Weekend Reading: 9-10 September 2017

Global Macro / Markets / Investing:

America:

Europe:

Asia:

Trans-Tasman:

Other:

 

Comments

  1. Could AUS afford a UBI? Instead of suddenly trying to install UBI when driverless cars hit Aussie roads. How about a gradual move towards UBI? We already got a taste of it under PM Rudd. He gave out $900 cheques to everyone with an income less than $100k. And he was still very popular when knifed. I am not sure if Rudd – given the chance – would have lost the 2010 election. Gillard only managed to draw it – and that is after she promised on TV to slash immigration! I actually thought immigration would be cut in 2010!

    The $900 cheques should be made permanent and they should given to those on the electoral roll only! Not foreign “students” and “skilled” 457 visa staff.

    • https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wSWSrA5A2Q

      Now look at them YoYo’s they play that Guitar on the MTV…. That ain’t workin, that’s the way you do it. Money ain’t for nothing and the chicks for free!

      Mötley Crüe bassist Nikki Sixx said that the song was about his band, and that the members of Dire Straits were in an electronics store where a row of TVs were all playing Mötley Crüe.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      “The $900 cheques should be made permanent and they should given to those on the electoral roll only! Not foreign “students” and “skilled” 457 visa staff.”

      Thats not very fair though is it Jay,..I mean “they” having to pay for your 90 dollars for 3 stops train tickets, need all the help “they” can get!

    • FiftiesFibroShack

      My worry with UBI is the potential for it to be used by companies to underpay workers in much the same way Walmart uses the food stamp program. Also, what would be traded for a UBI? The public health system? Public education? It could well mean the privatisation of almost every service except the police and military.

      UBI could be a gift to capital and just another tool to keep the plebs in cheque (sic). That UBI payment might end up being immediately consumed by private health payments, the kids school fees, and the toll booth some cunt put at end of your street.

  2. Lament has always been
    My closest companion
    Strangled and gargling
    For lifes endurance
    Is the inimitable advantage
    Forgotten, passed over
    Is the deplorable path

    • Verboten?
      Forgotten in the deplorable
      Dark
      bereft
      Of friends and foes
      Always and constantly
      Cast amongst a
      Glorious hell
      Hellbourne
      Trifecta
      Chinese owned
      Racehorse

  3. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/09/07/teen-marijuana-use-falls-to-20-year-low-defying-legalization-opponents-predictions/?
    utm_term=.5c3642187a8f

    This article reminded me of another I read years ago (spent 20mins trying to Google it but couldn’t find)
    That basically argued Cannabis use was in decline, due to the increassing dominance of competative Neoliberal capitalism and the effect of this on drug use culture.

    As a Teenager in the 80s, I didn’t know Anyone in my age cohort who didn’t smoke “Mull” regularly and I had a broad and diverse range of friends and associates across Sydney and the region’s, from various demographics.
    We took trips and/or snorted speed only on big nights out,…but the dope, was every day, it reflected the attitude, esp of my Surfer cohort, of being “laid back guys” a complement of high praise in the 80s,..being stoned all the time was a kind of a way of nostalgically honouring/living the lazy hippy counter culture, everybody talked of living up the coast and surfing every day and not working your life away!

    What do we see now in youth drug culture,…more stimulant use, performance improving drugs that maximise limited party time, a celebration of individual of success, performance and “meritocratic achievement”,.. rather than the more mundane notions of Solidarity and collectivism of dope smoking hippies.
    I remember 2 apprentices of mine, when in my mid 30s calling me a hippy! Because I used to smoke dope,…they NEVER had but we’re into the Coke and pills big time!
    I caught these same 2 fellows trading some drugs at work once and demanded they tell me what they were,…to my amusement, they were Steroids,…I laughed uproariously at them and stated that “in my day only Wogs and poofs took Steroids, you blokes don’t even play footy,…what are y’all taking them for,…to get chicks!,…Ha Ha Ha ya try hards!.

    Sigh,…. I think Ive turned into an old cunt.
    I swore I was never going to let that happen,…Man.

    • “Sigh,…. I think Ive turned into an old cunt.
      I swore I was never going to let that happen,…Man”

      Welcome to the club……… fucking cyclists ……..

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        There’s the problem! Our kids have no life experience to make them employable.

        Skills shortage right there. Import 457 decadence for the sake of workplaces around the country.

    • Haha your comment on Roids…probably true. Lots of kids taking it for an easy way to build muscle. As a gym goer that never has, you can always tell who’s using it and who isn’t. Lots of people will say it’s not dangerous but Google Rich Piana. Of course anything taken in extreme.

      • I’m ashamed to say I did take steroids in my Arnie-worshipping, gym-going stages. Yes I got a lot of action with women and looked great, but there are big financial and health costs (maintaining normal test levels after ceasing). So, yeah think carefully!

      • Rich was heavily addicted to cocaine and painkillers which is what killed him
        Not steroids or GH (even though he was on massive doses)

    • The Traveling Wilbur

      Drugs? Drugs!

      Ha! This lot don’t know they’re born! When I was a lad we weren’t allowed to buy drugs. We had to grow our own in the local National Park. Up at the crack of dawn every morning we were during planting season and back at 3am in the morning the next day. If we were lucky enough to have trapped some fresh meat for Cujo to chewover while we walked back the 15 miles into town of course. God forbid we arced up or we weren’t even given a shovel for stuffing in the juvenile plants and had to do it one handed (while using the other one to drag the dogs and camoflauge netting along with us as we went). The bad days were when it rained and dad made us cover the seedlings with our clothing so he didn’t have to buy more from the elderly Afghani couple who came through town every year.

      Fortunately most of that was sorted by the time we got to high school. The ‘feds’ gave us a really good deal and we still got to see dad every year on Father’s Day. I think he was a bit surprised we knew so much about his local government financing, but he got over it eventually and he’s talking to us again now. The best bit though is not having to saw down anymore trees by hand to make our rolling papers with.

      Cor. Drugs? This lot wouldn’t have a clue…

      • The Traveling Wilbur

        River? River!

        I should have been so lucky! If it wasn’t raining, when I was a lad, we had to carry water sacks up the hill to the forest for the full 15 miles. But the hard part was filling the water sacks first – ours always had holes in them so we used to have to put them into the freezers first to seal them, wait 30 minutes, and then run the 15 miles with a couple of sacks each on our backs. The youngest had to carry the can to catch all the droplets for the sacking melt of course as we went – but he wasn’t that good at metal work so his cans always had holes in them. Dad was never that happy when we got to the top and he saw that it hadn’t held a full 15 gallons.

    • boomengineeringMEMBER

      Good on you Ermo. If you look up the history of Natural Bodybuilding I have a small mention as being the first in Australia to hold Natural contestsn as President and founder of ANBB and judging the world titles and working in the Empire State building for Natural Physique

    • boomengineeringMEMBER

      Good on you Ermo.
      If you look up the history of Natural Bodybuilding I have a small mention as being the first in Australia to hold Natural contests. Was founding President of ANBB judging the world titles in New York. Worked in the Empire State building for Natural Physique magazine, Exercise for Men and Men’s Health. So give them extra flak for me thanks.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Mate,.. That was 10 years ago.
        Funnily enough one of them started a plumbing firm that now employs over 20 blokes! All done in his late 20s,.. the other one is one of his leading hands.

      • BoomEng, you probably know a guy I used to work with who was hugely into that scene back in the day. Met Arnie and was told some not so nice truths about his stature. Helicopter pilot, short-ass about 5’6″. Mad as a cut snake. Funny fucker, god could he tell some stories. 90% being completely fucking fabricated, but funny non the less. Was still built like a brick shithouse still into his mid 60’s. Initials JW.

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Timmeh, Wouldn’t have let Arnie into my Boomas Natural Gym or any other roid boy. Didn’t try to stop other contest’s just held ours to compare apples with apples. That reminds me at Boomas in 1990 Invented Pump Aerobics which was promptly snapped up by a New Zealand scout on a fact finding mission.

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Shit that just reminded me, a story for Skippy.
        In New York I stayed in the president of WNBF, Cheh Low’s Manhattan apartment and they got their car bombed by the Mafia.
        We copped a lot of shit in Australia as well.from various groups including Arnie’s mates.

  4. From the above links an article that argues that waiting for interest rates to rise is a waste of time and may be causing you to make bad investment decisions.

    “…The implication is that the upside for rates in this environment is almost certainly more limited than the Fed’s critics anticipate. And if low rates are supporting higher asset prices, you should expect asset prices to remain elevated relative to historical norms (barring a recession, of course). In other words, the most feared impacts of higher rates will not happen because rates are not poised to move much higher. And if they were to rise substantially, the increase would be on the back of an improving economy, which is generally good for asset prices…”

    https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2017-09-07/fed-policies-aren-t-distorting-asset-prices

    Have real and nominal rates reached a permanent low plateau or does it just look like they have because of the monetary model baked into neoliberalism, and that we have been using in an increasingly pure form for last 30+ years, is broken (actually it never made much sense) but Central Bankers, mainstream economists and the usual gaggle of banking apologists just refuse to accept it.

    Regardless of what your view of that may be, will interest rates stay low for the next few decades if the orthodoxy retain control over the monetary system and insist that the present monetary model course settings be maintained?

    Discuss and explicitly set out your assumptions regarding orthodoxy control over the monetary system. If you are assuming that the orthodoxy loses control explain the likely process by which that will happen.

    In your discussion explain your assumptions regarding the role of the economic and monetary system policies of China and India over the next 30 years.

    Something for everyone to think about as they cut the grass and compose poems this weekend.

    • Pfh. My views are somewhat conspiratorial. I do think the 180-man Trump has been installed as a fall guy (as the Simpsons predicted by the way). The Fed raised rates only once under Obama before the Election (there was another in December while he was still president and Michael was first lady). Since then we’ve seen regular rate rises and now talk of quantitative tightening. Will this be like pre-GFC when the Fed hiked until something broke? Guess we’ll see.

      • Washington is pretty weird place at the moment with a President who looks like he might play both sides of the aisle to save his bacon.

        Whatever happens will look like a conspiracy to someone because it will look too weird to have just happened.

    • Thought there might be a few more chancing their arm with answers to the questions.

      After all, the linked article contains a thesis that would seem at face value to be extremely ‘provocative’ considering the daily grist of much of the debate in this neck of the woods.

      If high asset prices are the result of low interest rates and those low interest rates are the result of Central Bank policies in many countries after the GFC, how can we be sure the high asset prices will NOT be permanent if the Central Banks choose not to change their policies?

      After all the Central Banks seem very clear that they will NOT change their policies unless inflation (as they choose to measure it) rises and unemployment falls significantly for an extended period. With robot worker armies on the way are we likely to see low unemployment ever again?

      Does anyone see much likelihood that given the present policies of our Central Banks that we will see higher inflation (of the type they measure) or persistently lower levels of unemployment?

      Worth noting that MB consistently has argued that interest rates are unlikely to rise and that even in the US the “tightening stance” is likely to fade.

      Doesn’t this suggest that the article might have a point? That we cannot assume that asset prices are poised to fall or fall far any time soon or ever?

      Doesn’t this mean that if you believe asset prices will fall (and we know the ones we are talking about) or you want them to fall you need to be able to explain what will make the Central Banks abandon the policies (low interest rates) they have been pursuing for 10 years (25+ years for Japan) and continue to pursue with considerable vigor.

      This is an opportunity for all those who disagree that fundamental reform of our banking and monetary system is required to describe, or provide a narrative, what they think will happen without that fundamental reform.

      Take care because the roadside between 2007 and 2017 is already strewn with the burnt out wrecks of narratives and predictions about asset prices that suffered massive mechanical failure.

  5. Colonialism is often in the news and as a ‘former’ colony Australians might have some sympathy for the Indian perspective for the affirmative side of this debate “Does Britain owe reparations”.

    In fact some might say that Australia might find a lot of food for thought in this short speech having regard to the enthusiasm of both major parties – even ALP ‘Left Wingers’ like Penny Wong – for supporting and allowing massive levels of barely regulated control and influence over Australian infrastructure, industries, assets, workers AND the political and policy class to pass into foreign hands.

    https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4

    The speaker has recently written a book that details the ‘colonial’ experience of India and that is also worth a read.

    https://www.booktopia.com.au/inglorious-empire-shashi-tharoor/prod9781925322576.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMIhP7LtLKW1gIV1RNoCh11BgMKEAAYASAAEgJQAvD_BwE

    • … is a a left signalling moron whose primary claim to fame is that he may have been sleeping with Sonia Gandhi, and provides the right kind of diversity, i.e. has a non-white skin colour and agrees with whatever nonsense left shibboleth one can care to make up.

      as a person of indian descent, i can tell you that any honest recollection of the British Raj shows it to be, on balance, a positive. Without the brits, and their empire, India would not be one country and still be under Muslim domination. As any culture which has had the experience can attest, prefer British rule to Muslim rule, any day of the week.

      Under British rule, you get democracy and laws that make it illegal to blatantly discriminate, positives in my book. Under Muslim rule, you get to cut off your daughters clit, a negative in my book. Depending on the type of Muslim rule, you may not even get books.

      edit: on watching video. alright – not a complete moron. the points are mostly fine, apart from the reparations nonsense. i may have derailed your point a bit. apologies.

      that being said, how is this also not the authentic experience of aboriginals? Would not an honest recollection of their experience be, it sucked, and we can learn from this, and not allow it to happen again? isn’t learning from their exp a more honest way of honouring their people?

      • Thanks T,

        That comment does not exactly elevate you.

        It sounds as though you neither watched the video or read the book as you made zero reference to any content that you disagree with.

        At the risk of sounding patronising it appears that you are ignorant of the best bits of the west – freedom, liberty, the discussion of ideas and debate etc and that those things were denied to most Indians for most of the colonial period.

        Your argument seems to be that colonialising a country is fine if you throw a bit of public administration into the deal and eventually after several hundred years of profit extraction you depart.

        The thing about the Western Ideals, that you do seem to place value in, is that they are implicitly opposed to colonialism.

        EDIT: Cheers I see you have watched the video. I do not doubt that for one second Shashi sees great value in many aspects of the ‘contact’ with Britain and it is quite likely that colonisation by the Dutch, Belgians, French, Germans would have been even worse but that does not change the fact that great harm was done and brushing the costs under the carpet does no one any good.

        I note that he does not argue for the payment of reparations -merely the acknowledgment that they are warranted.

        https://theglass-pyramid.com/2017/09/09/is-australia-becoming-a-colony-again/

      • ‘freedom, liberty, the discussion of ideas and debate etc and that those things were denied to most Indians for most of the colonial period’ – these things were denied to most of humanity for most of the time humanity has been around. your argument is a form of apex fallacy.

        All empires have strengths and weaknesses. railways vs. famine is just one example of british rule consequences. I’m not saying it was a sunshine and happiness – but to rate the effectiveness of the british empire vs the muslim theocracy, from today’s standpoint, and to miss the complete lack of non muslim populations in muslim countries is missing the forest for the trees at a spectacular level. Last time I checked, most of india is not christian. most of pakistan is muslim, and they have spent the years since independence killing non muslims (hell, even weird muslims). most islamic countries practise some form of religious totalitarianism.

        india survived under the brits, whereas it would not have under the muslims. I prioritise survival of an indian culture over other concerns. similarly, i would prioritise the survival of an australian culture in the belief that, wait for it, good people living their lives. the fact that you do not understand the existential threat nature of this is remarkable.

        let’s go with an anecdote, cause logic does not always work – you know why the Himalayas in the west are known as the Hindu Kush right? Pro-tip: Kush means blood.

        edit: fine – this is a stupid argument, mostly because i jumped the gun. the speech was a good speech, even if the bloke making it is an apologist for the worst kinds of political correctness. my bad.

