Macro Afternoon

See the latest Australian dollar analysis here:

Macro Afternoon

While there was no change to the Bank of Japan’s interest rates at today’s meetings, the USD has surged across the board as US Treasury yields climb sharply on the return of US traders to their desks as the long weekend finishes. This has seen Asian stock markets put in mixed sessions despite lower domestic currencies – particularly Yen and the Australian dollar  – with gold barely holding on to its poor Friday finish, falling slightly below $1820USD per ounce level, as buying support is tested:

Mainland Chinese shares are the odd ones out, heading higher on the expectation of more rate cuts from the PBOC with the Shanghai Composite up 0.5% to 3558 points while the Hang Seng Index is slipping again, losing 0.4% to 24124 points. Japanese markets are still not liking the weaker Yen with the Nikkei 225 closing 0.3% lower at 28261 points as the USDJPY pair pushed higher again on the BOJ meeting, almost getting through the 115 level to advance further on its Friday night bounceback off a new monthly low:

Australian stocks are going nowhere, with the ASX200 down just 0.1% to close slightly above the 7400 point level at 7409 points, while the Australian dollar slumped on the surging USD, brekaing through its Monday morning gap start level and the 72 handle, seemingly confirming its Friday night slump:

Eurostoxx and Wall Street futures are falling going into the London open, with the S&P500 four hourly chart showing price wanting to return to the Friday night lows with the potential still building for another dip down to the 4600 point level:

The economic calendar continues with UK unemployment, the closely watched German ZEW survey then a series of US Treasury auctions.

Latest posts by Chris Becker (see all)

Comments

        • The Travelling PhantomMEMBER

          Congratulations on your membership Skip!
          Resistance is futile
          (Unless you are a different Skippy,
          not the original marsupial)

          • The Travelling PhantomMEMBER

            ^^ it was more of a teas! Cause so many times he laughed and mocked the membership and gave a million reasons not to subscribe.
            I was poor (and still) only afford it cause of tax return.
            Others like your greatself only participate in the open fields (articles) and don’t mock the system. And I hold lots of respect to all subscribers and not.

          • The Traveling Wilbur 🙉🙈🙊

            No biggie, just didn’t realise you were so eager to see Reusa’s Member.

            I mean skip’s Member. No, wait… OK, well, either of them probably. 😁

          • The Travelling PhantomMEMBER

            ^^ wasnt eager to see him as member or anything it is a free world, was more of the point that he kept banging on about how ridicules to be a member and then went and did the opposite.
            all members and memberless are equal front of the law and me eyes but not to DLS and Co!

          • The Traveling Wilbur 🙉🙈🙊

            Oh. Fair do’s. Genuinely didn’t know that. Very valid POV.

            In my defence, the only way I’d have known that earlier is if I’d read one of the marsupial’s droppings in the last 4-years…

    • happy valleyMEMBER

      “We are here to announce the next stage in our Omicron response plan, as has been planned, prepared and anticipated for any surge in either case numbers or hospital numbers,” Mr Hunt said.”

      Hunt is having a laugh of us – planned, prepared and anticipated for … More lies.

    • That climate warrior need to understand the proposition is right out the Austrian libertarian Ideologue Hans Herman Hopple mental processes.

    • The Travelling PhantomMEMBER

      End result of extreme wokeness, gender nutrility, and extreme communism compound with great desires to be pleasing personalities. Not to mention the huge guilt they live under and try to alleviate by such life styles

      • Its all Austrian libertarian head shrinking and nothing to do with any notion of left or Marx …

        4 part series that will show you what I mean –

        CNC: Obama is causing the uncertainty now. Before Obama, George W. Bush was causing the uncertainty. In general, democratic government causes uncertainty. Hans-Hermann Hoppe made all of this clear in his 2001 book “Democracy: The God That Failed.”

        ANDREW: Are there things you have learned from the work of Dr. Hoppe that you had not found in the writings of other libertarians?

        CNC: “Ludwig von Mises and Murray Rothbard were great men, but they lived in a time when supporters of freedom needed to be careful about what they said. As a result, libertarians often fail to describe their ideal future society in clear detail. But, as the Cato Institute’s Patri Friedman has recognized, Hans-Hermann Hoppe is an exception to this reticence. He is willing to speak the truth, no matter how much it makes “politically correct” people squirm, and he is so logical and eloquent that I routinely quote from his classic book on the failure of democracy. Please color such quotes in red – I would never try to pass off my own ideas as if they were on his level.

        ANDREW: Tell us now about the libertarian society you are working to make possible.

        CNC: It will be a free society – no government, no coercion. People will have their rights respected. Everyone will be free to do whatever they want as long as it doesn’t interfere with anyone else’s rights… why are you looking at me like that?

        https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/11/journey-into-a-libertarian-future-part-i-%E2%80%93the-vision.html

        Have fun … lefties and Marx … lmmao …

        • The Travelling PhantomMEMBER

          You too cutie pie, have fun and lots of tickling to you by your lovers! …
          agree! lefties and Marx … lmmao!

          • No read it … it clearly delves into exactly what EP’s link is banging on about e.g. kids selling themselves i.e. Taliban level OT stuff …

          • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

            Actually I didn’t read it either,…Apparently It’s “satirizing brave new world the author basically says it in the last line” according to one Twitter poster who did.
            Another says,…”This is clickbait. He’s actually pointing out the problem with “equity”

            Sigh

          • He’s got his analogies wrong… it’s a retelling of “A modest proposal” from Jonathan Swift, rather than Aldous Huxley.

      • I should add he goes right in to the question of kids having the right to leave birth parents and find others if its deemed agreeable with the new parents. Its the endgame of the everything is a market and everyone a commodity in it.

