Weekend Reading: 24-25 November 2018

Global Macro / Markets / Investing:







Unconventional Economist
Latest posts by Unconventional Economist (see all)


  1. Shall we all have a listen to the Beatles white album reissue, and report back in about 18 hours?

    As a spoiler, I think this is one of the greatest pieces of art of the 20th century (and my favourite singer is Bon Scott).

  2. Fvck me! The Wh!te Album!!!!

    Your comment is awaiting moderation.

    Shall we all have a listen to the Beatles wh!te album reissue, and report back in about 18 hours?

    As a spoiler, I think this is one of the greatest pieces of art of the 20th century (and my favourite singer is Bon Scott).

      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        Congratulations Stag. Now get the hell out of there and give Richard Pratt a run for his money, or better still use those qualifications to get a job or start your own business or just have a working Holiday or, or ,or. any damn thing just get out.

    • you are smarter than 99.9% of the graduates we hire.. I think you’ll be fine – Especially if you are willing to move out of Dubbo if jobs are scarce there.

    • The Traveling Wilbur

      Apply that same discipline to your chosen career / first job? This is Australia after all.

      (well done btw, and it’s like you used me as a role model, but got better grades)

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      Speaking of lazy academic efforts, I remember my School certificate English report card verbatim.

      “It is very hard to assess Mr Gxxxxxs English abilities as he has handed in Zero work for the entire year.
      He is however an avid reader, though never of the class novel.”

      Mr Lacey liked me and we spent much time discussing James Clavell novels, he prefered Tai Pan to Shogun though I thought Shogun was the better book,…we both agreed King Rat was a bit Shite. He got me reading Nobel House in spite of me going through a Bit of a Japanese phase by the end of the year.
      I would often read all these non curriculum books during English class,…in retrospect I wish he had kicked me up the arse a bit and not been such a pushover,…but the only person to blame for my E in english is Me,…or is it Myself,…or I? Anyway,…You know what I mean.

      Edit – halfway through year 10, I scored a job at Kentucky Fried Chicken, none of that BS calling themselves KFC back then and my manager used to sell us school kids “foils” (Cannabis rapped in aluminum foil) and I don’t think I attended one after lunch double english period not stoned for that last half of the year.
      Ya could tell Mr Lacey used to mull up quite often as well,…in fact he appeared to be permanently stoned.

    • Good marks! Well done!

      First thing you should do is put on your resume that you have completed year 12 – even if you have not.

      I would hate for you to be rejected in favour of a 3rd world passport holder who “finished year 12” in some nondescript school in some nondescript village in the 3rd world.

      What is with all the different campuses? B, D, B, W?

      • Looks like he did only 1 subject at Dubbo campus. It does not make sense. Did he study a subject in one town on Monday and another subject in another town on Wednesday and another subject in another town on Friday?

      • nah it was all distance jacob, the campus is just where the lecturer who is marking your stuff is based. the dubbo campus is only one library and offers like 2 physical courses, nursing and teaching.

    • Nice work stag. Looks like you don’t mind a bit of marketing. Now you can market some things online (enlarg3ment p!lls, teeth wh!tening kits, pet clothes etc.) Start raking in the dough and move to a country with better women and not stupidly expensive (perhaps Eastern Europe, South America?) and live like a king. I gave up paying 1000% – 1500% more for a pint of beer that can be enjoyed in much better places.

    • Dude… two things:
      1). lose the defeatist attitude. You graduated. YOU GRADUATED! It’s over!
      2). congrats on the effort. You may have felt it was below what you can do, but it’s done. Lose the “I didn’t even try”. Why start demolishing what you’ve achieved?
      3). You need to get going from Dubbo. Pack your sh*t and go, or, sit down with yourself and make some plans where you wanna be, and then go.
      4). There is no 4.
      5). Don’t TonyAbbott (whíte-ant) yourself. Stand strong and tell everyone to go f*ck themselves.

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        Especially number 5. Make your own road. Appeasement is for Neville Chamberlain and look what happened to him. A dingo took his baby, that’s what.

      • Yep, Ino’s advice is sound.

        I’d add that it is a long game so there is no need to rush and achieve everything tomorrow.

    • Good-on-ya-mate I still remember when I got my Bachelors and thought my days of schooling had come to an end ….How wrong was I, several degrees later and I’m still learning, That’s modern day life education is no longer an event rather it’s a continuous process. Now get out there leverage what you’ve learned, turn that sheet of paper into an income stream and invest the proceeds in yourself. Investing wisely in ourselves is the greatest investment that any young man (or woman) can possibly make.
      The world is full of opportunities, so get out there and take what’s yours, because you’ve earned it

    • maybe a masters in IndigCultHistContRealities? You’d have to find an institution that would be willing to take your money tho.

    • You’re a member here and yet you only got a credit for Business Economics… ? LOL.. Not enough Neoliberalism here maybe?

    • Find a good interesting hobby. I’ve bought lots of cheapish second-hand books to support mine. That needs book shelves and some place to keep book shelves unfortunately.

      Other hobbies don’t need all that though.
      The hobbies make you proficient in things you might enjoy in a job.

    • Congrats!! Make a 2 sided list, what you enjoy doing, and what you dislike, distill, then review what jobs available that have a tick on your enjoy side.
      Working , doing something that you like/love , makes it a breeze, and cause your happy, your fellow workers will love working with you…Sounds easy, but it might take a few false starts to work it out..this is all part of it…enjoy it as it rolls along..

    • A bit late to the party, but onya mate.My degree was one of the hardest things I’ve ever done, and I’ve raised three children to adulthood.

      I hope further success is to come

  3. 11 Nov 2018

    100 year old woman thinks Angela Merkel is married to the President of France:


    11 May 2016

    Less than 100 year old woman in NSW train knows not who the PM of AUS is.

    Before 7 Sep 2013

    Truck driver thinks Tony Abbott is the PM


    Far out! Most people are stupid!

    • boomengineeringMEMBER

      And the politicians more stupid so that leaves a handful who are too small in number to do much about things.Yes noticed that many years ago when all the commercial TV stations had same show plot, bad guy does something bad, good guy seeks revenge, gun shots, one wheel car ramps everywhere to enable car roll overs.
      Analyzing this the advertisers want maximum exposure so the most popular shows have to be put on, being the mindless ones. This in turn indicated that the majority of people are as per. Junk food for your brain exacerbating it all in a downward spiral.

      • Hey BE no riding today, but on it tomorrow. I did the US trip and the hills around Austin are great training. The drivers there are very respectful and we had no incidents, but Melbourne have multiple each ride usually. Cycling in Lances town is pretty popular and they also have battery scooters which work really well in the CBD. In Melb there is a push for them but it’ll never happen in Nanny Melb IMO. We had a coffee at Lances coffee shop ‘juan pelota’ translated ‘one ball’ so he has a sense of humour. The bikes there are way more expensive than here which surprised me, bit at other shops you can get a much better deal. My cassette was 11-34 so even on 20% climbs it was no problem unless you wanted to smash it. I even went to a college NFL game which was fantastic. I’d been to plenty of baseball games when I lived there, but was impressed, but don’t buy the t-shits USD 65 ouch. I could live there easily with the cycling and really good food which is not the norm for the US. The coffee is getting better, but you can still run across that brewed toxic stuff.

        Have a look at this CNC vid. I’m looking around at how to get into it in a small way to start with.


      • boomengineeringMEMBER

        On the road Mrs driving.
        My cycling mate shaved 1min off his last year time at the Canberra triathlon last week.
        I thought you were going to States permanently, glad you’re back. Read your attachment later. Good luck.

    • That’s a long and coherent piece, Skip, MMT disguised as though Bernie and the Donald actually agree about something. Getup’s sponsoring her? Amazed that ABC is printing such lies anyway /s

    • Abc really pushing MMT hard lately, I wonder who’s decision

      Also heavily promoting Stephanie kelton
      Even though she’s just the student of Wray, and we have our own Prof Mitchell

      I guess she is a woman though, so the men are irrelevant now

      If you lack the ability to express yourself in a public blog, on economic and political issues, from behind a non-identifying name, without referring to the ‘fvckability’ of someone, then you obviously have acceptance of self and others issues which would limit any contribution you could conceivably make and should possibly post your thoughts somewhere else – maybe there is a blog for men with little cojones where adolescent boy thinking fits in just nice. For all your spam management queries by all means contact [email protected]

      • The Traveling Wilbur

        In case anyone’s confused, spambot is basing his argument and consequent advice on the proposition that MB isn’t a blog spot for juvenile men (and women) to post about matters non-economic, financial and governmental.

        While I’m not sure that’s even close to being correct, that inherent logic fallacy doesn’t actually detract from the point being made. Just have a little ‘suspension of disbelief’ with your afternoon coffee. She’ll be right.

    • Does it ever bother you footsore that the Chicago School was a major proponent of a UBI, not to mention the term Universal basic income is a misnomer when all the other considerations attached to it are reconciled. It is basically a free market approach premised on atomistic individualism.

      Lest we forget Milton’s concerns about reducing democratic rights to hedge concerns about people voting for more money.

      • Nope. They have one take under one set of circumstances. It isn’t necessary that their implementation be executed.

        UBI has advocates from across the spectrum. The Chicago School is not the definitive take. Like all ideas it would not be implemented in a perfect fashion. Nothing is and Utopias do not exist. That does not mean that a good version, that is one where social services still exist and the UBI is not a token system, should not be looked at as a potential solution to poverty and insecurity.

      • I think the left or the progressive proponents mix up the original authors intent do to lack of information and become befuddled by wrapping a UBI in a human rights framework – that the original authors did not intend. It still does not factor in a plethora of issues which imo the original authors used to formulate their advocacy for such an agenda e.g. non of which has even the slightest left or progressive aspect to it i.e. permanent underclass, excuse to remove more targeted government social programs, more corporate largess in lieu of subsidies like food stamps, social security, medicare or its ilk.

        I just find it curious that UBI proponents are unconcerned about the corporatist free market underpinnings that the UBI has.

    • I’ll confess I only skimmed it (not a lot of free time during the day, will try and reread later), but these would appear to be the four points:
      1. How can we afford such a scheme?
      2. Why should I give my money to people for them to do nothing in return?
      3. Why would anyone work if they were given money for free?
      4. Why should we give money to the rich, who don’t need it?

      Of them I’d argue only #4 isn’t already raised – and answered – regularly with regards to to welfare in general, so in reality there only really seems to be one “new question” there, and it can be answered in a single word: taxation.

      Further, they don’t really address the significant problems with a UBI, which are:
      * UBI not only does nothing to address the ongoing privatisation and financialisation of everything, it supports and reinforces it.
      * UBI doesn’t help unemployment
      * UBI doesn’t help to get jobs done that need to be done, but aren’t profitable (or aren’t profitable enough).

      But that is probably because the writer believes that markets always work and a UBI is a market-based concept. Consequently, it won’t do anything to address the negative effects we are experiencing from an increasing focus on deriving market-based “solutions”, and will almost certainly create a feedback loop that makes them worse. It is, basically, massively subsidising private industry via a proxy.

      • Those concerns are raised, with answers offered, by the more serious and thoughtful advocates I’ve read. No one who is serious about the idea thinks it is a magic bullet that can be introduced and think that the problems of the world will disappear. It would need to be introduced as part of broader reforms that also deal with problems such as financialisation and privatisation.

        Here’s one of the better introductions.

        The small scale trials run in India and America have shown net benefits to the community. Lower crime, people opting to spend more time with their families, greater mental and physical health (therefore lower healthcare costs), and the ability to walk away from exploitative employment and unhealthy relationships. I can’t recall reading anything specific on unemployment. I’m sure someone like Guy Standing has covered the topic.

        He does note that workforce participation and entrepreneurial activities increased in India due to many gaining independence. Especially the very poor and females. It’s hard to say whether that would transfer to a country like Australia.

        Guy Standing has written what is currently the definitive primer.

        Standing is very evangelical and unapologetically Left, which can grate. However, he is the authority on the topic and has done the research. He also has the best breakdown of class I’ve seen in that it seems to represent the world as it is. He includes contractors and the underemployed (the Precariat) and doesn’t just simplify to workers and capitalists. On top of that he strongly believes that rentseeking is a fundamental problem that needs to be dealt with. Especially the abuse of patents.

        There is also a lot of Silicon Valley themed UBI getting press. It tends to be of a libertarian bent and I can’t see it as being more than a band-aid that helps the advocates sleep better at night. Perhaps that is a tad mean but I find it hard to take groups that live in a society and deny its existence or influence on their lives hard to take seriously. They’re just as nonsensical as the hard left, in my humble opinion.

        I realise that the above is a broad non-answer. In part because I don’t know them, so I tried to add sources, but also because I don’t think that it really appreciated how broad a term like UBI is. The flavour and the political economic environment it is introduced into would heavily influence its chances of being good or bad.

      • UBI doesn’t help to get jobs done that need to be done

        The opposite is true. Mothers do a lot of unpaid work that needs to be done and then beg their husbands for money. You may claim that the husband will somehow grab the money from her but in Bangladesh, welfare is given to the mother because the mother is more likely to spend it on her kids.

        At the very least, it would be telling bullies that mothers are valued by government.

        If you think all private firms are bad and everything should be nationalised, fly in Air Koryo or Air India. Maybe even visit Venezuela or India and look at the government-owned firms.

        “job guarantee” = government determining what work is important. UBI = recipients deciding what work is important. YouTubers would be able to review cars without fear – UBI would guarantee them A$18k/year – and they need not say what the car factories want. Choice magazine on steroids. People would be able to look for missing kids on a full time basis, etc.

        Sam Altman wants UBI because poverty is terrible for innovation. James Dyson bet his house on the bagless vacuum cleaner but most people will not take that risk because there is no UBI to fall back on.

    • UBI should be reserved for those clinically unable to produce anything: the drug addicts, the delinquents, the brain damaged, the feeble-minded.

      It should be associated with sterilisation, the elimination of voting rights, and inability to receive advanced medical treatment for those on it. It can be introduced in coordination with an elimination of the dole, alongside a substantial reduction in payroll and income taxes.

      It should obviously be associated with a withdrawal from the convention for refugees and a zero-ing of the refugee intake, since the scheme will serve as a massive drawcard for millions of third-worlders.

