Anthony Albanese - How long? -2-

[JackOutback]

Albanese made to look a fool last night on John Oliver for gushing over the deeply racist modi.

As Biden does cosying up to Netanyahu. India is a very strategic ally for Australia so sadly no one here is pushing back against his authoritarianism. America, on the other hand, don't care as much about India.

 

[Forward Press]

That's a very broad statement to make. There can be dire consequences when inflation is allowed to continued un-restrained. Zimbabwe for example.

No one is advocating for printing money or hyper-inflation policies. It's a false dichotomy. I'm just arguing that allowing people to achieve basic aspirations such as decent food or their own place take priority over the fear of Australian turning into Argentina or Turkey. An 83c per hour increase to the minimum wage - which by all reports has a fairly minimal impact on the economy and probably costs less than a couple of F-35s to add to the Air Force - is the right thing to do. F*** those who go on about Zimbabwe and other extreme examples in order to keep poor people poor.

The RBA and our various levels of government aren't that stupid.

 

[Carn The Berries]

No one is advocating for printing money or hyper-inflation policies. It's a false dichotomy. I'm just arguing that allowing people to achieve basic aspirations such as decent food or their own place take priority over the fear of Australian turning into Argentina or Turkey. An 83c per hour increase to the minimum wage - which by all reports has a fairly minimal impact on the economy and probably costs less than a couple of F-35s to add to the Air Force - is the right thing to do. F*** those who go on about Zimbabwe and other extreme examples in order to keep poor people poor.

The RBA and our various levels of government aren't that stupid.

So you're position is that the RBA/government shouldn't apply contractionary monetary/fiscal policies when inflation goes beyond the target rate?

While I agree that Zimbabwe is an extreme example, there needs to be some restrictions in place to stop the possibility of it occurring. Whether the RBA's target range is appropriate or not is a valid conversation to have, but I don't think the economy is safe without something in place.

 

[Forward Press]

So you're position is that the RBA/government shouldn't apply contractionary monetary/fiscal policies when inflation goes beyond the target rate?

While I agree that Zimbabwe is an extreme example, there needs to be some restrictions in place to stop the possibility of it occurring. Whether the RBA's target range is appropriate or not is a valid conversation to have, but I don't think the economy is safe without something in place.

No, far from it. We aren't even close to a Zimbabwe type situation and we should not use that to scare people about inflation being 1% higher than ideal. All forecasts I've seen from Treasury and otherwise indicate the inflationary pressure of a small minimum and award wage increase is well within manageable levels. Again, people wanting to eat and have a place to live should be the priority.

Stage 3 tax cuts will have more of an effect on inflation. Should we abandon that?

Now, if the RBA was starting to print more money by the boatload and prices start entering double digit increases per month then you have a point. But we aren't.

 

[Carn The Berries]

No, far from it. We aren't even close to a Zimbabwe type situation and we should not use that to scare people about inflation being 1% higher than ideal. All forecasts I've seen from Treasury and otherwise indicate the inflationary pressure of a small minimum and award wage increase is well within manageable levels. Again, people wanting to eat and have a place to live should be the priority.

Stage 3 tax cuts will have more of an effect on inflation. Should we abandon that?

Now, if the RBA was starting to print more money by the boatload and prices start entering double digit increases per month then you have a point. But we aren't.

So what are you suggesting the RBA/government do then? Inflation is still outside the target range and, after a period of decline, may be on the way back up (or holding steady above target at best). If you're not disputing that we should have a target range and manage the economy within that target, what is the solution to doing that without tightening fiscal/monetary policy?

Yes, particularly for higher income earners. I've been saying that since the LNP originally introduced it.

 

[Balls In]

What is it called when population increases quicker than the economy?

https://www.news.com.au/finance/economy/australian-economy/crunched-households-slice-economic-growth-to-nearstandstill/news-story/587d4e93e05d78f37c5db911a26bba12#share-tools

 

[Forward Press]

So what are you suggesting the RBA/government do then? Inflation is still outside the target range and, after a period of decline, may be on the way back up (or holding steady above target at best). If you're not disputing that we should have a target range and manage the economy within that target, what is the solution to doing that without tightening fiscal/monetary policy?

Yes, particularly for higher income earners. I've been saying that since the LNP originally introduced it.

The target range is just that. The nation won't fall apart if it's a bit outside. People need jobs, food and shelter.

Priorities are in the wrong place if everything is all about inflation, damn the consequences. Short of a radical re-structure of the economy (eg abolishing investment properties, which won't happen), what else can you do to tackle it apart from tinkering at the edges?

 

[Carn The Berries]

The target range is just that. The nation won't fall apart if it's a bit outside. People need jobs, food and shelter.