      • So your defence of British Colonialism in India is that they freed the Hindus from the Muslims?

        You might want to check up on how the British managed their relationship with Muslims and Hindus during the colonial period. Calling that freeing the Hindus from Muslim domination is an impressive level of spin.

        Apex Fallacy? I already said that British colonialism was probably better than the others on offer. You seem to want to convert a relative position into a virtue. By that approach petty thieves are better than major thieves. Perhaps they are but they are still thieves.

        It is more than a little ironic that my original post was warning of the dangers of colonialism to independent and sovereign people – the existential threat – and you are now making the case for colonialism because sometimes the colonisers leave something of value.

        This may sound crazy to you but the British might have engaged, traded and influenced the development of India in a positive way without the excesses of colonial exploitation by the East India Company.

        Japan managed to go from a feudal medieval country to industrial powerhouse full of western goodies in 30 years without colonialism.

        But then they did have the Indian experience to learn from so I suppose we can chalk that up as another success of British colonialism.

        Edit: Yes I agree, I think we generally agree that colonialism has good and bad points – trying to tally them all up and work out of which there are more is a waste of a weekend.

        Indian survived the last colonial period and what is really interesting is how it moves forward from here.

        Note: Funny thing is that compared to the rest of the panel on last weeks QandA he caught my attention because he disagreed with the PC nuts on the panel and argued that there were real and substantial reasons that people are pissed off. That caused me to go ‘who is this guy’ and that lead me to the speech and the book.

      • its isn’t exactly my position that colonialism is good/bed. I think it is a process right, which is defined by both good things and excesses. If you say that most of what we call empires etc, are waves of innovation in a social tech, from my point of view you cannot have the good without the bad.

        like, yes, in the case of japan it worked without the excesses, but what inference exactly can we draw. Apples and oranges, too hard. so i say, ok – any form of colonialism which does not result it all out extermination of a culture is better than the alternative. Is it useful beyond this, probably not. not sure there is a heuristic here.

        not a fan of applying today’s mores to yesterday’s history. it’s like saying todays computers are better than those in the 80’s, and hence the engineers in the 80’s were bad people. its makes little sense. we have to start thinking of social tech’s /belief structures as ‘things’ which evolve, and pretending they don’t is retarded.

        is colonialism good? i’d say it is almost always bad in human terms, but is a necessary component of how we evolve as a species. but this is the old red in tooth and claw argument. like you, i think, i’d like the benefits of colonialism, modern legal frameworks, new technologies, some diversity (of thought – not necessarily equal to diversity of people), but without violence. but the question itself is meaningless right. if we can have its benefits without its costs going forward, only then, bounded within this going forward scope, does the question make sense. to apply it retroactively has limited utility is my pov.

        i should also point out, that when i left india, which is a long time ago now, shashi tharoor was making waves on the left. back them, i was a dyed in the wool prog myself – democracy and equality rah rah. time/life changes ones point of view, so i should concede that maybe his views have also changed. one of the best things about right now, is how much more woke people are, and how much more opportunity there is for truth to come front and centre. or i could be a hypocrite and call him a flip flopper.

        what can i say. was wrong on this. shit happens.

      • East Indies Corp…. South American banana republics…

        Disheveled…. The Germans were late to the party, but, some say it was the precursor to the Nazis…. like a trial run…

      • I have to say I enjoyed this little back and forth, and such civil intelligent discussion is what keeps me coming back.

        At the risk of adding blood to the water however, and having not watched the original speech Pf linked, I will add that it was a typical strategy of colonial powers to elevate the minority “cultural” group to power (in this case it is the Hindu Indian against the Muslim?).

        So it would make a lot of sense that British influence in India had a key part in raising up the Hindus at the expense of the Muslims, but it would not have been out of any generosity on behalf of the British. Colonial powers often found minority groups much easier to control when elevated, since they would be dependent on the colonial power in order to maintain control.

    • you do raise some interesting points. Your major one being that if something valuable is in the hands of a foreigner then it’s bad for “us”. Can you explain to me what does it matter if the CEO/Board/Billiionaire who controls the power/asset/resource in question is Australian or not? Are you advocating that if a resource is in the hands of say James Packer then you/us will be better off than if that same resource was in the hands of Yi Ling of China or Stan Smith of USA or Javier Medosa of Spain?
      My view is bullocks you are. You are jumping a shark if you reckon nationality determines whether you/us will benefit from said resource. The price you pay (personal/national resources expended) to use/consume the resource will not be determined by the nationality of the owner. How does your argument change if the owner changes their nationality part way through the life of the resource from Chinese/American/Spanish to Australian? Does your argument simply fall away now because legally they are an Australian?
      With regards to British Rule and India. It happened before you and I were born so just like anything else in the past, you can’t change it. You can only learn lessons for the future from it. In business/finance you know the concept of sunk cost right?
      The speaker/author should spend his energies in breaking down the caste system widely still in practice, I’d advocate that has stunted India’s development to a large degree. He’s almost certifiable to think that should the British not have ruled that other Indian elites would not have filled that void and appropriated resources to their own benefit. Like the difference was going to be some socialist utopia where every working man/woman/child got their fair share of the resources, yeah right! Whilst we are at it, the author/speaker should spend his time removing children and their labour (rife in the sub-continent) from the supply chain.
      Personally, raking over the past to attribute blame doesn’t solve anything in my view, it just further alienates both sides to any argument. Does a white/anglo kid born an hour ago today have to feel guilt for the sins of the past anymore than a kid born today in an historically aggrieved minority/demographic? I’d argue not. Learn lessons for sure but fark me if you didn’t have a hand in it historically and you don’t have a hand in it’s on going effect then take some ownership for your current circumstances and get on with living a better life.
      Just a couple of thoughts for a lazy Saturday morning, no offence of course.

      • Travis,

        The argument that title to property does not really matter and that ownership exercised by a person or body corporate unconnected to the community is an old one. But that is about the only thing going for it. The world is full of people and communities who find that title to property and the rights associated with title to be very important. It seems only a few residual communists think otherwise.

        In any event even if every Australian thought like you we have the problem that almost every potential foreign owner does not. They quite rightly see the point of their ownership of Australian property to be the extraction of the profits one way or another.

      • With regards to British Rule and India. It happened before you and I were born so just like anything else in the past, you can’t change it. You can only learn lessons for the future from it. In business/finance you know the concept of sunk cost right?

        Geez travis, by that logic colonials are just good investors and occupied opressed countries were just financial losers.
        Uninvited occupation and profit extraction is a crime. By your logic war criminas should be persecuted by the financial courts and only durring the times of such occupation/crime if persecutors were born during the crime – because afterwards “we can only learn from it”
        One cannot change the facts of the past but past is a liability if criminal.

        Try to look at the colonialism as crimes against humanity.
        IMO colonialism should also include endebtment of a nation through false advertising (e.g. Euro Union) other financial encroachments, financial bullying etc…

  6. Pop Culture time.

    What did people make of the new Twin Peaks?
    The first half of the new series was excellent and then it seemed in a rush to resolve itself. Even though I didn’t expect a clean and satisfying ending from Lynch and Frost it still wasn’t as well formed as I’d hoped it to be.

    Music:
    Here’s yet another list of albums.
    https://pitchfork.com/features/lists-and-guides/the-200-best-albums-of-the-1960s/
    The ranking system is definitely bunk on this one. The merit of this list for me is that there’s a lot of stuff I’d never heard of and it has a lot of jazz and experimental stuff as well as the standard classics that pop up on other lists.

    Book
    This is non fiction piece on computing that is very enlightening.
    https://bobcarp.files.wordpress.com/2014/07/code-charles-petzold.pdf
    (I sprung for the Kindle version and the formatting is a lot better than some of the other technical books that I’ve read.)
    It’s an interesting journey from Morse Code to the ubiquitous computers that fill our lives that takes the time to explain the procedures and theory of computing well. A bit like having a patient grandfather explain things while telling a story and getting you to think along the way.

    Enjoy your weekend folks.

    • It was ultimately a let down.

      Lots of nice moments, but overall didn’t come together.

      In the end it was just a pumped up Mulholland Drive, one big ‘it was all a dream’.

      • It seemed to say that there isn’t one reality, or that all realities are bunk with a greater realm somehow having influence over the characters. That didn’t bother me as much as how rushed the final three episodes were. If Cooper had returned earlier then it could have played out at a better tempo.

  7. NEW ZEALAND ELECTION 23 SEPTEMBER … THE FOCUS IS HOUSING …

    Roy Morgan Research updates its polling on what the real issues are. They are dominated by ‘Poverty and the gap between the rich and poor’, ‘House prices & Housing affordability’ and ‘Housing shortages & Homelessness’ as the vote nears | interest.co.nz

    http://www.interest.co.nz/opinion/89747/roy-morgan-research-updates-its-polling-what-real-issues-are%C2%A0they-are-dominated-

    Our latest research shows Poverty and the gap between rich and poor, House prices and Housing affordability and Housing shortages and Homelessness are the key issues for New Zealanders voting in the upcoming New Zealand Election. … read more via hyperlink above …

    Housing – New Zealand Labour Party

    http://www.labour.org.nz/housing

    … extract …

    … Remove barriers that are stopping Auckland growing up and out

    Labour will remove the Auckland urban growth boundary and free up density controls. This will give Auckland more options to grow, as well as stopping landbankers profiteering and holding up development. New developments, both in Auckland and the rest of New Zealand, will be funded through innovative infrastructure bonds. … read more via hyperlink above …

    … EVEN LOCAL GOVERNMENT IS WAKING UP … BELATEDLY ASKING THE RIGHT QUESTIONS …

    Waipa mayor: Affordable housing problem remains unless attitudes change | Stuff.co.nz

    https://i.stuff.co.nz/waikato-times/life-style/96484661/waipa-mayor-affordable-housing-problem-remains-unless-attitudes-change

    … extract …

    … “Doing the math, the base price for farmland sold originally for $600,000 to $70,000 a hectare, divide that with a low cluster development of 10 houses, take into account up-front costings of $100,000, I fail to understand why we still end up with sections on the market for $300,000.” … read more via hyperlink above …

  8. Starting to see more and more of this,, a typical report from a stock advisor such as “Leo Liability”
    “September 8, 2017 Staff Writer ” with a small icon of a human head and shoulders.
    On reading any of these reports is it obvious from the set out of the report and data presented that the staff writer was in fact AI.
    Artificial being the operative word,,
    and Intelligence, being as in
    1 Corinthians > Chapter 1 > Verse 19:: For it is written: “I will destroy the wisdom of the wise; and I will thwart the cleverness of the intelligent.”
    WW Now we already have schools programs to teach kids fake news from the MSM
    Soon we are going to need it for grown up investors.

    • The golden rule is if – you – don’t understand it…. don’t invest in it… especialy when fiduciary duty to ones clients is such an oxymoron.

      disheveled… I thought fake news started when some bloke stood up high and proclaimed to be a deity or the sole vassal of deity… seems like a trend if you ask me….

      • “don’t understand it…don’t invest in it” good in theory but can’t really agree with that in practice. Following that advice to the letter of the law you wouldn’t deposit cash in a bank because that bank account you thought you had, you didn’t understand it was really negotiable security you just bought for cash consideration and if you had of known that from the outset you never would’ve done that with your cash. Imagine a world where people stopped depositing cash because of those “don’t understand it” concerns. Again nice in theory but pragmatically impossible.

      • Trav…

        Actually an old rule of thumb by some old boys I know, you would not invest in a business without doing a fine tooth comb examination of which the books are only a part. You need to look at all the markets, predicted shelf life, aspects as well as local infrastructure and social externalities.

        Looking at stock prices on exchanges is rudimentary investing for stock mavens or day traders… looking to skim off churn or time big events.

        disheveled…. not that far back in history financial traders were deemed bottom feeders in capitalism… wet rats in the alleys of London…

  9. A cautionary tale for Australia?

    A broadly accepted view contends that the 2007-09 financial crisis in the U.S. was caused by an expansion in the supply of credit to subprime borrowers during the 2001- 2006 credit boom, leading to the spike in defaults and foreclosures that sparked the crisis. We use a large administrative panel of credit file data to examine the evolution of household debt and defaults between 1999 and 2013. Our findings suggest an alternative narrative that challenges the large role of subprime credit in the crisis. We show that credit growth between 2001 and 2007 was concentrated in the prime segment, and debt to high risk borrowers was virtually constant for all debt categories during this period. The rise in mortgage defaults during the crisis was concentrated in the middle of the credit score distribution, and mostly attributable to real estate investors.

    http://www.arnoldkling.com/blog/sub-prime-crisis-or-speculator-crisis/

  10. A cautionary tale for Australia?

    (Sorry I can’t link because because post disappears as “spam” but via Arnold Kling blog.)

    A broadly accepted view contends that the 2007-09 financial crisis in the U.S. was caused by an expansion in the supply of credit to subprime borrowers during the 2001- 2006 credit boom, leading to the spike in defaults and foreclosures that sparked the crisis. We use a large administrative panel of credit file data to examine the evolution of household debt and defaults between 1999 and 2013. Our findings suggest an alternative narrative that challenges the large role of subprime credit in the crisis. We show that credit growth between 2001 and 2007 was concentrated in the prime segment, and debt to high risk borrowers was virtually constant for all debt categories during this period. The rise in mortgage defaults during the crisis was concentrated in the middle of the credit score distribution, and mostly attributable to real estate investors.

    • We dont have that problem here: Treasurer Scott Morrison insists the lack of wages growth is not some “chicken-and-egg conundrum” where the solution is to simply hike incomes to solve the economy’s biggest weakness – the lack of strong household consumption.
      The reason there is a lack of strong house hold consumption is that the shit box non flammable housing is already full of junk, and the punters in the flammable housing now are underwater in their investments. Deep underwater.
      Watch for Monday’s surf update WW
      http://www.afr.com/news/economy/the-great-wage-squeeze–the-economy-picks-up-but-wage-growth-remains-at-a-low-20170825-gy3yg9

    • Thanks Simone. .

      Kling just goes to NBER
      http://www.nber.org/papers/w23740
      Unfortunately paywalled. Then again, NBER papers are accessible if “you are a subscriber, a corporate associate of the NBER, a journalist, an employee of the U.S. federal government with a “.GOV” domain name, or a resident of nearly any developing country or transition economy.”

      We’ll be transitioning sooner or later!

      Thanks to mother earth for iron ore. We should value it more than we do.

    • Even with distribution factors the prime agent was demand pull and ethically corrupt incentives in the creation processes and management of them. Per se it was not the credit of itself that did it, that distinction goes to decades of bizarre ideological based forbearance in establishing conduct – see Born et al.

      Going to be hard yacka reforming corporate charters, board room architecture, mercenary incentives, and judicial processes to deal with the recalcitrant.