      • Hmmm it appears that Eugenics is alive and well and searching for another platform to springboard it into the mainstream. I hate the idea of UBI because I suspect it’d provide the foundations for mainstreaming of these ideas.
        Quick, quick scurry back under your rock before the light of reasoned thought discovers giant loop holes in your perfect plan for a perfect humanity. .

      • Now that is more inline with the original authors views on the broader implications wrt a UBI. Great sales gimmic to dress it up as a basic human right and then blammo…. once its in the concern signaling begins about all the other stuff kept off the table at onset.

  4. “… if you’re trying to build a company that can remain in business for fifty or one hundred years, you should do exactly the opposite. Recent academic research suggests that the way to build a truly successful company—one that outcompetes its rivals, turns a profit, and remains in business—is to treat your employees extremely well.

    In a study of low-cost retailers, Zeynep Ton, a professor at the MIT Sloan School of Management, found that the most successful companies were not the ones who cut labor costs to the bone. The best companies “invest heavily in their employees. They view their workforce as a valuable asset to be enhanced, not as a big, scary expense to be kept under tight control,” Ton writes in The Good Jobs Strategy, a book that explains her research into model companies like Costco, Starbucks, UPS, and Toyota. In her research, Ton found that the winning companies paid more than their rivals. They also overstaffed, hiring more people than they needed, so that they would create a little slack in the system.”


    Who’d have thunk it?

    • Always thought the focus on shareholder, customer, employee – was back to front. Used to argue as such during MBA debates

      Go into any small business. You can tell if the staff have a good boss. Low turnover is the reveal

    • How many of those companies are publically listed? I’ll bet they are all privately held or employee owned. The stock market is a cruel cruel master.

  5. Enlightenment without end:
    If we no longer seek virtue and salvation, we should blame the triumvirate of Machiavelli, Hobbes and Adam Smith.


    “According to David Wootton, we are living in a world created by an intellectual revolution initiated by three thinkers in the 16th to 18th centuries. “My title is, Power, Pleasure and Profit, in that order, because power was conceptualised first, in the 16th century, by Niccolò Machiavelli; in the 17th century Hobbes radically revised the concepts of pleasure and happiness; and the way in which profit works in the economy was first adequately theorised in the 18th century by Adam Smith.” Before these thinkers, life had been based on the idea of a summum bonum – an all-encompassing goal of human life. Christianity identified it with salvation, Greco-Roman philosophy with a condition in which happiness and virtue were one and the same. For both, human life was complete when the supreme good was achieved.

    But for those who live in the world made by Machiavelli, Hobbes and Smith, there is no supreme good. Rather than salvation or virtue they want power, pleasure and profit – and they want them all without measure, limitlessly.”

    • And it’s been downhill since.

      Which explains why the Australian elite thinks noblesse oblige is a new dessert at bistro Guillaume.

      • Another aspect of big data is about attempting near time – time travel, but hay, never mind the the rubbish input and the model beguiling its worshipers due to investment of time and money and making some pay master happy….

        Were all just rational agents in a dynamic stochastic general equilibrium matrix… tis reality…. the code is goats law…. everyone and thing else is deviant….

    • I think the issue revolves around the length of individual rights as an incentive to recoup initial costs and a bit of profit, contra the propertarain view of in perpetuity, albeit it gets convoluted when discussing artists works.

  6. Should have got yourself a bargain yesterday………or wait another year………many of these units are really worth zero in a lot of circumstances


    This is sort of my idea as well…….after we do the usual debt write-offs and raw printing to fill in all the financial holes around the place shares may not be very attractive for quite a while


  7. ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

    Ive wasted a lot of time watching “inside the cheftains hatch” on Youtube, I think I like his anecdotes from being an Abrahams tank comander in Iraq as much as the content in some episodes,….and his speach impediment/irish accent.
    This episode is one of my favorites on the Australian built Sentinel tank.
    A bit of a shitter it was nonetheless designed and built here in the 1940s, and yet today we cant even Build our own fking police cars or trains.

    • The Chieftan is great…I love his work. And that bow mounted MG on the Aussie Sentinel may be the funniest weapon ever made…designed to give the enemy a good Rogering!

    • https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Joseph_Watson

      I think you have a concerning propensity to be attracted to those that are a little less than rigorous in their world view and its correlation with their day job and how that translates to a pay day mate. I mean you could watch Century of the Self and just see how easy it is to craft the narrative and the next thing some think its truth or worse always was.

      Have you forgotten all the chats with mig-i and the use of high powered psychology in advertising starting with branding in ages as young as 3 to 5 years old. So by the time an individual grows up to a young adult they don’t even question how their preferences have been established.

      Its the candy everyone wants…..



      • Why don’t they all get an actual job and try capitalism rather than bleat on about how capitalism is under attack by spurious ev’bal forces and then expect to get payed for their wonky conjecture.

  8. Vintage footage from 1962 on the redacted Australia policy.

    I can’t imagine some the folks here who fought against the Japanese would be too keen on Asian immigration. So although in 2018 these policies seem quite jarring, I can almost understand the sentiment.

    • I don’t imagine the Germans were too popular in the ’50s and ’60s either, but I’m sure our local redacted nationalists would be fine with them as immigrants today.

    • What smithy said…. heaps of people did the whole war is a racket on meth in WWII after Japan was being ring fenced and then lost the plot after they did the 80s international asset buying spree…. then got its nuts chopped off with Plaza.

    • It’s jarring if you remove the time/evolution element.
      When I were a very young lad I occasionally heard bitterness from directly affected people, probably more from their battered wives & alienated friends – against the Germans too. But if Change is Slow enough for people to cope with their own feelings & understand each other, they turn around just like Walt Kowalski (& our policy). I’ve seen that too! Culture has fluidity…… & fragmentation if viscosity is pushed beyond sensible? Perhaps just like some MB charts, it’s the pace of change(s) that can make things less palatable not always the change itself.

      • I agree a big part of it is the pace of change. It takes time for people to accept change, perhaps too slow for some but the same thing is happening now around gender fluidity. Many people accept homosexuals, but can’t accept the whole gender bender stuff, eg Kaylyn Jenner etc.. not a real woman and all that. Perhaps in 20-30 years we will have a different attitude to these things and perhaps science will better help us understand what’s going on inside the brain etc..

      • Saw the Queen Bohemian Rhapsody movie tonight.
        A few [email protected] kisses and stuff in that.
        Was quite moving the whole flick and the theatre was 3/4 full to the end despite having been on for 3 weeks.
        How times have changed.

      • Watched it this arvo. I’ve only seen the cinema packed when a new Starwars flick comes out & now this, but more boomers for this one. Touching movie! I remember the old man liking them till he saw “I want to break free” on countdown, & then just disgust! Might get the bourbon out & crank Freddy up…….

    • ‘I can’t imagine some the folks here who fought against the Japanese would be too keen on Asian immigration. ‘

      Don’t see why not – over a long period, our Asian immigrants have been far more likely to come from an Asian country either occupied by or fighting against Japan during WWII (the ones we were fighting for) than Japan itself.

      • Mid 80’s plain vanilla redacted bread GC also the Japanese property boom & wh!te shoe brigade. A scrawny Yank/Mexican mate was surfing & everyone was getting out of the water because of a shark sighting. He kept on catching waves as he hadn’t dropped something was up & no one gave him the wave in. A while later he came in & asked what was going on & they told him BFO Shark. He blew up ‘why didn’t someone tell me?” & they all answered “We thought you were a Jap”!

  9. Core Logic Index for Melbourne is really piling it on lately. A nice .10 today. The great thing about that number is the ease of annualising it.

    • Just goes to show that we have the technology to substantially reduce carbon emissions. Electric cars, solar power, wind power, batteries. Its all available. If we had the political will we could produce all of those things on a massive scale.

      For starters, complete bans on ICE passenger vehicles could easily start in 2025, not 2035 or 2040.

    • Looking forward to seeing it in the flesh. However, Tesla have a few years head start on the charging network and that will keep them in the game for a while yet.

      • For starters the Major OEM vehicle mfg have decades of institutional grunt and networks which means when they go EV for market share its game over for Musk. Car wise he would have been better off and investors with developing the niche market he started off with and not go on some green washing investor PR to launch an IPO payday or provided liquidity to other projects.

      • It did always seem to me it would be easier to take decades of experience building cars and change the drivetrain, than build high quality cars from scratch that just happened to be electric.

        It took the Koreans 30 years (or thereabouts) to start building decent cars. Who remembers the ”80s and 90s Hyundai Excel ?

        Despite some of the niggles of Tesla vehicles, they are staggeringly good in context. I’d be surprised if they can’t carve out a niche. But it’ll be nearly impossible long term to fight against behemoths like BWM, VAG, Ford and the General.

      • drSmithy, it did not take Hyundai 30 years to make good cars. Hyundai simply focused on quantity instead of quality but changed direction at the start of the 21st century when the son of the founder became the boss. i30 of 2007 was the turning point.

        Land Rover made the Defender without airbags for 70 years! While simultaneously making the Land Rover Range Rover Sport. If I look at the parent firm’s website, I can see a Tata Sumo and the specifications say “Salisbury type beam rear axles with parabolic leaf springs and antiroll bar”!

        Leaf springs!

      • Yeah Hyundai were a rolling chassis manufacturer for the late 90s Excel, dropping a Mitsubishi power plant to make the thing move. Wonder if Kia still doing this.

  10. Oxford Union invites a range of speakers to address them.

    Last week they had Steven Bannon who in part of the speech contrasts the idea of enhacing shareholder value v enhancing citizenship value.

    Economic globalism v economic nationalism.

    Given the rising resistance to economic globalism – whether left wing globalism or right wing globalism – from the likes of Bernie Sanders or the likes of Steven Bannon are we seeing the beginning of the end of economic globalism or is this just the last hurrah of the national state and self determination?

    And could someone tell the ALP that is something they may want to give some thought to.

    Or have they already decided?


    Full range of trigger warnings are formally given so take care.

    From about 10 minutes you can hear the…… economic globalists?……. outside chanting.

    • Posting this again. Bernie Sanders is a Nationalist, is America First. It is called Representative Democracy.

      4 minute video. Note the Fake Left interviewer’s reaction

      It is what Steve Bannon has been saying. i.e. populism will win. It is not about left or right, it is about destroying Corporatism and Chronyism, and restoring democracy.

      PS: I have watched the Oxford video. Worth watching.

      • Freddy,

        Good video. Sanders and Bannon are on the same page.

        Interesting how the reporter seemed unable to comprehend that the nation state could be compatible with a concern for living conditions in other countries.

        The crackpot left genuinely think that open borders is a better solution.

        And look shocked when someone points out that is what economic globalists want.

      • Good video. Sanders and Bannon are on the same page.

        I think it would be fairer to say that their respective books have a couple of similar sentences.

        I’m sceptical Bannon believes in any sort of moral responsibility to help the less fortunate outside of a fairly narrow definition of people on the “good guys” list – and that’s just within the US. I imagine his idea of “foreign aid” is an assassination squad.

      • So am I to assume some are starting to side with Bill Mitchell and the premise of his book? Because that would mean having to reconcile the foundations that support it due to monetary concerns.

      • Drsmithy,

        Scepticism is always warranted and you are entitled to your imagination but at least he is prepared to speak to the other side (not just Oxford he has been popping up everywhere) and take their questions. At least he is not hanging around Skynews receiving group hugs.

        In Australia we are barely having the debate that Sanders and Bannon are driving.

        Was there anything in the video that he said that you took exception to?

        Or do you just think he is lying with regard to the views he stated?

      • I will endeavour to watch the video later tonight.

        If there are any lies, I would expect them to be lies of omission.

        I doubt Bernie finds much common ground with Breitbart.

      • I’m 3 minutes in and Barack Obama just got called the most progressive president in the history of the country.

        My wife asked me what I was laughing at.

        5 minutes in. Attributing economic trends that have been running for 5+ years to Trump. More LOLs.

      • I hate watching these sorts of YouTube videos, PFH, but just for you I sat through the whole thing.

        My assessment is that he’s disingenuous but very credible. Which is precisely why he’s an extremely dangerous individual.

        Further to the above:

        He has a fair point that Fascism is where the US is heading. I laugh at any suggestion that Trump will even slow this down or that he has any desire to (and similarly that he has any interest in supporting workers).

        Running the timeline for his growth comparison from end of WW2 to 1999, then 1999 to the present, reeks of cherry picking (but I’ll admit I haven’t checked the numbers).

        The yanks have been imperialists for rather a while so it’s a bit rich him trying to pretend that’s only happened in the last few decades. That said, he has a fair point about it being a problem (though doesn’t seem to have any problem with the US imposing on China, so… an opinion of convenience).

        At 21:30ish. Blaming the “leviathan” on the “progressives” ? Methinks “progressives” here is being used as a standin for “boogeyman”.

        Given Breitbart I find his dismissal of “ethno-nationalism” as incredibly disingenuous.

        Again at 35:00ish, he boasts about “historic” low black and hispanic unemployment. But even a cursory check shows that this is just riding a trend that started ca. 2011 (ie: 2 years into Obama).

        At 45:00ish he claims (responding to a good questioner) “90% of Breitbart is about going after establishment Republicans”. So I went to Breitbart and opened literally the first ten articles I saw. Not one of them would qualify as “going after establishment Republicans” (and two of them were about Hillary Clinton). So I’d have to class that one as “pants on fire”.

        He goes on to talk about “supporting [whoever] 100%” (can’t remember exactly who it was and am not familiar with the example, but that’s not really important), but then going on to say he doesn’t agree with everything that person (or even he himself) says. This is a comically open-to-interpretation statement that can be (and is obviously intended to be) taken to mean whatever the listener wants it to mean *but he concurrently criticises the questioner for doing exactly that because he does so in a negative sense*.

        He uses “meritocracy” near the end. There’s no way anyone as politically savvy as that doesn’t know the double-sided meaning of that word. Everyone should be very wary of anyone like that using the word “meritocracy”.

      • drsmithy,

        The point made about Obama was legitimate. He was seen as a huge progressive step forward being the first black president and having campaigned on hope and change. That he failed to deliver is the point you and Bannon are both making.

        As for who is responsible for economic performance, that is a discussion without end. However, Trumps deficit blowing has been described as MMT and the meaning of that is clear. He is using fiscal policy to run the economy hot.

        You seem to be arguing that he is not running a big fiscal deficit and running a near full employment economy hot.