Priorities are in the wrong place if everything is all about inflation, damn the consequences. Short of a radical re-structure of the economy (eg abolishing investment properties, which won't happen), what else can you do to tackle it apart from tinkering at the edges?

The reality is, while there are inflation targets in place (which I support) the nature of our politics will dictate that both sides of the chamber will do whatever they can to keep inflation below the top end of the range. The potential backlash of failing to do so would be suicidal.

That reality makes your second paragraph quite pertinent, but I don't think those priorities are changing any time soon.

 

[Forward Press]

The reality is, while there are inflation targets in place (which I support) the nature of our politics will dictate that both sides of the chamber will do whatever they can to keep inflation below the top end of the range. The potential backlash of failing to do so would be suicidal.

That reality makes your second paragraph quite pertinent, but I don't think those priorities are changing any time soon.

Backlash from economists? Sure.

Backlash from voters with stagnant wages seeing the usual things they could afford slip out of reach? Far greater.

Both sides are indeed guilty of pandering towards the latter. But I don't blame them.

 

[Carn The Berries]

Backlash from economists? Sure.

Backlash from voters with stagnant wages seeing the usual things they could afford slip out of reach? Far greater.

Both sides are indeed guilty of pandering towards the latter. But I don't blame them.

The behaviour of both parties suggests to me that the voter backlash would be greater by letting inflation run above the target range. Neither have shown any inclination to change the status quo.

 

[Gralin]

Nice graph.

I have absolutely no idea what awards are included within it.

Some of the ones I am involved with have absolutely kept pace with the CPI.

You could argue that those that have decelerated are simply correcting vs decade(s) of low inflation with consistent wage growth outperforming the CPI for a long time.

The problem is those industries that had wage growth outstripping inflation for the last 20 years, that have also used the current CPI as a reason for even larger pay rises.

Their net position hasn't changed.

yeah i guess the profits vs wages graph you'll just quietly ignore because it doesn't suit your narrative that wages are the problem

and wages should keep pace with inflation, and also with profits

 

[Sphynx]

yeah i guess the profits vs wages graph you'll just quietly ignore because it doesn't suit your narrative that wages are the problem

and wages should keep pace with inflation, and also with profits

I'm not ignoring it.

Profit vs wages is an absolutely meaningless comparison though.

Especially in modern business' where wage reliance has never been lower.

 

[Gralin]

I'm not ignoring it.

Profit vs wages is an absolutely meaningless comparison though.

Especially in modern business' where wage reliance has never been lower.

no its not

when profits are going up like inflation is and wages aren't

the issue isn't wages

sure there will be people who have their wages going up like the profits, usually the boards and CEOs etc

you know how they get all that extra money and profit?

wage theft

 

[Sphynx]

no its not

when profits are going up like inflation is and wages aren't

the issue isn't wages

sure there will be people who have their wages going up like the profits, usually the boards and CEOs etc

you know how they get all that extra money and profit?

wage theft

I'm not saying "the issue" is wages. Where did I say that?

I've stated a few key sectors which have had historically higher wage growth than inflation has caused an inbalance, which has been worsened now that inflation has increased. As it's given union's a reason to reach for even higher wage growth.

It's particularly pertinent when these sectors affect government spending MASSIVELY.

In cause, causing debt.

Reducing ability for government spending on social measures or economic schemes..

Etc.


To just ignore wages completely in Australia's socio economic climate is ignorant.

 

[Gralin]

I'm not saying "the issue" is wages. Where did I say that?

I've stated a few key sectors which have had historically higher wage growth than inflation has caused an inbalance, which has been worsened now that inflation has increased. As it's given union's a reason to reach for even higher wage growth.

It's particularly pertinent when these sectors affect government spending MASSIVELY.

In cause, causing debt.

Reducing ability for government spending on social measures or economic schemes..

Etc.


To just ignore wages completely in Australia's socio economic climate is ignorant.

im not blaming wages for inflation, im just blaming union wages for inflation

lol

 

[Sphynx]

im not blaming wages for inflation, im just blaming union wages for inflation

lol

Err right.

Never said either, but keep inventing gotcha quotes.

It's certainly a factor in micro economic climates like Victoria.


You may have no practical experience with it, which is fine.

But it's occurring.


You claiming active "wage theft" is so damn ironic considering the bodies you are defending at the moment.

 

[Gralin]

Err right.

Never said either, but keep inventing gotcha quotes.

It's certainly a factor in micro economic climates like Victoria.


You may have no practical experience with it, which is fine.

But it's occurring.