        • The article isn’t about kids shopping for parents sparky.

          The article is about the state confiscating kid to ensure they grow up “proper”… kids indoctrinated in the ways of the state, like Komsomol (perhaps Newsome-Jürgen is more fitting?).

          Left wing tyrants always do this, “the world will be a better place when they all think like me.”

          • call me ArtieMEMBER

            Hi Ermo. I take issue with that.
            Fascism in it’s historical forms has been both leftist and tyrannical. That is to say, it places state above individual (left wing) and ruthlessly suppresses dissent (tyrannical). Furthermore, it has historically relied on the cult of the individual as leader (again tyrannical).
            Just saying

          • You link someone who is wrong… what are you trying to prove?

            All Tyrants are anti Democratic and thus Right wing

            Democracy is a metamorphosis of right wing thinking, which is individualism and liberty. What democracy is, is to allow (corral ?) disparate views, as individuals will be, in an attempt for something that will be ‘least broken’, such as compliance to a consensus, even if said individual(s) have an opposing view.

            Again, the strive for an equal, but sole, voice amongst many.

            An individual voice, is inherently right wing. A ‘right wing’ doesn’t exist if individualism doesn’t exist.

            Left-wing is inherently anti-democratic, it is the state view. It is to violate individuals until they adhere to the state view. There is no inherent factor in left-wing politics which says this state view is formed by the consensus of many, despite the myth it’s “100% about the consensus”.

            History is replete with all notoriously left-wing governments ultimately disbanding the electorate in determining the state view.

            Starting with the French Directoire, to Lenin, Stalin, Mussolini, Hitler, Mao, Pol Pot.. left-wing does not believe it an imperative for a consensus shape the state’s view. And as history shows, they all end up removing political opposition, ultimately requiring the need for violent revolution to remove.

            No one needed to overthrow Pitt the Younger.

            A left-wing view, is a state view, there is no left wing if a nation-state has zero power to enforce it’s view.

          • Fascism is left-wing ? The right invented democracy ?

            We’re in Opposites World.

            The right is the domain of Monarchies, Aristocracy, organised religion and other authoritarian, hereditary, strictly hierarchical (ie: not democratic) systems.

            Democracy is a product of the left, as are individual rights, the rule of law, and pretty much every other idea we take for granted in modern society.

          • bolstroodMEMBER

            He doesn’t know his left from his right was a common saying when I grew up.
            Apparently still true

          • ”Fascism in it’s historical forms has been both leftist and tyrannical. That is to say, it places state above individual (left wing) and ruthlessly suppresses dissent (tyrannical). Furthermore, it has historically relied on the cult of the individual as leader (again tyrannical).”
            Ermo’s point is that when one looks at “left” in the pure sense, it is fundamentally anti-elitist and anti-authoritarian (which fascism is not). A healthy foundation for real democracy. If you read Marx, you will know his vision for the future was a society of community (which is fundamentally anti-state as well). What many deem to be communism now, is just a gross distortion of what Marx had dreamed (Fascism which is a far-right ideology). A living testimony that many have betrayed his ideals and the ideology he helped found.

            That’s not to say his ideas did not lay a foundation for good. Social welfare and public health are great examples of what was born from the influence of his ideas. His fight against the elitist capitalist state, wrestled from the elites these concessions we too easily take for granted today,
            Note: Good vid Ermo

          • Ermo’s point is that when one looks at “left” in the pure sense, it is fundamentally anti-elitist and anti-authoritarian (which fascism is not).

            LULZ…. Leftism is authoritarian by definition. Authoritarianism is the impune power of the state. When you obtain the power of the state, you have authority. The more power this authority has, the less power the individual has.

            it is individual protections against the state, which is a measure of liberty, or anti-authoritarian. The less authoritarian a society is, by definition it cherishes individualism more, which is the textbook assertion of right wing.

            To confirm where authoritarianism lies…, let us read pg 26 of the Commuinist manifesto

            1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
            2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
            3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
            4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
            5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
            6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
            7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; (the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.)

            Plenty of totalitarianism here

            A healthy foundation for real democracy. If you read Marx, you will know his vision for the future was a society of community (which is fundamentally anti-state as well).

            Rubbish, utter rubbish, his utopia was the the dictatorship of the proletariat. It wasn’t anti=state, it was to strengthen the state. It lies to your tripe above about him being anti-elitist.

            He wasn’t anti-elitist… he was against the prevailing elite, he just wanted them usurped with a different type of elite, namely himself.

            What many deem to be communism now, is just a gross distortion of what Marx had dreamed (Fascism which is a far-right ideology).

            No it’s not.

            It was spawned out of the spartacist movement, which is essentially marxism, but councils of workers (soviets) are replaced with something resembling a trade union.

            It minor modification occurred during Mussolini’s observations of WWI, Mussolini being a devout marxist and all. What he observed was WWI spawned nationalist movements within respective belligerent nations… which was diametrically opposed to the internationalist worker socialism as predicted by Marx. But virtually every other economic policy was inspired by marx… namely the state control of the means and distribution of production. The difference can be summed up as:

            marxism is socialism for the international proletariat.
            fascism is socialism for the (Italian) nationalist.

            A living testimony that many have betrayed his ideals and the ideology he helped found.

            No, Marx was a dullard who never had a real job in his life and lived of welfare (namely the money from Engels dad), with an oversized ego who thought utopia would be achieved if only everyone obeyed his insights.

            So we had marixsm part 1, with Lenin imposing a dictatorship (without a mass movement behind him), massacring the mensheviks along the way. The accusation by the bolsheviks was the mensheviks weren’t ‘real socialists’.

            marxism (attempt) part 2 was the Spartacism uprising in Germany in January 1919…. the SPD (the party marx was a member of a couple decades prior) took power from November 9th 1918, but it had split into 3 groups… one of the offshoots then committing themselves to this violent uprising.