        If you are simply saying that Bannon should not be claiming ALL of the economic glory for Trump well that is fair enough but it sounded like you were saying more than that.

      • The point made about Obama was legitimate. He was seen as a huge progressive step forward being the first black president and having campaigned on hope and change. That he failed to deliver is the point you and Bannon are both making.

        Come on, mate. He’s making a retrospective assessment two years after Obama’s two terms in office, and you’re trying to argue he’s describing how Obama’s initial election was perceived ?

        Bannon is most certainly not trying to suggest Obama was a “progressive” icon. He is trying to suggest Obama was a “progressive” president and as such was part of the problem. This is made quite clear from his later attempt to blame the “leviathan” on “progressives”.

        As for who is responsible for economic performance, that is a discussion without end.

        I think you might need to borrow Haroldus’s mouse. The trend starts seven years ago and Trump has been part of the system for barely two years (and from memory, the trend is starting to flatten out the last 12 months or so). I’d say we can, with some confidence, state he has had at best very little influence on it.

        You seem to be arguing that he is not running a big fiscal deficit and running a near full employment economy hot.

        I am arguing that Bannon is riding on the coat-tails of someone else riding on the coat-tails of someone else, while trying to take credit for how quickly he has arrived at the destination.

        If you are simply saying that Bannon should not be claiming ALL of the economic glory for Trump well that is fair enough but it sounded like you were saying more than that.

        I’m saying he shouldn’t be claiming any glory whatsoever. Whatever policy settings maybe be responsible for the current situation were set before “President Trump” was much more than a punchline. The most he can claim at the moment is to have not yet fucked it up.

      • drsmithy,

        You must have had a long comment stuck in moderation as I did not see it before my last comment.

        It is more reasonable and I agree I think caution with regard to Bannon is warranted. Though the odds are, his stated wish list is as about likely as Sanders. Both have to deal with the economic globalist democrats and republicans and they have very deep pockets.

        Your interpretation of what Bannon meant by “greatest progessive president” is different to mine. It was said in the context of his discussion of the bailout approval and at that point Obama was definitely still seen as the great progressive hope. Approving the bailout was the cold shower on those hopes.

        As for not claiming any responsibility for the state of the US economy, that is as bad as claiming all responsibility.

        Trump will certainly be held responsible if the US economy goes south or there is a breakout of inflation.

      • You must have had a long comment stuck in moderation as I did not see it before my last comment.

        Yes, I doubt the spambot is up at 01:00 to release things from the net.

        Your interpretation of what Bannon meant by “greatest progessive president” is different to mine. It was said in the context of his discussion of the bailout approval and at that point Obama was definitely still seen as the great progressive hope. Approving the bailout was the cold shower on those hopes.

        I went back and watched the first few minutes of that video again and I cannot agree.

        He is clearly and definitively identifying Obama as a “progressive” president. Ie: executing a “progressive” agenda. As I said above, this is reinforced later when he blames the “leviathan” on “progressives”. Obama was not a progressive, he was a third-way neoliberal. “Progressive” is just standing in for “boogeyman”.

        Though the odds are, his stated wish list is as about likely as Sanders.

        At 50,000 feet maybe (#MAGA !). The implementation details at the coalface would be very different.

        As for not claiming any responsibility for the state of the US economy, that is as bad as claiming all responsibility.

        Like I said. He can claim to have not yet fvcked it up. Anything more is having a lend. The US economy does not turn on a dime, its inertia is immense.

        Trump will certainly be held responsible if the US economy goes south or there is a breakout of inflation.

        Well that would be a distinct change in the trend, wouldn’t it ? Probably relatable to some of his policies or legislation ?

      • Drsmithy,

        You referred specifically to his comments about the bailout. In that context his statement is unremarkable. A generally perceived ‘progressive’ president was selling out and bailing out wall street.

        Sure Bannon later criticises progressives wanting government intervention and creating a leviathan to redistribute etc but it is very different to the criticism he is making about the bailout. He is not suggesting that Obama liked bailing out Wall Street or that it was a ‘progressive’ thing to do. He is just making the point that a progressive president did it.

        The legitimate question about Bannon is at what point does he draw the line and withdraw all support for Trump and the GOP for pursuing a economic globalist, imperial agenda.

        As for economic trends you seem to be arguing that if there is a trend everyone after the trend began had nothing to do with the trend continuing.

        Thus the only person responsible for Australia’s performance over the last 27 years is Keating.

        Please dont tell Sweeper, poor lad will have a coronary.

      • You referred specifically to his comments about the bailout. In that context his statement is unremarkable. A generally perceived ‘progressive’ president was selling out and bailing out wall street.

        His statement is that Obama was a progressive president. Not a progressive icon. Not a progressive failure. A progressive president.

        Here’s a quote from another interview:

        Here’s the outrage about it: The balance sheet of the Federal Reserve in September 2008 is about $1 trillion. The balance sheet the day Donald Trump raises his hand, after eight years of the most progressive Democrat in recorded history, is $4.5 trillion. The elites save themselves. They just created money. They flooded the zone with liquidity. If you’re an asset holder, if you owned real estate, stocks, or intellectual property, if you’re an owner, you had the best run in human history, okay?

        I say again, calling Obama a “progressive”, let alone “the most progressive Democrat in recorded history”, is absurd, unless you’re just trying to substitute “progressive” for “boogeyman”. Which, of course, he is.

        (The real hypocrisy is that the solutions he appears to think are necessary, are very much “progressive big Government”.)

        As for economic trends you seem to be arguing that if there is a trend everyone after the trend began had nothing to do with the trend continuing.

        No, I’m saying that when there’s a 7-year long trend in the world’s largest economy, the guy who’s been sitting at the wheel for barely two years and not really done much, can’t claim much credit for where things are at today.

        If it were a 7-year (or, heck, 10-year) long trend and he was nearly two years into his SECOND term, it’d be a different matter.

      • drsmithy

        You are welcome to your specialist definition of ‘progressive’ but you cannot use it to prove a point against someone who clearly doesn’t share your definition.

        Just because you choose to define ‘progressive’ to exclude Obama completely doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with Bannon making the point that the bail-out of Wall Street was by a ‘progressive’ president. Even at the end of his presidency plenty of people on both sides of US politics were happy to describe Obama as progressive.

        You (and probably I) don’t agree with that but so what?

        Obama and Hillary could reasonably claim to tick the ‘progressive’ box and most people (apart from perhaps you and I) would think it reasonable of them to do so. I can assure you that the packed auditorium at the ICC in Sydney early this year was totally rapt by Hillary and Gillard swapping stories of virtue (I was given a freebie by a client). Good luck trying to convince that crowd that they, Obama, Hillary and Gillard are not progressive. They would chase you out of town.

        By the way what is your definition of ‘progressive’.

        How do you resolve in your definition the tension between the desire to control baddies with international law and organisations and the real risk that international law and organisations are or will become the baddies and the solution to that is self determination in the form of smaller political units such as the nation state?

        That seems to be the sticking point. The DNC, British Labour and the ALP all seem very keen on the idea of free trade and international law and agreements restricting the powers of the nation state.

        I find progressive one of the more nebulous labels and as far as I can tell it usually means little more than someone thinks the state scan do good things and should do more of them. The globalist lefties just want this to happen at a global level.

        I agree that Bannon might be a hypocrite in that he reckons the states ability to do “good things” is limited but when push come to shove he may prove to be as interventionist as the average ‘progressive’. He admitted this in the speech when he made the point that is not anti-government like some wacky libertarian or anarchist, and after all Trump hardly talks like a non-interventionist either.

        In which case the question is what are the things he would like to the state to do and are they in fact ‘good things’. He doesn’t seem keen on the ideal of a global state but in practice his nation state might be more authoritarian than he makes out.

        This is the most interesting part of what we are watching play out.

        You may not believe him but Bannon is a non-lefty (though depending on your definition he may be progressive) arguing for things that lefties once argued for and stopped arguing for about two decades ago (if we accept your characterisation of Obama and Clinton and Blair and I assume Keating).

        How will the progressive left respond to that challenge?

        Will they double down on the globalist approach or sniff the wind and start pushing for more local approaches at the nation state level.

        For example: I could be wrong but Sweeper seems to be endorsing an older more nation state form of ‘lefty’ than is currently on offer from the ALP and for all our tussles I agree with him.

        Whether you believe him or like him or not Bannon is proving to be an effective catalyst for that debate.

      • Just because you choose to define ‘progressive’ to exclude Obama completely doesn’t mean that there is anything wrong with Bannon making the point that the bail-out of Wall Street was by a ‘progressive’ president. Even at the end of his presidency plenty of people on both sides of US politics were happy to describe Obama as progressive.

        Let’s not carry the goalposts too far. The claim made is that Obama was the most progressive American president in history.

        By the way what is your definition of ‘progressive’.

        https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Progressivism will do.

        How do you resolve in your definition the tension between the desire to control baddies with international law and organisations and the real risk that international law and organisations are or will become the baddies and the solution to that is self determination in the form of smaller political units such as the nation state?

        I’m not sure that a bunch of “free trade” treaties driven primarily by lobbying from multinational business in the pursuit of MOAR PROFITS and less accountability really qualifies as “progressive”.

        Bannon is just laying rhetorical land mines to connect anything “left” (“progressives” in this case) with “bad”. Ie: yet more reds under the bed. This is something the right has been doing exceptionally well for decades now.

      • Drsmithy,

        So you dont think Bannon would be wrong to refer to Obama as a progressive president in the context of bailing out of Wall Street but he would be wrong to say the “most” progressive American president in history.


        No doubt the narrowing of your complaint reflects your research regarding that nebulous word ‘progressive’ and the realisation it is a mucher broader church than you thought earlier today.

        Which you appreciate by using an extreme example of what is NOT progressive.

        But an example of what is NOT progressive is not an answer to my question that you kindly included in your response.

        Note – Have a read of Andrew Leighs book “Choosing openess” and let me know what you think of his view and if Andrew Leigh is progressive. Penny Wong is not much different on the topic. Both clearly meet the definition of progressive.

        It is not an easy question but an attempt must be made if there is to be an alternative to the likes of Barron.

      • So you dont think Bannon would be wrong to refer to Obama as a progressive president in the context of bailing out of Wall Street but he would be wrong to say the “most” progressive American president in history.

        Actually I think he’s wrong to call Obama progressive.

        Calling him the most progressive president EVAR is the rhetorical flourish that drives it into absurdity.

        But of course it will be heard by the target audience – of which we have more than a few representatives here – and then repeated as truth. Just like Hilary Clinton is running a paedophile ring.

        And then presumably at some point in the future (if it hasn’t happened already) that “progressive” label will start being applied to Bernie, Cortez, etc. Cuz progressive/marxist/socialist/lefty/globalist are pretty much interchangeable.

        Mission accomplished.

        No doubt the narrowing of your complaint reflects your research regarding that nebulous word ‘progressive’ and the realisation it is a mucher broader church than you thought earlier today.

        I’ve got a couple of young kids. What free time I have, I don’t spend researching internet arguments.

      • Drsmithy,

        You are not making any sense now.

        You reckon Bannon is misleading the audience by calling Obama a progressive because you think Obama is not a progressive and is actually like Bannon…..just another neoliberal economic globalist. Bannon denies he is a neoliberal economic globalist but you dont believe him. But then you dont believe Obama’s claims to be progressive either.

        But you also think Bannon is trying to turn progressive into an insult by applying it to people like Obama.

        Presumbly the cunning Bannon plan is stop people voting for ‘progressives’ like Sanders (is he progressive?) by creating an association between Obama and the word progressive. That way progressives like you who dont think Obama was progressive will not vote for Sanders because Bannon calls Sanders progressive as well.

        Perhaps Bannon should just start telling people to vote for progressive Hillary in 2020 or progressive Trump because they both support the status quo which is now progressive and Bannon supports the status quo.

        It would at least be less confusing.

        And you also research links to definitions of progressive even though you are too busy to do so?


        So much effort to avoid answering a question that clearly requires a progressive answer.

      • Can’t see much point in continuing this conversation, since very little of that resembles anything I’ve said.

      • Drsmithy,

        I agree, I was curious how many circles you would run in and knots you would tie yourself in trying to defend your original comments.

        Sometimes you should cut your losses.

        But you should give some thought to the important issue which you kept dodging.

        How should real ‘progressives’, whatever you mean by that, address the global v nation state issue when globalism and its institutions have been coopted by neoliberal economic globalism.

        Or is that an issue you just abandon to the likes of Bannon?

      • It’s a bit rich to misrepresent what I’ve written, then say I’m being inconsistent when I correct you.

      • Drsmithy,

        Still going!

        Read the thread again.

        You were wrong…at the time of the Wall Street bailout Obama was still very much Mr Hope and Change….and Bannon quite reasonably made the point that this great progressive president signed off on the bailout of Wall Street.

        But instead of just moving on you dug in and tried to justify your accusation by arguing Obama was/is not progressive even though YOUR link made it clear he easily fits the description.

        Finally you insisted that the critical issue was whether Obama was the ‘greatest’ progressive president.

        As for the important question I posed you just dodged that altogether.

        Who do you regard as progressive?.

        Perhaps an example will help explain what you mean?

        How about that fierce supporter of Brexit, Bill Mitchell or that fan of Hugo Chavez, John Pilger?

        What about Julia Gillard?

        Is the first female PM progressive?

        What about Penny Wong?

    • excellent video Pfh …… I posted it last night but was deleted after ‘moderation’ – reposted this morning, survived moderation – the message is unavoidable. The deplorables are beginning to jack up, not fast enough and not in sufficient numbers IMHO … we’ll see ….

      • The problem the globalists face is that they cannot make a claim for legitimacy while people continue to have strong identifications with nation states and cultures.

        Why anyone would think that a globalised world would be attractive is beyond me.

        It only appeals to over ordered and excessively tidy minds.

        They kind that like to tell everyone what to do.

        Within a short period disobedience is managed with force.

    • like a pork chop in a synagogue lol. The whole point of Oxford is to keep the plebs in their place.

      • Yes, a lot of snotty questions.

        That question near the end was beauty…after Bannon was explaining that it was good to see the democrat grass root campaign running hard and driving a large turnout for the recent house/senate elections.

        The questioner argued that a large turnout was not necessarily a good thing.