My eyes tend to glaze over when people blame wages for cost of living

 

[Johnny Bananas]

So what are you suggesting the RBA/government do then? Inflation is still outside the target range and, after a period of decline, may be on the way back up (or holding steady above target at best). If you're not disputing that we should have a target range and manage the economy within that target, what is the solution to doing that without tightening fiscal/monetary policy?

Yes, particularly for higher income earners. I've been saying that since the LNP originally introduced it.

The writ of the RBA shouldn't just be about inflation alone. It should also be about sustaining full employment. The US Federal Reserve has this dual mandate, as did the Reserve Bank of New Zealand until recently (before neoliberal weirdos who care more about their pretty little numbers than people's well being came into power).

By not having the dual mandate, the RBA have a single-minded focus on getting inflation in their target range, which has led to them hiking rates while the economy is still weak. The resultant dampening of economic growth will put more people out of work. This may be useful for reducing demand-pull inflation but does little for cost-push inflation. So given there's a serious cost to wellbeing of a lot of people when increasing rates, it's worth looking at how well it actually addresses the main components of inflation.

If we look at the CPI as calculated by the ABS, multiplying the change in prices in each sector by the weighting given to each sector shows the four chief causes of inflation: education, health, food and housing.

The ABS says the following about each of those sectors:

Education - rose mostly because of the annual CPI indexation being applied to fees. This is an inescapable cost, dependent on what past CPI was. It seems to me it can't be squashed by higher interest rates.

Health - rose mostly because of fewer people being eligible for Medicare Safety Net and PBS subsidies. This is the result of government policy and it seems to me that this also can't be squashed by higher interest rates.

Food - main contributors were non-alcoholic beverages and fruit and vegetables. I don't know if that's the result of lower supply or increased demand, but regardless, is food consumption something we really want to lower demand for by making more people unemployed?

Housing - rent rises are the biggest contributor, followed by new dwelling purchase by owner-occupiers. Utilities have actually gone down in price. Housing is also the single biggest contributor to inflation over the past 12 months, having more than double the effect on CPI of any other sector. Again the main contributor was rent rises, followed by new dwelling purchase by owner-occupiers.

Are rents going to go down by increasing interest rates? If so, shouldn't they have done so already from previous rates hikes? I think it'd be more logical that rents rise as a result of higher interest rates, as landlords paying off a mortgage now have extra costs that they'd likely pass on to tenants.

Regardless, how do higher interest rates impact the future supply and demand of rental housing? I'm unsure how it would boost supply, as a higher cost of borrowing should lead to fewer developers embarking on costly new housing projects, meaning fewer build-to-rent developments and fewer people buying a new house to occupy and renting out their old one. I can definitely see how higher interest rates decreases rental demand by making people unemployed at greater risk of homelessness, but is that a satisfactory way to lower demand? Is that something we really want to do?

Overall, I'm not confident that an interest rate rise would be effective at reducing these contributors to inflation. It does strike me though, how much action the government could take to reduce these causes of inflation. They could cut the costs of tertiary education fees or not index them to inflation. They could keep more people on medical subsidy schemes. They could reduce rents by building a lot of public housing. But they don't want to do any of these things, and it all results in high inflation and higher interest rates.

 

[Gralin]

The writ of the RBA shouldn't just be about inflation alone. It should also be about sustaining full employment. The US Federal Reserve has this dual mandate, as did the Reserve Bank of New Zealand until recently (before neoliberal weirdos who care more about their pretty little numbers than people's well being came into power).

By not having the dual mandate, the RBA have a single-minded focus on getting inflation in their target range, which has led to them hiking rates while the economy is still weak. The resultant dampening of economic growth will put more people out of work. This may be useful for reducing demand-pull inflation but does little for cost-push inflation. So given there's a serious cost to wellbeing of a lot of people when increasing rates, it's worth looking at how well it actually addresses the main components of inflation.

If we look at the CPI as calculated by the ABS, multiplying the change in prices in each sector by the weighting given to each sector shows the four chief causes of inflation: education, health, food and housing.

The ABS says the following about each of those sectors:

Education - rose mostly because of the annual CPI indexation being applied to fees. This is an inescapable cost, dependent on what past CPI was. It seems to me it can't be squashed by higher interest rates.

Health - rose mostly because of fewer people being eligible for Medicare Safety Net and PBS subsidies. This is the result of government policy and it seems to me that this also can't be squashed by higher interest rates.

Food - main contributors were non-alcoholic beverages and fruit and vegetables. I don't know if that's the result of lower supply or increased demand, but regardless, is food consumption something we really want to lower demand for by making more people unemployed?

