• Welcome to the Cricket Web forums, one of the biggest forums in the world dedicated to cricket.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join the Cricket Web community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

The Australian politics thread

Spark

Global Moderator
I don't know whether I agree with the other parts of your post but this:

The exclusion of housing is based on a specious argument that 'housing is an investment' so it shouldn't be counted. The consumptive aspect (living in it) is much more important that the investment aspect (making a return at the end) for most people.
I agree with so hard the post deserves a like. Houses are consumption goods ffs, literally the point of them is four walls and a roof to shelter you from the elements and store away your things. Not generate an investment return.
 

Burgey

Request Your Custom Title Now!
This sounds more like a libertarian view but I've thought for a while that road taxes should be levied based on an individual's vehicle usage. I see people driving to work all by themselves in 4x4s or chauffered Mercs on Bangalore's clogged up roads and it's such a pathetic waste. Just need to install some technology on a vehicle to implement this.
You having a shot at me here or what?
 

Starfighter

International Coach
I don't know whether I agree with the other parts of your post
Not surprising, from what I've seen your economic philosophy is veeeeeeery different to mine.
Houses are consumption goods ffs, literally the point of them is four walls and a roof to shelter you from the elements and store away your things. Not generate an investment return.
IMO it's the kind of argument that can only be sustained by someone who has never held an ordinary paying job or is detached in an academic bubble (or both). Central banks and the other involved institutions are chock full of these types, often career academics at the banks and high-flying finance related types. No one who has actually had to struggle to get one would believe that.

The issue stems from the needless distinction between 'consumption' and 'investment' goods (something Keynes made prominent) ignoring that it's arbitrary and goods can be either depending on situation. But no-one in 1936 would have disputed that owner-occupied housing was consumption. At some point academics got the idea of houses as being 'this great store of wealth' and an investment, even though that's not why we buy them (though that they retain value is nice).
One thing to remember is that the actual cost of building a new house is counted in the CPI, just not the land and existing houses. I've seen a few specious arguments like it's not a new product (the mortgage is?) and that the land and existing houses are just a transfer (can't quite remember this one, but do remember taken properly it should also include rents, which are counted). Either way part of the argument does stem from the treatment of land as investment, ignoring the fact the house and land aren't detached as a product (and they aren't bought to make a return).
But another argument I've seen is that houses are an investment because they are used/'consumed' over time. The stupidity there isn't expressible in words. Cars are as well, they just depreciate more. It's a completely arbitrary distinction, and one that has been extremely damaging for monetary policy and our economic and social future. There's no limits to how far you can take that one.

It's worth pointing out that prior to the change to super commoditised thinking, the removal of the interest rate buffer and (considering this occurred elsewhere) in Australia our special tax treatment housing has historically been a crappy investment, with capital yields only a little above inflation at best (especially with depreciation) and rental yields being small.
 
Last edited:

Flem274*

123/5
are there more boring people than money shufflers? i understand being an accountant, accountants have a use. my dad tells me what to do with my money and i ignore him and spend it on alcohol and plane tickets. imagine telling a pretty young woman with an actual personality you're an investment banker or a financial speculator. a bond broker or a loan lender.

i find executive management types dull enough. i think id commit suicide mid conversation if i became trapped with one of these cashed up 12 hour per day losers. 'ooh i heard franklin inc. shares are up 2%, better laugh knowingly and discuss trusts. i've been to the new york stock exchange, great culture. have you been to china? they've really come a long way, it's great to see a culture who just get things done.'

get a real job ffs. or at least a personality.
 

vcs

Request Your Custom Title Now!
Silicon Valley types aren't much better, but yeah, being trapped with management executive types would be hell.
 

Starfighter

International Coach
are there more boring people than money shufflers? i understand being an accountant, accountants have a use. my dad tells me what to do with my money and i ignore him and spend it on alcohol and plane tickets. imagine telling a pretty young woman with an actual personality you're an investment banker or a financial speculator. a bond broker or a loan lender.

i find executive management types dull enough. i think id commit suicide mid conversation if i became trapped with one of these cashed up 12 hour per day losers. 'ooh i heard franklin inc. shares are up 2%, better laugh knowingly and discuss trusts. i've been to the new york stock exchange, great culture. have you been to china? they've really come a long way, it's great to see a culture who just get things done.'

get a real job ffs. or at least a personality.
They're jobs that, if you play it right, you can make a lot of money from?

(while probably making no productive contribution to society, and possibly a net negative)
 

Spark

Global Moderator
Geez that's a grim development in Melbourne.

Feels weird that that's going on there and everything is basically normal here.
 

Redbacks

International Captain
It might be too late to stop it in Melbourne now that there's about 5919 active cases (known). We really need to hope for a vaccine 6 months or this will eventually breakout all across Australia too.
 

GotSpin

Hall of Fame Member
Its interesting how we've completely pivoted from a 'flatten the curve' policy to a complete elimination policy. I still can't see any end game here at all with these kinds of policies.
 

Top