        Letting the little people vote and encouraging them to do so is apparently just not on.

        That was about the only time Bannon got a bit heated.

        That the EU is so undemocratic seems to be part of the appeal for some.

      • pft which do you think is more anti democratic [needs unpacking] the EU or England and how you arrive at the conclusions considering the historical past.

      • Hay I’m not the one constantly moving goal posts on shifting sand to keep a finger in the pie as it were.

        You don’t even seem to understand the long term historical back drop and how some of these guys like Bannon are trying to remain relevant to events, even after long periods of arguing just the opposite, so intellectually challenged and duplicitous its repulsive. Its just so convent in the face of irreverence with the hope of converting back at a latter date or nudging the narrative for ideological reasons.

        Gotta love the I not going to engage the person that points out my failings and false prophesies of the past so I don’t have to own the errors, yet then, seamlessly embrace what was proclaimed false in the same breath. Do you ever go back and reconcile past opinions and check for error and how you allowed environmental biases to keep you ignorant because of pride or some misplaced feelings of superiority due to the level of your incorporating certain metaphysical aspects as universal truth.

        Great Goats sack you don’t even have a grasp on the concept of theory…. that market based education has a bad propensity for that outcome… useful widgets….

    • Why do you need to bring Sanders into this?

      Right wing populism is a totally different beast. Remember right wingers don’t care about people. So all the rhetoric is merely a strategy to seize power.
      they are able to tap into a genuine sense of failure of the liberal elite and betrayal of the working class by former social democrats – this they get right. However they offer nothing but fear, scapegoatism, poor v poor politics and hyper status quoism.

      Sanders is genuine. He emphasises the working class betrayal thing as well, however promises a slight shift back to social democracy.

      Always follow a right wingers revealed preference because nothing ties back to rhetoric.
      They are always liars.
      – Bannon rants about the monopoly power of big corporations and intellectual property yet Trumps biggest achievement to date is to give them a huge cut in the corporate rate. Most corporate profits are monopoly rents these days; so Bannon thinks it’s ok to increases their monopoly rents
      – Roll back of Dodd Frank, incl. lowering capital requirements. Bannon rants about the cost of bailing out the banks yet thinks it ok to lower capital requirements, remove living wills and mortgage regulation.

      You always seem to be wanting to smear social democrats. Eg. that time you claimed Chifley was a money crank.

      • Agree the moving goal post on shifting sand in a milquetoast PR ideological rebranding is all wet, worse its indicative of the brands lack of any ethical or moral underpinnings when pushing its original agendas e.g. one market to rule them all.

        Thank China and Russia, warts and all, for providing the original friction on that self awarded globalist agenda and how it turned their neoliberal machinations inward and thus subjecting their own national citizens to the same effect that was previously only afforded lesser nations citizens.

        Now its twisting in the wind time whilst white washing history to remove all the failures of the grand plan.

      • Sweeper,

        Bannon agreed with both of your points

        i.e. he was critical of Trump and, if not critical, accepted they were legitimate points.

        If you cant be bothered watching why bother commenting?

        You seem to think I have misrepresented Ben Chifley? Perhaps you bother to read Chifleys RC dissent in 1937.

        Here you go….links to Chifleys dissent and the full RC report.


        I am more than happy for everyone to form their own views about my discussion of Chifley and the 1937 Royal Commission.

        Hundreds already have. Enjoy. 🙂

        As a supporter of nationalising the private banks (assuming you actual mean it) that makes you a much bigger money crank than me as you are insisting on nationalising private institutions (good luck with that Comrade) whereas I am only interested in public control of public money. With that power back in public hands nationalising the banks becomes largely irrelevant.

      • Making banks a public utility removes the issues you have pft, that it does not agree with your free market fundamentalism is not everyone’s concern. Even then I have not heard you say anything about the need of C-suite or Boardroom restructuring [no sitting on 5 boards CEOs stocking compliant boardroom members] or what philosophical outlooks enabled a cornucopia of other incentives which allowed not only banks, but vast sectors of industry to loot like their was no tomorrow.

        So when some focus on banks and leave out all the rest or how it got like that it stinks to high heaven.


        Nor do I see you looking to protect citizens at onset with Warrens proposals to end predatory financial activities or seem to be able to reconcile Bill Blacks finding in your views.

        At the end of the day the whole period in question post 1950s and dominate since the 70s has been a relentless march to the right which has captured academia, courts, white anted public institutions, and then some still bang on about banks being the core or central issue, when the entire episode is philosophical at onset. Had not industry mobs forwarded propaganda like the Powell memo, or from Cato, Heritage, et al large cap banks and industries would have not been able to loot like no tomorrow.


        But yeah keep banging on that little Rothbardian drum.

      • Why do I have to watch it? I already know what Bannon stands for.
        Believing in nationalisation does not make someone a money crank.

      • Sweeper,

        Believing in nationalisation of the entire private banking system makes you a huge “money crank”.

        It is the authoritarian version (i.e. the bit that attracts you) of FRB, currency theory, soveriegn money, volksgeld, positive money.

        Just ask your friend ever true.

      • pft…

        Go up thread and look at the link to both Bannon and Thiel for a more informed perspective based on what they actually say and think.

        FYI sovereign currency issuers are sovereign, say only congress has the lawful power to spend by its will alone, everything is a result of that initial spending. Also banks and other industries are chartered by law, as such, they are governed by it. Now if you want to argue the application of views like sound money [see Volcker recent NYT op-ed] and what ever other philosophically dominate views has resulted in the currant enviroment please do… but … saying that state money is not sovereign or instituting your ideological preferences and its administration magically resolves the whole thing is not supported by anything other than an expectation.

      • I think you will find a common thread in all your offerings and those you affiliate with in forwarding some grand ideological vision for humanity – anti democratic e.g. top down authoritarian i.e. if democracy gets in the way of the agenda, then it must be watered down or removed in order to establish some ideological social template as adjudicated by its fundamentalist proponents.

        Kinda screws with the whole aspect of force or free will now, does it not.

      • Sweeper, watch the video. Bannon does not agree with the tax cuts for the wealthy. He says he wanted tax rises for the wealthy. Of course it could just be a front but I don’t ever recall him cheering on those tax cuts.

    • interested party

      Thanks Pfh.
      I would like to draw your attention to the 5.50 timeline of that clip where Bannon states “she ( HRC I assume ) is the guardian of a corrupt and incompetent elite”. So…to push this a little further….would it be safe to assume that this ‘elite’ would just lay down and take a defeat so lightly?…or would you expect push-back?
      Here is a clip that details that pushback.

      A date to keep a watch over is Dec 5th.

      The old order is under siege….will it fall?

      and remember…..HRC used to get her orders from the CFR while Secretary of State.

    • Cheers Pfh – that was entertaining.

      My take on a Saturday eve with a bottle of Aldi Sangria……

      There is an awful lot of truth in what Bannon says, even if you don’t buy his belief that Trumpism is the antidote.

      His views about a lot of things are spot on…..

      The global corporate political elite have cashed in – as recipients of capital remuneration – while exporting the value adding manufacturing and service jobs which were once the mainstay of the middle class in the western world.

      That export of jobs has been primarily responsible for adding to the precariousness of the middle class – his comments about half of the US probably not being able to rustle up 400 bucks in extremis is exactly the point (it may not be all that much better even here in Australia). The system as we have known it for a generation has not delivered for little people in the western world. To a large extent the impact of that has been blunted by the proffering of debt – which has been made available by the global corporate financier elite in the same way alcohol was to tribes of the new world as they were dispossessed.

      The mechanism by which those jobs were offshored was economic competition – which has been presented (and still is) in such a way as to mean labour outcomes, conditions and remuneration have faced competition, but access to demand (particularly) has never been part of the competition dynamic – except insofar as cheapest is best – and access to capital (particularly in an age when access to capital has become insanely cheap and easy if anyone already has access to capital) – except insofar as any lender is legitimate. If that cheapest means financially fellating totalitarian despots then everyone in power looks the other way. (…….at the point of definition it means that if a decision needs to be made between a moral point [eg labour rights, freedoms of expression, rights to protest against those in power or at the top of the corporate tree] and the profits of the elite then the profits of the elite win out every time). This dynamic means that the 1% crowd (or 5% or 10% or the top end however one wishes to see it) means that one part of western society has a vested interest in stressing out another (larger) part of western society, and profits from the stress.

      With the profits the global corporate and political elite are in a position to buy the media and administrative and political coverage they desire, and that has largely meant the former left wing of politics – Democrats (US) Labour (UK) Labor (Australia) (see any Democrat forward of Jimmy Carter, The Blair era, and the post Hawke – Keating effeteness of the ALP) – which has essentially put the strategic levers into the hands of the right, which has gone further right, and enacted whatever was politically saleable to undermine the middle class/social welfare state. To retain some credibility the left(s) have taken up a weird and wonderful array of social causes, which may have been fine in and of themselves, but have had the net effect of fragmenting the left (in particular) but more importantly – as Bannon himself notes when he says the National interest and the economic interest will bind peoples together, when the racial interest will fragment it. The corporate (capital owning) elite have basically used left wing politics as a release valve for a generation (which they have kept firmly under control with the press they own, and the ability to raise capital for politics in their hands). Real economic progress (and reaction to what has been unfolding since the early 1980s) has not really had a look in. Every attempt to implement socio economic reform has been boxed in by finance capitalism imperatives – budget balance being the most laughable – and generally fed the scraps left at the political table after feeding the vested corporate interests.

      All would have continued thus except that in the early to mid 2000s the paragons of capitalism blew up their own system, and they blew it up with bullshit (dodgy lending, bullshit investment instruments, industry self regulation/efficient markets got itself an AAA rating and turned to merde regardless). Then, and this is the real killer, and the genesis of where people just like Bannon are coming from [from the right, not from the left] the political process which had rammed competition and efficiency and cost and caveat emptor down their own peoples throats for a generation, voted itself the TARP bailout worth a cool Trillion (easily ten times more than had ever been voted up on any non military program ever, and the owners of capital, once they had got that outcome in the United States, got the same outcome protecting their assets in the UK, and then Europe. At that point, and it has still never been acknowledged the way it should have been, the gig was up for capitalism as we had known it since the early 1980s. The jungle capitalism of efficient competitive beast was exposed for the fraud it is.

      ……If massive financial capital interests at the very centre of the capitalism we had known since the Reagan Thatcher Hawke-Keating era didn’t really need to face the consequences of their failures, and were somehow ‘too big to fail’, then why had lesser mortals and their jobs needed to face the ‘failure’ of their economic competitiveness, and their families become ever more stressed, as their economic existence was made ever more precarious?…..The only reason they weren’t too big to fail too was that the political system had become a consensus of prioritising the profits of the elites, and enforcing/explaining that to the public at large, rather than addressing the national/economic interest…….

      And this ultimately is the genesis of Trump, of Sanders, of Brexit, of Corbyn, of the deterioration in belief of the ‘elites’ in western society to lead in the interests of all rather than themselves, the decline in belief of the press, and the rising suspicion that the public sector itself has been bought out, and of the difference between social welfare recipients in Australia receiving roboletters and calling public services to be told their ‘calls will be recorded for coaching purposes’ while politicians allowances exposed as fraudulently abused, or demonstrated to be in parliament when they have no [s44] right to be so, or of corporate executives in openly corrupt and fraudulent practice in the finance sector never lose something they have had in their hands . It is the genesis of a demonstrable ‘one rule for us and another for them’ mindset which the public can see on any given day, expiated away in the media. As Bannon says, nobody has ever been held accountable, and all too often it seems that on matters relating to the interests of the global capital, and their managers or apologists in parliaments around the world, nobody can be held accountable.

      Does anyone not really think that we have socialised risk for the wealthy? (without socialising the profit)

      Bannon is observably right when he says that China is an openly Totalitarian, expansionist, mercantilist state, to which the elites of the western world are still trying to export their jobs. – even if you don’t think US capitalism or Western democracy is all that altruistic, could anyone deny China is Expansionist, is Mercantilist, and is Totalitarian? He is also observably right when he states openly that for a generation the rise of China (and he openly acknowledges it is not about the Chinese people but the Chinese elites) has been presented as akin to the second law of thermodynamics (when in fact it has been the sellout of interests to a corrupt despotic elite).

      Bannon is observably right when he says that Clinton was a defender of the consensus of capital control of the democratic process (and the Democratic party) – does anyone anywhere really think Hillary Clinton was an agent for progressive reform?

      Bannon is observably right when he says that the capital financial elite – although as someone who has been to Davos and seen them in action I completely agree with calling them the ‘Party of Davos’ – has achieved what Communism, Nazism, Fascism, Osama bin Laden etc failed to do to western society. If they haven’t destroyed it they have metamorphosed into a cancer at its core, which must be removed or it will destroy it with the internal contradiction they now embody. – Does anyone really think the capital political elite can relinquish control of the mechanisms it has used and not be questioned about what it has done – or if it doesn’t relinquish control does anyone think it can live with increased questioning of what it is now doing without resorting to increasingly totalitarian approaches to control the populace which has ceased to believe in it?

      Bannon is observably right when he says the bailout they have given themselves comes in contrast to the zero they are giving pensions, the zero they are giving people living off interest, and the zero they have given as wage increases for a generation, as well as the zero they are enabling the Millennials and gen Y types when it comes to housing, with their access to capital, and the funds used to prevent the financial system going into cardiac arrest, having funded the greatest asset splurge ever known . – Does anyone think these ongoing question are going to be addressed by the processes which have bequeathed them to us? Does anyone not really think that for generations of people who were educated to believe that the rich were rich because they were smarter or more entrepreneurial, or took greater risks to get rich, that any respect accorded on that basis is diminished every time the rich now exhort us to look the other way as corruption beneficiaries from elsewhere buy up big no questions asked?

      Bannon is also observably right when he says that the 7 Trillion bucks the US has shelled out on wars in the Middle East does not represent good value for money. Bannon is also observably right in pointing to the increasing concentration of corporates – industrials, media, pharmaceuticals, Tech companies, in conjunction with the interconnection of these with the state puts us on the road to fascism. He is spot on when he observes that the EU is hardly likely to accept (and probably cannot really live with) either a Britain which successfully leaves the EU or an Italy which rejects key parts of the ECB or EU agenda. Finally Bannon is right when he points to unregulated or uncontrolled immigration undermining the outcomes of the working people in the United States. I have seen Sanders make exactly the same point. Finally, he is 100% on the money when he points out that the ‘maximisation of shareholder value’ is the greatest single intellectual crock of bullshido ever, and that the point where this overrides economic nationalism (as he calls it) is the point where the elites and the people they ostensibly lead go their separate ways. And he is completely on the money when he observes that the costs of this fall on the little guy and wipe out civil society.

