Jerry_Atrick

Looks like the Greens have got themselves a seat after all, according to the ABC, but the SMH is still reporting in doubt. Have found the SMH/Age is usually a little behind the ABC. The ABC is also calling Kooying to Monique Ryan, but it still has to be too close to call with 9.4% of the vote to count and only aan 885 vote (0.8%) lead.

Hmm.. Just proves Scotland is a little backward in domestic heating fuel and the SNP are largely incompetent. Their own study concluded that coal and other high sulphur emitting fuels should be prohibited back in 2023 https://www.gov.scot/publications/impacts-sale-house-coal-polluting-manufactured-solid-fuels-scotland-final-report-report-commissioned-scottish-government/pages/5/

Blimey.. it is 2 weeks since the election and we still have 9 seats in doubt. Geez, this preferential voting thing takes time 😉 To be honest, if you asked me before the election who was going to win, I would have probably said Labor, but in a minority government. How wrong was I? This appears to be a strong mandate from the community that it endorses Labor.. . Or is it? The Liberal Party has a real issue around its disconnect with Australia - whether they like it or not, the bulk of the Aussie population either can't remember life up to and including the 80s, ot they prefer to forget it. They certainly don't want to be stuck in it. Also, Australians seem to be waking up to the fact that corporate sponsorship and raiding of the public finances doesn't trickle down as suspected, and that things like action on the environment and social justice is important. Sort of, anyway. But, was this election a solid endorsement of Albo and the ALP? On the basis the preferential system allows you to specify who you would like to get into power, and if they don't succeed, who else you would want, let's look at the primary vote numbers first: ALP: 34.69% up by 2.11% LNP Coalition: 32.2% down by 3.49% (that was more or less attributable to the Libs) Greens: 11.8% down 0.45% Independents: 7.43% up by 2.14% One Nation: 6.29% up by 1.33% Trump of Patriots: 1.87% up by 1.48% (I have no idea where this came from) Other parties (no idea who they are): 5.71% up by 3.32% There is still about 17% of the ballots to count, so the numbers can and probably will change, but let's assume they remain proportional. Noticeably, the Greens have no seats in the lower house anymore - lost all four of them despite maintaining roughly the same primary vote. Does this mean that most people fill out ther 2nd.. nth preference based on the instructions from the party the primarily vote for? Can the rusted on voters of any party put second the party they have vehemently opposed over the journey? Well, the numbers would say yes, I guess. Certainly that is the excuse the Greens are using, and it may be correct. What is interesting is the marginal increase in the vote to each of the above. This is percent increase compated to the percent of the vote previously held. On that basis: ALP's marginal gain is 6.48% LNP's marginal loss is 9.78% Greens marginal loss is 3.67% Independents marginal gain is 40.45% One Nation's marginal gain is 26.81% Trump of Patriots' marginal gain is 379.49% Other Parties' (Centre alliance and Katters) marginal gain is 138.91% First it shows the pwoer of money.. Why is Chumpettes of Patriots reported separately to other minor parties when they clearly have less absolute share of the vote as at least one of the other parties, of not both? But itself it doesn't show much, but it would be interesting to see what the maginal changes to these parties have been over successive elections. It would be good to get the numbers of Libs/LNP versus NP, because the marginal drop would have been potentially much higher. Of course, for the parties with a small percentage of the absolute vote, marginal changes will be much wilder on smaller absolute increases. Look at Chumpettes of Patriarchs. I am not sure where their previous numbers came from as I was under the impression they were formed to contest this election. I guess they may have contested a by-election and used that. So, we should probably discount this as an outlier. But th fact is 1.5% of the population voted for them. All parties must be asking what on earth they are doign wrong to allow Chumpettes to gain that number of people - 267,402 at current count - to vote for a crazy party. The independents have increased their share of the vote by 40% in this election despite Zoe Daniels losing her seat and Monique Ryan's in the balance. I am not sure about Goldstein, but the Kooyong (Monique Ryan) electroate was expanded to take in a chunk of Toorak, which has a high percentage of one-eyed Liberal voters, so this was not unexpected. If the Libs fielded a half-decent candidate, they may well have taken the choccies by now. This would seem to be a solid performance, but since independents as a force only came out in the last election, it is too early to tell if this will continue. One Nation put in a solid performance increasing their share of the vote by almost 27%. They have been around for a while, so it is fair to say, they are gaining in popularity at a higher rate than movement of the major parties. So, like 'em or not, if it continues at that rate, they will be a force in politics in years to come, if they are not already. Interestingly, the Other Parties (Centre Alliance and Katters) significantly increased theit sdhare of the vote relative to the last election. I am not sure how long they have been around, but between then, they scored 817k votes and have 2 seats in parliament. In this sitting, it weill not mean much, but that is a heft gain for incument minor parties. So, what does this say? To me, it is not a ringing endorsement of the ALP.. It is more a defacto vote because of the major parties, the others are either losing, or no longer relevant. The greens are blaming the tactical preferences of Labor and Libs for their losses. That may well be the case. The small drop in the primary vote and marginal vote would suggest that their core base wasn't terribly phased by the Greens' position on Gaza nor housing and other issues. But either voters are sheep when it comes to allocating preferences or those that would have second preferenced them would be turned off a bit.. I can't see a rusted on Lib voter putting ALP second just by following the Lib's how to vote card. The Greens would have, in their eyes, be so unpalatable to vote ALP number 2. Though I have been suprised by less, I guess. I have to admit, I would have easily voted Greens last election, but not so much this election.. And it's not their dtand on Gaza.. It is their lack of governance, their blocking progress on housing, even if it didn't meet their demands, at least allow the ball to get rolling, and general behaviour, for me, led to a lack of confidence in their ability to be anything but a protest party blocking stuff, rather than fiunding practical compromises to move forward. To the ALP.. No doubt, the 92 seats thus far was a completely unexpected win, even by the best modelling of the ALP. It is reported this was bigger than the 1983 Hawke win. However, what does it mean. Is it a ringing positive endorsement of the policies and performance of the ALP in government, or is it a flight to safety in the face of an unstable opposition that offered not much policy (and what it did, it often flip-flopped), culture/identity politics, and taking to the electorate increased taxes of the middle classes (the vote you need to win) and a bigger election deficit? The Greens look to be holding the balance of power in the senate. It is going to be an interesting 3 years.