      Disheveled…. its not like history need be repeated endlessly for the want of a few ideologues…

  11. That Racist Witch Pauline Hanson has been up to no good, yet again!

    http://www.news.com.au/lifestyle/real-life/wtf/paraplegic-french-girl-bloodied-in-rat-attack-in-roubaix/news-story/85bade1bbcce199f74ba4e8601f7446f

    If that little girl hadn’t been so triggered by PH and ON, she could have immigrated to Australia before the rats got her. I can’t understand why the narrow minded right wing bigots on this site can’t see this. There is just no helping some people!

  12. innocent bystanderMEMBER

    Interesting.

    Why is Bulgaria’s population falling off a cliff? – BBC
    http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-41109572

    Seem to remember that was the place where nodding meant ‘No’, and a shake of the head meant ‘Yes’

    “Bulgaria doesn’t need uneducated refugees,” says Deputy Prime Minister Valeri Simeonov, a leader of the United Patriots, an anti-immigrant grouping forming part of the coalition government.
    Nor would Bulgarian society accept educated and skilled migrants, Mr Simeonov says.
    “They have a different culture, different religion, even different daily habits,” he says. “And thank God Bulgaria so far is one of the most-well defended countries from Europe’s immigrant influx.”

    • Smacks of propaganda, that article it does: “see Bulgaria here? They’re dying out, because uh… (*mumble-mimble*) reasons …. therefore, only way to not die out is to import more furriners…. like Australia here. Sure you won’t be a Bulgarian no more, but would you rather die out? Would you rather let the Bulgarian Economy wither and die? Ha? Haaa? Would’ja?!”

  13. Support for SSM waning: http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/support-for-samesex-marriage-falling-and-no-vote-rising-advocate-polling-shows-20170908-gydnpt.html

    Has there ever been a poll broken down by place of birth? I ask because the reaction to Pansy Lai by the Chinese community has highlighted that the Chinese community appears to be very socially conservative. Add to that all the religious immigrants coming into the country. It would be ironic if SSM never gets up in Australia because of a population shift towards socially conservative migrants.

    • That would be hilariously ironic, I know much of the Chinese community is dead against this hence the flyers in mandarin in Sydney. Interesting Johnie Howard (the man who took our guns to fight the authoritarian State he’s now realising we’re sliding towards) is stepping into the void with a big No case.

      • I do not think many of your left leaning progressives would be encouraging economic refugees bringing in illegal funds for RE speculation (and their non-English speaking grand parents, etc.. Perhaps it. was /sarc. Little Johnie doubled down on =WorkChoice by opening the floodgates.

        Interesting that many of our new Eastern European arrivals are also conservative – check out the pollies with those sorts of names.

        Regards from Golden Mountain – Glen Waverley a mecca for them.

    • DarkMatterMEMBER

      I think a lot of people are cautious about this issue because there are possible ramifications nobody has considered or discussed. There has not been a proper debate about this, so we don’t really know what it means. The pro side just says it is the “right thing to do”, and it is about equality. That is a very shallow and simplistic argument. Having a way to legally nominate a person of your choice as your next of kin – that seems to be a reasonable request. Allowing anyone to get married to any anyone else and granting them equal parental rights, that looks a little bit like a rabbit hole.

      There are all sorts of corner cases that are not clear. Can two sisters or brothers get married to each other? Since they are same sex, then incest is not possible, so maybe they can? Can a mother marry her daughter? If two men get married and then transition to females, does the marriage stay intact, or do they need to remarry? What if two men get married, adopt children, then transition to females? Do they keep the adopted children? What if a man and a woman get married and have kids, the woman leaves him for another woman, gets married to that woman, then both transition to males? They then get divorced, get married to other men who had transitioned from women, and they all go to the divorce lawyers and claim custody of the children.

      Supposing that this vote goes YES. Has anyone an insight into what will be involved in framing this new law? I am starting to think that the big winners here will be the lawyers.

      • We could debate it, or we could look to other countries that have allowed same sex marriage and deduce that none of what you’ve outlined has occurred. Besides, if two sisters want to get married what makes it anyone else’s business? Who are these arrogant sociopaths who feel the need to stick their nose into other people’s affairs?

      • A few years ago these questions may have had some credence. But, now that SSM has been operating in several countries for a number of years without any such problems emerging, it all sounds rather silly and parochial.

      • equal parental rights

        The Marriage Act has absolutely no mention of parental rights. Parental rights are dealt with mostly in family law at the State level, and already have provisions to deal with same-sex couples. Literally nothing to do with parental rights, the status of children, the rights of children, none of these will be affected in the same-sex marriage legislation.

        I am a fan of direct democracy (I miss Stephen Morris’ comments) but comments like this, when we are given the opportunity to actually vote on legislation and no one has fucking bothered to read the legislation, really piss me off.

        If you treasure this opportunity to have your voice directly heard by our elected representatives, at least read the fucking legislation!

        @yogiman

        Canada got SSM in 2004, the same year Howard decided to insert a definition into the Marriage Act, and I can tell you that the gay apocalypse still hasn’t happened and it’s been a non-issue for the Conservatives ever since.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        As I said, most people don’t fully understand the issue. That was my point, so I don’t know why you are swearing at me. If parental rights are not a factor at all, what does SSM actually mean? Why can’t people just nominate someone as next of kin and that is it?

        Marriage as a religious sacrament is entirely outside the law, and a separate issue I would think. Apart from that and the legal status, why does anyone want SSM? Why would I vote for SSM when I have no clue as to what it means? Further more, the idea that SSM does not affect parental rights I find hard to believe. Family Law has a remarkable correlation with social dysfunction, as you would probably expect when you allow lawyers and bankers to run society. Letting lawyers arbitrate over families is like letting pedophiles run kindergardens.

        If you treasure this opportunity to have your voice directly heard by our elected representatives, at least read the fucking legislation!

        What a load of pompous self righteous claptrap. I would “treasure” our elected “representatives” to cease and desist from being corrupt wreckers, rather than run virtue signalling theatricals. What you lot seem to miss is that a lot of people (myself included) just don’t care about SSM because we have no idea why it is a good idea. If it is some sort of emotional issue, then how would my vote mean anything? If it is just about nominating next of kin or property rights and superannuation inheritance, then fine, why is it a big deal?

        In this thread there have been several people jumping on me. Not one has actually presented a reasonable argument about why we want SSM. Why can’t we abolish marriage for everyone and instead have contracts of property assignment. Anyone who wants to get married can go find a religion.

        The best argument against the SSM vote is that in times of entrenched political corruption and economic instability, change as little as possible using the rules of the system. It will almost certainly be used against you. This strategy also favours not becoming a republic, and slowing down immigration.

      • Same sex incest is and will remain equally as illegal as hetrosexual incest.

        Gender reassignment doesn’t create a new legal person any more than a name change does.

        This thin edge of the wedge line of argument against SSM is laughable.

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        What exactly is the argument against same sex incest? Surely not just social mores?

        The problem I see here is that many commenters have opinions, but cannot construct an argument. This relates to my original point that in the current climate of dumbness, votes and referedum end up being a fluffy cloud of wool heads that have opinions, but no idea where they come from.

        Make an argument. Don’t just say it is laughable. Use your brain.

      • DM….

        from our dark past even our ancestors uderstood the broader ramifications of interbreeding between siblings or close family…. FFS one only has to look at so called mad rulers et al…

      • DarkMatterMEMBER

        My God you blokes are slow this weekend.

        DM….

        from our dark past even our ancestors uderstood the broader ramifications of interbreeding between siblings or close family…. FFS one only has to look at so called mad rulers et al…

        Keep up Skippy! Sisters cannot breed with each other, so there is no point in restricting them from marriage, except custom. The point here is that if you disallow sisters from marriage based on a social more (well founded though it may be), you are admitting that conventions like marriage can be based on social customs. This supports the idea of not allowing SSM – as marriage is based on the custom of the union being the basis of child rearing.

        Chris (above) “Besides, if two sisters want to get married what makes it anyone else’s business?”
        800psi (above) “Same sex incest is and will remain equally as illegal as hetrosexual incest.”

        You see – even the proponents of SSM have different views of what the boundaries are. The implications of SSM are not well understood.

      • FFS mate sisters was not part of my comment, but thanks for the projection maths party whatever thingy.

        The whole marriage imbroglio is religious in nature, they want to own the right of property to it, contrary to states having the right to dictate law outside such tribalism or cultural bias e.g. society does evolve or usually dies.

        Disheveled… most of the std’s are the result of bestiality in antiquity…. does that negate marrying goats – ????

      • What’s staggering to me is that no one puts forward the most sensible solution : abolish the marriage act altogether

        It’s a sexist anachronism anyway

        And this way everybody would be happy (especially the future husbands)

      • comming…

        Its more about the rights of the serving partner to group assets… all the other stuff is is wankery…

      • Skippy.

        I said this:- “What exactly is the argument against same sex incest?” which was a rhetorical question.

        You replied :- from our dark past even our ancestors uderstood the broader ramifications of interbreeding between siblings or close family…. FFS one only has to look at so called mad rulers et al…

        I then said:- “Sisters cannot breed with each other, so there is no point in restricting them from marriage, except custom.” (I was assuming that you know that sisters are the same sex)

        Then you said:- “FFS mate sisters was not part of my comment, but thanks for the projection maths party whatever thingy.”

        Can you see that you are not following the argument? If you can’t follow a simple thread like this, do you have confidence in the other things you post here? Also, I have never been in a Maths Party. There was a poster some time back that talked about the Maths Party, but it wasn’t me. You might need to give the old memory banks a bit of a tune up.

      • “The whole marriage imbroglio is religious in nature, they want to own the right of property to it, contrary to states having the right to dictate law outside such tribalism or cultural bias e.g. society does evolve or usually dies”

        Skippy,

        You may want to explore the findings of the an unusual gentleman that came from the lands of travesty – Edward Westermarck

        Marriage may have been hijacked by the religion(s) but it has little to do with it
        (aka “the traditional marriage”)

        What is most intriguing in Westermarck’s findings is that the cultures that had no means to interact due to distance or time periods (bar for divine or alien intervention of which I am sure you are more than skeptical) have almost the same perspective to the marriage: producing an offspring. Even to the point that if an offspring is not produced the marriage was considered null.
        (aka “the historical marriage”)

        My perspective is that if a marriage is to be broadened from its historical meaning, it should include “two or more materially existing entities” (no room for fantasies for now) as the required participants – thus also removing all the other social, cultural or religious boundaries ever set – and fixing it for the future.

      • @ 55.16 Bar (or 800psi)

        “Same sex incest is and will remain equally as illegal as hetrosexual incest.”

        Why should an antiquity be and remain?

      • I think a lot of people are cautious about this issue because there are possible ramifications nobody has considered or discussed.

        LOL. The dreaded boogeymanunintended consequences rears his head again.

        Just like when women got to vote, right ? Heaps of unintended consequences there – the pill, the no-fault divorce, women supporting themselves and living alone, mass hysteria, human sacrifice, cats and dogs living together…

        There has not been a proper debate about this, so we don’t really know what it means.

        There wasn’t any debate when Howard had the law changed in 2004. Why would there need to be one now ?

        Allowing anyone to get married to any anyone else and granting them equal parental rights, that looks a little bit like a rabbit hole.

        Right. I mean, anyone marrying anyone else, so long as they’ve got different bits between their legs, like they can now, is an entirely different proposition, because…?

        There are all sorts of corner cases that are not clear.

        No there’s not. Because it would literally be no different to marriage right now, except that two people who were the same sex could do it whereas currently they cannot.

        So, if you can come up with a way in which the nature of marriage (the legal construct, not the irrelevant social and religios ceremony) is fundamentally changed because the two consenting adults involved are the same sex, rather than different sexes, you might have a point.

        I’ve yet to see anyone do it. A good test run might be to see if you could apply the same reasoning to justify why marriage between two consenting adults based on their respective races might be different.

        Can two sisters or brothers get married to each other? Since they are same sex, then incest is not possible, so maybe they can? Can a mother marry her daughter?

        No. Because direct blood relations aren’t allowed to marry (can’t remember the exact wording in the legistation, but that’s the intent).

        Incidentally, “incest” generally covers any sort of sexual activity between direct relatives, not just the potential babymaking kind. Yes, identical twin sisters doing the nasty is illegal (in most jurisdictions).

        If two men get married and then transition to females, does the marriage stay intact, or do they need to remarry?

        No. Because they remain, despite what you might think, two people who are legally married. Once you take the gender discrimination back out of the law, the gender of the participants is irrelevant, past, present and future.

        What if two men get married, adopt children, then transition to females? Do they keep the adopted children?

        Yes. See above.

        What if a man and a woman get married and have kids, the woman leaves him for another woman, gets married to that woman, then both transition to males? They then get divorced, get married to other men who had transitioned from women, and they all go to the divorce lawyers and claim custody of the children.

        You mean just like they would if they were all hetero relationships and none of your transgender fantasies were involved ?

        Supposing that this vote goes YES. Has anyone an insight into what will be involved in framing this new law?

        Yes. You could look at all the previous attempts in the last 13 years to introduce legislation to address same sex marriage, which does little more than remove Howard’s insertion of the “one man and one woman” definition into the Marriage Act. There’s a whole webpage dedicated to it that I linked flawse to a few times in the past when he regurgitated the same bullshit (presumably been in an Australian editorial in the previous weeks ?).

        I am starting to think that the big winners here will be the lawyers.

        Well there’s nobody to blame for that except you guys so keen and eager to discriminate against the icky homos. You broke the window, now you’re whinging about how much trouble it’ll be to fix it. It’d be funny, if people’s actual rights weren’t being impinged on to support homophobia and political distraction.

        If it is just about nominating next of kin or property rights and superannuation inheritance, then fine, why is it a big deal?

        Because there is one really easy, really quick, really simple, trivially demonstrable, generally unquestioned way for two people to do that. So long as they’re not the same gender.

        It’s the “so long as they’re not the same gender” part that’s the problem, if that’s not obvious.

        In this thread there have been several people jumping on me. Not one has actually presented a reasonable argument about why we want SSM. Why can’t we abolish marriage for everyone and instead have contracts of property assignment. Anyone who wants to get married can go find a religion.

        The argument as to why we want SSM is because we have M and the law should not discriminate against SS. Feel free to substitute in any historical scenarios where a law existed but only applied to certain people based on gender/skin colour/religion/some other irrelevant attribute that have subsequently been remedied if you need other examples.

        Eliminating marriage from law would, indeed, achieve the same outcome – equality before the law. And, despite what you may have been told, has been suggested by many before. Of course, you might run into a few objections from conservatives if you propose that, to say nothing of almost certainly much more complex legal processes and consequences from doing so (vs none whatsoever from SSM) since you now have to deal with all the other laws that might have made an assumption that two people are married.

        The best argument against the SSM vote is that in times of entrenched political corruption and economic instability, change as little as possible using the rules of the system. It will almost certainly be used against you. This strategy also favours not becoming a republic, and slowing down immigration.

        Your logic would retain current high levels of immigration and their demographic makeup because that’s the current law. Is that really what you’re arguing in favour of ?

        The best argument in favour of SSM is that Howard changed the law to prevent it in 2004 because “What we didn’t want to happen in 2004 was for the courts to start adjudicating on the definition of marriage because that was a real threat in 2004 because some people who had contracted same sex marriages in another country had the capacity to bring their issues before courts in Australia”.

        What exactly is the argument against same sex incest?

        What’s the argument against hetero incest given the existence of a) contraception and b) abortion ?

