The Trump Presidency - an analysis

[Marty_d]

2 hours ago, nomadpete said:

Marty, you are not comparing apples with apples there.

 

The first new home I bought (Brisbane) was priced at $24,000. Current homes seem to start at about $480k now. Which seems to support your comparison.

BUT

That first home, in 1976, was about 76 sq Mtrs, on a 16 perch allotment. It was 3 bedroom, one bathroom. Highset so there was room to park a car in the open uunderneath. I couldn't afford the furniture, so made do with packing crate style ,as most people did when starting out. My take home wage was around $7500pa as a qualified tradesman. Factor of 3.2 Years earnings.

 

Current new homes are usually four bedroom, three bathrooms, two car garage with electric roller doors, theatre room, air conditioning, decks for outdoor living, landscaping and double the floor area of my starter home. The take home wage of a tradesman is now around $80,000. Factor of 5.6 Years earnings. But it is twice the house!

 

I think that if a simple 3 bedroom house was costed out ( nobody seems to build them now), it might come in at half the price of the current house price. This supports the view that the 20  - 30 year Olds have much higher expectations than I did at that age. Maybe they are more privileged than I was? Or did I just live better within my means?

 

So, it is not a fair comparison of affordability.

 

PS, our youngest has recently bought a 2 bedroom starter home for $200,000. He is recently qualified as a tradie, earning about $100k pa. (In the hand). Although not a new build, it is nevertheless possible to buy a livable dwelling for two years earnings! And because he has a smaller mortgage than most, he will own it much sooner than most.

 

You have a point Peter, but it's mainly the land value that's increased so much. 

Mate of mine is looking for his first house - as a single bloke (status unlikely to change) he only wants 2 bedrooms. 

The prices are still up around 350's in the areas he's looking in.

To take it to the extreme, parts of Sydney are selling trashed one bedroom dog boxes for over a million - it ain't the structure that costs!

[nomadpete]

Octave, again I state, I have not denigrated any individual or demographic group for their choices. I'm simply highlighting that there are options.

 

I've shown proof that housing affordability mainly relies on the priorities of the buyer.

 

Our Lad chose not to have a HECS ddebt He is a self employed tradesman working long hours. He chose to struggle to get ahead of the mortgage early on, so life will hopefully be easier later. His peers are 25 ish, and most do have big mortgages and live in nice big 'first homes' that are more luxurious than I could imagine when I was making my priorities. But that is because of their priorities. Some also have HECS debt, which means that they prioritised higher education, and as a result have two generous incomes to cover their debts. Unlike our early experience, they all benefit from record low interest rates.

 

Our youngest girl went the other route and at 25 has a degree in engineering, a well paid job in the CBD, and chose to rent an apartment within walking distance of the office thus avoiding the considerable expense of running and parking a car. It works for her.

 

As they used to say:

'You makes your choices and pays your dues'

[nomadpete]

Marty, I agree that land prices are excessive but the prices are set by the market. It It's what buyers are prepared to pay.

The bottom line is still about choosing the compromise that fits the NEEDS.

There is a financial premium to be expected when the buyer wants a premium location, or a premium size, etc.

 

And I do recall often spending a year searching for the right place with the right 'must haves'.

In fact it took me closer to 5 years to settle on the present plot of dirt, during which time the prices per acre around here doubled before this one came on the market. But that was the compromise I accepted, to get what I wanted, and although it cost more than I liked, I had the money available. Once again, it's basic conflict resolution - what 'must I have' vs what is 'really like but not if I'll miss out on must haves'

 

[octave]

I appreciate that you are not denigrating younger people.  I guess I feel that many do and with little hard data.  There are swings and roundabouts as this article points out.

 

Millennials and baby boomers both claim they had it harder buying a house so we asked a property expert to settle the debate

 

This article points out that for older generations the entry into the market was easier but higher interest rates meant that there was more pain whilst paying off the loan and for younger generations the pain is up front with banks now requiring a 20% deposit and relatively higher house prices (even for cheap houses)

 

I don't necessarily  hear young people whining that much, except perhaps when people say "they could afford a house if they didn't spend so much on smashed avo in a cafes." 

      

 

The truth is ii has always been hard to buy a house.   

 

 

[nomadpete]

Alright. That's settled.