Not wuite history,but using a classic car in a Bathurst race,,, Great vision:

We live in an age of a privatised democracy.

Yes.. and some never progress beyind the furst curve peak...

Labor's seat count has climbed to 91.. Flip.. I think even the most pessimistic ALP members must have a beaming smile. On the indies, for Goldstein, they are calling a loss to Zoe Daniels and a win to Tim Wilson (Lib), but I can't see, on the numbers here, how it is not too close to call at the moment, unless these numbers severly lag the vote count: In Kooyong, AEC officials noticed a counting error, which increases Monique Ryan's lead over Wendy Hamer: If we look at Goldstein, around 7% less of the vote is counted, and the margin is the same as Kooyong, yet, they have called Goldstein, but still hve Kooyong in doubt.. Seems they both are still in doubt... unless the & count is lagging well behind the actual percent count in Goldstein..

The Dunning-Krueger (sp?) effect.. Cut a long story short (very unusual for me), inherited a team where one of the members seems to acutely and chronically suffer from this effect. What an absolute pain to deal with and a huge time-waster. Yet, this team member thinks they are the best on my team. F! Sometimes the US system of at-will employees (i.e can leave or be fired at will) has its advantages.

Assuming it is a real story..

Ever wondered why there is a mental health pandemic?

Ultimately, neither Bin Laden nor Hussein were hiding behind civilians.. How is Afghanistan today? That may be the case after October 7, but before? All evidence points to the opposite Don't forget he has continually stated he will withdraw troops on two conditions.. 1) return of the hostages and 2) disarmament of Hamas. Why doesn't the world exert the same pressure to Hamas to rest Netanyahu?

Whilst I don't agree with the jail bit, I am of the same opinion as @pmccarthy that Bandt, or the Greens official position seems anti-semetic or at least out of context. For reference, here is the Green's policy: https://greens.org.au/campaigns/palestine It places a hell of a lot of long term demands on the Israelis, and rigorous international enforcement. Yet it only requires the Palestinians to return the hostages and there be a trial of the "perpetrators" of the October 7 attack. So, let's unpack that.. First, there is only accountability of the foot soldiers of Hamas, and not the leadership.. nor the call for an internationally recognised terrorist organisation to be dismantled. Or it is an admission that Hamas is Palestine and vice versa.. in other words the authoritative representative of the people. Hmmm... And then there is the demand to return lands since the '67 war. They don't recognise there was a major war perpetrated against Israel in 1978 and then many skirmishes since.. If you perpetrate violence on another country, you run the risk of losing, and losing territory. And, in this case Israel gave back a lot of territory they won in the 67 war, only to have it all happen again, so they took the land and subsequent and after 78 and subsequent skirmishes.. And apparently Arafat was offered 95% of the West Bank back in a peace deal, but refused - according to Jimmy Carter, I think. If you look at Israel's reaction to the attacks, they have maintained from a very early stage.. release the hostages and disarm/dismantle Hamas, and they will walk away. They are going for their hostages - As a country at war, under the Geneva convention, the only duty of care they owe an enemy's citizens (in the enemy's territory) is to not specifically target them.. The Geneva convention acknowledges under a military pursuit, there will be civilian casualties but does not put an onus on either side to minimise them. Then ask yourself, which of the two targeted civilians against an enemy that clearly delineates its citizens, and which of the two know that the other would (has an obligation to) retaliate and recover hostages and choose to hide behind its own citizens? Yet there is no mention of Palestine having to commit to peace, either? So, as a policy, it does seem a little ignorant of many facts, and either pro Palestinian or anti-semetic.. you choose. So, yeah, Jews definitely are not happy with Netanyahu and Israel.. Most because of many things prior to October 7 revolving around corruption, the failures leasing up to it, and the initial response. No doubt many are critical of his strategy and apparent overreach, but few would be critical of him going to get the hostages.