            The SPD husk (Ebert), who wanted ‘socialism’ via democratic reform…. the two splinter groups were faithful to marx and insisted the revolution could not come by democratic means, that violent revolution was required. The KPD (liebknecht) were the one’s who revolted. They accused the SPD of ‘petty bourgeoise’ democracy (Liebknecht “handmaidens of capitalism”)… as proof the SPD was too right wing and not real socialists. I agree with them.

            Real socialists do not want democracy, they do not want a platform for a view to challenge theirs, in line with marx’s totalitarisn views.
            Real socialists understand any move towards voting rights, is a move to the right… freedom by way of individualism is the central tenet of right-wing politics.

            No, marx’s idea have never been currupted. when fulfilled, they always lead to tyranny and suffering.
            It’s feature of marxism, not a bug.

            That’s not to say his ideas did not lay a foundation for good. Social welfare and public health are great examples of what was born from the influence of his ideas.

            ‘His ideas’…… John Locke (1632-1704)

            His fight against the elitist capitalist state, wrestled from the elites these concessions we too easily take for granted today,

            yeah, so much so that every country which has had a chance to overthrow marxism (namely eastern europe) never wants to revisit it again, and are vociferously anti-marxist.

            Communism is proven time and time again to be nonsense… put it this way… the original working title of the Communist Manifesto was “The Communist Confession of Faith”.

            Indeed, it is an article of faith.

          • Fascism is left-wing ?

            Yes.

            The right invented democracy ?

            The primacy of individual expression, and individual rights 9as to not be crush by the state) is the central tenet of right wing ideology, yes.

            We’re in Opposites World.

            Again, I would be in agreeance with that.

            The right is the domain of Monarchies, Aristocracy, organised religion and other authoritarian, hereditary, strictly hierarchical (ie: not democratic) systems.

            No they’re not, you’re conflating traditional and/or prevailing (ancien regime) with right wing. Leftist always fall for simple rhetoric, part of the ‘different world’ which you described above.

            Religions are well and truly a left phenomenon, they are the original state. They seek to control the means of production, they seek to have all conform to a view, they seek to abolish the rights of the individual.

            Today’s ‘hate speech’ is the same as yesterday’s ‘blasphemy’. As the same time when enlightening the population away from religious excesses, as it is today against ‘hate speech’, the moral framework is the right of the individual.

            The left is just as heirarchal, if not more so than the right. It’s ecular at best, if not left wing altogether.

            Democracy is a product of the left, as are individual rights,

            The state, which is the central tenet of the left, is diametrically opposed to the individual. This is categorically false.

            the rule of law,

            No, one rule for one, one rule for another is distinctly an occurrence when the state has too much power.

            and pretty much every other idea we take for granted in modern society.

            Yeah, except the conception, building, funding and maintaining of it… which is the repeated pattern, the rights builds a society, the left pushes inn on the margins, encroaches even more, wants to enact totalitarianism, creates quotas and BS laws to have the state at war with its own people, then the society crumbles…. our society still has a semblance of functionality in spite of the left, not because of it.

          • It’s impossible to have a sensible conversation when one person is using completely different definitions of words to everyone else.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Left–right_political_spectrum

            The terms “left” and “right” appeared during the French Revolution of 1789 when members of the National Assembly divided into supporters of the king to the president’s right and supporters of the revolution to his left.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism

            Fascism is a form of far-right, authoritarian ultranationalism characterized by dictatorial power, forcible suppression of opposition, and strong regimentation of society and the economy that rose to prominence in early 20th-century Europe. The first fascist movements emerged in Italy during World War I, before spreading to other European countries. Opposed to anarchism, democracy, liberalism, and Marxism, fascism is placed on the far right-wing within the traditional left–right spectrum.

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right-wing_politics

            The meaning of right-wing “varies across societies, historical epochs, and political systems and ideologies.”[76] According to The Concise Oxford Dictionary of Politics, in liberal democracies, the political right opposes socialism and social democracy. Right-wing parties include conservatives, Christian democrats, classical liberals, and nationalists, as well as fascists on the far-right.[77]

            British academics Noël O’Sullivan and Roger Eatwell divide the right into five types: reactionary, moderate, radical, extreme, and new.[78] Journalist Chip Berlet wrote that each of these “styles of thought” are “responses to the left”, including liberalism and socialism, which have arisen since the 1789 French Revolution.[79]

            The reactionary right looks toward the past and is “aristocratic, religious and authoritarian”.[79]
            The moderate right, typified by the writings of Edmund Burke, is tolerant of change, provided it is gradual and accepts some aspects of liberalism, including the rule of law and capitalism, although it sees radical laissez-faire and individualism as harmful to society. The moderate right often promotes nationalism and social welfare policies.[80]
            Radical right is a descriptive term which was developed after World War II and it was applied to groups and ideologies such as McCarthyism, the John Birch Society, Thatcherism, and the Republikaner Party. Eatwell stresses that this usage of the term has “major typological problems” because it “has also been applied to clearly democratic developments.”[81] The radical right includes right-wing populism and various other subtypes.[79]
            The extreme right has four traits: “1) anti-democracy, 2) nationalism, 3) racism, and 4) the strong state.”[82]
            The New Right consists of the liberal conservatives, who stress small government, free markets, and individual initiative.[83]
            Other authors make a distinction between the centre-right and the far-right.[84]

            Parties of the centre-right generally support liberal democracy, capitalism, the market economy (though they may accept government regulation to control monopolies), private property rights, and a limited welfare state (for example, government provision of education and medical care). They support conservatism and economic liberalism and oppose socialism and communism.
            By contrast, the phrase “far-right” is used to describe those who favor an absolutist government, which uses the power of the state to support the dominant ethnic group or religion and criminalize other ethnic groups or religions.[85][86][87][88][89] Typical examples of leaders to whom the far-right label is often applied are: Francisco Franco in Spain, Benito Mussolini in Italy, Adolf Hitler in Nazi Germany, and Augusto Pinochet in Chile.[90][91][37][page needed][92][93]

            The only part of the right that is remotely keen on individual rights and individualism, is the left-most part of it. And even they have a fairly strict and limited view of what counts as “individual rights”. The further right you go, the less care about individuals there is. This is why people on the right run to their fainting chairs whenever “diversity” (ie: non-conformance, ie: individuality) appears.