        The argument is that incest is illegal, and made so by completely separate laws. You want to get incest laws changed, that’s your business. But don’t try and muddy the waters by conflating them with marriage laws where they are of tangential relevance at best. Marriage excludes blood relatives because incest is illegal, this does not change with same sex marriage.

        The problem I see here is that many commenters have opinions, but cannot construct an argument.

        LOL.

        You throw up a litany of tired, stupid, incoherent, long-refuted straw men, get tetchy when people complain about them being tired, stupid, incoherent, long-refuted straw men, throw in a generous serve of willful ignorance, then for an extra dose of hubris, accuse OTHER PEOPLE of being dumb and unable to construct an argument ? My irony meter asplode.

        You are correct that the same sex marriage “debate” is a microcosm of the stupidity and corruption currently destroying our politics, but for the wrong reasons. It is those on the “no” side who epitomise this, as they try and force their – usually religious, for a double helping of institutional decay – personal beliefs into legal discrimination against others. The conservative political establishment prevents the issue from being resolved so a) it can be fallen back on when a distraction is needed and b) to make sure the social conservative demographic doesn’t stray too far.

      • “What’s staggering to me is that no one puts forward the most sensible solution : abolish the marriage act altogether
        It’s a sexist anachronism anyway
        And this way everybody would be happy (especially the future husbands)”

        Interesting approach, Coming.
        I was more inclined to the other permanent solution where marriage includes everything and anything thus making it future proof but your solution is more elegant!

      • @ smithy
        LOL
        you must have some sort of google alert with an alarm blaring and a ready made copy-paste macro or other autmation that prepares a 500 word response (no one ever reads long internet comments anyway).

        “You throw up a litany of tired, stupid, incoherent, long-refuted straw men, get tetchy when people complain about them being tired, stupid, incoherent, long-refuted straw men,”

        You are yet to explain why two homosexual siblings (that by the nature of things cannot produce an offspring) should be barred from the SSM due to some antiquity but the same antiquity should not be applicable to the non-DNA-related couples because it is “unjust”?

      • Too late to edit previous comment…

        Talking of strawmen and mudding the water…
        “The argument is that incest is illegal, and made so by completely separate laws. You want to get incest laws changed, that’s your business. But don’t try and muddy the waters by conflating them with marriage laws where they are of tangential relevance at best. Marriage excludes blood relatives because incest is illegal, this does not change with same sex marriage.

        At best, incest is a taboo – but it is not illegal.
        No one went to prison because they knocked up their sister (if it was consensual)

        On the other hand, a “marriage that can result in incest” is illegal or, technically, invalid. Much the same as the marriage between the two person of same sex.

        And you know very well that Howard’s change came to protect an existing law perversion by the recognition of foreign made marriages that became fluid in definition. Howard may be an arse of epic proportion but local law protection from perversion was is and it ought to exist in every soverign state. E..g. it also prevents polygamy that may be recognised elsewhere to be recognised in Australia contrary to the existing laws.

      • you must have some sort of google alert with an alarm blaring and a ready made copy-paste macro or other autmation that prepares a 500 word response (no one ever reads long internet comments anyway).

        Of course. That’s why there’s a brisk nine hours between the original post and my response, and a lethargic fourteen minutes between my post and your response.

        You are yet to explain why two homosexual siblings (that by the nature of things cannot produce an offspring) should be barred from the SSM due to some antiquity but the same antiquity should not be applicable to the non-DNA-related couples because it is “unjust”?

        Cuz it’s not due to “some antiquity”, it’s due to incest currently being illegal.

        You may not like this explanation. But that does not negate it.

        Like I said, you want to try and get incest laws removed because you think they’re anachronistic, knock yourself out. But don’t try and conflate them with marriage laws that merely reflect them.

        Can you explain why the law should have been changed in 2004 to embed gender discrimination in marriage ? I mean, we know why Howard did it, now, but why do you think it should have been done ?

      • At best, incest is a taboo – but it is not illegal.

        Er, yes, yes it is.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#Australia

        And you know very well that Howard’s change came to protect an existing law perversion by the recognition of foreign made marriages that became fluid in definition.

        What “perversion” would that have been and why ? How would the existing law have been functionally changed by the courts recognising same-sex marriage ?

        E..g. it also prevents polygamy that may be recognised elsewhere to be recognised in Australia contrary to the existing laws.

        By what mechanism ? Polygamy is illegal in Australia. The best someone trying to exercise the rights due from their foreign polygamous marriage could hope for is that all but one of said marriages would be annulled.

        In contrast, until Howard’s changes, same sex marriage was not illegal (which is why the courts would almost certainly have found foreign same sex marriages to be valid in Australia).

        None of these things have changed since the last time I explained them to you.

      • What’s staggering to me is that no one puts forward the most sensible solution : abolish the marriage act altogether

        This is not a novel suggestion, many have made it previously. Some suggest explicitly replacing marriage with a civil union equivalent, others to let de facto laws take its place.

        The biggest hurdles are that a) the same sort of people who think marriage is special and therefore the homos shouldn’t be allowed to do it, think marriage is special and therefore should be written in to law, and b) marriage probably interacts with other laws in the system in complex ways and consequently removing it wholesale would not be a trivial exercise (as opposed to just removing a handful of words inserted 13 years ago). There’s also possibly c) de facto status could potentially be non-trivial to demonstrate.

      • This supports the idea of not allowing SSM – as marriage is based on the custom of the union being the basis of child rearing.

        No it is not. Marriage is traditionally about ascertaining and defining property rights and inheritance (including, for those enthusiasts of tradition, the bride as part of the property, which is where things like men taking on the wives of other men they may have killed, or brothers marrying their sisters-in-law if their husband died, comes from).

        That is why there is nothing in either the legal or religious definitions and requirements for marriage about children, nor the participants even being capable of having children. It’s also why conception and child rearing a quite possible without marriage, even though that may be frowned upon in some societies.

        You see – even the proponents of SSM have different views of what the boundaries are. The implications of SSM are not well understood.

        This is a non-sequitur. People having different opinions on incest has zero relevance to the implications of SSM (which, outside the hysteria of the religious right, are basically nothing unless you’re gay and want to get married).

      • @ smithy

        sorry, I will disapoint you. Nothing “lethargic” in my response to you. Your response came whilst I was responding to others and my bollocks meter went bizerk.

        “it’s due to incest currently being illegal.”
        As per *your* link:
        In Australia, under federal law, sexual conduct between consenting adults (18 years of age or older) is legal,[88][89] and state incest laws are subject to the overriding federal law.
        And even state laws (which are overriden byt he federal law) relate to parent-offspring not the siblings with only NSW making a difference…
        “Er, yes, yes it is.”
        Monty Python and “arguing” sketch?
        No it’s not. (see above)
        please provide a reference as to where/when was the last person imprisoned in Australia for consensual incest not resulting in marriage..

        “How would the existing law have been functionally changed by the courts recognising same-sex marriage ?”
        Foreign homosexual married couples would have been allowed recognition locally by the existing international laws recognising foreign marriages as local marriage act lacked detailed definition based on the Australian historical interpretation of the law. Same rules that applied for non-recognition of foreign poligamy marriages were applied. Similar acts are a normal procedure where international laws can pervert the local interpretations of the laws. Not limited to civil law.
        We both know that this is inconvenient truth for your bias.

        “In contrast, until Howard’s changes, same sex marriage was not illegal “
        Again… when was the last SSM concluded *before* Howard’s changes?
        Your definition of legality and existing interpretation of the law….

        edit:

        “No it is not. Marriage is traditionally about ascertaining and defining property rights …
        sigh
        Marriage is traditionally about people with genetically decided opposite sexes too but “tradition” matters only when convenient?

      • Fuck me drunk. I think if it’s OK to make accusations of bigotry in this debate, it’s also OK to talk about degeneracy.
        Gender is a social construct, or so I’ve learned recently.
        Homosexual incest is fine, or so I’ve learned recently.
        THUS: Incest is fine, provided one or the other of a brother or sister couple IDENTIFIES as the opposite sex/the same sex as their sibling.
        This is the rabbit hole we’re going down.
        Vote accordingly.

      • it has nothing to do with gay marriage. that is SSM has absolutely nothing to do with gay marriage. it may say it does, we all are arguing as if it does etc.
        1. does anyone care if gay people bump uglies – probably not
        2. does anyone care if we changed a bunch of contracts so that gay partners could inherit or whatever – probably not. a clause outlining the issue and a override which grandfathers in existing contracts would not be that hard.

        so what the f^*k is this about? why bother… excellent question. as with drugs and drug laws, lets start with stating that the issue of gay marriage has nothing to do with gay marriage and is about something totally different. I obviously have no way of knowing, but my suspicion is that it is about power. Cause most of these things are about power.

        http://www.theepochtimes.com/n3/13483-chinese-idiom-point-to-a-deer-and-call-it-a-horse-%E6%8C%87%E9%B9%BF%E7%82%BA%E9%A6%AC/

        have the look at the above. the reason it is a chinese idiom is that this pattern of behavior has been observed over many centuries. the idea is, a simple way to show you have power, or to know you is on your side is to work out who is happy to socially signal they will go along with you verses not. so, in an effort to find out who is on his side, the chinese emperor points at a deer and calls it a horse. those too scared will say, yes, deer. this way power is demonstrated (who has it who does not, i’m stretching the analogy).

        the gay marriage thing is a show of strength for the left. why so rabid, because they are loosing everywhere else. we know an SSM no will be massive for the right, and a huge blow for the left. WHY? how can this be the case, when we are pretending that SSM is about gay people??? if it is some sort of fact based issue, then simple inspection of the facts will tell us what is up.

        i’m saying it has nothing to do with facts, or even gay people per se. why does the right/left care about facts. answer they don’t, ergo it is about something else. An SSM yes demonstrates the power of the left, while an SSM no says the right is winning. people need to re calibrate their PC’ness direction depending on the outcome, and one way or the other, there will be much damage to social standing based on past virtue signaling, so its important. but it has nothing to do with teh gays.

        Edit: if it isn’t obvious what I am saying, the left is pointing to 2 gay people and saying, ‘look married!’, and looking around to see who disagrees. those who disagree will be marked for media purges and ritual exclusion. hence it is an existential crisis for anyone who does not say ‘yes, yes!’. Folks might not be able to explain this, but they feel it.

      • Wheeeeeeee~~~~

        This thread reads like a Herman-Hopple-esque extenuation off into some vacuum of deductive pud pulling…

        The whole thing is about legal rights of same sex partners, the pud pulling is muddying the waters.

      • @drsmithy

        This is not a novel suggestion, many have made it previously. Some suggest explicitly replacing marriage with a civil union equivalent, others to let de facto laws take its place.

        There already is a civil union equivalent
        And if you could explain to me what, if anything, the difference is between it and marriage act I would be interested to hear

        In any case, I don’t think we really need any equivalent
        They are all generally just a scam to obtain pensions and other government support, but people should probably be treated only as individual units

        Why should we discriminate against single people?

        In any case, wills and power of attorney are very easy to produce nowadays, and could be simplified further
        I don’t see any other purpose

      • Comming….

        The only mobs with dramas are religious fundamentalists and based on their beliefs via interpretations of what ever canon they ascribe too. Not much of an argument imo.

      • @ M

        “Homosexual incest is fine, or so I’ve learned recently.”

        If any of that relates to my comments, perhaps I should clarify

        IMO, if fags are (not PC, sorry) getting rights they claim, *all* other minorities should indiscriminately get the same rights too irrespective of what anyone may think “is fine”
        Think of incest, bestiality and other sexual deviancy perceptions being today in the same position as perception of homos 100+ yrs ago… times change.

        I am afraid though SSM was never about rights as it could have been sorted decades ago.

      • And even state laws (which are overriden byt he federal law) relate to parent-offspring not the siblings with only NSW making a difference…

        Victorian law deems sex between siblings and half siblings an offence.

        I cannot be arsed looking up any others. Mostly because it’s not actually relevant to whether or not gender discrimination should be removed from marriage law. You are peddling a red herring fallacy.

        please provide a reference as to where/when was the last person imprisoned in Australia for consensual incest not resulting in marriage..

        Irrelevant. The law doesn’t stop being the law because people haven’t broken it recently or because sentences are more lenient than your arbitrary benchmark.

        Foreign homosexual married couples would have been allowed recognition locally by the existing international laws recognising foreign marriages as local marriage act lacked detailed definition based on the Australian historical interpretation of the law.

        “The Australian historical interpretation of the law” ?

        You mean the time when two same sex people tried to get married (as the written law allowed) but were denied by the court based on its interpretation of the law in the context of Australian society ? When did that happen, again ?

        Oh yeah, that’s right. It didn’t. Howard changed the law beforehand because he knew what “the Australian historical interpretation of the law” would have been if tested in court.

        Same rules that applied for non-recognition of foreign poligamy marriages were applied.

        No, polygamy would not be recognised because polygamy is explicitly not permitted. Same reason underage marriage (shades of grey around 16-17 year olds aside) would not be recognised.

        You are making an apples to oranges comparison (something that has no law against it vs something that has an explicit law against it).

        Similar acts are a normal procedure where international laws can pervert the local interpretations of the laws. Not limited to civil law.
        We both know that this is inconvenient truth for your bias.

        You have not explained any “perversion”. You have explained how a legal precedent might be set, precisely in line with how the legal system is supposed to function when uncertainty exists.

        Again… when was the last SSM concluded *before* Howard’s changes?
        Your definition of legality and existing interpretation of the law….

        Also irrelevant. The law did not prohibit it. The courts MAY have found against it (highly unlikely in the early 2000s, maybe true a couple of decades earlier) but that doesn’t change that the law itself made no prohibition until those changes.

        Marriage is traditionally about people with genetically decided opposite sexes too but “tradition” matters only when convenient?

        You go, captain pedantic. Swap in “historically” for “traditionally” if you must.

      • I obviously have no way of knowing, but my suspicion is that it is about power. Cause most of these things are about power.

        You have something of the right idea though, unsurprisingly, reach the wrong conclusion due ot your ideological bias.

        It was about the right-wing establishment demonstrating its power to its followers, and more importantly demonstrating the lack of power of the “wrong” kinds of people had, by making same-sex marriage illegal in 2004. Other examples of this happening recently are the ACL, et al, being allowed to accuse homosexuals and the like of child abuse basically by simply existing, the regular demonisation of the poor and unemployed and the increasingly tighter restrictions and lower amounts they face and the treatment of refugees.

        Note that none of this same sex marriag kerfuffle would be happening if Howard hadn’t changed the laws to explicitly exlude same sex marriage. It would have been decided in the courts, like any other potential vagaries of law appearing to conflict with contemporary social standards should be.

        SINCE THEN, it has been about removing the discrimination introduced by Howard into the law. Ie: about equal rights.

      • @ skippy
        “The whole thing is about legal rights of same sex partners, the pud pulling is muddying the waters.”

        Skippy, someone hijacked your account ’cause I cannot believe that you subscribe to SSM “Torches of Freedom” “legal rights”.

        Legal rights could have been sorted in the run out of the last millennium in plethora of other easy-done cheap and efficient workarounds that would have avoided a lot of wasted energy and money and bypass the religious angle which anyway does not own the right to the marriage institution anyway.

        Everyone life-partnering deserves effectively identical legal rights but why limit those rights to benefit only one same sexual minorioty (homo) and not extend it to polygamy, incestual relationships (done by the royalties anyway) and actually any sexually deviant minority?