      Large chunks of the above could easily be served up on MacroBusiness day in day out with nary a comment………..

      My doubts about the Bannon narrative revolve around his posited outcomes. Are manufacturing value adding jobs really returning to the US? – some suggestions maybe, but plenty of room still for doubt. Is that model really reconstructable? (I suspect not). Is a message of Trump being an agent of change really from the corrupt elite really tenable if he is openly corrupt, with his first real financial initiative the repeal of Frank Dodd? I might buy his observation that he wanted bankers jailed and didn’t agree but had to acknowledge other competing interests in the political decisionmaking process – but if we follow that line wouldn’t there be a case for suggesting that giving them another payout is actually a worse outcome than open revolt?

      Another observation I would make is about his claim that it leviathan administration is something that the ‘progressives’ have created – I would tend more to the ‘sure they have been part of it’ line while also noting that plenty of right wing interests have joined in (see Australia’s stance on negative gearing and novated car leases, or pension entitlements, or even superannuation – maybe some left wings ideas in the genesis of them all, but they have been deformed by mainly financial interests over time). Personally I don’t think dismantling the leviathan state necessarily makes any sense unless it is accompanied by the dismantling of the corporate and vested interests congealed on it, and that real reform – particularly socio economic reform of the type Bannon claims he and Trump are supporters of – must entail the breakup of oligopolistic (particularly tech and pharmaceutical) interests, and must return the interests of workers – and I do think this needs to be within nation states – to a stronger balance against the interests of capital . I didn’t realise he had argued against the Trump Tax cuts and Bank deregulation – and I suspect this would have been part of his departure from the administration – and find myself wondering if he (Bannon) ever wonders if his efforts have simply enabled the corporate elite the scope to make it to the very pinnacle of having their interests served, with the interests fairly certain that they will ultimately be able to buy back the Bannon (and he says Trump) measures with priorities on Trade and Immigration. But that is still all out in the future.

      Some of the questions he was served up there were absolutely feeble. He presumably left the event thinking that if that was the standard the elites of the UK were serving up (and the American girl haggling about his ‘role in the dissolution of western democracy’ and the ‘high participation in elections is not the minimum requirement for democracy’ ). He did seem to me to be quick to claim ‘heat of the argument’ for some of his more inflammatory statements – but he is right that the economic narrative is the key dynamic – without running through what the implications of some of those statements could/would be. I found his observations on the likelihood of a third party running for Presidency (a mixed Romney Biden style ticket – as the right heads right and the left heads left) interesting, as well as those about Clinton still being the hurdle for genuine reform within the US Democrats, and his thoughts about the implication of the Republicans losing control of the House.

      All in all an entertaining way to spend an hour or so – I just wish I had a couple of joints to facilitate my thoughts.

      • Gunna,

        Yes agree with that though it seems clear that Bannon sees Trump as an imperfect tool for furthering Bannon’s own views.

        Bannon seems to distinguish his views from Trumps actions which he appears to accept are often compromises.

        He may not be disowning Trump or Trumps actions but he gets close when he seems to be arguing that the republican party has had a fair bit of input into the Trump presidency. Which is not surprising.

        His comments about signal and the noise could be rephrased as “Donald says crazy stuff but his heart is in the right place”

        As Bannon notes he was arguing his line long before Trump turned up and claims that most of his focus was on the republican party. By the way I have never seen Brietbart so I have no idea if Bannon’s comments about it are accurate.

        I am wary of populists from the conservative side like Bannon but at least he is forcing the complacent left to start asking hard questions about globalism and concentrations of power and how support for that fits with a concern for self determination and diversity.

        Though as a few of the comments above confirm there are plenty of lefties still living in la la land who prefer to characterize popularism as some kind of right wing brainwashing magic trick rather than a genuine reaction to the failure of our political institutions to represent the broader interests of the general public.

        He is a very interesting character though he looks like he enjoys a drop.

      • 007 if you are referring to me there then as usual that is a misrepresentation.
        Point I made was that right wing populism is a different beast to left wing populism.
        Right wingers don’t care about people. Their sole aim is to make others (society if possible) as miserable and uncomfortable as they feel deep down beneath the painted on corporate smile.
        All the rhetoric is just a calculated strategy to seize power so they can go about wrecking society. None of it ever ties back to what they do. eg. examples I gave above.

      • Sweeper,

        You havent watched the video so you dont know what he said.

        That you are living in la la land is beyond debate.

        Tell us once again how your authoritarian left wing mates only lost support (and government) for your caring authoritarian ‘solution’ because those uncaring right wing types managed to fool the public with their brainwashing.

        It was tankie clowns like you that kept the ALP out of government for decades after 1949.

      • I started watching and got the gist. I don’t need to watch it as he is just a standard right winger. Smithy has already debunked the first 30 seconds anyway. It is probably all downhill from there.

        007, calling me a tankie (again) is below the belt when I have already told you I have never supported Stalinist regimes.

      • Morning Gents,

        My thoughts are that he is reasonably genuine in his interest in middle and working class people. I work reasonably closely with some former ADF people who have known him at various points in the past and been told ‘what you see is what you get’ and that he is a standard RSM or WO type who has love for the men but doesnt mind discipline too. Unlike the RSM and WO types he obviously has some strategic vision. As someone very familiar with the works of Marx, I reckon he and Marx would get on like a house on fire, in their observations about the dynamics in play. What they may disagree on is about where it ultimately leads, and the process by which we get there.

        I was genuinely impressed with that presentation – insofar as it was coherent, and it did (for mine) acknowledge the fundamental economic narrative truths of what has unfolded over a generation. Sure there are parts of rant in it, but for the most part he spoke with an eloquence which said to me he had thought through the issues a number of times, and had questioned them.

        As I wrote above I think he was on flimsier ground when not addressing some of the implications of some of his inflammatory statements. I have some sympathy with the Pfh line that Bannon ascribes to Trump a ‘his heart is in the right spot even if some of what he says and does is a tad disturbing’ type of thinking. I am not so sure I would buy that, and the fact that Bannon would (and I do tend to accept that Bannon genuinely does have some degree of interest in the middle and working people of the US, and I dont think he is notably racist) to me means that Bannon would have questioned himself vis his relationship with Trump and the administration quite a few times. I also reckon it would be interesting to see Bannon and Sanders on or near the same platform – I actually think they would have a fair bit in common – the divide would be the dismantling the state (Bannon) versus the need for a state to protect the lives of working people (Sanders) dynamic. But up to that point and how the US (and western world) has got there, I am not sure they would differ all that much.

        I do think Bannon likes the turps and I, for one, wouldnt hesitate to have at least a couple of relaxators with him (without committing to the full slab)

        I will go have some coffee now.

      • Gunna…

        Go up thread and check out the link on Bannon and Thiel and then tell me you have the same opinion.

      • Q: What is conservatism?
        A: Conservatism is the domination of society by an aristocracy.

        Q: What is wrong with conservatism?
        A: Conservatism is incompatible with democracy, prosperity, and civilization in general. It is a destructive system of inequality and prejudice that is founded on deception and has no place in the modern world.

        I think the megalomaniac in Chief sorted that during his Thanksgiving address.

        I would add Gandhi’s quip when asked by a reporter about his thoughts on western civilization…. dead pan response…. “that would be nice”.

      • If you are talking the Politico article


        …then I dont really change my view at all.


        Like the center-left journalist John Judis, who published The Populist Explosion earlier this year, Bannon sees these new nationalist movements as reactions, above all, against free-market globalization, with its disruption, weakening of the traditional working and middle classes, and hollowing-out of traditional industries. Like some tea party activists and Breitbart contributors, he also sees the global tea party as an attack on the national elites in each of the movements’ home countries, whose privileges Bannon is happy to denounce as crony capitalism.

        that pretty much squares with my observations on his session at Oxford. Nothing else in the piece really changes my current view of the guy.

        I think he has arrived at his position – his position as stated at Oxford – from observing the dynamics of global capitalism/neo liberalism/etc which pretty much squares with what I have written above.

        I tend to agree with Pfh007 that unless the ‘left’ (and I should add that I – although I consider myself of the left – tend to the view that most of what would label itself as left in this day and age is essentially ‘faux left’ insofar as it baulks at sticking to the economic dynamics and acting to address these, and wanders off into lots of irrelevancies) can bring itself to….

        – openly acknowledge, and identify the operating parts of that dynamic
        – overtly act when in power to address that dynamic (which will mean addressing a neoliberal or global capitalist cancer very close to its core)
        – and openly sell and get political buy in for what it is doing

        then the left (as it currently operates) is going to be a major disappointment for a lot of unhappy people.

      • Wellie Gunna I don’t trust people like him or the group he belongs to, too much baggage and propensity to reverse azimuth when its convenient in keeping their soap box front and center to the unwashed. Not that I believe for a second that he has had his road to Damascus moment, when it smells more like a McNamara mea culpa.

        Seems to all revolve around libertarian [atomtistic individualism] and its splintering in the face of repetitive failures and finger pointing, they do eat their own you know.

        On the other hand we have the MMT/PK camp with people like Sanders the newly elected progressives – Cortez.

        I do remember your past affiliation with Marxist Libertarianism or Libertarian Marxism, so I have to take that into account wrt to your opinions.

        PS I also see you did not find any issues with the anti democratic agenda.

      • Thats right,

        I am a Libertarian Marxist for finding any validity in what Bannon was saying about global capitalism and its effects on the middle and working people of the United States.
        I am a Crypto Fascist for not mentioning that a man who has spoken at length about getting people out to vote and knocking on doors wants to trash the democratic system

        Well said


        I am a complete idiot for posting any sort of comment in reply to something of yours, and not recognising that the only communications exchanged with you are those of reverent agreement, or those of mystification on the road to ennui in response to regularly confusing barkings from an emissary of the one true way

        Mea maxima culpa

      • Sweeper,

        “…007, calling me a tankie (again) is below the belt..”

        Below the belt? That is all we ever get from you and the big bush rat.

        You recommend that the government nationalise all the private banks.

        Thousands and thousands of employees
        Multiple branch networks
        Multiple computer systems
        Multiple management structures
        A multitude of products.
        Deciding who gets loans
        Deciding the price of loans
        Forclosing on debtors.

        All to be centralised and managed by treasury.

        Leaving aside the hopeless politics of trying to pull it off it is authoritarian pure and simple.

        There certainly isnt any rational reason for trying to do it when there is a simple alternative.


        When it comes to money crankery you leave me in the shade.


      • Only that commercial banks with macroeconomic significance that amplify boom and bust and are a contingent liability of the state anyway – who can control volume/direction of overall credit and hold a large fraction of ordinary peoples savings – be nationalised in some cases. This was Chifleys point as well. There should be at least 1 state owned commercial bank.
        I don’t care if the teachers credit union or xyz building society is in private hands or an investment bank either – although investment banks should be strictly partnerships only and not allowed to go public or take deposits.
        In case you want to make that smear again please refer to this comment.

      • Sweeper,

        “..007, I have never said the entire banking system should be nationalised…”

        Really? That probably comes as a shock to more than a few regular readers.

        I have never heard of a partial nationalisation what do you mean?.

        Which parts of the banking system do you want nationalised?

        Just the CBA?

        Two of the Big 4?

        3 of the Big 4?

      • Sweeper,

        “..In case you want to make that smear again please refer to this comment…”

        What smear is that?

        That you have regularly argued for nationalisation over the years without the qualification that you have now rolled out?

        That nationalisation of the private banks had a strong whiff of authoritarianism and tanks are their preferred form of crowd control?

        I note that you only started rolling out your support for nationalisation of the banks when I criticised your support for the banking status quo.

        So can I put you back on the private bank apologist team now that nationalisation has been abandoned?

        Your furry mate will be most pleased he never did warm to your nationalisation agenda. Plus he has been quite hurt by your mockery of certain monetary theories that some consider modern. Any change of views on that subject while you are in revisionist mode?

      • Gunna I don’t base my view on one specific, but a career, and demeanor over it.

        “”On the surface, Bannon is just another vicious ex-hippie of the David Horowitz/Michael Savage school, a former Grateful Dead fan who overswung the other way to embrace a Nazistic “culture first” alt-right movement.
        —Matt Taibbi[18]


        I would comfortably put Bannon in the opportunist circle with an emotional attachment to the lime light that ended up drinking his own koolaid. The Cambridge Analytica and Palin stuff is just indicative long term personality traits.

      • pft…

        Its not an agenda, I said years ago I would be fine with a Swedish solution or one could just make them utilities, none of which is some form of nationalization in the way you attempt to make it.

        My record stands here at MB, NC, and a few other places, none of which are bankster friendly, that is if you think Bill Black is bankster friendly. My issue is with your camps monetary preferences and philosophical world view contra to all the information against it. That you utilize the bankster strawman for anyone that points it out is more about your issues and the lengths you will go to to forward your agenda.

      • It’s not a qualification because you can’t point to one time where I have said the *entire* banking system should be nationalised.
        Commercial banks are a different beast who should be regulated to the s/house and always face the very real threat of nationalisation and criminal penalty for executives and directors.
        Yes I believe there should be at least 1 state controlled commercial bank who will actually fund long lived projects which the penny smart pound idiotic private banks won’t touch and provide a safe place to store saving and cheaper payment options and also be a countercyclic lender. If customers flee the private banks well I guess that’s market forces.
        Any politician who even contemplates selling these entities should be stripped of citizenship.
        As for you smearing of the public service. Is it your position that bureaucrats would have done a worse job allocating credit and taking care of customers than Narev and David Turner?

      • Sweeper

        “..It’s not a qualification because you can’t point to one time where I have said the *entire* banking system should be nationalised…”

        LOL. You got me!.

        Silly me thinking nationalisation of banking meant nationalisation of the banks.

        Dont recall Chifley talking about the Sweeper model in 1949.

        Sorry Ben, Sweeper just threw you under the bus!

        Why havent you proposed nationalisation of pubs!!!!!!