            It’s easy to tell how the right really feels about “individuals” just by looking at the kinds of organisations they favour – eg: religion, the military, corporations. None of which give a flying f*ck about individuals outside of their elites/leadership, and are generally run in a way specifically to dehumanise.

            Basically every criticism of the left, by the right, is projection of their own behaviour driven by fear that they will be treated the way they treat others.

          • Yes, I have the correct definition of words, you have wikipedia’s defintion.

            So for the facism tripe….

            Fascism is;

            Authoritarian (every leftist government seeks this by definition. A leftist state does not relinquish power, left wing is state power

            Nationalism (which is what is said with Mussolini’s, facism is socialism for the nation, as opposed to marxism which is socialism for the (international) proletariat. Pol Pot’s and Ho Chi Minh’s socialist were distinctly Kampuchean and Vietnamese naitonalism.

            Characterized by dictatorial power – communism has only had one jurisdiction which was not a dictatorship. This is a sign of it being left, and an idiotic wiki editor who does not know anything.

            Forcible suppression of opposition – The state is a monolith, the individual is not. Adherence of individualism, and favouring it against the state, is the central tenet of the right.

            Strong regimentation of society – which sounds an awful lot like the ‘state control of the means of production’.. guess where this sits?

            The declaration of it being “right”, is a conclusion, by someone who is ignorant, and doesn’t know (a) history (b) the definition of socialism, in socialisms own words.

            Mussolini’s goverment organised the means and distribution of production FOR the state
            The nazi’s organised the means and distribution of production FOR the state

            A right wing economy is the private control of the means and distribution of one’s own production, to take to market 9as an individual)

            In the 1930 in Germany after the Nazi’s came to power, American industrialists used to read Daas Kapital, as to understand how their economy worked.

            In 1939, globally the Molotov-Ribbentrop pact was seen as a socialist alliance, andf the globa opinion was these were th two socialist powers

            The USSR being the a country which formented Socialism for the (international) proletariat (at the expense of the bourgeoise and kulak)
            Germany being a socialist country for the Aryan, at the expense of the non-Aryan (and one race which gets an automatic filter for some reason)

            The change of Nazi Germany from that time period as left, to what is inaccurately portrayed as right has been the work of vested interests since the end of WW2. It appears to have worked well, but it is a faithful litmus test to filter out those who are educated, vs those who have their opinions fed to them.

          • Yes, I have the correct definition of words, you have wikipedia’s defintion.

            No worries, Humpty. You keep going along with your “correct definition” of words nobody else follows. Just don’t expect them to understand what you’re talking about.

          • @RP
            Good lord! You’re missing the entire point. If you bother to look at Ermo’s vid, you’ll see a core point is that everyone has been lied to about a great many things. History often tends to tell the tales of those who won, and your entire wall of text is largely built on a foundation of lies and propaganda by those winners (who are right wing).

          • Good lord! You’re missing the entire point. If you bother to look at Ermo’s vid, you’ll see a core point is that everyone has been lied to about a great many things.

            I did watch it, I dismissed it once already, however… I will run through it. So, by Noam Chomsky, who is nearly universally regarded as one of the premier liars in defence of socialism…. with his stance of “every failure is not real socialism”. (If you study socialism, this becomes a recurring theme.

            The core of his premise is that Lenin is ultra-ring wing. This is unproven, nor does he mount an effectively argument for it. It is mainly baseless assertions, but the points he does argue are:
            Dismantling the workers councils. Now this is virtually the same point of difference bwteen the SPD and the KPD in Germany in 1919, however…. ‘dismissing workers councils, therefore cannot be real socialism”

            Point 7 of the program Communist Confession of Faith (p26) – Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State

            Workers councils are not a requisite of communism, thus dismissing them is not anti-communist. In fact this points not towards council*S* as per old Noam is trying to push… but a solitary bureaucracy of the state. Noam is 0/1 here.

            He tried to emphasize the ‘strength’ of this point saying Lenin was in defiance of ‘mainstream communist’s like Rosa Luxemburg”, and she’s great.. I love quoting her when people defend communism. A person who never had a job her her life, and espoused central planning, participated in a coup attempt which cost her, her life, with the greatest failure… her planning.

            The Communist Party of Germany (KPD) split away from the SPD (Socialist Party of Germany) in 1918, after they observe the leftist bloodshed in Russia the year before. Kerensky’s revolution in Feb 1917 was relatively bloodless. Bring in the left, and the blood will flow, it feeds the soul of tyrants.

            Thus is 1918, the moderates, with were the bulk of the SPD knew this would not hold water. They then changed their policy platform to ‘reform via democratic means (i.e. they moved to the right). Rosa however was a committed leftist… as Noam Chomsky says himself….. so… let us look at what she said in December 1918 and January 1919

            “Can we contrapose the social revolution, the transformation of the existing order, our final goal, to social reforms, certainly not.”