        NB
        deviant as “A thing, phenomenon, or trend that deviates from an expectation or pattern. “

      • And if you could explain to me what, if anything, the difference is between it and marriage act I would be interested to hear

        Civil unions (where they exist) are state law, marriage is federal law.

        Ergo, your civil union may not be recognised in another state. Your marriage will be.

        I don’t see any other purpose

        Excellent. Then you should have no problems whatsoever with removing discrimination from marriage law.

      • IMO, if fags are (not PC, sorry) getting rights they claim, *all* other minorities should indiscriminately get the same rights too irrespective of what anyone may think “is fine”

        What discrimination do you see remaining in marriage law if the “man and woman” provision is removed ?

        Think of incest, bestiality and other sexual deviancy perceptions being today in the same position as perception of homos 100+ yrs ago… times change.

        As has been repeatedly pointed out, if you wish to campaign for rolling back the laws that make those things illegal, that’s your business.

        But don’t try and conflate them with marriage law, which is separate.

        Incidentally, since animals (like children, or your toaster) can’t give consent, it’s unlikely beastiality is ever likely to be legalised without some wider-ranging changes.

        I am afraid though SSM was never about rights as it could have been sorted decades ago.

        Indeed, it could have. But then Howard changed the law to remove some people’s rights, so as to avoid “perversion”. Which is why now it is about rights.

      • “Skippy, someone hijacked your account ’cause I cannot believe that you subscribe to SSM “Torches of Freedom” “legal rights”.”

        Got nothing to do with vacuous terms d’art like freedom stuff, legal rights are the foundation to any society and again what informs those rights is how the bread is baked, tho new information does have a propensity to change the bread recipe, sooner or later. I mean we can go back to Christian mores during the middle ages, where domestic court consisted of hole in the ground where the man is chest deep and the woman is limited to a small circle around it. Both wear fight club magic underwear and equipped with various cudgels.

        disheveled…. winnar takes all….

      • @ smithy

        federal law overrides state law and incest is legally not punishable by the law in Australia. Lack of penal measures is a clear indication and has nothing to do with arbitrary penal levels only you called upon.
        yet again, SSM by removal of the “opposite sex” words from the act still prevents homo-siblings and homo-related subgroup to exercise the same right is *very tightly twined* with SSM.

        If same sex marriage was “legal” pre-Howard changes, in your opinion, why no one ever concluded a SSM during the times when SSM “was legal”?

        Marriage is traditionally about people with genetically decided opposite sexes too but “tradition” matters only when convenient?
        You go, captain pedantic. Swap in “historically” for “traditionally” if you must.

        Zactly!
        Swap the traditional for “historical” and marriage was *never* about legal rights.
        Ouch, but that is not suitable for your narrative.

        Civil unions (where they exist) are state law, marriage is federal law.

        So… if SSM was indeed about legal rights, make Civil Union a federal law and problem fixed bypassing polls, votes, sampling, voting, plebiscites and other waste of the mental and financial resources.

        BTW, Smithy, in line response to every sentence?
        Is that a tactic to fatigue debate into giving it up?

      • “BTW, Smithy, in line response to every sentence? – Is that a tactic to fatigue debate into giving it up?”

        No, its called unpacking an argument point by point, normal debate proforma, references to fatigue tactics on the other hand are accusatory and highly suggestive.

        History is replete with sociological examples where such unions were not socially corrosive nor a threat to society e.g. rapid population decline. Just because it was informal and not ensconced in what we now consider formal law does not change the fact that it was deemed a social right.

        disheveled…. its reminiscent of the biological studys done around the 40s that refuted the right wing use of “natural behavior” in suppressing anything – not according to dominate religious doctrine.

      • federal law overrides state law and incest is legally not punishable by the law in Australia.

        If state law says something is illegal and federal law does not (ie: says nothing on the topic), that does not make that thing legal in that state. The state’s legal system will punish you.

        Murder, for example, is a state law issue, not a federal law issue.

        yet again, SSM by removal of the “opposite sex” words from the act still prevents homo-siblings and homo-related subgroup to exercise the same right is *very tightly twined* with SSM.

        Yes. Because incest is an offense.

        Actually, I just loaded up the marriage act to remind myself of the wording. The relevant lines in it are:

        (2) Marriages of parties within a prohibited relationship are marriages:

        (a) between a person and an ancestor or descendant of the person; or

        (b) between a brother and a sister (whether of the whole blood or the half-blood).

        (Whooo. “Of the blood”. That really dates it properly.)

        So as written, same-sex incestuous marriages would actually be permitted if the only change made was to remove the “man and woman” requirement. That would set up an interesting situation wherein incestuous same-sex couples were able to get married, but consummating would be an offense. Hmm, perhaps this who thing is just a long game by people who want the federal courts to make a ruling on incest ?

        If same sex marriage was “legal” pre-Howard changes, in your opinion, why no one ever concluded a SSM during the times when SSM “was legal”?

        Probably because it wasn’t that much longer beforehand bashing pooftas was considered a good night’s entertainment in some places.

        Same reason mixed-race/religion couples in certain locales kept their relationships secret even though they weren’t illegal (insert your locale of choice, there’s no shortage to pick from).

        Swap the traditional for “historical” and marriage was *never* about legal rights.

        The legal contract of marriage has always been about legal rights.

        So… if SSM was indeed about legal rights, make Civil Union a federal law and problem fixed bypassing polls, votes, sampling, voting, plebiscites and other waste of the mental and financial resources.

        Yes. Though – like I said the last time, and the time before that, and the time before that – a substantially more complicated, involved and consequential process than just changing a few words in an existing piece of legislation back to what they were pre-2004.

        And it would not, of course be “problem fixed bypassing polls, votes, sampling, voting, plebiscites and other waste of the mental and financial resources”. Because the underlying issue is a group of people who fundamentally believe non-hetero relationships/people should not be afforded status and respect. Trying some sleight-of-hand to do it by using different words is unlikely to appease most of them.

        BTW, Smithy, in line response to every sentence?
        Is that a tactic to fatigue debate into giving it up?

        No, it’s a habit formed in the usenet days. Helps to make sure there’s no confusion around the context of any comments.

      • DrSmithy, your problem is that you can not see the wood for the trees. You construct long and tedious rebuttals that don’t really add up to much more than the Monty Python Argument sketch. You just get all emotional and passive aggressive legalish.

        After all your long winded post, I am still looking for clarity on the main point – that we agree SSI (same sex incest) is off the table, but that could be because it is the law, or, it goes against thousands of years of practical custom. You seem to say that that it is not acceptable because we have a law against it. Either way, why can’t we use the same argument against SSM? In practical terms, brothers or sisters probably don’t want to spend more time together, but sometimes you need to examine the corner cases to try and reveal the deeper meaning. Several other posters have made very good points about the possibilities of just ensuring that couples can assign property and kinship as they please. I don’t think anyone here has disagreed with this.

        With SSM, it does seem clear that most people (including you, DrSmithy) do not fully understand the nature of this movement. If we are abandoning traditional laws and customs, why stop at two people? Why can’t three people get married? It was customary for the Targaryens. King Aegon I Targaryen, known as Aegon the Conqueror, was the founder and first king of the Targaryen dynasty. He was married to both of his sisters, Visenya and Rhaenys. They were a very successful family that owned three dragons!

        As a serious black mark against you, you made the mistake of branding myself and others who disagree with you as homophobes or similar pejorative. I hate bankers, lawyers and real estate agents, leaving me resource limited – so the gay community is safe from my withering gaze. The point made over and over is that many people don’t understand or care much about the postal vote, and are highly suspicious of the motives. Canada has SSM and they seem to be well on the road to nanny state thought crime hell. Maybe it is the thin edge of the wedge?

        OK, so my final argument is an historical one. We have well over a thousand years of culture in writing, essays, poems, plays music, art and cinema that figures traditional marriage as a central social construct. Changing what marriage means is a very big step. It is like the vandals who destroy statues and buildings to attempt to obliterate the past. I definitely sense that part of the move to SSM is an attempt to destroy the legitimacy of traditional marriage. It is a type of cultural war. By all means change the property and kinship laws, but let us not indulge the left in this phony war. If they win this they will be emboldened and move on to another conquest. Like other vandals, they have no plan for the future. They are just self indulgent wreckers (similar to to the right who are greedy self indulgent wreckers).

        BTW, the issues of alternative marriage customs is a recurring theme in Robert Heinlein novels involving Lazarus Long.
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lazarus_Long#Time_Enough_for_Love

      • @DM…

        The left… groan…

        disheveled… so much pettifoggery to obscure the baseline behind your musings DM…. bad form mate….

      • @drsmithy – this does not happen often so you may as well enjoy it. i agree with 95% of your post. But your last line shows, and I’m quoting, ‘You have something of the right idea though, unsurprisingly, reach the wrong conclusion due ot your ideological bias.’

        ‘Since then’ – nope, f’off. if its good for the goose it is good for the gander. Yes, Howard changing the law was exactly what you think it was, the right showing its power. Unfortunately, you don’t get to draw a line there and use it as the start of history. no such thing. So, you get the other side also. Changing it back is the exact same, the left is now showing its power.

        But that is the point rite – this has nothing to do with gay people or their rights or whatever nonsense. this is about two sets of meta-animals fighting it out. the rest of us are in the middle. that is, SSM has bugger all to do gay people.

        Edit: Amusingly enough, ‘none of this same sex marriag kerfuffle would be happening if Howard hadn’t changed the laws to explicitly exlude same sex marriage’ is true. But think about it this way, if howard had not done that, someone like him/trying to be him would have a structural reason to do something similar, and left/right would be fighting over that now instead.

      • @T…

        I will disagree just on the premises of the term left, heaps of so called SSM sorts are actually economically right wing conservatives. FFS the whole LBGT movement in L.A. was monetized and some in the camp were abhorred by its shift to neoliberalism in order to get what it wanted.

        disheveled… good grief even the Simpsons did a parody of right wing gays et al… hay it makes property rights go up… lulz…

      • Lmao such a smug patronising arsehole

        I’ll be voting no just to see you lose I couldn’t really give a fuck one way or the other

      • @comming…

        Thanks for your honesty and revealing – outing your true self…

        On the other hand if you can refute what I have proffered I’m ready to change my perspective, tho I like data driven conclusions which have contextualized historical underpinnings and not just massive bias blinkers on.

        disheveled… do have a go mate… https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/education.html

      • @skippy – i agree. upto early 00’s, gay rights actually meant gay rights. gay people were treated horrendously by contemporary society.

        but that changed right? it can be traced back exactly to the selling out you refer to. the people who said, stop then, were sane. but it happened, and gay rights became about money and power and became part of the wider culture war. i’m not saying this is good or bad, but it happened. so now gay rights is something left/right use to fight each other. also full points to the factions underlying constituents have changed. no arguments here.

        but we can’t go back. so we cannot take this issue out of the culture war and make it about the treatment of gay people in reality, which is what it SHOULD be about. but its not about that anymore. And pretending it is about what it used to be about earlier, as opposed to what it is now, is not going to solve the issue.

      • You construct long and tedious rebuttals that don’t really add up to much more than the Monty Python Argument sketch. You just get all emotional and passive aggressive legalish.

        Emotional ? LOL. My positions are completely objective and driven by evidence. I have nothing personally vested in same sex marriage, other than a general preference for mature, non-discriminatory and properly separated institutions.

        I construct long and tedious rebuttals because people like you keep constructing long and tedious fallacies to try and make what is fundamentally a very, very simple issue – equality before the law – seem complex, scary and unknown. And you’re never satisifed with the simple answer – it’s about equality before the law – and thus go diving off into various other tangents trying to justify why two people shouldn’t be able to get married just because their genitals are “wrong”.

        After all your long winded post, I am still looking for clarity on the main point – that we agree SSI (same sex incest) is off the table, but that could be because it is the law, or, it goes against thousands of years of practical custom. You seem to say that that it is not acceptable because we have a law against it.

        I’m not saying anything about whether or not incest is “acceptable”. I’m saying incest is excluded from marriage because it’s illegal, and I’m saying any judgement or opinion on whether or not incest should be legal is entirely separate from, and irrelevant to, any discussion about whether marriage should discriminate against gender.

        It is just a standard red herring rolled out time after time to try and paint non-heterosexuals as dangerous deviants engaged in immoral and damaging behaviour as a step towards the other old staple, the ‘next thing you know they’ll make it legal to marry your toaster’ type slippery slope.

        Either way, why can’t we use the same argument against SSM?

        Because same sex relationships aren’t illegal. Incest is.

        With SSM, it does seem clear that most people (including you, DrSmithy) do not fully understand the nature of this movement.

        According to you, someone who has done little more than roll out tired, long-refuted fallacies…

        If we are abandoning traditional laws and customs, why stop at two people?

        Because “two people” is a fundamentally different (and more complicated) arrangement to “more than two people”. Also, because that is just another red herring. Marriage with more than two people is polygamy. You want to try and get polygamy legalised, knock yourself out. There’s probably a group of people who are. But don’t try to conflate it with marriage.

        Incidentally, “we” are not “abandoning traditional laws and customs”. That is a straw man. “We” are returning marriage law to its state in 2004, when it did not discriminate against gender.

        As a serious black mark against you, you made the mistake of branding myself and others who disagree with you as homophobes or similar pejorative.

        Firstly, I didn’t call you homophobic. I said same sex marriage is being kept alive as an issue to support homophobia.

        Secondly, I wouldn’t suggest anyone is homophobic simply because they disagreed with me. I would suggest they’re homophobic when they’re making homophobic statements.

        Don’t make homophobic statements and I won’t call you homophobic. Simples.

        Canada has SSM and they seem to be well on the road to nanny state thought crime hell.

        Please, tell me more about the connection between same sex marriage and “nanny state thought crime hell” (whatever that’s supposed to be).

        Changing what marriage means is a very big step.

        Firstly, what marriage “means” saw a much larger change in ca. 1974 when the no-fault divorce was introduced. That change did not have anything close to this circus around it.

        Secondly, we are not changing what marriage means. We are changing marriage law so that it does not discriminate against couples of particular genders. Like it was before 2004. For people who think marriage is only for men and women, for religions that do not recognise same sex marriage, there is no change. Those people are free to go on believing that.

        The real social changes you are talking about – the acceptance of non-hereosexual relationships – happened decades ago. That’s why the majority of people don’t have a problem with same sex marriage. The ship has long since sailed.

      • ‘Since then’ – nope, f’off. if its good for the goose it is good for the gander. Yes, Howard changing the law was exactly what you think it was, the right showing its power. Unfortunately, you don’t get to draw a line there and use it as the start of history. no such thing. So, you get the other side also. Changing it back is the exact same, the left is now showing its power.

        No it’s not. That’s just your ideological bias.

        This is apparent from the simple reasonableness of the objectives (removing discrimination from the law), the lack of any overreach (eg: demanding religions recognise same sex marriages), the concessions to power (most versions of the proposed legislation changes allow an out for those with ‘strong beliefs against same sex marriage’ to continue discriminating), the way it doesn’t seek to disadvantage anyone, and the simple fact this farcical plebescite is happening at all.

        These are not suggestive of change being made from a position of power.

        But that is the point rite – this has nothing to do with gay people or their rights or whatever nonsense.

        Yes, actually, it does.

        but we can’t go back. so we cannot take this issue out of the culture war and make it about the treatment of gay people in reality, which is what it SHOULD be about.