Now let's get back to denigrating a much more deserving individual.....

[willedoo]

1 hour ago, octave said:

except perhaps when people say "they could afford a house if they didn't spend so much on smashed avo in cafes." 

Imagine how broke they'd be if they were buying good avo's instead of the smashed ones.

[willedoo]

26 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

Now let's get back to denigrating a much more deserving individual.....

Yes, back to the Orange One. This thread will probably idle along for fair while yet. A full analysis of Trump's presidency is probably not possible until more time has gone by and more information and data becomes available. We all know most of the harmful stuff he's done. It's too early to figure out what his legacy will be, as we only have the performances of past presidents to go by, and no experience of post Trump presidents.

 

As an example, we won't really be able to judge Trumps performance in Syria until time goes by and we see what Biden will do with the extra troops and equipment he's moving into the Syrian oil fields. He may be just providing extra security to make sure they can keep the stolen fields. But if he re-starts the civil war, then who knows? In that situation Trump might end up with a better record there than Biden. Only time will tell.

[Yenn]

There was one great outcome from Trumps Presidengy. George W Bush is now considered to be a statesman.

[facthunter]

You can't just ignore all the money and time you put into building and maintaining your house. THAT Money if put somewhere else could subsidise your rent, where I also pointed out the LAND is the main value after about 40 years. An increasing number of houses are just  demolished  and a  totally new one built so what point the new kitchen etc?  With a house also you have all your eggs in the one basket to a great extent..  IF the area is subject to flooding  the value can drop away fast. The same with LOW Coastal. You won't be able to give it away . Nev

[octave]

It would be interesting to compare Trump to previous presidents given the same circumstances.   The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan whilst in my view were not justified, never the less came as a result of the Bush administration lashing out after 9/11,   I am not convinced that Trump's response would have been more measured and proportional.    Trump is a man with a huge ego who cant stand to lose.  He has lashed out at his own advisers and appointees when they have disagreed with him.   I am not convinced that in a crisis he would be a safe pair of hands.

 

It is hard to mount a case the he left the presidency with the US in better shape than he inherited. 

[willedoo]

3 hours ago, Yenn said:

There was one great outcome from Trumps Presidengy. George W Bush is now considered to be a statesman.

It was the best thing that ever happened to Dubya. In the future, the term will be "worst president since Trump" and not "worst president since Bush".

[willedoo]

30 minutes ago, octave said:

It would be interesting to compare Trump to previous presidents given the same circumstances.   The invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan whilst in my view were not justified, never the less came as a result of the Bush administration lashing out after 9/11,   I am not convinced that Trump's response would have been more measured and proportional.    Trump is a man with a huge ego who cant stand to lose.  He has lashed out at his own advisers and appointees when they have disagreed with him.   I am not convinced that in a crisis he would be a safe pair of hands.

 

It is hard to mount a case the he left the presidency with the US in better shape than he inherited. 

Certainly an interesting thought. For example, Trump in charge of the Cuban Missile Crisis. Kennedy was cool headed enough to resist calls from the madder generals to first strike the USSR. Trump might have been in good company with those same generals. Peas in a pod perhaps.

[onetrack]

Trump's simple problem was that he thought being President was just an extension of his business skills and businesses.

 

Unfortunately, he has long proven himself to be poor in both business skills, leadership skills, and diplomacy skills.

 

In addition, I believe he's as shallow as a puddle of water by the side of the road. The man is an intellectual dwarf, with the manners and civility of an uneducated peasant.

 

I do believe he will be used a classic example of narcissm personified, by psychologists, in decades to come.

 

[Bruce Tuncks]

In 1970, I bought a new house and my wife went to teacher's college ( read no money from her) AND I could afford to go gliding.

There is no way I could do that if I was young and starting out again now.

Yes, the house was only 3 bedrooms and had  no air-conditioning or telephone.

My salary was not high as a junior ...  I remember $179 a fortnight pay, but the mortgage was only $20 a fortnight. The new project house was $10,500.

That same house is still there and is worth about $250,000 now.

[Marty_d]

I'm not sure if it was on this thread or somewhere else (and I'm too lazy to look) but someone was saying that the orange clown wasn't the worst president ever, because he didn't invade anyone.