            Is is satisfactory to achieve our aims by voting alone – no

            The daily struggle for reforms, for the amelioration of the condition of the workers within the framework of the existing social order, and for democratic institutions, offers to the Social-Democracy the only means of engaging in the proletarian class war

            We will participate in ‘voting’ to get what we want’.

            and working in the direction of the final goal – the conquest of political power and the suppression of wage labour.

            This is mainstream communist Rosa Luxemburg which old Noam raises up. 0/2

            Between social reforms and revolution there exists for the Social Democracy an indissoluble tie. The struggle for reforms is its means; the social revolution, its aim.

            Which is what it is all about. It is for them, to become the new elite. To be in charge all of arms of the state. How much power to the state? Let’s go back to the Communist Confession of Faith….

            1. Abolition of property in land and application of all rents of land to public purposes.
            2. A heavy progressive or graduated income tax.
            3. Abolition of all rights of inheritance.
            4. Confiscation of the property of all emigrants and rebels.
            5. Centralisation of credit in the hands of the state, by means of a national bank with State capital and an exclusive monopoly.
            6. Centralisation of the means of communication and transport in the hands of the State.
            7. Extension of factories and instruments of production owned by the State; the bringing into cultivation of waste-lands, and the improvement of the soil generally in accordance with a common plan.
            8. Equal liability of all to work. Establishment of industrial armies, especially for agriculture.
            9. Combination of agriculture with manufacturing industries; gradual abolition of all the distinction between town and country by a more equable distribution of the populace over the country.
            10. Free education for all children in public schools. Abolition of children’s factory labour in its present form. Combination of education with industrial production.

            So some noble aims, nothing that Locke wouldn’t consider.. but pretty heavy handed. Wilting petals of power though….. not a chance.

            So returning to Noam, tripe like this is meant to discount Lenin’s socialist … when in fact it reinforces them. Lenin is running the socialist playbook to the letter, which is why it is eminently easy to dismiss Ermo’s

            “No such thing as a left wing Tyrant,…Buddy. All Tyrants are anti Democratic and thus Right wing.”

            The Communist manifesto itself outlines totalitarianism.

            So with the completey unfounded assertion of Lenin being right wing, this is supposed to add weight to further assertions of “evidence”, Trotsky being real left wing, because he was denounced by the soviet union (null hypothesis) thus this diametrically opposed position proves a “right wing” position (when it’s more in line with real socialists decrying every other failure as not real socialists’)

            Noam said they can’t be real socialists because “they seized power and whipped society into their own vision”…

            Um do I have to post points 1-10 again? What is centralisation if not this? Noam 0/3

            “Workers control over the means of production” – the workers aren’t the state, there is a clear distinction. – Noam 0/4

            And so forth. Easily dismissed, but here we add the second message being sent by Noam, and the one that you’ve fallen for.

            So we can only start with the assumption that the USSR is now right wing, despite Noam being 0/50 throughout his presentation…. therefore the ‘2 biggest propoganda outlets”

            The Soviet union saying they are socialist, and the brutality is needed, and the west saying the soviet brutality is a sign it doesn’t work… is “an unfair representation” of socialism….

            Yeah well done Noam….perhaps….

            The soviet union is acting out, like a totalitarian regime MUST,, because individual freedom is a move to the right, (I think his words were exploit the moral force of socialism) the west accurately reporting them, well more like confirming that they acting out on their play book … and Noam, you’re the only propogandist here…..

            Did you two ever consider this?

            So I’ve written enough of a wall here… I could triple this output if I wanted to.

            Tyranny is baked into the fabric of left wing politics, which is primacy of the power of the state. Every calibration of liberty and freedom is how much removed the individual is from the arm of the state.

            This is a two sided coin, with every welfare payment, with every public funded utility, comes intrusion

          • Another wall if text which completely misses the point because you’re just working backwards from a position you want to occupy with definitions you’ve invented.

          • Yeah, I didn’t “invent the definitions”

            I’m quoting the The Communist Confession of Faith and speeches from Rosa Luxenburg herself…

            That’s how primary sources work.

          • ”Yeah, I didn’t “invent the definitions”
            The definitions of terms like “left”, “right”, “fascism” are not new. Conservatives on the right need their own definitions because it is necessary to sustain the propaganda façade that fractures the masses and deflects anger.

            I’m quoting the The Communist Confession of Faith and speeches from Rosa Luxenburg herself…
            And you’re also providing a backdrop of absurdly parochial commentary with it to distort and mislead. Aside from your questionable definitions for key terms, you can’t talk about the thoughts of Luxenburg or works like the Communist Manifesto without considering the period of history. The tyranny confronting workers was very real. Child labour was rife for much of the 1800s, working and living conditions were abysmal and pay insufficient for a dignified existence. For many, it was a fragile and miserable life of exploitation that was arguably worse than that the serfs endured during feudal times.
            While by the early 1900s things had improved, it was largely because of the struggle by those on the left. It was because of their resistance and their growing popularity among the people, that governments were forced to provide social welfare. Incidentally, I think by most accounts, the origins of the welfare state in modern times were traced back to Germany in the 1880s (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Welfare_state). You’ll note this isn’t just talking about doing it, it is actually doing it. Some acknowledgement of the left’s progressive role in Europe is clearly deserved.
            Little by little we seem to be returning to those day as wages go backwards and hard won protections like social welfare are eroded. It’s important people remember this history and the ideals that made the world a better place.

            ” This is a two sided coin, with every welfare payment, with every public funded utility, comes intrusion”
            …and there it is. To sustain a system that exploits the poor and other common folk, the right has to demonise the ideology of the left and the remedies that give dignity to the lives of the masses. Even if your belief is genuine, it is still unjustified.