        The right are the only ones making a culture war out of it by continuing to prevent the removal of discrimination they inserted into the law. Important to note that nobody is “attacked” by legalising same sex marriage. Outside of people who want to get married today but are prevented from doing so, nobody is affected.

      • @skippy

        I wasn’t talking to you bud

        To be honest, I don’t even read your posts as they are incomprehensible

        But at least I don’t disagree with you

      • @ smithy

        “Emotional ? LOL. My positions are completely objective and driven by evidence. I have nothing personally vested in same sex marriage, other than a general preference for mature, non-discriminatory and properly separated institutions.”

        Continuing that Monty P sketch you started: no, they’re not!

      • DrSmithy

        “Secondly, we are not changing what marriage means. We are changing marriage law so that it does not discriminate against couples of particular genders. Like it was before 2004.”

        That is a ridiculous argument. The original marriage act didn’t exclude same sex couples because it was so bizarre that nobody would have mentioned it. Going back to the 20th century, the idea that two men or two women would want to get married would have been regarded as a type of insanity or an absurdity. It wasn’t in the marriage act for the same reason getting married to your refrigerator wasn’t in there. It was inserted because it was an omission, which would have been placed in the original act if anyone had considered it plausible. Times changed, and same sex relationships (which have always existed) gradually moved out of the shadows and became socially accepted. Elevating same sex relationships to equal footing with traditional relationships was always going to be a big thing. It is a big step. Moving to polygamy would be a similar big step. This silly idea that before 2004 SSM was legal is a gold plated straw person. It was not in the act because no one thought any sane person would want to do it.

        The history of SSM is dubious. The ancient greeks tried it for a while – as pederasty. Boys under 17 could be married to men. Marriage between women was not even considered. Apparently ancient chinese society gave it a try as well.

      • @ Skippy
        “No, its called unpacking an argument point by point, normal debate proforma, references to fatigue tactics on the other hand are accusatory and highly suggestive. “

        Normal debate?
        Not sure why I have to tell *you* that points are not single sentences and that the whole picture is equally important hence the shredding of anyone’s text to the last sentence is just a cheap trick and poor argument which only sidetracks the debate. I hope you may point to me any scholar and intellectual response to someone that addresses sentence by sentence.
        shredding the responses to nanoparticles allows insertion of shitload of strawman, bollock arguments, squirells! etc and fatigue the discussion and it leads to spiraling of the trivial topics at the expense of the full picture. Evidence above as much as you like.

        anyway… long day at work… next week…

      • That is a ridiculous argument.

        No, it’s a fact.

        The original marriage act didn’t exclude same sex couples because it was so bizarre that nobody would have mentioned it.

        The original marriage act didn’t define what marriage was because, to paraphrase, “marriage is complicated”.

        It wasn’t in the marriage act for the same reason getting married to your refrigerator wasn’t in there.

        LOL. It’s always entertaining to see someone complaining about other people’s poor reasoning roll out those sorts of pearlers.

        Elevating same sex relationships to equal footing with traditional relationships was always going to be a big thing. It is a big step.

        And it’s already happened (recognition of same sex de facto relationships being the most obvious demonstration of that). Time to get over it.

        This silly idea that before 2004 SSM was legal is a gold plated straw person.

        Firstly, it’s not a straw man. A straw man is a type of logical fallacy, not how you describe something you don’t like.

        Secondly, if same sex marriage was legally forbidden, as you claim, you should be able to quote the relevant law or ruling that did so.

        It was not in the act because no one thought any sane person would want to do it.

        No, it’s because wiser people thought that such semantic details were best worked out by the courts of the day to reflect what was “socially accepted” in that time.

        I am still waiting for you to come up with a coherent reason why the law should discriminate against gender. “We did it in the past” is not one, for reasons that hopefully do not need to be rehashed.

      • It wasn’t in the marriage act for the same reason getting married to your refrigerator wasn’t in there.
        LOL. It’s always entertaining to see someone complaining about other people’s poor reasoning roll out those sorts of pearlers.

        It is to the point. When I think back to my ancestors in the 20th century, mentioning women or men getting married would have been regarded as very odd behaviour. Trying to revise history with your present parochial view is a big mistake. Like it or not, SSM suggested in most of the 20th century would have had you branded as a crank or pervert. The point I made with refrigerators is exactly correct. I can’t think of anyone before maybe the 80’s that would have thought that SSM was viable.

        Secondly, if same sex marriage was legally forbidden, as you claim, you should be able to quote the relevant law or ruling that did so.

        I never said it was forbidden LEGALLY. I said it was unthinkable.

        It was not in the act because no one thought any sane person would want to do it.

        No, it’s because wiser people thought that such semantic details were best worked out by the courts of the day to reflect what was “socially accepted” in that time.

        You must be delusional. Wiser people – politicians and law makers in the 20th century were probably inclined to round up gay people and tap them behind the ears. In England in the 50’s (similar to Menzies Australia) they rounded up Alan Turing and chemically castrated him. Wiser people indeed.

        I am still waiting for you to come up with a coherent reason why the law should discriminate against gender. “We did it in the past” is not one, for reasons that hopefully do not need to be rehashed.

        why the law should discriminate against ..
        1. gender
        2. polygamy
        3. refrigerators

        A lot of these things are traditional. There is no real reason, because the implications are uncertain. Social change is always an experiment. The new 21st century society we are building (or wrecking) is basically a social experiment. The law is just an expression of what we decide it is. The law has no inherent morality. There is no universal calculus of law that can unfailingly determine that marriage should be gender neutral. You see it as obvious, but if you were born 50 years earlier, it would have been unthinkable for you as well.

        I am starting to think that you are quite young and do not have any real experience with the 20th century. Things were very different then, and one question is what changed so much? Women did live together, but they were called “spinsters”. The only male homosexuals that were visible were paedophiles. Priests were candidates. In rural areas it was quite common for the families to be matriarchal, and the women ran a network of paedophile policing. They knew exactly who was dangerous and watched them like a hawk. Maybe homosexual men were forced to paedophilia out of desperation, but I can’t recall any examples of men living together like their spinster counterparts. Anyone over maybe 55 would have grown up with that, so perhaps you can get the idea that what might seem obvious for you, is bizarre for them.

        Anyway, I am coming around to the view that voting yes will put the “left” in a position that forces them to oppose sharia, which is a much, much greater threat. Surely they can’t be so stupid as to spend 20 years fighting for SSM and then invite religious ratbags to kill them for it.

      • Like it or not, SSM suggested in most of the 20th century would have had you branded as a crank or pervert.

        Indeed it would. Nobody is arguing otherwise.

        The point I made with refrigerators is exactly correct.

        No, it’s not. It’s stupid. It’s stupid for the same reason all those moronic slippery slope fallacies about marrying your dog or your children, are also stupid. Because none of those entities are able to either a) consent or b) legally enter into a contract.

        I never said it was forbidden LEGALLY. I said it was unthinkable.

        For fuck’s sake.

        THIS WHOLE DISCUSSION, AND THE WIDER DEBATE, IS ABOUT WHAT IS FORBIDDEN LEGALLY. IF YOU DON’T HAVE A POINT THAT RELATES TO THE LEGALITY OF SAME SEX MARRIAGE, YOU DON’T HAVE ANYTHING RELEVANT TO SAY.

        As has already been pointed out numerous times, across too many sources to even beging naming, only a minority oppose marriage equality and have for some time. Even longer since more than a minority thought homosexual relationships were unacceptable. The social change ship has already sailed. The horse has bolted. It’s not sleeping, it’s dead.

        Had this been allowed to play out without the activist meddling of the Howard Government, then it would have been decided in the courts some time in the mid 2000s. The outcome of which _may_ have been a finding that “non-traditional” marriage was forbidden by federal law (from where we probably would have ended up in a similar place we are now, since people who are being discriminated against tend to fight it), but more likely would have passed on the responsibility of dealing with such relationships to the states (ie: found that federal law had nothing to say about same sex marriage at all, therefore it’s states’ business).

        You must be delusional. Wiser people – politicians and law makers in the 20th century were probably inclined to round up gay people and tap them behind the ears. In England in the 50’s (similar to Menzies Australia) they rounded up Alan Turing and chemically castrated him. Wiser people indeed.

        You have spectacularly missed the point. As usual. The “wiser” part wasn’t in forseeing or condoning same-sex marriage, it was in understanding that federal law should be relatively minimal and light-touch and devolve as much responsibility as possible to the states.

        A “definition” of marriage was _deliberately_ left out of the law, so that, if necessary, the courts and the states would be able to adjust with contemporary mores and not require constant legislative micromanaging on what is and is not permissible through a central, politically motivated, institution. That is because we live in a society that believes things which are not expressly forbidden, should be permitted – we have “freedom”, if you prefer that sort of nomenclature.

        Nobody saw any need to expressly forbid same-sex marriage in 1961, because as you say it was “unthinkable”. Then at some point it became “thinkable” – as a reflection of community standards – at which point it should have been left to courts or states to decide, reflecting those same community standards, preferably as close to the relevant community as possible (ie: not the federal government).

        why the law should discriminate against ..
        1. gender
        2. polygamy
        3. refrigerators

        One of those things is not like the others.

        Social change is always an experiment. The new 21st century society we are building (or wrecking) is basically a social experiment.

        Red herring. All of history is “a social experiment”.

        Removing discrimination in marriage law is an obvious and logical progression from removing discrimination in other parts of the law. Arguing against it is, in principle, arguing against removal of legal discrimination (eg: against women) in general.

        The law is just an expression of what we decide it is.

        Well, then. Explain why you think when “we” decided to write discrimination into marriage law in 2004, that was a good thing and how society benefited from it. What good things did it cause ? What bad things did it prevent ?

        There is no universal calculus of law that can unfailingly determine that marriage should be gender neutral. You see it as obvious, but if you were born 50 years earlier, it would have been unthinkable for you as well.

        If I were born fifty years earlier I’d probably be dead (though we are a relatively long-lived family so, maybe not). And there are plenty of people older than me who a) think homosexuality is OK and/or b) think the law should not discriminate against gender (even if they’re not OK with homosexuality).

        I am starting to think that you are quite young and do not have any real experience with the 20th century.

        I am starting to think you have no idea how to form a structured, coherent and logical line of reasoning and just keep jumping from talking point to talking point, mixing in a healthy dose of fallacies to taste.

        We are not in the 1960s anymore. Nor were we in 2004. Homosexuality and homosexual relationships have been, on the whole, acceptable to the majority for twenty years or more – the Mardi Gras turns 40 next year, FFS, and the last time someone got arrested for being gay was in the mid-80s (pandering to your irrelelevant personal attacks, I am old enough to have experienced people boasting about “beating up some fags last night” – it was no more acceptable to me then than it is now). The law were are talking about was changed in *2004*, a time when homosexual relationships were acceptable to the majority. When the states were explicitly removing discrimination against homosexuality from their laws. Similar changes were happening in other Commonwealth countries.

        Except the Howard Government. Bucking this clear trend in ethical and moral maturity, they went and explicitly inserted discrimination into law to appease the gargoyles on the right, just in case those pesky activist judges did their jobs and made a ruling that – since marriage legislation did not explicitly exclude homosexuals from marrying, and homosexual relationships were clearly acceptable to more and more people – a gay couple could, in fact, be married.

        Textbook “social engineering”. Creating laws explicitly to try and direct society in a particular direction, rather than let the laws reflect where society actually was. But of course that’s pretty much the raison d’etre of Conservative Governments – ‘leading us back to yesterday, tomorrow’ – so it wasn’t exactly surprising.

        The only male homosexuals that were visible were paedophiles. Priests were candidates. In rural areas it was quite common for the families to be matriarchal, and the women ran a network of paedophile policing. They knew exactly who was dangerous and watched them like a hawk.

        Indeed. That’s why it’s so commonunusual to hear from adults today who were growing up in those days about being abused as kids. Because it was so well “policed”.

        What I think you actually meant to say was that they all knew when to look the other way. Unless it was a couple of blokes of course, in which case they’d be run out of town (if they were lucky). ‘Cuz two blokes is icky.

        This ‘homosexual men are sexual deviants and pedophiles’ thing isn’t getting any less offensive, but it is getting pretty tired.

        Anyway, I am coming around to the view that voting yes will put the “left” in a position that forces them to oppose sharia, which is a much, much greater threat.

        That is an utterly absurd – and offensive – reason. “This is your brain on identity politics”, indeed.

        Also, sharia ? LOL. Hi, Jacqui – or is it Pauline? – what other paper tigers have you got in your little bag of fear and bigotry ?

        In a list of things that are credible threats to the prosperity and security of Australia and its people, calling “Sharia” – whatever it is you think you mean by that – irrelevant is giving it too much attention.

        Anyway, we should finally return to the only actual relevant question on the topic, despite extensive attempts to obfuscate, distract and derail: should marriage law discriminate against people because of their gender ? If yes, why ?

    • Haha I would have a good laugh if this were the outcome. I don’t really care about the issue and would have probably voted ‘yes’ but lately i feel like i am being bullyied into it with all the yes propaganda on tv, articles, facebook etc even the CFMEU. I am pushing towards ‘no’ now in retaliation

      • +1. The shock on these bullies faces when something like Trump happens (because they intimidate everyone else into silence and think no-one could think differently from them enlightened selves) is quality!

      • El’trumpo hired illegal workers to fatten his profit e.g. he does not give a rats ass about anyone save himself…

        Disheveled… that he is now POTUS is apropos….

      • Trump is a slightly more rightwing, big government, central bank, globalist. The people can bash each other’s brains out in the allowable range of disagreement. There’s no difference really. ‘If voting really made any difference it would be illegal’.

        Not unlike our delicious choice of freemason globalist Turnbull and Shorten.

      • Voting no out of spite against a few preachy Yes’ers is pathetic when you know there are genuinely good people who stand to benefit.

      • I’ll be voting NO for other reasons, including the likelihood Orwellian hate-speech laws will be introduced (like 18C) but the equivalent for traditional views on marriage. And don’t get me started on safe-schools in our mandatory government indoctrination camps (schools)

        I also believe children should grow up with a mother and a father and marriage is between a man and a woman. But that’s just me.

        I’m a gay man and can accept I’m gay and I’m not going to get married. Heck, waste of money with the rings and wedding etc!

      • After dozens of posts and replies, I still can’t decide between YES, NO and RECYCLE. If gay people want to get married, and it cheers them up, then whatever – it is not really my business. Turnbull and Shorten are voting yes, but they have no principles and would say anything to get ahead. Letting our future be decided by green thinking people like our friend from the Jupiter II makes me very uneasy. I tend to agree with Andrew above that a YES will be used to leverage a whole raft of 18C type nanny laws. On the other hand, if we get a NO then we will never hear the end of it. There will be shame docos pouring out for years to come and probably we will see some militant action by the left. A bit like the RussiaGate campaign we saw after Trump go in.

        No good will come of this either way.

      • Probably vote YES. Most of our culture is a bit broken anyway, and if YES gets across the line then they have good reason to resist Sharia if they don’t want to be chucked off of a building.

    • It would be ironic if SSM never gets up in Australia because of a population shift towards socially conservative migrants.

      I wonder if that could cause an “oops” moment.

      PS I’m voting yes because now and then I like to cop it in the bum.

      Jokes; I’m voting yes to annoy said religious.

