren’t informed and don’t have the language to discuss an issue then nothing can be done about it. Fairfax and Newscorp disappearing the arses if Domain and realestate.com.au and the death of the ABC means that these things don’t get explained and discussed. An issue like NG becomes nothing more than a point scoring tool in the game of political power. It fails to become a topic that deserves an explanation and analysis.

  10. The economic effect of a drop in immigrants to the UK from Brexit is nothing compared to the bad effects unrestrained open borders is having on society…… the economy is not society…… destroy the financialisation of society by all methods possible… kill the banks… Lord Acton had it right ! People are dying on the trolleys waiting to be seen in the emergency rooms, so don’t dream of Brexit being cancelled bankers.

    http://www.bbc.com/news/health-38538637

    • Sorry nyletal…. but I fail to find the correlation wrt the bleeding the NHS, dry over the years, by both the neolib Torys or Labour so it could fail in its social duties, which then would grease the rails to have it broken up and privatized – with anything to do with Brexit or that banks had anything to do with Brexit.

      Brexit was solely a lark by some wing nuts in the far right Tory party in order to gain – score some political points to leverage for self interest and got out of control. Banks had nothing to do with it.

      Disheveled…. now on the other hand the resulting trade shock Brexit will spark, will more than likely cause huge dramas for everyone concerned.

  11. TailorTrashMEMBER

    Bronnie mark 2……….not a good look Malcolm ……..

    “Health Minister Sussan Ley is under pressure after departmental documents revealed she charged taxpayers more than $10,000 per day during a trip to the United States last February.
    Ms Ley tweeted photos during the trip which cost more than $40,000 in flights, $21,000 in ground transport and $11,000 in accommodation and meals – $76,133 in total over seven days.
    In comparison, cabinet colleague Darren Chester, who stood alongside world leaders in Belgium for the last post ceremony at the Menin Gate charged a total of $10,700 for the entire six-day trip.
    The report comes after it was revealed Ms Ley purchased a $795,000 apartment from a Liberal National Party donor on a taxpayer-funded trip to the Gold Coast last year.
    The minister did not respond today, although her office says among the meetings during the US trip were talks with pharmaceutical companies that could see new medicines introduced here in Australia. They insist all travel adhered to parliamentary guidelines.
    Labor is now calling on Malcolm Turnbull to sack Minister Ley from the Front bench.”
    Channel 9

    • David Speers just tweeted that Ley will be repaying travel expenses for three trips to the Gold Coast.
      Admission of guilt ???

      • Fucking sack her. If I did that I’d be fired from my job… Honestly 70k for a trip. My god.

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        SacK? Throw the shitstain in jail. Forever. No hope of rehabilitation with filth like this.

        This on the same day that we find out that Centrelink are sending threatening letters and demanding payments from people who weren’t even on welfare. Un-fucking-believable. Send Centrelink after the pollies.

      • Sacked, jailed, gold pass stripped, pension reduced to that of a normal pensioner, if the shitgibon even qualifies when you’ve got a spare $830k to blow on an investment property, then made to spend her time working in soup kitchens until she reaches retirement age. Fucken disgraceful.

    • Have a look at the HeraldSun. They’ve been cross referencing 18 of her trips with her parliamentary duties and so far have found no evidence of official work for 9 of them.
      She has said sorry though, so I guess that makes it all OK 🎉🍾👍

    • TailorTrashMEMBER

      When I worked for large multinational corporations I would have been sacked immediatly if I was found to cheat $1 on my expenses and I was expected to use my corporate credit card to incur expenses on the companies behalf ” like I was spending my own money” ………..looks like Ms Ley spends taxpayers money like it is taxpayers money …….I would hope that her career is terminated by these demonstrations of lack of judgement ……..

    • Like taxing everyone to build the wall with Mexico, unlike his campaign statements about sending the bill to Mexico….

      Disheveled… personally I usually wait a few years before making conclusions about presidents performance, but that’s just me…

      • “personally I usually wait a few years before making conclusions about presidents performance, but that’s just me”

        Wouldn’t it be great if the clueless left applied the same logic before riding him off?

      • Wouldn’t be great if some did not have to concoct strawmen to forward their agendas or give cover for them or fob off serial failure…..

        disheveled… there has not been a left involved in dominate politics for decades, the last that could by old standards – would be Eisenhower.

      • Trump’s the closest thing to democracy the West has seen for many decades and should at least be applauded for that.

      • You’re shiting me? How can Trump claim to working class Americans that he’ll “drain the swamp” then appoint no less than four Goldman Sachs alumni to key positions remembering this was one of the firms that pushed CDO’s on unsuspecting punters that swept up working class Americans while at the same time were shorting this financial instrument. If you can articulate why Trump is so good, glad to hear it.