            ” That’s how primary sources work.”
            All you have demonstrated is how to use primary sources to mislead. Other times you just flat out get it wrong. Examples:
            ”The core of his premise is that Lenin is ultra-ring wing. This is unproven, nor does he mount an effectively argument for it. It is mainly baseless assertions, but the points he does argue are:
            Dismantling the workers councils. “

            That’s one point and its worth noting, Lenin, Stalin and other leaders of their ilk fit perfectly the definition of fascism. Socialist ideals were merely a tool they used to garner support from the masses. It didn’t change the fact they were not what they claimed themselves publicly to be. Of course when one chooses to ignore the actual meaning of words, one can claim otherwise as you have.

            “Workers councils are not a requisite of communism, thus dismissing them is not anti-communist.”
            Those councils are a core feature of the dictatorship of the proletariat. The workers control the means of production and democratically elect who represents them. It’s both democracy at work and Marx 101. That ended the Marxian road map and the brutal elitist party dogma that set in there after completed the journey to the dark side.
            It’s really not hard to see many politicians of all ilks’ lie and mislead. That deeply rooted inner attraction many have to power is probably the main reason. Populist ideals like socialism resonated deeply at the time with workers – so speaking to them was just a means to an ends for these false left leaders. Sadly like a lot of propaganda, some things don’t change.

          • His whole argument is just a collection of circular reasoning and begging-the-question fallacies, fleshed out with definitions, tautologies and interpretations that nobody even remotely mainstream uses.

            As I said, it’s impossible to have a sensible conversation when one person is using words in a completely different way to everyone else.

            https://pages.gseis.ucla.edu/faculty/agre/conservatism.html

            * The Destruction of Language

            Reason occurs mostly through the medium of language, and so the destruction of reason requires the destruction of language. An underlying notion of conservative politics is that words and phrases of language are like territory in warfare: owned and controlled by one side or the other. One of the central goals of conservatism, as for example with Newt Gingrich’s lists of words, is to take control of every word and phrase in the English language.

            […]

            More importantly, conservative rhetors have been systematically mapping the language that has historically been used to describe the aristocracy and the traditional authorities that serve it, and have twisted those words into terms for liberals. This tactic has the dual advantage of both attacking the aristocracies’ opponents and depriving them of the words that they have used to attack aristocracy.

            This is how we get gems like “Leftism is authoritarian by definition Authoritarianism is the impune power of the state. When you obtain the power of the state, you have authority. The more power this authority has, the less power the individual has.”

            Which completely flips around the historical origin of “the right” in supporting the Monarchy (ie: just about the ultimate embodiment of an unchallenged, authoritarian state).

            Or this:

            “it is individual protections against the state, which is a measure of liberty, or anti-authoritarian. The less authoritarian a society is, by definition it cherishes individualism more, which is the textbook assertion of right wing”

            Which is half-true in that individualism and rights are anti-authoritarian, but reverses the fact that is was the progressive left that fought the authoritarianism of the right.

            The idea that the right are champions of the individual is absurd on its face. Conservatives gravitate towards classist, hierarchical and authoritarian systems like moths to a flame (military, church, corporations), passionately fight attempts to eliminate class and flatten hierarchies, and treat non-conformity with something between disdain (if you’re lucky) and violent hatred (if you’re not). Conservatives are only vaguely interested in protecting your “individualism” and “rights” if you’re in, or near, the Aristocracy – otherwise you’re cannon fodder.

        • The state your talking about has been selling free markets = democracy since post Eisenhower.

          So Herbert Nelson contracted out the PR services of the Foundation for Economic Education to concoct “third party” propaganda designed to shore up the National Real Estate lobby’s legislative drive — and the propagandists who took on the job were Milton Friedman and his U Chicago cohort, George Stigler.

          To understand the sort of person Herbert Nelson was, here is a letter he wrote in 1949 that Congressional investigators discovered and recorded:

          “I do not believe in democracy. I think it stinks. I don’t think anybody except direct taxpayers should be allowed to vote. I don’t believe women should be allowed to vote at all. Ever since they started, our public affairs have been in a worse mess than ever.”

          It’s an old libertarian mantra, libertarianism versus democracy, libertarianism versus women’s suffrage; a position most recently repeated by billionaire libertarian Peter Thiel — who was Ron Paul’s main campaign funder in his 2012 presidential campaign.

          So in 1946, this same Herbert Nelson turned to the Foundation for Economic Education to manufacture some propaganda to help the National Association of Real Estate Boards fight rent control laws. Nelson chose to work with the FEE because he knew that the founder of the first libertarian think-tank, Leonard Read, agreed with him on a lot of important issues. Such as their mutual contempt for democracy, and their disdain for the American public.

          Leonard Read, the legendary (among libertarians) founder/head of the FEE, argued that the public should not be allowed to know which corporations donated to his libertarian front-group because, he argued, the public could not be trusted to make “sound judgments” with disclosed information:

          History tells another story about Libertarianism outside the PR sold as logic.

          • The state your talking about has been selling free markets = democracy since post Eisenhower.

            They did it pre-Eisenhower too, for nearly 200 years prior to Eisenhower… well in the successful countries anyway.

          • Stop penny … Austrians have Natural Rule as a cornerstone to its philosophy … btw did you see who funded AET – Corporatist & wealthy families … in fact they were imported into the U.S. by them and set up perches.

            Do you really think the SF chronicle is a Socialist/Commie/Marxist corporate media propaganda outfit when its owned by Hearst Communications

          • So? I think Austrians are clowns who address theoretical issues which don’t exist in reality.