      • It won’t matter whether you vote Yes or No. LNP will find a way to force Labor to take it to the election.

        The oops moment will be Labor losing the unlosable election, and the parties of Cory Bernardi/Pauline Hanson/Bob Katter controlling both the cross-benches and deciding who is prime minister.

      • LNP will find a way to force Labor to take it to the election.

        “Find” a way ? They’ve made no secret that even if the outcome of their expensive opinion poll is “yes”, their MPs will be able to vote against any legislation in parliament. This is but one aspect of the farce.

      • drsmithy agree it is a farce out of the rodent republic playbook

        but not voting will reinforce the no vote

      • Pyne and Wilson were already considering crossing the floor so it is no longer a question of LNP being the ones to block it. Educated guess that the Bill will be worded in such a way that gives religious institutions what will be considered unacceptable levels of protection. Labor and Greens will be forced to vote it down, and having to take it to the next election against a well-planned religious scare campaign.

      • @EP – I donated to Affordable Housing Party this week and am a member… I will also vote for Sustainable Australia Party, Labor will be third and The Green’s forth… I can’t bring myself to join Labor when they won’t reform our immigration rate. How can a party claim to be for the people when their policies continue to double-down and screw the hard working common folk?

    • That article is just transparent and disingenuous Greens bashing. It’s using the Faux News “balance” principle to present two groups as similar (in terms of, say, influence and polarity of views when in reality they are not.

      I sincerely doubt there are _that_ many people, even in the NSW Greens, who genuinely constitute a “radical socialist group that sees environmentalism as a Trojan horse it can use to undermine the entire capitalist economic system”.

      Because these days the Overton window has moved so far to the right that basic stuff like raising taxes is reported as if it were only a hairsbreadth from “undermining the entire capitalist economic system”.

      I could be wrong, I don’t know. I don’t live in NSW and consequently don’t pay much attention to NSW Greens state activities. But are there really that many of them who want to, say, nationalise all industry, centrally fix everyone’s wages and completely eliminate private property ? Because that’s the kind of thing *I’d* class as “undermining the entire capitalist economic system”.

      The problem is not that there’s nobody with policies to pander to the sensible centre. The problem is how people with those policies are presented by rags like the SMH whose primary interest is in maintaing the two-party status quo.

      • Don’t know how religion enters the convo…. unless its the assumption thingy and as an extenuation of it libertarianism.

      • Reminiscent of a call my wife went too a few years ago. Performance shop was upgrading a GT3R for track day playtime. Couple of young lads thought taking it up the road for a quick blast would be a hoot. Anywho they blasted up the road to a T intersection and when they threw out the anchor they slid straight into traffic, where a day lorry bull bar halted their slide.

        Seems the racing harnesses were only tied to the roll cage which had not been padded yet, sooooo, one lads head collected the bull bar and did a gallagher watermelon – everywhere – where 5mm would be a big chunk. Then the other lad look like he was taking a quick nap at the wheel until you get the side view where the back of his head had a perfict imprint of the OD of the roll cage bar behind him.

        Disheveled…. seems cold fat semi slick tyres in light rain don’t perform to some peoples expectations….

    • I know the spot the crash happened, must have been a true Darwin moment to crash there! Either that or giving it hammer and tongs down the hill just before where Liverpool street is… Geez it’s a GTR too, supposed to help you when it goes sideways…

      • No one forced them to do it Andrew, the driver was responsible for the safety of the occupants in the vehicle at the time, so without knowing the details, like if any passengers requested the driver to stop hooning around, I have to file it under self inflicted Darwin award trophy.

        disheveled… the only bright side is no innocent bystanders or other vehicles were involved.

      • The Traveling Wilbur

        Finally! Someone gets that DC is the daddy and not to be trifled with by some random ‘Marvellous’ collections of randomly powered ‘superheroes’ trying not to look like they’re ripping off their elders and betters. Which, except for Thor, they are.

        #SupermanVSBatman

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Skip, got a short WE story for ya above.
        To the skeptics, people who don’t do much also don’t believe much

      • @boomengineering…

        Yeah I remember The Arne from the L.A. 80s days. The Venice bch gym was just a few miles up from Manhattan bch where I lived, most of his allure was because he was unusually tall for a builder [as you would know] and was able to parlay that into type casting parts in movies, solely on that one factor. Then he took what did not go up his nose and started the commercial development business and rode the wave of gentrification occurring in the CBD and inner rings.

        disheveled…. standing joke at the time was if Arnie or O.J. was at a party… you should secure your garden hoses….

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Skip, must have just missed each other, stayed with at friends place at Redondo Beach around 91. If you are at the Sydney seminar I’ll divulge some sensitive other stories.

      • “Skip, he made his earlier money by other means”

        ahaha-cubed…. don’t they all mate… don’t they all…

  14. On Saturday nights I enjoy sitting down at my writing nook and attending to my correspondence, after returning from the gentleman’s club having discussed Wittgenstein in particular, and German philosophers in general.

    • From February this year by the look of it? Interesting, wonder if he’d have the same expectations today for the US.

      His views on the need for interest rate rises by the RBA on financial stability grounds due to rapid house price appreciation seem fine until you consider that the AUD would be back at parity with the USD. He doesn’t cover the impact that would have on the economy or our financial stability. Nor does he explain why more effective MP policy couldn’t be used instead of interest rate rises. The video left me wanting.

      • Why don’t you play the ball, not the man? It’s the content that is relevant.

        Funny the know it all, holier-than-thou attitude coming from someone who cracks funnies about people dying in a car accident.

        That says enough for me.

      • Sorry Andrew but Icky is up there with the loon pond genre book club of the month stuff, crystal skulls, chariots at the bottom of the red sea, numerology, phrenology, et al.

        Its infotainment like Alex Jones – Alex Jones goes CRAZY on Joe Rogan Experience #911

        https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AlSDqz1rtgc

        Disheveled… I did not joke Andrew, I said dead libertarians.

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Just realized right up your alley “Shop Class As Soulcraft”” an enquiry into the value of work by Matthew B Crawford. That is the supremacy of manual work over office work and the future loss of white collar jobs etc. Personal gratification satisfaction rewards over economic though many cases greater economic rewards as well. Delves into soul and philosophy.

      • @boomengineering….

        Heaps of studies show that people say in high paying jobs in finance, that understand the broader social ramifications of their day job and how it effects others, still do it because of the loss of social status amongst peers.

        Not to mention the funny stuff about working in a high rise office building where staff won’t get into the elevator with dirty trades people, yet knowing that I make twice or more than they do….. so much for economic rationalism…

        disheveled… btw started working for a new bloke a few months ago, top bloke and good tradesman, in his mid 30s, now ruining sites for him, top dollar. That’s on top of the people that want me to do side work for good money.

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Thinking about it you are dead right about the money. Simon my 41 yo cycling mate who used to work for me, started out by himself trying to do machinery repairs, but I had to tell him to do what he was good at not what I’m good at, then he would make more money than me anyhow as he’s the best on site machinst I’ve ever seen. A week ago he made 11K for less than a week line boring cement trucks. Took his family to the snow last week.( the next week) .

      • Don’t care if he is part of a loon pond according to some, Skip, is what he says right? I think so. If not why not?

      • “Don’t care if he is part of a loon pond according to some, Skip, is what he says right? I think so. If not why not?”

        Your emotive outburst does not imbue gravitas, don’t even know how you couch your first plea with – what if – when Icke has such a long history of snake oil salesman ship. If the bloke did not make so much money pandering to the CC soft heads would you recon he would still be prolific in his opinions and travailing side show.

        https://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2017/09/weekend-reading-9-10-september-2017/#comment-2951203

        disheveled…. screwing around on billable hours…. tisk… tisk….

    • Never heard of David Icke before but I thought that was well worth watching. Rings true on so many levels. Will forward this far and wide.

      “…intimidated into silence” or openly censored. We see this everywhere: views are expected or encouraged to conform with those of the ruling (Left) elite whether on Trump, SSM, Climate, economy, speech. Freedoms are being eroded and I worry Icke is right that withIn a decade much will be lost to the censored or manufactured consensus.

      Someone commented recently on search engines and Facebook actively manipulating data to preference or censor information not aligned with “correct” view and Icke claims there is a move to “delete from search engines anything no longer deemed relevant” the nature of which will undoubtedly be determined by these same entities.

      Can an informed reader advise of search engines etc that are not manipulated.

      • “”Just take David Icke, the local British curiosity famous for claiming that the moon isn’t real and that the world is run by shape-shifting alien reptiles. Laugh all you want — that dude has a net worth of 10 million pounds, accumulated through book sales and expensive, sold-out live talks. Whether people are generally interested in the reptilian moon people or they’re just paying absurd cash to watch a crazy guy humiliate himself for a few hours, that money adds up.
        —Adam Wears[1]

        David Icke[note 1] is a human singularity of insanity best known for his “reptoid” conspiracy theory. He came to fame as an English footballer and sports commentator and used to be a spokesman for the Green Party of England and Wales, but since 1991 has devoted his life to informing the world that it’s actually secretly controlled by evil shape-shifting lizard-people from the 4th dimension. Genuinely.[note 2]

        Descent into woo

        During the late 1980s while he was still with the Green Party, Icke began to look to alternative medicine for a cure for the arthritis that had ended his football career. This also brought him in contact with the local members of the New Age movement. In 1989, he experienced neurological symptoms (impression of a presence, momentary paralysis of lower extremities, auditory hallucination, facial sensations) that he interpreted as spirits trying to contact him.[2] In 1990, he met a psychic he called his “soul mate” who began to introduce him to hardcore New Age woo.[3] He went off the deep end shortly thereafter. He left the party in 1990 and was formally banned from it in 1994, with the Greens calling his views “fascist”.[4]
        Views

        Some of my friends have urged me to tell people the basic story, but “for God’s sake don’t mention the reptiles” – David Icke, The Biggest Secret

        Icke is a proponent of a super-duper grand unified conspiracy theory that mixes together just about every conspiracy theory you can think of; this he calls the “Babylonian Brotherhood.”[note 3] All members of the media, the scientific community, the banking system, and the religions and militaries of the world’s nations are mere foot-soldiers of the conspiracy. These stooges are in turn controlled by the usual suspects: the United Nations, the Bilderberg Group, the Trilateral Commission, the Illuminati, the Freemasons, the Council on Foreign Relations, the Rothschild family, the World Bank, etc. All of these groups are merely the puppets of “the global elite,” which are controlled by “the prison wardens.”
        Reptoids
        A self-portrait by David Icke.[citation NOT needed]
        I, for one, welcome our new reptilian overlords.
        “”In the very late 1800s, a controversial document came to light called the Protocols Of The Elders Of Zion. I call them the Illuminati Protocols and I quote many extracts from them in The Robots’ Rebellion.
        —David Icke, And the Truth Shall Set You Free.
        “”The whole senario [sic] was planned centuries ago because the reptilians, operating from the lower fourth dimension, and indeed whatever force controls them, have a very different version of “time” than we have, hence they can see and plan down the three-dimensional “time”-line in a way that those in three-dimensional form cannot.
        —David Icke[5]

        With the release of his book The Biggest Secret in 1999, Icke added the final layer on top of the pyramid of conspiracy: interdimensional shape-shifting lizard-people from a rift in the space-time continuum near the constellation Draco, often referred to as “reptilians” or “reptoids”. Partially ripping off Zecharia Sitchin, he claims these aliens are the Anunnaki and that they have interbred with humans throughout history. Much of the “evidence” of reptoids Icke’s worshipers put forth are pictures of world leaders with enlarged pupils or red eye — the everyday kind of red eye in which camera flashes illuminate retinas. This supposedly signifies that the reptoids have momentarily lapsed in their shape-shifting.

        Reasonable speculation about the source of his space-lizard theory may point to the 1970s British progressive rock album LizardWikipedia’s W.svg by King CrimsonWikipedia’s W.svg; the album features metaphorical references to lizards as politico-religious enemies of a “Prince Rupert” in the song “Lizard”. Ironically, King Crimson’s “lizards” seem to honor the Sabbath, promise Eden, and have a “sacred tablet”. The song also references British writer William Blake’s figure “Urizen”Wikipedia’s W.svg, Blake’s parody and criticism of the God of the Old Testament, which Blake viewed as simultaneously extremely tyrannical and misguidedly benevolent.[6] Another source may have been the 1980s TV series VWikipedia’s W.svg, which featured shape-shifting lizard aliens who took over Earth from within society.

        Some people have taken offense to Icke, claiming that “shape-shifting lizard-people” is a code word for “Jews”.[7] Icke claims that he is not anti-Semitic and that when he says “shape-shifting lizard-people,” he quite literally means lizards, saying to Ronson in 2001: “There is a tribe of people interbreeding, which do not relate to any Earth race … This is not a Jewish plot. This is not a plot on the world by Jewish people.”[8]

        He does believe the virulently antisemitic Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a true document, although he argues that it was not about Jews, because “Jew” (ironically, given the accusation of coded anti-Semitism) was supposedly a code word for actual lizards.[9]

        Although he hangs around with some rather fringe right-wing nutcases, he balances it all out by being just as insane a believer in New Age mumbo-jumbo. He also has been flirting with Holocaust denial,[10] but in Icke’s case it’s less likely a sign of anti-Semitism than yet another manifestation of all-round insanity.

        At this point, it shouldn’t be surprising that Icke hawks alt-med and every crank medical idea under the sun through his website and book store: Homeopathy, vitamin woo, vaccine denial, AIDS denial, water fluoridation, Big Pharma conspiracies, Global warming denial, etc. The man has Jupiter-scale crank magnetism, okay?

        Son of God

        Icke (right) with Terry Wogan in his famous 1991 interview that confirmed his crank status beyond a shadow of a doubt.
        “”They’re [the audience] laughing at you, they aren’t laughing with you.
        —Terry Wogan to Icke. [11]

        In 1991, on Terry Wogan’s TV chat show, in the middle of talking about football (the subject he was a guest on the show to talk about), Icke announced that he was “the son of God” and that Britain would be devastated by tidal waves and earthquakes (the UK isn’t seismically active[12]). He also began wearing all turquoise all the time which furthered claims he was either disturbed or perhaps a reptilian himself.[13] The interview propelled Icke from a minor celebrity to a household name and laughing stock of the UK. Not just Icke himself, but also his family were unable to appear in public without being ridiculed. His wife and children were considered “fair game” by some “journalists”; they would hover around his house peering into windows and follow his children to school,[14] proving once more that some journalists are bottom-feeding vultures. In 2006 Wogan admitted that he was “a bit sharp” during his 1991 interview and was “slightly embarrassed” by it.