Housing - rent rises are the biggest contributor, followed by new dwelling purchase by owner-occupiers. Utilities have actually gone down in price. Housing is also the single biggest contributor to inflation over the past 12 months, having more than double the effect on CPI of any other sector. Again the main contributor was rent rises, followed by new dwelling purchase by owner-occupiers.

Are rents going to go down by increasing interest rates? If so, shouldn't they have done so already from previous rates hikes? I think it'd be more logical that rents rise as a result of higher interest rates, as landlords paying off a mortgage now have extra costs that they'd likely pass on to tenants.

Regardless, how do higher interest rates impact the future supply and demand of rental housing? I'm unsure how it would boost supply, as a higher cost of borrowing should lead to fewer developers embarking on costly new housing projects, meaning fewer build-to-rent developments and fewer people buying a new house to occupy and renting out their old one. I can definitely see how higher interest rates decreases rental demand by making people unemployed at greater risk of homelessness, but is that a satisfactory way to lower demand? Is that something we really want to do?

Overall, I'm not confident that an interest rate rise would be effective at reducing these contributors to inflation. It does strike me though, how much action the government could take to reduce these causes of inflation. They could cut the costs of tertiary education fees or not index them to inflation. They could keep more people on medical subsidy schemes. They could reduce rents by building a lot of public housing. But they don't want to do any of these things, and it all results in high inflation and higher interest rates.

Oh they definitely have a policy on unemployment

One of their targets is unemployment around 5% because they think that is where inflation will sit in their target zone.

They want more people out of work and they are trying to make it happen.

And when they do the government treats those people like shit

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Albo is pretty gutless for joining with the Libs' position over Palestine, voting against recognition, condemning pro-Palestine protests and accusing the Greens of spreading misinformation by pointing out the reality of the ongoing genocide. Can't imagine this will impress anyone who is pro-Palestine when it comes to the next election, especially Muslim voters.

 

[Gralin]

Albo is pretty gutless for joining with the Libs' position over Palestine, voting against recognition, condemning pro-Palestine protests and accusing the Greens of spreading misinformation by pointing out the reality of the ongoing genocide. Can't imagine this will impress anyone who is pro-Palestine when it comes to the next election, especially Muslim voters.

Is he gutless or is he just a conservative?

He ran a conservative campaign, his policies are largely conservative, he's a rich middle aged catholic.

Like yeah I don't think he has much courage, he sure as shit doesn't seem to have passion of conviction to stand up for anything.

But, largely I think he is exactly what he's been for years now in action, which is a conservative politician who cosplays a progressive.

Labor are run by the right, they pretend they aren't and they find people from the so called left factions that will sell their souls for a seat at the table to wash their conservatism.

But they are largely a center right party

Now the rank and file members are much more diverse than that and its why we're seeing so much noise from them about being unhappy with the party direction at state and federal levels.

 

[Johnny Bananas]

Is he gutless or is he just a conservative?

He ran a conservative campaign, his policies are largely conservative, he's a rich middle aged catholic.

Like yeah I don't think he has much courage, he sure as shit doesn't seem to have passion of conviction to stand up for anything.

But, largely I think he is exactly what he's been for years now in action, which is a conservative politician who cosplays a progressive.

Labor are run by the right, they pretend they aren't and they find people from the so called left factions that will sell their souls for a seat at the table to wash their conservatism.

But they are largely a center right party

Now the rank and file members are much more diverse than that and its why we're seeing so much noise from them about being unhappy with the party direction at state and federal levels.

He's gutless in the sense he co-founded Parliamentary Friends of Palestine and makes a big deal of his activism in his youth, yet has turned into just another conservative. It's very similar to him crowing about growing up poor in public housing, yet doing very little on building more public housing or helping welfare recipients now.

 

[Gralin]

He's gutless in the sense he co-founded Parliamentary Friends of Palestine and makes a big deal of his activism in his youth, yet has turned into just another conservative. It's very similar to him crowing about growing up poor in public housing, yet doing very little on building more public housing or helping welfare recipients now.

its his version of ScoMo's I'm just a daggy dad who cooks curry

its window dressing

Labor pay lip service to things to try and keep their traditional voting base but they don't actually offer more than crumbs to them

 

[JackFlash]

Albo must distance himself and the Labor party from the Greens who are a party that supports hate and violence. They bring nothing but disharmony and divisiveness to the table in Australian politics. There is something decidedly sinister about the Greens and if Albo wants another term he needs to cut ties immediately.

 

[Gough]

Albo must distance himself and the Labor party from the Greens who are a party that supports hate and violence. They bring nothing but disharmony and divisiveness to the table in Australian politics. There is something decidedly sinister about the Greens and if Albo wants another term he needs to cut ties immediately.

What ties do Labor and the Greens currently have?