        Typical snide smearing by Sweeper. Implying public servants cannot pull beers.

      • Sweeper you must forgive pft, works in a vary narrow view of reality, difficult to conceptualize anything out of it.

        Also thought the beautification of Bannon to be rather desperate.

      • Sweeper,

        Answer what question?

        “…Is it your position that bureaucrats would have done a worse job allocating credit and taking care of customers than Narev and David Turner?..”

        That one?

        Whether a public servant can make a loan better than an officer in the state/private bank cartel for which you are now once more making apologies?

        Possibly possibly not.

        I would prefer loans to be made by neither.

        Let those who are best able to make loans do so without public guarantees.

        There are plenty of non-bank lenders what is your problem with them?

        Are they on the nationalisation to do list?. Be Careful …..pouchy is listening.

      • pft…

        The banking aspect is clearly explained in the MMT/PK NEP perspective, its diverse and includes legalities before contracts for credit can be extended. So you whole Rothbardian bankster positive money let the free markets party is only the manifestation of your own ideological worship.

        Please don’t project that on others when its your issue. The Bannon thingy is not confusing to some pft.

      • Pft an example…

        One reason all this financial crime is tolerated is that thinkers who shine a light on its systemic nature have been erased from the record. Top of my list of neglected economic superstars is Professor Susan Strange of the London School of Economics, one of the founders of the field of international political economy. In a series of ground-breaking books – States and Markets, The Retreat of the State and Mad Money – Strange showed how epidemic levels of financial crime were a consequence of specific political decisions.

        “This financial crime wave beginning in the 1970s and getting bigger in later years is not accidental,” Strange wrote.

        It would have hardly been possible to design a system, she said, “that was better suited than the global banking system to the needs of drug dealers and other illicit traders who want to conceal from the police the origin of their large illegal profits.”

        For Strange, money laundering, tax evasion and public embezzlement were a result of the collapse in the 1970s of the post-war financial order. Here are four ways she showed how politics and the financial crime epidemic were intimately connected. – snip


        It seems that all of this was front run by some agency which predates banks ability to function in such anti social ways, the depth of the problem is far larger in scope and the corruption so pervasive that its hard to consider it just a monetary issue, let alone banks issuing false receipts in your case.

        So remind me again of which ideological mob with deep pockets replaced the post war order again….

      • Sweeper,

        As the Royal Commission has identified, a public servant in our current state/private bank cartel is likely to do very little about money laundering.

        A think a public servant is much more likely to act on money laundering without the cartel model as there is will be much less state interest in maintaining confidence in the cartel.

        Plus as the role of central bank liabilities will be central once the cartel is dismantled, sniffing out money launderers will be much easier.

        I am not across the Yanis proposal so cant comment but I will check it out.

      • pft…

        The corruption of the public sector by ideological wing nuts via revolving door, ideological appointments, and defunding, and that your camp created the impetus and now attempt to blame the same ideological impaired which staff CBs is an own goal.

        It will be interesting as the unwashed wake up know yours for who they are and give the whole mess the flick, I don’t even thing your original funding base will throw good money after bad.

    • And of course that grub McFarlene has his hands in this. The Minister for mining that took his entire political entourage straight into the mining sector.

  11. “While their equity capital markets colleagues have been busy pulling deals, debt capital markets bankers have been thinking about how to raise $80 billion for their biggest clients – the big four banks.
    It’s a huge ask.
    While the big four banks are sophisticated issuers and familiar to big bond funds around the world, the quantum of funds raised and relatively short time to get the cash would be unprecedented.”…
    “The problem is that globally, only about $50 billion is raised every year. So in theory, four Australian banks would account for more than half of that global issuance each year for the next four years – and then well into the future as they refinance what’s likely to be seven and 10-year money. ”

      • Agreed, all the ‘states’ have agreed to certain things so that they can trade their currencies within the banking ‘cartel’. Banks cannot be prosecuted (wound up or nationalized) for indiscretions, as they are, well, corporations and cannot, therefore, be liable for anything that officials do on behalf of the corporations. And neither can individuals be prosecuted if they are (fraudulently) pursuing the banks’ own books and their bonuses. Only if they defraud the banks can they be prosecuted.

        Closing the doors on one of the TBTFs is not on, whatever the indiscretion…just give us back a fraction of the steal as a fine… About it?

  12. It just occurred to me Facebook, Amazon, Apple and Google are grateful to Netflix.

    Otherwise they’d just be huge FAAGs.


    • excellent question Jonno – very much doubt that the ABC would do it though ….. and yes, how many anglo celtic types would you get????

  13. ^^^ Speaking of Neville Chamberlain, appeasement and some of the identity perpetual grievance characters mentioned above.
    ‘Inches Given, Leagues Taken’
    Concessions only have their place when they are granted to those operating in good faith.

    • would be interesting to see if these historical realities are even taught in schools anymore …………. any younger parents out there who might know?????

  14. Ermo (/other tradies)

    What’s a decent brand of tools these days (wrenches, socket sets, etc) ? The current toolbox is starting to look a bit bare from years of attrition so I’m thinking it’s time to refresh it. Is anything still made in Australia ?

    • Sidchrome was a respectable brand back in the day. Then everyone went snap-on. I think even kingchrome is not too bad with spanners. The stanley screwdrivers always seemed to handle life well.

    • The Traveling Wilbur


      In your case the only way I’d reckon you’d lose a tool would be if you lent it to someone and it never came back (you being too careful with your own to break or misplace one).

      • We used to move a lot. When I was going through the processes deciding whether or not to take up our Green Card opportunity a couple of years ago, I figured out that the longest time we’d spent at the one address since 2000 was 2.5 years, with 22 months being the average (across 3 countries).

        Stuff goes adrift. 🙂

    • Might be only automotive tools?
      I believe both are Australian companies.
      I find Gumtree, eBay good for second hand tools. There is also a recycling center in Marrickville.
      The Bower – Reuse & Repair Centre

      Can be good for second hand tools. I don’t find them that useful for automotive stuff though, more for household tools like plumbing stuff or wood working etc..

      Otherwise GraysOnline can be good for second hand tools (old workshops sold off liquidated).

    • Not much made here anymore. Germany and Japan, they make some of the better tools if you can get them

    • When the mining boom went bust in Perth 2013, the hock shops were literally full of tools. I bought a full tool set for peanuts.

    • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

      I dont really shop by brand for hand tool, Ridgid or Rothernberger for multies, benders and expanders,…sanvik for hacksaw but whatever for everything else.

      7 dollars is what I spend on trowels for mixing up mud. I break em quite often and I lose them just as much so why spend 50 bucks on a good one.

      Actually on one of my first “Cashies” as an apprentice in 89-90 I did the water and drainage to a mates dads house extension and didn’t go back up under this house untill about 25 years later 2015 to investigate a shower membrane leak and there on to of the Ant capping of one of the brick pillars was my brand new condition Rothernberger multi grips,…with lots of dust on them after 25 years!
      I proceded to lose them again within 18 months.

      After retiring the second of my decade old Rigid shovels about 6 mths ago I brought a cyclone shovel from Bunnings for 50 bucks…not a bad shovel but not a Rigid one either,…anyway I left it besides a swimming pool at a job at Carlingford over a week ago (I think) and on the way to a diggup at Turramurra on Thursday brought myself a New ridgid shovel from Thornleigh plumbers CoOp,….for 80 bucks!,…Bloody nice shovel to dig with though.

      When It comes to 18v battery tools, Ive been locked into AEG, only avaliable from Bunnings but made in same factory with the same components as Milwaukee just in different skins.
      Ive got 8 × 5amp batteries and 1 x6 amp battery a 9amp is available now and a 12 amp by Christmas.
      The drill driver, impact driver, 125mm grinder, and Recipro saw are as good as any on the market.
      The rotary hammer is OK but not the best.
      The other shins are above average,…I still think Hitachi has the best 18v tools but pricey and not as many skins.
      Makita are massively overrated.
      Ryobi is rubbish.
      Im going to throw down 1800 bucks for fhis AEG kit with 2 x 6ah, 1 x 4ah and 2 x 9ah batteries (the 9s via redemption) after Christmas,

      I want the 9 inch grinder (uses 2 Batteries), jig saw and the chain saw also.

      I also got of the rep the Wipper snipper/Blower combo with 2 x 5ah batteries, charger for 350,…he threw in a 6 ah battery!
      Both are a bit guttless but do the job, good for the 8yr old boy to learn to do the wipper snipping without him reving the guts out of dads Kawasaki 2 stroke, throwing pebbles all over the grass.

      As for the mowing,…Im drawing a line,….a mans mower has gotta be petrol,… 190 cc and no less,…on a cast aluminum chassis.

      • Keep an eye on OzBargain with a trigger search for AEG. If you’re not in a rush, the various AEG tools are often available from Bunnings at seriously discounted prices (especially the multiple tools bundles). Alternatively you can look at ordering some RIDGID tools from the US, which are exactly the same as AEG (even the colour) just with a different label – I picked up the angle grinder and multitool while I was over there in May at about 1/2 the price of buying the AEG local ones, even after allowing for AUDUSD @ 0.75. Wouldn’t have minded picking up the 58V set of mower/trimmer/blower either, but a bit big to stuff into the suitcases. 🙂

    • If you want the good stuff you have to look for the old tools online or garage – estate sales, but for the gary garage craftsman is a decent price point for value.

      • Stuff that really works good for old tools is Evaporust

        It’s non-acidic, an organic thing that works best above 20degC.

        I put it in a small parts washer with an aquarium heater to get it up to to 30degC.

        Leave the stuff streaming over the item and turn it over every few hours.

        The evaporust can be stored and re-used. It takes a *lot* of absorbing rust before it’s saturated.

        It was originally made for maintainance of guns and things for the US military IIRC.

      • There is also rust converter, then again my grandfather always put mineral oil on tools after use when exposed to elements. I’d get that look when I did not pass a rag over something after I was done, like a shovel, yet could leave it out in the exposed weather afterwards.

      • What would you use for a DC power source to use electrolysis for getting rust (or just general crud) off cast-iron cookware ?

        Was thinking of cannibalising one of my old PC PSUs, but I’d be interested to hear other ideas ?

      • 3.3V from a pc power supply is probably the best thing, because higher voltages result in excessive current for the supply unless a got-hot resistor or thick filament headlight is put in series. A coiled piece of coat-hanger/fencing wire or nichrome fuse wire would work good. Wouldn’t matter much for occasional use, but having half the voltage drop across a resistance means 50% efficiency.

        Every decent electronics workshop or junk pile should have a Scope soldering iron transformer (3.3V rms out at 30A, often found at swapmeets), and a 240V variac. Drive the scope tranny with the variac to get 0-3.3V variable output, and rectify the tranny output with a chunky bridge rectifier. That setup is quite efficient, especially if you use schottky diodes for the rectifier.

        Schottky diodes have 0.4-0.5V drop compared to normal silicon of 0.8-0.9V, and are available in old pc power supplies (they’re cheap new anyway). Only do this method if proficient with 240V wiring or you could zap yourself badly. Remember to earth metal casings if available, to the earth wire.

        The old trick for removing rust from car bodies is to submerge the whole thing in molasses (look on utube). You wouldn’t need any power supply then.

  15. 2042, watched an auction, 850k single bidder for a small shithole. went for below reserve I’d say based on the antics of the auctioneers.

  16. Mining BoganMEMBER

    Here’s a little tale a young lady told me this week. It made me sad.

    She’s one half of a young couple with a new baby. We got talking because I knew they had just moved in about three months ago but hadn’t realised the whole new baby thing so mentioned to her it must have been a big move with a new bub in tow. Well, see, they’d been ‘losing’ auctions for three years. They couldn’t for the life of them work out how their two good full-time wages kept on getting outbid. Once pregnant desperation set in. Young lady had a stunned look on her face as she told me how the auction they ‘won’ played out. They knew it was ridiculous but kept bidding because bub needed a home.

    $800k+ in an area they could rent a similar home for $350-360 a week. She’s telling me that even that night she was asking hubby how they can afford this with new bub. The place had been a dodgy rental beforehand as well and apparently they spent another 20-30k making it liveable for poor bub.

    Now they never go out. No coffees, movies, dinners, sunday avocado etc. Gotta save for kid’s future schooling see. Health insurance gone. Her gym membership gone, his footy seasons finished. No more foxtel. Phone and internet cut right back. She’s going back to work ASAP. Has to be night shift though so she can be with bub during the day. Her dad has jumped out of retirement to work three days a week because it costs a bit for him and nanna to drive down from the country to help out.

    My Dog, writing it down made me even sadder. How did we get like this?

    • The Banking Royal Commission is a pretty good place to start. That said, Mrs Nut and I rented for years with children in tow. Even now we own a townhouse, it was what we could afford. I get the imperative to own a home to raise bub but to kill your life like that will likely lead to divorce. Was the desire to own a home worth it in the end? I hope they have the strength to work through it, tough times a head.

      • +1, I understand the urge but kids don’t care if you pay rent to the landlord or mortgage to the overlord.

      • @bzunica my mum had a trick for that. She claimed to be allergic to dogs and cats. Years later her sister called her out on it. By the time the truth came out all the kids were out of the house.

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        Never understood why the whole everyone gets a career thing didn’t end up with both ends of a couple working part-time to kick along a nice, healthy lifestyle. No, it had to be burnout for all to borrow and buy sh!t.

    • Yep,

      That is a common story.

      Young families bent out of shape by a massive failed experiment in running an economy on deregulated private bank credit.

      On the bright side Mr Morrison will use their misery and suffering to argue that we MUST have more of the same.

    • interested party

      MB, you have a good heart.
      Could you pass this link onto them for me?( if you think it worth it, that is )
      Cutting the food bill may be one step in the right direction……it will take time, but is well worth it. Typically attended by very helpful understanding folk.


      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        Geez, I don’t know if they even have a realistic back yard. Their house is on an old big block that got chopped up three ways. Suppose you can only do what you can.

        That little story I forget about a big HECS debt. It’s also a New Australian area where if things go really pear shaped there will be lots of Euro vehicles left at the airport and house values smashed.

        I think deep down she knows they’re doomed. She’s not dumb. I reckon she gave a relative stranger the gen because the family conversation could be too hard.

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        That’s the thing. I don’t know if it made me sad because poor financial decisions or because what Australia has become.