        In 2012, he announced that the opening ceremony of the London 2012 games was a Satanic ritual designed to harness negative energy, and that “The Olympic Stadium is strategically placed on the earth-energy grid to tap into the immense London and British power centres and this is why Glastonbury Tor, one of the most significant earth-vortex points in the UK, is a centrepiece of the opening ceremony.”[15]
        Reality is a hologram

        If all of the above wasn’t crazy enough, Icke seems to have taken The Matrix literally (well, minus the parts with Keanu Reeves and robot overlords). He believes that much of reality is a holographic projection or sensory illusion being beamed down by our alien overlords from the moon, which is actually a space-station with a hollow interior. No, really… no, really.[16]
        Headgear
        See the main article on this topic: Aluminum foil hat

        David Icke, as well as his fans, are well known in popular culture for promoting the aluminum foil hat trend. This trend started as a way of keeping [insert evil conspiracy group here] from being able to read the mind of the person wearing the hat, but the trend has grown to be popular in some mental hospitals, as well as in certain American militia movement meeting places.[citation needed]
        Patriot movement

        Icke’s relationship with the Christian patriot movement in the United States is somewhat complex. The London Evening Standard wrote in 1995 that there were “uncanny parallels between Icke’s thoughts” and other mad ramblings “and the writings of senior figures in the armed militia movement in America”.[17] It has been alleged that while Icke is trying to court the right-wing to believe his crazy beliefs, his New Age voodoo quackery may actually be putting off supporters. He has also admired The Spotlight, published by the Liberty Lobby, as containing “excellent research” with a “long and proven level of accuracy”.[18]

        Although he fully believes that Christian patriots are the only Americans who know the truth about the NWO, he clearly views them as dogmatists who are nearly as rigid as their adversaries, saying: “I don’t know which I dislike more, the world controlled by the Brotherhood, or the one you want to replace it with.”[18] This has put him at odds with other conspiracy theorists such as Mark Dice and Alex Jones.

        Icke also encourages people to be skeptical of religious fundamentalism and religious organisations in general… but just not of his crazy ideas.[19] – snip

        Disheveled…. watch out the first step is right into a gravitational well of a black hole… spaghettification of cognitive processes ensues…

      • Skippy, I did take a quick look at Icke’s profile. Interesting man. I like that, didn’t put me off and doesn’t make him wrong on this. As I said, it all rang to true to me and seemed to congeal doubts, questions and private thoughts of mine into a coherent whole, I’m guessing he is close to the truth. We should all be concerned.

        Galileo was a heretic too.

      • “…intimidated into silence” or openly censored. We see this everywhere: views are expected or encouraged to conform with those of the ruling (Left) elite whether on Trump, SSM, Climate, economy, speech. Freedoms are being eroded and I worry Icke is right that withIn a decade much will be lost to the censored or manufactured consensus.

        LOL. Yes, “intimidated into silence”. That’s why only most of the highest-selling newspapers in the country publish anti-lefty articles nearly every day. Because such people have no platform.

        Good old Persecuted Conservative Syndrome. Where someone disagreeing with you is censorship and someone criticising you is oppression, but you sprouting lies and spreading hatred of others you don’t like is “robust debate”.

      • @drsmithy…

        Its that ideological warrior Hayekian paranoia made manifold by von newman and nash, then made even more vibrato by the old testament code… something about ideological doomsday prophecy demand pull and the mother ship not landing if the run way is not foamed accordingly to scripture…

        disheveled…. dawg will have a sad…

      • @Simone…

        Do you have a brain tumor, CHI or DAI or some other malady that might effect your mental state – ??????

        disheveled… did you miss the fascist bit…

      • Interesting, the suspected government-paid gaslighters have really gone to town on this. As I said, debate the video. I have questions over Icke’s bona fides and some of the stuff he says, but THIS video was pretty spot on. The fact you have to do a massive, panicked ad hominem really makes me question your motives. Do you guys have any other life beyond shutting down debate to the narrow confines? ‘me think the lady doth protest too much?” …..

        The ragdolling you’ve just handed out proves this videos point entirely.

      • Look at you two.

        I suppose evidence can be blithely brushed aside when it does not conform to your beliefs.

        disheveled… so Jim Jones and Heavens Gate….

      • Skip, deal with what he says, I can be persuaded, but not by saying he is a bad man therefore everything he says is wrong……..total non sequitur. Even loons can be right sometimes.

      • Fitz…

        I spent my time in tent revivals as a kid, then I grew up.

        Disheveled…. I think you might be served looking up how cold reading goes… along with the literary history behind crafting narratives…

      • Lighten up Skip, I am your friend really, I am here at work doing stuff I would prefer not to be doing. Lots of transcript and reading I assure you… I am on page 1074….. Chatting with you is a pleasant distraction.

      • Fitz…

        Giving oxygen to absurdity is akin to debating young earth creationists, that said, there are real consequences to agnotology.

      • If the subject is a flat earth or no climate change I agree, the path beaten by the nicotine purveyors is not one to follow. However,a view is either right or wrong, it matters not from whence it comes; you provide the sole subjective view, after all, it is your judgment that your correspondent wants, not that of a loon, nor of a sage. Making that error has consequences too.

        To take some examples from these pages,

        Pam Geller wrote this, ergo it is wrong…

        It was a Breibart article therefore it is wrong..

        It was a wikileak, therefore it is unreliable..

        Non sequiturs masked as reasons why the articles are wrong, not reasons at all, merely the applications of a prejudice.

      • The response here (skippy and drsmithy) seems to say to me:
        1. You’re either gaslighting; or
        2. You’ve been deeply brainwashed since birth and are suffering extreme cognitive dissonance and anger at comprehending uncomfortable realities (which is part of being an adult).
        Either way, I hope you get the help you need.
        Peace be with you 🙂

        As a final word, I cannot look myself in the mirror and call myself a man if I don’t fight evil when I see it. After hundreds/thousands of hours of alternative research I do believe society is under grave threat, far greater than most realise. The noose is tightening around humanity’s neck in a deceptively slow yet methodical pace.

      • “Without free speech no search for Truth is possible; without free speech no discovery of Truth is useful; without free speech progress is checked, and the nations no longer march forward towards the nobler life which the future holds for man. Better a thousandfold abuse of free speech than denial of free speech. The abuse dies in a day; the denial slays the life of the people and entombs the hope of the race.” Charles Bradlaugh,

        Back to work Fitzy.

      • No the – subject – is about a well known con man… and his target audience… and how that effects his bank account.

        Its reminiscent of the Friedman developer lobby congressional hearing on his fraudulent activities and a link I used to give. It was a libertarian site, one of the first comments was – paraphrasing here – but, the author did not refute Friedman’s arguments….

        That’s right kiddies this budding apparatchik completely ignores the most basic evidence i.e. Friedman taking money to write industry propaganda and instead focuses on the rebuttal of sophist arguments based on misinforming the unwashed – with forethought. I mean if your sunk mental costs are so profound, that the first instance does not bring into question everything else some conman says, then ones rationality is in serious question.

        Additionally some other apparatchik complained that how could one consider Friedman a libertarian if he did not ascribe to the gold standard – surreal stuff.

        disheveled…. sorta like old beardo over at NC, pro fiat, but managed like a gold standard, yet all his other views were austrian social mores. He reheated his core beliefs in different syntax, so many times, I think his head eventually imploded from the shear effort and inability to pull the wool over others eyes. Pathological comes to mind.

      • FItz….

        Free Speech is not a free for all, Mills categorized it, e.g. you have protected speech and non protected speech by law. Mills understood the ramifications of stuff like hate – violent speech. That’s why we have laws against starting riots et al.

      • I put to one side views that are not honestly held, such as astroturfing and talking a book and only an referring to views of genuine discourse

        Meanwhile we have laws against de facto blasphemy. No one cares about Piss Christ…
        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piss_Christ

        https://www.google.com.au/search?q=UN+blasphemy+laws&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&client=firefox-b&gfe_rd=cr&dcr=0&ei=khO1Wc66DIjr8wexgJ7ABQ

        and in Melbourne…

        http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/law-order/united-patriots-front-trio-claim-beheading-video-stunt-was-act-of-free-speech/news-story/af6e2ef331d46130112d6826d7fcc50a

        Sharia law applies. I wonder what the County Court judge thinks.

      • Relax Andrew, many of the people here are friends you haven’t met yet. I think Free speech is under attack at the moment and people are self censoring, often because of fascist fake left bullies such as ones seen outside the Magistrates Court. For your entertainment the latest Pat Condell warning about allegations of “Racist” and the importance of free speech and the criminal punishments that are now imposed on people without a first amendment in Europe as we speak.
        http://www.patcondell.net/europe-is-killing-itself/

      • Fitz…

        Some just can’t understand the categorical error of uplifting memes like “free speech” beyond what the original authors intended, which is compounded by the apparent group think being exhibited here by like minded commenters. Its as bad as the days gone by where people that have not read all of Adam Smiths, works yet feel competent to opine about it or accurately quote him in context. Instead its used in an ad-hoc bastardized manner to vindicate all kinds of socially corrosive and corrupt practices in propaganda memes pumped out by mobs like FEE et al.

        I mean the author of GDP publicly stated that its intended purpose was as a stand alone metric and not as some sort of holy grail all must kneel before. Yet some thought it was the holy grail or could be used as one in conditioning the unwashed.

        This is highlighted by how religion can be used to justify – anything – by those with the knowlage, but, just as a means to an end and not some higher purpose or have we forgotten the Bush years already.

        Disheveled…. FFS we started talking about a conman and end up wanking on about free speech…. groan….

      • The response here (skippy and drsmithy) seems to say to me: […]

        From the guy complaining about people playing the man and not the ball. Nicely done.

        The noose is tightening around humanity’s neck in a deceptively slow yet methodical pace.

        Meanwhile, here you are worrying about poofters getting married.

      • Not just Smith.

        IT is not to be thought of that the flood
        Of British freedom, which, to the open sea
        Of the world’s praise, from dark antiquity
        Hath flowed, ‘with pomp of waters, unwithstood,’
        Roused though it be full often to a mood 5
        Which spurns the check of salutary bands,
        That this most famous Stream in bogs and sands
        Should perish; and to evil and to good
        Be lost for ever. In our halls is hung
        Armoury of the invincible knights of old: 10
        We must be free or die, who speak the tongue
        That Shakespeare spoke: the faith and morals hold
        Which Milton held.—In everything we are sprung
        Of Earth’s first blood, have titles manifold.

        Think of Paine and Erskine.

        This is being lost as we speak Skip.

      • Then watch the pat condell video that I have posted. He will not be your cup of tea but he goes through the people who are in gaol at the moment in Europe for speaking their minds.

      • Many a true word said in jest Skip. He has 300,000+ subscribers and his videos can have millions of views.

    • Jake GittesMEMBER

      The reason the MSM wouldn’t cover it is that is is garbage: it is fallacious and simplistic and to gain a job in a reputable media business, there are tests on logical thinking and how to use language. This fringe material and risible pseudo analysis appeals to a poorly educated cohort who are easily suggestible by such material because it feeds into a preexisting set of inchoate notions they have about the structure and function of power in society. It represents a voice in which they have a certain key to knowledge which no one else does. This type of material, and its appeal to the mentally and socially challenged, typically from lower social status groups, has been studied for decades by academics of every hue as it feeds into the political dynamic and it is also nearly impossible to correct because it depends on faith and not the forms of logic and analytical thinking which the audience which absorbs this material can comprehend.

  15. The energy cost of energy is killing us and all the playing for time by central banks is making things worse…… most of the low hanging fruit is already gone.

    https://surplusenergyeconomics.wordpress.com/2017/09/05/104-why-mr-trump-cant-raise-american-prosperity/

    This is what it looks like from us peon’s point of view.

    https://realinvestmentadvice.com/consumer-credit-the-american-conundrum/

    Command and control economies look like being the norm when we realise we should have kept that crude oil for important things… not driving to work.

  16. http://www.abc.net.au/news/2017-09-10/nsw-local-council-election-results/8889752

    Mr Ruddock, 74, said he would take a different approach to the job.

    “We’ve been faced with significant development pressures, and one of the reasons that I’ve sought to come back is that I hope on those matters, which do impact on the amenity of our local community and which people want to see a different approach, that I will be able to press on those matters,” he said.

    Means, they can fuck off out west.

    • The Traveling Wilbur

      Not quite the right question. Given we’ve just heard so much about how this argument is all to do with family, and procreation is put forward as the purpose for that – and on top of that we now have the ‘marriage is the way that’s done in societies’ *crap*, the right question is, so now you have to be married to have kids?

      Jesus. Hello? The 1950s called. They’ve got this really good deal on a BW TV (and condoms).

      • […] so now you have to be married to have kids?

        Not just that, but the other conclusions that must go hand in hand with the “marriage is about child rearing” meme:
        * marriages that do not produce children in a reasonable timeframe (say, a couple of years) should be annulled
        * marriages where one participant is found infertile should be annulled (no cheating with surrogacy or donor eggs/sperm, either)
        * marriage not allowed between people incapable of conceiving (eg: women past menopause)

  17. Here’s some food for thought on the topic of rights within states.
    https://aeon.co/essays/the-modern-state-not-ideas-brought-about-religious-freedom

    If we look at he SSM topic it would seem that, using ideas from the above article, we currently have identity rules in regard to the rights of people who want to marry a member of the same sex. Not only does this discriminate in its most basic sense (if you don’t think so, imagine a rule saying that people with blue eyes can’t marry each other, or pick some other physical marker) but it is also very inefficient in a bureaucratic sense as separating people into groups in order to police them requires much more work.

    • KJU weighed up either ensuring he has enough Bolly, caviar, coke and a rent-a-crowd to shower him in anything he wants versus the costs of the launch (and the fact he couldn’t re-use his only missile). I guess coke won out.

      • http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-09-09/china-warns-trump-we-will-back-north-korea-if-us-strikes-first

        I see your point but still “NK has been begging for war” comments have certainly made the fatboy to accelerate the production. Keep in mind he only needs 10 ICBMs which makes it possible for 2 to hit the target and make it unfeasible for US to attack.
        I am not saying NK has the technology to deliver such payload all the way to US but who can be sure? NK can certainly hit SK and Japan. Also they have lot of submarines and no one knows for sure if they also posses technology to fire nuclear missiles from under water. I really lost all confidence that US can shadow all NK subs considering they can’t fckn see a tanker right in front of their eyes.

        But link above is probably a message to NK not to escalate as now China guarantees KJU’s survival. However, if China wants to extract more (south china sea) from US and is prepared to risk war (trade or military) then China may still encourage Kim to fire.

      • The Traveling Wilbur

        It’s good to know that irrespective of whomever gets elected there is at least some certainty in Australian politics, surely?

        Build more bike paths, that will cut teh rates!

    • TailorTrashMEMBER

      “Foreign, non-resident homebuyers would be shut out of the housing market by Christmas through an urgent law change – a move which National says will breach New Zealand’s free trade agreements.”

      Free trade …..You buy our cheap plastic shit and we buy your houses ………gotta love free trade agreements …….( so good for so few at the expense of so many ) …… was that Churchill or Keys or Robb who said that ?……( OK ….maybe iron ore and milk powder too )

    • Anything about the plaza accord and EMH wrt capital allocation removing the traditional credit distribution wrt banks market share therefore incentivizing them to go into “innovative” C/RE vehicles et al….

      Disheveled…. all topped off with arguments about efficiency of scale allowing TBTF… own goal thingy…

      • For some reason humans are losing skills miggie… writing being one of the oldest and fundamental to knowlage…

      • The Traveling Wilbur

        @skip

        Bollocks. Writing is the process of an individual or system recording information to be read later by self or others. Never before in human history has this happened more than now. Seen Facebook, Twitter, Reddit recently mate? Or are printed books not ‘writing’ either?

      • TTW….

        Need to support your drama with the independent, its not like its foxnewbs, slims rag, Bozos, et al.

        Your equivocation about social media is noted.

    • The Traveling Wilbur

      skip… I’m disappointed and a little concerned. The Independent? Really?

      By way of example, the comments on that article make this place look like Mensa.

Leave a reply

You must be logged in to post a comment. Log in now