            Do you really think the SF chronicle is a Socialist/Commie/Marxist corporate media propaganda outfit when its owned by Hearst Communications

            All left-wing societies have a larger Gini coefficient than right wing societies…. it’s how you can tell your otherwise civilised country is heading left.

            All left wing societies have an elite, normally observed by them having extraordinary gain, never ending government funded bailouts and being at the fortunate end of these high Gini coefficients.

            So, to appeal to the types you find in SF, yes, I can see some Hearst employees paying, at the very minimum, lip service.

          • Globalist economics was not a left socialist commie agenda no more than Citizens United was … owning politicians who are handed down marching orders from the likes of ALEC is not government democratic failure due to socialist polices.

          • So who owned Lenin, Pol Pot, Hugo Chavez? All these countries failed dramatically.

            The ones that can recover tend to have institutionalised freedoms built in. Things the state can’t take away, or haven’t.

          • Wow you can’t even reconcile basic history and resort to straw manning … have you ever heard of this thing call a Tautology.

    • It’s the natural progression of leftist policies. Here’s one without a paywall – https://www.vcstar.com/story/opinion/columnists/2022/01/13/column-california-should-abolish-parenthood-name-equity/6513756001/

      Ignore the resident dunce thinking this is Austrian, this article is priori push polling to ensure no one suffers from “wrong think”. Only uniform(ly wrong) train of thought is permissible. The line of thought underlying this blurb here

      If California is ever going to achieve true equity, the state must require parents to give away their children.

      Today’s Californians often hold up equity — the goal of a just society completely free from bias — as our greatest value. Gov. Gavin Newsom makes decisions through “an equity lens.” Institutions from dance ensembles to tech companies have publicly pledged themselves to equity. (yeah, the same way actress pledged themselves to Harvey Weinstein)

      But their promises are no match for the power of parents. So what parents aspire to provide, opportunity for their children to compete, and succeed at competing?

      Fathers and mothers with greater wealth and education are more likely to transfer these advantages to their children, a common motivation to earn more, by virtually all of them

      compounding privilege over generations. As a result, children of less advantaged parents face an uphill struggle, social mobility has stalled, and democracy has been corrupted.

      ficticious BS. Read up on Andrew Carnegie and the station he was born in. Equality of opportunity is desirable, not equality of outcome. It is not a government’s role to equalise outcomes, nor do they or any other institute have a moral mandate to enforce “equal outcomes”

      All this goes to show is why reasonable human beings, always, end up with less state intervention in their private lives. They always grab more power.

      This is not new, this is the same as Mao, same as Stalin, same as Hitler, same as Pol Pot. All the infamous left-wing regimes do the same thing. For God’s sake, there has been no shortage of warnings.

      • Austrian thinking or theory is completely ex ante a priori driven out of whole cloth and then fleshed out post hoc ergo propter hoc.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        They are all Right wingers.
        Did you not watch that clip I posted above!
        They are not leaders of “The Left” just because they say they are.
        Do you also believe Bruce Jenner is a woman because he says she is?
        https://youtu.be/yQsceZ9skQI

        • I watched the clip, but he’s wrong.

          Right Wing is a manifestation of liberty and individualism. It’s excesses will see this individualism extend to individual property, and this can then extend to chattel slavery. (as no state can intervene)

          Left wing is about the power of the state. it is often (and wrongly) looked at being therefore a force which can ‘correct wrongs’, such as using a monopoly of force to coerce wrong doers, and enforce transfer payments to provide ‘just outcomes’..

          The premise of welfare often falls under this, but there is no tenet of ‘fairness/egalitarianism’ in left Wing politics which their proponents say tend to say is a default stance, history shows otherwise.

          I can Unabashedly say Bruce Jenner is still a bloke, because I am free. For the likes of Green voters, they don’t have this freedom. We can all predict what others parties will tell them what their opinion will be.

      • Narapoia451MEMBER

        If you think Hitler is left wing you don’t understand what the left \ right political spectrum is.

        • No, the “the Nazi’s were right wing” is the amongst the most effect lies ever belied.

          Anyone who extends into studying this, beyond Che Guevara T-shirts, can only conclude the Nazi’s were left wing.

          It is the surest test of anyone who understands this.

          If you think Nazi’s were right wing, you fail.

    • Has to be a gee-up. He makes a reference to his “modest proposal”, alluding to Swifts proposal that the Irish should eat their babies during the famine.

      Otherwise he’s serious, which wouldn’t surprise me either. My first wife was from California, gorgeous but as crazy and dangerous as a sh1thouse rat.

      There’s a helluva a lot of crazy in California. Nothing that comes out of there surprises me.

    • satire
      /ˈsatʌɪə/
      noun
      the use of humour, irony, exaggeration, or ridicule to expose and criticize people’s stupidity or vices, particularly in the context of contemporary politics and other topical issues.

      The use of “modest proposal” and “brave new world” aren’t enough to give it away ?

        • The Travelling PhantomMEMBER

          I wish to see Hugh interacting with anyone!
          Only once he said something other than his reports which made me very sad, when skip attacked him nastly, so Hugh replies by nothing but “you are very unkind to me”
          So been trying to comnunicate with him since!

          • The Traveling Wilbur 🙉🙈🙊

            So, basically like harry and me then. I’m sure he equally feels the love though. 🐻

          • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

            I think a group cuddle should be organised.
            I suggest Harry’s this Friday Arvo.
            Who else is in?

          • Hugh is a developer lobby bot … know of him from before MB when he was promoting Sunshine Coast rezoning of mangroves for development. Then him and his side kick Phil who would scream LIES at anyone not thinking Texas was a model of economic and social perfection.

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        I wanna give you a big cuddle Rusty.