That top frame is literally million dollar views these days

I was going to scoff at this, but on reflection, GON has a point. Of course, the scale is different, and his conscription and subsequent life problems are on a different scale to that of the first nations peoples, but it doesn't alter the facts that: It was a systematic dispossession of an intrinsic part of his being. It was applied to a population It has had devastating ongoing effects For some, if not many, it is alleged conscription was illegally performed (there was an article about a Nash taking the Aussie government to court as he was conscripted despite his birth date never been selected): https://www.smh.com.au/national/his-birthday-wasn-t-picked-from-the-barrel-he-was-conscripted-anyway-20250321-p5lldq.html At least for some time, there was discrimination and vilification of Nashos. I don't recall GON blaming Albo or his immediate PM predecessors of both stripes.. but he was laying blame in the Aussie government. I don't think too many first nations peoples today blame the current government, or Rudd, or even his immediate predecessors.. but it would be a nice gesture if the Aussie government did apologise, without prejudice, for any transgressions and for disrupting or ruining their lives.... GON, OT, my uncle Daryl, and all of them, I salute your sacrifice!

That is a common thread in Melbourne, esp, the east and south east. Or they knock the house down and build units on it. In theory, supply should increase relative to demand, but it doesn't work that way.

Yes.. Hawke/Keating were elected in 1983.. I remember this because it was the same year I completed HSC. Under Hawke/Keating rates did rise.. I recall about 18%, but it was the late 80s. The median was about 15% or so over 12 months or thereabouts. I was looking ot buy a house at the time.. Binned that idea and got a PPL and some more. Don't regret it for a minute.

I haven't checked the numbers, but a few things jump out at me that has to be addressed, as a straight look at averages tingles my spidey senses. First, I would be looking at standard deviations an/or some normal distribution of the average weekly earnings versus a weighted average of house prices based on where people are looking to live vs, the standard deviation or normal distribution of new mortgages. For example, how close was the majority of the population in earning the average weekly earnings in the 70s compared to now. And, the same for the average mortgage as well, and prices, etc. Then you have to look at it in terms of relative costs.. for example, what is the overall impact of other taxes, other cost of living? Also, a point in time is not a great comparison, as we can always cherry pick points in time.. Finally, the comparison of average mortgages is for people who already own their own home, so have purchases. It is going to necessarily include those that have had their homes for a while and those that are just new on the ladder.. And, it probably includes buy to let mortgages as well.. but even if it doesn't, there is a skew in the average mortgage held because of those that have had theirs for years. The problem with the cost of living is for those buying a house now. I have been looking around Melbourne, and with the exception of some real outer suburbs, the prices for an average 3br house in a new suburb I had never heard of before, Tarneit, are about 550K. A 10% deposit would leave the buyer with a 500K plus mortgage if they couldn't also pay the stamp duty (quite horrific in Victoria). My niece is a physiotherapist currently living in Adelaide, and was toying with the idea of moving back to Melbourne, and the outer western suburbs. When I was a young adult, physiotherapists were not looking at what was then outer western suburbs of Melbourne.

Who else have you cursed? I will take care to warn them their lives are ruined.

I quite liked that vid.. although I knew it was AI.. Most real drummers will do Zlidjan or Paiste symbols.. no idea what those were...

Our Cocker is the same.. barks at many things, and usually while I am in mid-sentence in a meetng. I guess as I don't deal with customers directly, it is probably more tolerable. A couple of times when I have had the camera on for meetings, he has jumped up on my lap. Works a treat for dog lovers on the call.

Whereabouts are/were you as the sale and use of coal for domestic use in Engalnd has been banned for ages. Often, where coas is allowed, they will use smokeless processed form of anthracite..

Maybe, but how much do the tradies care? Over here, the head if CBRE, one of the worlds largest commercial real estate companies specialising in management, surveying, and sales, wrote a scathing article of offikce workers acting like rock stars, wanting to work from home. And one of the things he wrote was its inherent unfairness as tradies froze outside in winter and baked outside in summer. Most tradies I know thought it was a joke - the office workers sit in nice heated offices in winter and air-conditioned offices in summer - while the tradies still have to work outside. I would be surprised if too many tradies, others than ones that work on commercial real estate, could give a hoot.