      • interested party

        J, there is that side of it. If the crazy had continued for a few more years they would see themselves as geniuses maybe.

      • I agree with MB. The damage to the social fabric has been immense. For example, both parents working to pay the bills means less time being actual parents. Be prudent and buy an “affordable” house 30 kms from the city and it means a marathon commute and more absent parenting. Be prudent and buy an “affordable” unit near the city and you and the kids can enjoy a yard-less tinned sardine lifestyle. Not to mention, as said elsewhere, the toll on relationships from having an enormous debt forever squatting and hovering inches from your face.

        …and outline the woes of a young family and their very legitimate struggles to meet what was 30-years ago considered a basic right, and a-hole commenters feel the need to put the boot in.

        As a country, we had it, we’ve now lost it, and it’s so far gone that many don’t even realise what “it” was.

    • How did we get like this?
      A large part of the problem is weak, vichy, sycophant men (and women really) who carry out and excuse censorship. The type who don’t engage in relatively objective conversation in good faith and censor when their feelings are hurt due to their beliefs being rattled when met with new evidence that challenges their beliefs.

    • Sounds to me like she is just blaming their shitty decision on being new parents. A little interrogation would shine a light on FOMO which is an envy / greed hybrid. Sad true but don’t blame the bub.

      • I dunno. Nesting instinct is very powerful, if you’ve ever seen a 38 week pregnant woman suddenly start painting the nursery room you’ll realise there’s something instinctive / evolutionary about it.

        Pity they couldn’t have channeled it somewhere else though.

    • This is a common story, which I fear will lead to rise in divorce rates in the next few years – if a massive housing crash eventuates. I know a few couples in recent years that decided that having a kid meant buying a big house (4×2×2) in a specific suburb and brand new SUVs. Most of it was about keeping up with the joneses. So many overextended themselves and are headed for serious financial ruin.

      • See that in Canberra a lot. Absolute pissing contest. Googong (technically NSW) is a new subdivision in the middle of a sheep paddock where “affordable” houses start at $650k plus. The place is full of the very people MB spoke of. Closer to hone, the next suburb over from our humble home is Crace. It’s full hell expensive houses and a lot of young families who must be struggling. We can’t work out how they can afford to buy let alone have matching cars etc. This story is repeated across Canberra. There’s a massive wank factor in Canberra, what suburb you live in, car you drive, job you hold, private school your kids go to etc that emulates what a souless nation we’ve become. Time for a shake out.

    • Sad indeed, it makes me angry. On a number of levels. Do I feel sorry for them? A little. Am I glad it’s not me? A lot. But all markets great winners and losers and it’s those who are patient sensible who are about to be the winners. The bankers are to blame, coupled with poor regulation and a lack of financial education.

    • It is not the first time someone have done really stupid in ‘ the ‘heat of the moment’, and having a new baby is the worse time to buy a new house.

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        What got me about this one is that they haven’t only destroyed their own lives, they’ve killed her parents retirement as well. You know, that suburb is full of retired folk minding toddlers during the day while both parents work. Must be exhausting. They look exhausted anyway. Almost as exhausted as the new young homeowner girl at work with the massive bags under the eyes who was asking the boss last week if there was any extra overtime about.


      • Met a lady at polling station who was family’s main breadwinner with very non-transferrable skills. She was made redundant this time last year, and family income dropped by two thirds to less than minimum full time minimum wage and with two kids.
        Fortunately, they were renting, with no house to lose. Afterwards I commented to my wife – ‘Only way it could be worse would be if they had a mortgage’.

    • No foxtel or gym membership now? Just apalling. How can anyone live like this? Tears are running down my face for this poor woman. She really needs to find a husband with a better job.

      • Mining BoganMEMBER

        I did those sums for my fellow bogans to address the astonishment at learning that even though I could pay cash for a house I choose to rent. Their response?

        “But then you’ve got no assets!”

  17. My electorate of Monbulk is interesting so far. Though only 3.3 % counted, Labour’s Merlino on 58 % two party preferred. Lib candidate was ex-CFA board member sacked by Andrews. This is a passionate CFA electorate.

    • Mining BoganMEMBER

      Out goes the spring selling season with a whimper.

      Spied a lady on fridày cleaning up the yard around the newly planted auction billboard…
      Geez, the whole suburb is for sale says I.
      It’s time says old lady, channelling Gough.
      Yes. Time to get out.
      Think it’s turning bad?

      Auction in January. That area is still selling so might get lucky. Might.

      • Yep. I heard of 5 staff gone from two separate agencies this week alone. A different agent to those is an old family friend who has practically done 70% of the townhouse developments in the neighbourhood over the last ten years. I noticed quite a few of his development blocks have been stalled and even placed back onto the market. A mutual friend who built elsewhere but decided to keep his old place as a rental was told by said agent to get the hell out as next year will be a bloodbath. Not unexpected that an agent would advise someone to sell but these are ageing diehard property Italians (aged 75+)! You can never lose was the previous mantra.

    • More carnage.

      Less than 50% reported in Sydney. Clearance still in the mid 40s.

      Melbourne lower still. 43% and a median sale price of only $736,000.

      Canberra still jammed in the 40s too.

      Happy days.

    • From Louis Christopher
      – Sydney auction results today: 45.1% preliminary clearance rate. Unreported rate was 25.9% (814 listed, 603 reported). Est final clearance rate is 37% to 40%. Last wk revised to 40.4% yet 10% still unreported. Our final last wkd est = 38.4%. This wk in 2017 CL = 54.6% 2016 = 73.7%
      – Melbourne auction results today: 43.0% preliminary clearance rate. Unreported rate was 27.8% (918 listed, 663 reported). Est final clearance rate is 36% to 39%. Last wk revised to 39.0%. This wk in 2017 CL = 63.7% 2016 = 76.2%.

      Finals headed into the 30’s.

    • Melbourne is an absolute bloodbath. I have been going through the results. So many houses passes in, at prices 100-200k lower than only a few months ago.

      It’s literally like the damn wall has collapsed.

      • To quote Ellen Ripley in Aliens. “You know, Burke, I don’t know which species is worse. You don’t see them fucking each other over for a goddamn percentage.”

      • Went to 2 auctions in 3185. 15 Orrong was crickets. It was not reported in the results. Neither was 409 Kooyong. 3 Results were posted for Elsternwick. One wasn’t auctioned yesterday. One was indeed auctioned and sold. One reported as passed in. For the 7 listed for auction yesterday, 2 were reported. If these numbers are representative of wider Melbourne, the clearance rates are ridiculously inflated and a great fraud is being perpetuated.

      • It was only like 3-4 years ago that houses (admittedly a bit oldish) on decent blocks in corio, geelong sold for that.
        Now they’re 350k, even before the avalon international airport was announced.

        I had thought of buying then, but it’s the opposite end of town, surrounded by houseos, meth labs, crime, and gaol families (lara prison not far from there), and still got cheap rent where i am. Getting one of those places would kill the spare time i do programming.

  18. Something something Victorians hate communists, something something trains, something something debt….

    Eviscerated, Exsanguinated, Hematachozia !

  19. Looks like an horrific outcome the the virtue signallers party know as the Greens. If it wasn’t for the hot deluded uni girls who campaign for that fake party they would have almost zero support.

    • Good. Sick of my tax dollars supporting the virtue signalers party. They dont give a sh1t about the environment.

    • A 1% swing is horrific, with the ABC as of current time predicting the same number seats as previously? If you say so I guess.

      • Not my anything,
        Just a 1% swing seems lacklustre, rather than disastrous, especially if the result is you end up in exactly the same place as after previous election.
        In a sense, I’m surprised the result at this election has been as good as that for them, as their campagin really was disastrous. If the ABC prediction still showing is true, and they end up with two seats, I’d almost call it a Houdini-like escape.

      • They are a minor party with a single digit vote. So doesn’t a one percent swing against them mean they lost like 12-15 percent of their support?

  20. With the Vic election being a serious wipeout for the coalition…what is the balance of State Liberal ineptness or Federal Liberal ineptness?

    • I spent the last three days in Gippsland for work. I had the local ABC on and heard a lot of election coverage. What surprised me was that all the state candidates generally came across better than their federal counterparts. Even though were no standouts the only real mess was the one who free-styled a Clarke and Dawe sketch. From that I’d say that the federal LNP is more of a schmozzle than the Victorian LNP.

      • Same as in NSW. The State Libs are head and shoulders above their federal colleagues who are a NOT an impressive bunch.

    • About the same as Labour ineptness…. the whole crapshow is inept.

      Lol if these gooses could not see it coming ….. they dont deserve to be there
      “Mr Pesutto said his party was going to have to have ‘‘a root and branch’’ review to determine what had gone so ‘‘horribly wrong’’.”

      • They ran on one issue only, didn’t give any indication how they might solve it, and didn’t bother to check whether anyone in Victoria actually gave a crap?

  21. Victoria Elections: a lot of candidates with Indian names. The power of a new voting block, all important in marginal seats.

      • I’m finding that immigrants that have been here a while want further immigration cut too. Sure it’s a generalisation, but many of them have children here, and want opportunities for them. Continued mass immigration them affects them just the same as the rest of us. Quite apart from the reality that it just can’t go on like this.

      • @alterbrain: anecdotally from the many Indians I know, that is true.

        The problem is, they still want to get their elderly parents in. So they would probably say any cuts should come from the skilled quota or the humanitarian quota, and leave family reunion alone. Indeed there was a lot of uproar and overt grumblings of entitlement from the migrant community when the Govt brought raised the fees for family reunion visas.

      • Why do we allow the elderly to migrate here, makes no sense. We have no obligation to ‘reunite’ families due to economic migration.

    • This is what the Liberals should be paying attention to – long term strategy and demographics.

      Why do you think the Republicans are so against South American immigration? Because when they get in they all vote Dem

      Libs need to run a study on which ethncities are voting from whom, and dump the Labour ethnicity as part of immigration cuts.

      For example, offer free migration to anyone under 40 who has graduated from a top 100 University. That will immediately cut out India, since they have none.

      • But alas, parties don’t think regarding their long-term viability, just like politicians don’t manage a country with a long-term view.

      • There *are* competent worthy indians that would be good to have here, but we don’t have the industry for them.
        There’s a lot of utube lectures from an Indian institute on mathematics and semiconductor physics i’ve been watching.
        Their massive railways workshop vids (from a different channel) are impressive too.
        “Indians” keep a lot of old machines running that were scrapped here 50+ years ago.
        They even have a space industry (and a lot of poverty, but so do we now).

      • From an old civilization and a country with 1.3 billion, absolutely you will find some gems, those who got here pre 1990 and their children are like that. Particularly the ones who gave their children Christian names.

        Just like Mike says though, it feels like we are just getting slum clearance now.

        Its interesting reading this Reddit thread about an Indian-Australian young woman complaining about lecherous Indian new migrants:


        Where she says that about 50% of Indian men are disgusting creeps.

  22. The Traveling Wilbur

    Markets tanking.
    Housing tanking.
    IP IO loans. Not rolling over.
    Variable banking rates going. Up.
    Liberals tanking. Election after election.
    Australian cricket… not winning.
    Liberals. Getting older. Returning to work.
    Pies. Tanking.

    It’s a great day for Australia everybody! Or at least it will be, hopefully, this time next year.

    Unless you’re old, own an IP or three, like cricket and vote Liberal. Still, can’t be many of those left, surely?

    PS *claps Andrews* – superb effort.

  23. Mining BoganMEMBER

    Hey, one of the SAP guys got a run in the legislative council! Southern Metro.

    I’ll be damned.

    • The micro parties had a very good run, with 10 spots on the Legislative Council

      Clifford Hayes (SAP): https://www.abc.net.au/news/elections/vic-election-2018/results/smet/
      Fiona Patten (Reason Party)
      Vern Hughes (Battler’s Party) – also an author for the IPA.
      Ali Khan (Transport Matters) – had run for the Liberals in the 2013 Federal Election
      Rodney Brian Barton (Transport Matters)
      Darren Hinch Party had 3, Animal Justice had 1

    • Incredible flow of preferences!

      Count 8: Kim Guest (Transport Matters Party) excluded

      626 (0.33%) votes originally from Transport Matters Party distributed to Sustainable Australia (Clifford Hayes) via preference 3.

      Count 9: Mark Hillard (Aussie Battler Party) excluded

      765 (0.40%) votes originally from Aussie Battler Party distributed to Sustainable Australia (Clifford Hayes) via preference 3.

      Count 10: Avi Yemini (Australian Liberty Alliance) excluded

      884 (0.46%) votes originally from Australian Liberty Alliance distributed to Sustainable Australia (Clifford Hayes) via preference 5.

      Count 13: Nicole Bourman (Shooters Fishers and Farmers VIC) excluded

      1,208 (0.63%) votes originally from Shooters Fishers and Farmers VIC distributed to Sustainable Australia (Clifford Hayes) via preference 3.

      Count 15: Nikki Nicholls (Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party) excluded

      2,536 (1.32%) votes originally from Derryn Hinch’s Justice Party distributed to Sustainable Australia (Clifford Hayes) via preference 3.

      Count 17: Robert Kennedy (Liberal Democrats) excluded

      2,815 (1.46%) votes originally from Liberal Democrats distributed to Sustainable Australia (Clifford Hayes) via preference 3.

      Count 18: Ben Schultz (Animal Justice Party) excluded

      4,071 (2.12%) votes originally from Animal Justice Party distributed to Sustainable Australia (Clifford Hayes) via preference 3.

  24. Sustainable Australia – shocking result. 0.21% of the vote.

    They need to change the name – just go all in and call themselves ‘Reduce Immigration Party’.

    • It’s victoria, populated by painfully bad driving snowflakes who think the sun and moon revolves around them, probably the hardest test for a party that requires people to have more then 4 brain cells to work out what they stand for….so yeah you have a good point there

    • These days SAP are a progressive centre-left party. Much more to them than just reducing immigration, so that would be a poor choice of name.

      • Doesn’t matter that they’re more than reducing immigration – people would only vote for them for the reduction in immigration issue. They only need to be a single issue party at the moment.

    • Yep, any name with sustainable in it will put off it least half the electorate. It does me, and I like em.