        But I would like to challenge 2 of your further up assertions,

        1st “Democracy is a metamorphosis of right wing thinking, which is individualism and liberty”
        and
        2nd “An individual voice, is inherently right wing. A ‘right wing’ doesn’t exist if individualism doesn’t exist.
        Left-wing is inherently anti-democratic”

        If the above is correct why do all these philosophers and “Founding Fathers” go on about real Democracy being inexplicably linked to redistribution and the Welfare state?
        Aristotle predicted a social democratic welfare state 2000 years ago!
        https://youtu.be/gGfFXc0TwhU

        • The Traveling Wilbur 🙉🙈🙊

          The above is correct and Rusty is illustrating a dichotomy of outcomes via juxtaposition of political ideologies and presuppositions (amongst other things).

          • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

            Sure,…but whadya reckon about that Tom bloke expressing his individuality so eloquently?

        • What’s being moderated…

          Re: Aristotle, about Democracy being (naturally devolving to) the Tyranny of the mob. A vote, or the expression by way of enfranchisement, is the ‘democratic part’, if not for the institute of Democracy. Many people have voting rights in a say a republic or a constitutional monarchy.

          For lack of a better word, let’s call the enfranchisement ‘voting rights’, and a Democracy an electoral system which gives voting rights to as many people as possible .. – https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2022/jan/09/new-york-allows-non-citizens-vote-controversial-law

          The view of Aristotle, and the founding fathers is the wider you open ‘voting rights’, you will ultimately destroy freedom as the broader enfranchisement will encompass those who are incapable of understanding the consequences of their vote.

          The corollary to the welfare state is a very predictable when you think about it… if consensus can see a majority to claim off the minority they will. it is has been evidenced by all the left wing tyrannies I said above. One of the hallmarks of the welfare state (family tax act A) is you make everyone borderline skint, the populace need to vote in who provides for them by way of transfer payments. In reality, it makes very little sense to tax someone, only to give it back to them.

          Hitler’s rise was socialism for the Aryan, at the expense of the non-Aryan. (and what I think censored me)
          Lenin’s rise was socialism for the Proletariat, at the expense of the bourgeoisie, kulaks and rural peasants
          Mao, Pol Pot did the same.. different class of victims.

          Aristotle and the founding fathers weren’t anti-voting rights (anti-democratic), they wanted to preserve voting rights, and they extended it as wide as they saw fit, but needed to protect it from the ‘tyranny of the mob’.

          Australia’s answer has been to make voting compulsory, being the otherwise unengaged voter, compelled to vote, will always vote against a mob… as we saw in 2019 when they made the right decision.

          • Arthur Schopenhauer

            🤣😂😅 Such extreme examples. No mention of the Swiss, Danes, Swedes, Finns, or even, heaven forbid, 19th Century Australia.

            The welfare state has its roots in the 19th century English reformists. The intrinsic motivation was to prevent a proletariat revolution. Initially a French style revolution, and later a Russian style revolution.

          • Such extreme examples. No mention of the Swiss, Danes, Swedes, Finns, or even, heaven forbid,

            Yes, because up until the 1970’s none of them were anything resembling socialist. Their social infrastructure is a legacy of right wing politics, and cultural homogeneity. This can be seen with the lives of Scandinavian diaspora in north America.

            What we can also see is after 40 years, the increased dysfunction and impairment prosperity and social cohesion in those same countries with the advent of socialism.

            19th Century Australia.

            A frontier country with minimal government and a very socially conservative country is pretty much the furthest thing from left-wing.

            The welfare state has its roots in the 19th century English reformists. The intrinsic motivation was to prevent a proletariat revolution. Initially a French style revolution, and later a Russian style revolution.

            John Locke (1632-1704), I think you’re a bit out there.

  1. Hugh PavletichMEMBER

    China …

    China’s Property Sector Is Crashing Again And This Time It Has Reached The Country’s Biggest Developer … Zerohedge

    https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/chinas-property-sector-crashing-again-and-time-it-has-reached-countrys-biggest-developer

    China’s Property Crisis Reaches Biggest Builder Country Garden … Bloomberg

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-15/china-s-property-crisis-reaches-biggest-builder-country-garden

    China’s Property Sector Contraction Worsens in Blow to Economy … Bloomberg

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2022-01-18/china-s-property-sector-contraction-worsens-in-blow-to-economy

    China’s Births Hit Historic Low, a Political Problem for Beijing … The New York Times

    https://www.nytimes.com/2022/01/17/world/asia/china-births-demographic-crisis.html

      • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

        The only way to test your theory is “Mixed” maximum security prisons.
        I think a bit more “breeding” than you think might occur.

      • The Traveling Wilbur 🙉🙈🙊

        You’re confusing watched/managed with captive. Plenty of captive voluntary breeding in human history. Plenty.

      • Well the older one is 46 according to her vaxpass.

        So now the taxpayer is funding the Victorian government to produce videos which endorse the grooming of minors. FFS.

      • Muttafukaburrasaurus.MEMBER

        They might not identify as wh1te either.
        Personally I’m claiming Carthaginian heritage and petitioning the EU for compensation for Roman genocide.

        • ErmingtonPlumbingMEMBER

          Whenever my Irish mate starts going on about what the British did to his ancestors I always say to him,…Well what about the way those Irish Scots bastards invaded Caledonia in the 4 and 5 centuries, displacing my aboriginal Pictish ancestors!
          He always retorts that it doesn’t count if it’s over 1000 years ago!
          Sigh,…I wanna be a victim too!

    • Not much. I had my comments about the red hanky wearing nationalist banned. But, hey, if you seem vaguely left you maybe ok. PS I have nearly half a million in their fund; if my comments aren’t posted again I may pull it. Isn’t that what they call leverage?