Here is one video, presented by someone else of Gary's thought process:

Another of his regressive policies. Over here, government employees working from home became an issue because the press reported that there were excrutiatingly long waiting times for passports after COVID lockdowns. The press attributed it to government employees working from home, when it is a private company that actually prints them - the government employees do th identity and security cheecks. After COVID, there was a massive backlog that had to be cleared. I think for Dutton - what was the problem he was trying to solve? Is there reduced procutvity as a result of these people working from home? Or was it just some attempt at being populist - or some perception of exerting additional control? Whle I sympathise with you, Peter, and working from home is not for everyone, for many these days, it is a boom. For the employer - they rarely pay the electricity, heating, and internet expenses, so they can reduce their building footprint and saving money. Also, many of us, when working from home will add at least the normal commute time to our day in the virtual office, so they are automatically getting more from us. And, many spend money in their local economy, so it reinvigrates local areas. Of course, the commercial real estate market has been tough as a result, and the city centre economy takes a bit of a hit. But even pre-COVID there was a move to working from home, and one bank I had worked for aleady had most of its people working from home most of the time. I was talking to a friend who is a partner at a mid-sized legal firm specialising in commercial real estate transactions. He was remonstrating agains the work from home trend, while I was supporting it. When I said I took a new job during COVID and it woul dbe 9 months before I set foot in the office, yet had already been promoted and it was a successful period for me, he made the point that I am experienced, but for interns, it is difficult. I disputed it on two grounds - first, the hybrid method seems to be the go, and therefoire interns can get the instruction and build up the connections they need. And secondly, a lot of kids these days have online socialisation - there are firends my son and daughter have that they are unlikely to meet in the flesh, but they connect via video link, and exchange birthday and christmas gifts, have meaningul interactions - it expands their horizons. It seemed to be another example of conservative regression wanting to hold onto the past when people have already moved forward... Peter - your son should be afforded the time to work in the office..

Interesting vid, and in the financial services industry, abandoning the gold standard is still often discussed. However, it was more of a policy vehicle of restricting the printing of new money than an accounting system - the accounting system merely ensured that the policy was being adhered to. The video's explanation that government polcies contribute is the real reason.. Decisions made years ago and today on a raft of things - some domestic and some international - are the main contributor. For example, the massive increase in the cost of housing relative to income started its trajectory when John Howard halved the capital gains tax on investment properties. Suddenly the value of housng as an investment shot up overnight and the wedge between the haves and have nots widened. Yes, negative gearing is a contributing factor, but if the tax had remained, then the impact of negative gearing would be much less. Immigration? Yeah, it has an impact, but on a marginl basis, much less than the halving on CGT. And what benefit did that bring to society? Not much - less money for the government and more money flowing into the hands of people who didn't normally need it. And, yes, reasonable levels of residential investment properties perform a valuable public service, but this stimulated a disproprtionate level of investment properties which has turned an essential commodity into an investment asset class. An example over here is the nationalisation of monopoly utilities. Trains are the most expensive in Europe, yet the worst performing (at least amongst our peers - I don't include stiull developing European countries). Thames water, which was on the brink of babkruptcy due to corporate raiding, was allowed to riase its water bills by something like 20% to stave off bankruptcy rather than be re-nationalised. Why? Because at the moment, a Canadian pension fund and a Dubai investment fund have a significant stake in it, and someone managed to convince the regulator (and government, I would guess) to allow it to go bankrupt would not help Britain sell itself as a great place to invest. So, who picks up the tab and what does that do to the cost of living. It seems if you're big enough an investor, you can socialise the losses in a so-called free market. All it will do is allow the corporate raiding to continue. And you can point to literally thousands of examples globally of government policy that is designed to ultimately transfer and concentrate wealth.. And it all has to be paid for. This guy is apparently a trading genius and retired from it when he was 26.. I knew his name, because apparently if he was at the end of a derivatives trade, the bank he was tading with would just provision for a loss on the trade (these are now largely centrally cleared and you don't know who is at the end of it until the contracts exchange hands). https://www.youtube.com/@garyseconomics/videos His view is sort of simple enough... Tax the rich.. Make them pay their fair share, and when they are disproprtionately wealthy to the risk they have taken on, take that excess at very high rates., It has three advantages. First, more resources flow centrally to build things like infrastructure, health, education, and the like. Secondly, it is fairere..most, if not all of these rich people don't pay anywhere near the tax on income or asset transfers as the masses.. why should they get away with it? And thridly, especially with very high texes on disproprtionate wealth accumulation to the risk taken, it stops the uber wealthy from squeezing out the rest of the population. The problem is in a global economy that has national laws, if any one single country tries it, the wealthy will move themselves and their operations to another tax-friendly country.