    • It’s a useless name and I’ll keep voting ON until they change it, it’s just a wasted vote. My dad said if he knew what they were about he would have voted for them he thought they were a Greens type nutter party. Even the taxi party got more votes

      • Spot on, the name has to change. The name “sustainable” relates to energy and conservation, and sounds like a greenie movement. Sustainable what? They need to go back to the “Sustainable Population Party”. I worked at the election yesterday and was counting the above-the-line votes. At my polling centre, while Labor got over 700 votes and Libs something in the 600s, Sustainable got 9. Nine – including my own vote.

      • Nailed it. Sustainable Australia is an amorphous nothing name.
        If SA was still the sustainable population party they would be cutting through in a serious way.

      • My dad said if he knew what they were about he would have voted for them he thought they were a Greens type nutter party.

        Well from his perspective he was probably right given the vast overlap between SAP and Greens policy bases.

    • The Cabinet that is already reputedly three quarters of the way to self-implosion due to its members now officially giving ZERO fukcs about anything, is about to see the last of its wheels fall off and go bounding towards the distant horizon.

      The instinctive, panicky blunders from here should be a wonder to behold.

      Only problem is that announcing an immigration cut in this climate – as they did – will unfortunately ensure that policy is totally discredited, because the party that suggested it is about to get slaughtered. (and some will claim that is cause and effect).

      • Well, they are all valid points.

        BUT what if Scomo comes out with “Zero immigration”, and lo, the electorate saw it was good?

        And they said, “yea, aspirational godbothering is what we want”.

      • I honestly think any big new policy announcement now – good or bad – will be written off as desperation, or at best ignored – the electorate has made up its mind.

        Unfortunately Scummo is doubly trapped by having openly opposed an immi cut only a few months ago as Treasurer, so no one will believe him if he puts one up now. Dutton – for all his many failings – is the only one who could have credibly put forward such an agenda.

        I still think he and Abbott might, post election, if they survive it.

      • @haroldus…IMO, Scommo would need to implement zero immigration and show demonstrable results BEFORE the election for that to work.

      • Lag in ABS reporting of NOM is a minimum of six months, closer to twelve, so any cuts announced from here won’t show up in stats before election.

      • Ha … they’ll claim that as a victory. What a joke they are. Fed lnp are done and hopefully all those nutters are shown the door.

      • Popular ALP government of socially progressive types kind of makes Greens – social progressives with no hope of being in power- a bit redundant. Greens need the ALP to be in a Rudd/ Gillard quagmire of dysfunction to get regular ALP voters to transfer their votes.

  25. The Traveling Wilbur

    The good news for the Libs is that they will be able to find a 17-seater van or mini-bus that they can all come to work in together.

    Provided one of them is happy to do the driving.

    • Given their minor party status in the new Parliament I can’t imagine there will be sufficient funding for a driver.

  26. Just saw ad for ABC 730 report next week. They are covering the IO loan reset and buyers remorse “we bit off more than we could chew……”

  27. Status update: Have moved from Evans and Tate Butterball Cardonnay Margaret River to Taylors Clare Valley Cabernet Sauvignon 2017.

    You pack of chunts.

    • Having a quiet night with Uncle Jim myself.

      Do you think I should go and put a [redacted] singlet on to enjoy it properly ?

        • C’mon

          The long hair Jesus and goatee look is the very quintessence of fashion. I find myself wondering if you arent losing your marbles.

          Why only yesterday I was in the queue at Aldi and the guy behind me wandered up and slapped a pack of hamburger patties, some turkish rolls, and a packet of chips onto the conveyor and was wearing only shorts to reveal a heavily tattooed set of shoulders underneath long wispy her tied behind his head and a goatee with one of those real goat tufts protruding from under the lower lip, while having a shaved upper lip, and my first thought was ‘gee I’d like to look like that!’

    • The Traveling Wilbur

      Was the Cab Sav any good? I’ve been thinking about picking one of those Taylor’s off the shelf for a while now so any guidance appreciated.

      • Actually yes.

        They leave a bit of fruit in there but it isn’t sweet ( I guess the French would beg to disagree).

        It has no faults, benefits from a little air and is filled with delicious dark berry goodness.

        Of all the approx $15 mass wines, this is the highest quality IMHO. (And I have tried Pepperjack, Jacob’s Creek Reserve and Rosemount etc).

        Would be happy to know if anyone else has any ideas.

        For some reason I don’t like Shiraz any more, it’s that crushed ant that gets me.

        (Not that I drink Grange but this guy’s on it
        The DNA of Grange shines strong, in all of its glorious complexity, layered with black plums, blackberries and liquorice, nuanced with black olives and crushed ants.

      • The Traveling Wilbur

        Cheers. It appears I should have mulled less and bought more.

        I shall rectify that behaviour shortly.

      • reusachtigeMEMBER

        I hear that poor people find anything by Shingleback to be top value wine hence why their entry levels take out top awards against some big $$$ hitters. Well so I have heard from store servants while buying my Lafite, Petrus and Margaux!

  28. made some sloppy joes tonite

    $7 coles mince + cup of tomato sauce + 1 onion + 3 cloves of garlic and some coles burger buns

    mmmm mmm mmmm mmmm snacktacular my compliments to the chef (me)

    • Even better and easier:

      3 potatoes
      1 small onion

      Chop the onion up and place in the middle of a large dinner plate. Microwave for 50 seconds.

      Chop up the potatoes into wedge/french fry shapes. Doesn’t need to be precise. Arrange around the onion on the same plate. Season with multipurpose seasoning and Thai 7 spices. Microwave for another 7-8 minutes.

      When done, coat with mayonaiise.

      Super easy and nutritious. No clean up since your chopping, prep and eating surfaces are all the same.

      Bioavailability of nutrients from the potatoes in this method is very high since microwaving is basically steaming.

    • UNHCR should be right on it! all over it!

      And hey – Canada’s apparently successful at relocating economic migrants to some butt-f*ck cow-paddock… Why can’t Australia do the same?

    • What I can’t grog about those ‘incels’

      Is why they blame women for their misfortune?

      I genuinely feel sorry for the males at the bottom of the dating hierarchy. They deserve the change at a mate – but often those women are being taken up by super-desperate South Asian migrants, whom are overwhelmingly male.

      If they want to lash out at anyone, it should be those groups of migrants, where they can cite statistics about the gender disparities they introduce from their very migration, and when they are here they sex-selectively abort female fetusus.

      Having been in nightclubs, bars and social events all over the world, it is consistently the Indian sleazebags who turn up to harass women, ruining the events for everyone else. Fortunately in places like Poland they are extensively beaten up and mostly shunned by society.

  29. Bitcoin just got smashed again. Down another 10% almost vertically down.

    Some remarkable round numbers. It’s down almost exactly 10% today, 30.0% in a week, 40.0% in a month, always in sudden abrupt moves.

    Definitely smacks of manipulation.

  30. Victoria is a lost cause: who is voting for Derryn Hinch? Paid 200k a year to fall asleep in the Senate. And Transport Matters? I’d hazard a guess that’s the Indian vote because a single issue party on taxis is a waste of two MLC seats, as is the Animal Justice Party.

    Looking forward to the ALP tribalists excuses in about 12 months time when Daniel Andrews has no money and he’s in the middle of the largest housing downturn we’ve ever seen. The Libs are god awful but its not a bad election to lose. Has to get worse before it gets better.

    • Most punters understand that “the economy” is a federal issue. In that regard, Scummo firing off happy clapper brain farts every week in the face of a looming recession is good for labor at the state level.

    • Yeah right. So one party is fixing hospitals, train lines, ambulances, dentists, education, and pretty much everything you would expect from a government – while the other one is telling everyone they will be raped in their beds and its unsafe to go out because of black people – oh and here’s a TV !

      Are you even serious ?

      Cognitive bias is a powerful thing and makes people say incredibly stupid things.

      Most people can recognize Dan Andrews is the best premiere Victoria may well have ever had – conversely Guy is maybe the most corrupt mafiosa in history.

      Its not even a discussion amongst people with half a brain – even the most hardcore Liberal seats voted ALP.

      Comments like yours honestly should only serve to make yourself aware of just how out of touch and completely biased your own opinions are – they are not served by facts or logic, but rather deep seated genetic issues based around fear and paranoia – that’s not a hypothesis – its a proven fact.

      Conservatism and anti-progressive views like yours (Trump supporters in general) are a genetic evolutionary trait based around fear. Its literally cowardice.

      • Thanks for proving my point about ALP tribalists. Not a conservative and have never voted LNP in my life. To accuse a stranger on the internet of cognitive bias on the basis of one comment, which was critical of two political parties is pretty absurd, but hey dopamine and all that.

        Andrews is just more of the same garbage with a better PR team. He has no money to pay for what he’s promising which is exactly why he’s doing deals with the Chinese. What little of Victoria’s assets are left he will be selling off like he did with the Port of Melbourne lease and the Titles Registry. Still under investigation which has forgotten about and I wouldn’t be surprised if there’s a slew of by-elections

        I stand by my prediction that he resigns in 12 months time when we’re in economic chaos. Cain government 2.0

      • Stephen, you couldn’t have illustrated your point better if you tried, I love how at the end mark tried to delegitimise you by labelling you a trump supporter with flawed genetics. Absolute gold.

  31. roylefamilyMEMBER

    Big news! Maybe. Sustainable Australia win a seat in Southern Metro upper house area. 40% counted.

    • The article suggest that humans just “appeared” 100.000 years ago – this is just not true. Evolution is something which occurs over a VERY long period of time – BUT – its happening with every generation as well.

      All animals literally become a “new species” about every 100,000 years. Very few stay the same in genetic stasis.

      Most moronic article I have ever seen written really.

    • so the span of the old testament is now in the range of 100k-200k years of human history ? that’s going to blow a few christian minds

      or are you making an analogy between “the ark” and various extinction events that have occurred multiple times according to the fossil record ?

    • Thanks John – linking to the paper with the very same – utterly ABSURD – conclusions does not make it any more valid.

      Its literally the most vacuous tripe ive ever come across and you too should know this.

      Its pretty simple – it really is.

      Anything more than 100k years ago – and it was a different species as it has evolved. Therefore all species are less than 100k years old.

      Yes – absolutely YES – religion spends an inordinate amount of time and money trying to influence academia and science to suit its agenda – to think otherwise is to be an intellectual hematachozia.

    • Read the comments on the facebook post, some interesting anecdotes. Even the ABC commentariat disgusted at the university ponzi.

      • I think this is driven by the national security risk represented of Australia’s universities being effectively controlled by the Chinese Communist Party via their addiction to Chinese student fees.

  32. “A new party set up by frustrated taxi drivers appears likely to win two seats in the next Legislative Council, despite winning only a tiny percentage of votes, according to projections using ABC analyst Antony Green’s election calculator.


    What a mess of a system.
    Let’s just for outsource our governance to Norway and get Japan Rail to run the public transport systems.

    • Son did a law subject at the local uni and said anyone who did not have a sound grip on the English language struggled and that included Australians! Foreigners were way behind the curve. Perhaps the the uni offers extra tuition to help them pass. Failures don’t look good on the uni’s record.

    • Even in early 2000s when I did my studies we had international students with poor English skills. I recall wondering why I didn’t get accepted into the course in the first round and why there was these international students who were clearly struggling hard. Of course back then I was 18 or so and naive to how the world worked.

      • LS, were you ever pressured to pass those people? It sounds like there is a two tier marking system at uni’s these days by the fact they are talking about graduates who don’t speak English.

      • @JB…generally I’ve been involved as an industry expert guest lecturer, hence not involved in assessment. A few years ago I was doing assessments, and never had any pressure to pass the dim. An academic friend of mine did have such pressure applied and stopped lecturing and went back to his consultancy , as he didn’t want to be known to have passed incompetent people. He thought, ptobably correctly, that it would trash his reputation.

    • It’s hardly news. It was common knowledge in early 2000’s that there’s basically 2 tiers, one for the lower hurdled disciplines that were packed with PR wannabees & then the harder ones where the genuine scholars went, as related to me by a Law professor at UNSW who didn’t have to deal with too many.

    • How many years of our current immigration rate and composition before this gets overturned here? Awkward.

    • The LNP election campaign could be turned into an informative and entertaining musical called Guys and Polls.

  33. I am suspicious about Australians being the wealthiest. I think they are including superannuation entitlements as “wealth” for Australians but not for people in other countries – in which case it is obviously not a fair comparison.

    • Whenever I see a single full stop comment I always hover over it, in the hope that it is a link to somewhere interesting, that has been hidden in plain sight. I am disappoint.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        Joan Ferguson aka “The freak” was much scarier.
        Even as an 11 or 12 year old I suspected some dark kind of lesso $hite was about to go down whenever “the freak” gloved up and entered some unfortunates cell,…exciting stuff.
        I watched it with the sound turned right down, on the B&W TV in my room,…not wanting to get “Busted” watching it.

    • prison cells are better decorated than that. There’s spartan / minimal design and then there’s “Stagmal”

    • arthritic kneeMEMBER

      I nearly turned around to my wife yesterday and said “Great news! Stagmal graduated!” Explaining who or what a Stagmal was would have been interesting

    • Lordy me, how do the ladies respond to that setup when you get them back after picking up at the Pastoral?

    • shouldnt you be posting this on a US-centric blog ? I mean, we already have single payer medicare and no, we don’t have death panels

      • I think you mistake the administration featherbedding and drive to privatize all such concerns Burns. You are aware of Centerlink also are you not.

        So file under future concerns if you will or a window into it.

    • Im going to enjoy watching the industry get destroyed and the cherry on top is when they start turning on eachother. Oh, and the “poor me” stories on ACA.

  34. “The path takes them into closed online communities, where members are unlikely to have real-world connections but are bound by shared beliefs. Some of these groups, such as the Macrobusiness community number in the tens. “What a movement such as Macrobusiness has going for it … is that it makes people feel connected to something important that other people don’t yet know about,” says cult expert Rachel Bernstein, who specializes in recovery therapy. “All cults will provide this feeling of being special.”’


    I edited it a bit. What else is a shut in to do on a Sunday evening?

      • TailorTrashMEMBER

        Yes ….don’t get that dynamic at all …………Martin has cred …..Adams is a leech in search of a host ….( he worked for Arfur Sinodinas … nudge nudge , wink wink, say no more …………)

        go on you tube now and all Martin’s videos come up as …..ADAMS and north …………nudge nudge wink wink ….say no more …..

        Martin old chap ….look after your Cred !