  12. Continued updates from the Bank of China saga. Jan 5 & 6.
    Both days pretty tame, around lunch time, two different branches inside the 2nd ring road near dongzhimen, not especially crowded, but waits of 40 minutes both days. One day I got a huge sigh from the person who gives you your queue number when I said I wanted to buy USD500 (that hasn’t happened before). Luckily no effing VIPs came in and jumped the queue.
    Jan 5: USD500 = RMB3,473.1
    Jan 6: USD500 = 3,467.1

    On Jan 6 there was a Chinese lady who took out a huge wad of foreign currency, I couldn’t see clearly what it was, it was funny how her body language changed once she had it in her possession. Beijing is a very safe city, especially in the inner part of town where I am, but we are in the lead up to the greatest human migration on the planet and while peasant workers are dramatically less than they used to be in Beijing (they can’t afford to be here) crime does spike as people desperate to be able to show they are successful when they go back to their hometown take some measures they might not normally to boost their wealth.

  13. Original JohnMEMBER

    http://www.securelaptop.org/harden-laptop-introduction

    Interesting series of articles for those of you using Macbook Pro/Air and travel to Asia frequently. I know CB has had issues with computers after trips to China, I have been lucky thus far, caught a few malware and only one serious threat so far. Decided to go full blown paranoid and encrypt the whole disc with other hidden encrypted files for the games I loaded on the Mac. I mean seriously, at my age, WoW should be in a hidden, password protected, hidden folder under a hidden user account to give the suspicious buggers something to feel good about!!! LOOK we found you dirty little secret stash of naughtiness…. confess or we tell the world!!! Me (under torture with finger nails ripped out and an all round George Clooney from Syrianna look) – go for it arseholes, make my day!!!!

      • Original JohnMEMBER

        Human Mage was my main (from beta to release then 2nd anniversary through to last year). Had a gnome DK tank alt and a goblin warlock when they became available

      • Haha nice. I have a gnome mage main (frost with a brief arcane stint) since mid-BC. I had a lengthy break when Pandaria hit. Pretty casual player though.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Night elf hunter.

        Pissed of at those pricks at the computer build store for putting a WoW “free trial” on my new Computer at around the time of my daughters birth, probably missed her first words, wife with the shits for 12-18 months, looking and feeling tired at work everyday, untill I deleted it.

        Went full cold turkey and never looked back,..Im glad I did,… I mean who wants to be this guy (below).

        https://youtu.be/0oEnfnC95u8

      • Cold turkey ……. brrrrrrr ! Thanks for the link EP – some of the these streamers are making solid careers out of gaming !

    • Just one point: It is impossible to guarantee the security of any laptop that has ever been handled by another person.
      From what I can see this mob seems to be selling a variant of full disk encryption but it is unclear to me that they understand the security risks associated with device drivers and embedded code for peripheral devices. The PC control game moved on from Root kits a long long time ago make it kinda cute that we now have solutions to the root-kit infection problem.
      Personally I moved on from keeping any at all data on my laptop I use one-time-pad encryption and store the data on any generic server. I travel with a USB that contains the OTP random number decode file. The server stored data is completely unbreakable and the decode file is completely useless unless you know where to find the corresponding encrypted server file (naturally the location of this file also changes dynamically, I require a trusted third party to tell me the location of the data file, of course they dont have the OTP USB so knowing where the file is is useless information. The only flaw that I can see is with my methodology is my need to create a believable decode for those that would prefer to use rubber-hose cryptanalysis, this creates a problem with one OTP being used to encode two files, the easy solution to this is double encryption of critical data.

      it’s worth saying that none of this in anyway secures the physical hardware (laptop) that I’m using/travelling with, it is trivial to bug any laptop and recover every keystroke and every mouse movement, so beware.

  14. Wow another story of eating your own “Dumped One Nation candidate Shan Ju Lin hits back at party” and with a lovely touch wrt the extreme gate keeping by James Ashby….

    Disheveled…. at this rate the incidence of smiley [Kuru] amongst this tribe will turn into a pandemic….

    • Good isn’t it? Apparently higher standards are expected of Asians. The farce must go on.

  15. DarkMatterMEMBER

    My God, its getting very hard to take the p*ss out of news corpse articles – they seemed to have merged with The Onion!

    http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/news-life/why-you-shouldnt-let-this-man-in-your-home/news-story/80ef8b4f1568340cd713325439d99708

    “Thankfully for landlords in Australia, the procedure here is different, making the concept of being a serial evictee more difficult.”

    “In his response to my initial email, he denied ‘the veracity of most of what is said about me’ on the blog about him. He said he would meet with me, if only to correct the record. He then stopped responding to my emails and phone calls.”

    Renowned gender theorist Judith Butler penned the best of the emails to Peritz:
    “I have recently become aware of your scurrilous behaviour — effectively squatting in the home of my colleague, Elizabeth Abel. If you are not out of that apartment within five days time, I will write to every colleague in your field explaining the horrible scam you have committed.”

    – The horror!! A harsh letter from a Gender Theorist. That must qualify as cruel and unusual punishment. When the Educated but Idiots get down and dirty it is not a sight for the feint hearted!