 

That's a pretty low bar.  In fact if you didn't have a President at all, or had some random person off the street, they wouldn't start a war either.

 

In fact if you had someone with a smaller ego and a willingness to learn from experts, they would have listened to the medical experts like Fauci and you wouldn't end up with 400,000 dead.

 

The USA will be dealing with Trump-created problems for the next decade.  QANON, white supremacists, the transfer of trust from reputable media to conspiracy theories, the ignoring of experts, and the total capitulation of the conservative party to the rabid side of their base.  And that's assuming that the idiot shut up and went back to private life now, which he shows no sign of doing.  He'll be behind the scenes whipping up the deplorables and keeping the GOP from returning to the centre right for years.

 

While I wouldn't widdle on George Dubya if his chimp-like face was on fire, the orange clown makes him look good.

[facthunter]

YOUR MONEY is worth much less. That's what happens when you print more money. INFLATION devalues money but you pay tax on the false value increase. Capital Gains. An honest system would reduce capital gains by the rate of inflation over the corresponding period. RICH people get around paying ANY tax if they want to enough. Capital is transferred from poor to rich and the poor get heavily into (easy) debt. It's a world wide phenomenon getting more exaggerated by the day. Nev

[willedoo]

An article on the ins and outs of Trumps impeachment trial next week.

 

https://www.news.com.au/world/north-america/us-politics/the-key-sign-that-donald-trump-will-be-acquitted-in-next-weeks-impeachment-trial/news-story/e480baf1294bfd24fd483dcc3d5b17fb

[Jerry_Atrick]

[old man emu]

What is unusual is that we never heard much from George W in support of Trump when Trump was running for election in 2016. I know that it would be polite for an ex-Pres to step out of anew boy's limelight, but it is common for an ex-Pres to help push the new boy into it. 

 

Recent presidents have observed a tradition where they do not criticize their successors. Donald Trump’s presidency has damaged, but not ended, this norm despite some online claims. In general, criticism of Trump among former presidents falls along partisan lines. Former Democratic Presidents Barack Obama, Bill Clinton and Jimmy Carter have all made various comments accusing Trump of being unfit for office.

The last two Republican presidents, George H.W. Bush and his son George W. Bush, did not issue direct condemnations of Trump in 2016. George W. Bush has maintained this for the 2020 election cycle. 

 

While Obama abstained from criticizing his successor early on in Trump’s term, the former president has been an increasingly vocal critic of the sitting president as the Trump era has progressed. 

 

"I never expected that my successor would embrace my vision or continue my policies,” Obama said. “I did hope, for the sake of our country, that Donald Trump might show some interest in taking the job seriously, that he might come to feel the weight of the office and discover some reverence for the democracy that had been placed in his care.

 

"But he never did. He has shown no interest in putting in the work, no interest in finding common ground, no interest in using the awesome power of his office to help anyone but himself and his friends. Donald Trump hasn’t grown into the job because he can’t, Obama said. 

[willedoo]

The Twitter CFO has said the ban on Trump is permanent and that he'll never be allowed a Twitter account again. That was Trump's main sounding board and he must be feeling like a baby who has had the dummy taken away.

 

Now, there's a thought. Trump might start up his own rival to Twitter. He could call it Dummer.

[old man emu]

24 minutes ago, willedoo said:

Trump might start up his own rival to Twitter. He could call it Dummer.

Twatter?

[nomadpete]

A sideline to analysing Trump's attempts at presidency, is the part played by others in the way the insurgency played out.

I'm not sure now whether it was the Mayor or the chief of police, but prior to the mob assembling to march on Capitol, of them announced that "If you show up with a gun, you WILL be arrested". Had he not announced that fact, the results would surely have been very different.

 

I reckon that bloke deserves a medal for preventing mass deaths at Capitol.

 

Curiously, NO media has mentioned how a bit of sensible gun control saved many lives on that day. From that, I conclude that the NRA still have a very big finger in the media pie.

[old man emu]

15 minutes ago, nomadpete said:

I conclude that the NRA still have a very big finger in the media pie.

The NRA probably has the Media by the shortcrust-ies.

[Yenn]

Not guilty!

The democrats have stuffed up again. How could they be so stupid as to rely on Trump calling others to fight, when they did the same themselves.

[facthunter]

You really think so? I certainly do not. Nev