Adam The God

Trump's a con man and always has been. He's a symptom of the unrest, not an answer to it. Globalisation (one of neoliberals great centre pieces) has been used to off shore jobs (in search of big capital's profits via cheaper labour), threaten sovereign governments by holding them to ransom over local jobs and has seen real wages plummet. The core lie at the heart of neoliberalism is that free markets are best without government intervention, but these supposed free markets only exist because the government has allowed them to and deregulated. And as we've seen since the 1980s in Australia, the government is actually a massive player in the markets. Look at QE inflating asset prices. No inflation, it just goes to wealth creation. Neoliberalism uses the state or the government to transfer wealth to the top 1-10%, leaving Trump's base without a job and without wealth. It's a disgrace. And these people are desperate. I completely get it. They need to put food on the table, so when Trump does a tokenistic move and shows the true power of the state and its ability to keep jobs (see the Ford plant from Mexico to the US), he's hailed as a legend. Trump has just shown how neoliberal the Democrats have become. Before Keating came and ruined this country and Costello/Howard put it on steroids, we had robust capital controls that kept jobs here and balanced the economy. Markets exist due to the state and in 5,000 years of anthropological evidence, they've always been entwined with the state issuing the currency. Japan has capital controls and has one of the most robust economies in the world and every year, the private debt levels go down. The Japanese Government could pay off its public debt, but then its private sector would have no safe assets, like securities or bonds to store their wealth. I'd also say the centrism from the Democrats (and Obama for example would have been on the hard right of the Liberal Party - these politicians are not progressives) has pushed the Republicans to the hard right, so when the centre looks like the centre-left, the true centre-left looks radical. But universal healthcare (like Medicare) is not radical. We have it. It's a basic human right. And the Liberal Party almost lost the 2016 election with Labor's Mediscare campaign. These ideas appear hard left when the Democrats are really sitting in the centre or a centre-right position. But I just come back to economics, because the right economics have the power to change our societies for the better.

Absolutely. 70 million people are sick of the establishment and rightly so. But take a look at the people Trump gave powerful positions to who weren't his family, they are all party hacks. He hasn't drained the swamp. He used the Republicans to increase his wealth and the Republicans used him to pass the legislation they wanted. Quid pro quo. Standard business back scratching. You're kidding yourself if you think he really cares about anyone but himself. He's a narcissist that came at the right time and articulated the voicelessness of these people and he's an excellent entertainer. I think he did the occasional good thing, but the majority is a ****show. For the record, I think the Republicans will get straight back in. The Democrats are believe in nothing corporate centrists, like the Federal ALP. I'd respect a true conservative before a centrist, because although I'm not a conservative, at least conservatives believe in something. Centrists just sit in the middle and try and appease, and accumulate wealth and power. It doesn’t work as a political tool, because instead of everyone meeting in the middle, it hollows out the balance of left and right in politics. There is no left anymore. Even the [censored] French Socialists under Mitterrand were neoliberals. And see what they did to the EU. It's like super. It might be a nice idea, but it's a disaster. The vast majority of disaffected Trump voters are working people who have been left behind by the Democrat establishment, who have done a grave disservice to their country IMV.

One of the Facebook pages saying the club about to announce KK's immediate retirement.

Yep, shouldn't have signed the contract. That said, 2020 has been a strange year.

It seems to me that the AFL have tunnel vision on placating the broadcasters and forgetting that a vital revenue stream is memberships. Some of this stuff will push people away from attendance and the more people can watch on TV, the less they'll want to purchase a membership.

This is indeed one of the bigger cons about the neolib period, as is the idea of smaller government and less government interference. Who do the IMF, WTO and the World Bank represent if it's not the US Government? Neoliberalism just allows undemocratic decision making being outsourced to unelected technocrats. I remember you saying you worked in one of the international Unis. This is definitely another marker of neoliberalism. Austerity in education and it's why education is slipping massively in the OECD (there's another neolib organisation btw). The South Australian State ALP have announced they'll consolidate SAs three biggest Unis if they beat the Marshall Government at the next state election. The Brazillian Government is doing similar to its education system. The Powell Manifesto is the root of all of this. I'm fine with private enterprise, we just can't have the profit motive in certain industries, because we can't expect businesses not to cut costs during inevitable downturns. Just look at aged care. Businesses cut costs and it cost people their lives. Keating's deregulations have been a disaster. The financial sector needs to be reformed. There's so little transactions that represent any public good. I always go back to this idea of the golden age of capitalism. That was a robust form of capitalism that was highly regulated to protect society. This is why neoliberal doctrine attacks ideas of society and pushes individualism. It's a dangerous doctrine that is based on fundamentally fantasy economics and it really isn't good for anyone other than the top 1%.

I reckon the AFL have to be a bit careful here. If they keep stuffing around with the game and then the competition loses a team or two in the coming years, they might find discontent across the board. All of the new rule changes sound ridiculous.

America definitely have a number of powerful advantages. The USD being the global reserve currency definitely helps them as well. I've just started reading Australian/British economist Dr Steven Hail's book 'Economics for Sustainable Prosperity' and there's lots in there that we can use as tools to ensure we can have a prosperous future, and our children and grandchildren can have the same. The more certain people become radicalised, the harder it is to change their minds in the future. I think it's a really big problem for big capital. They've managed to convince many that someone like Trump (who represents the 1%) is for them and that these billionaires like Musk and co are heroes. But the harder life gets, the harder it is to put food on the table, the more something has to give. Scary times ahead I fear. It's a hard one, because with interest rates so low, people are paying just as much in rent as they would be if they bought an apartment or a small unit. Why service someone else's loan, when you could be servicing your own? That's always been my thing. As long as you service the debt, it's fine, but the 5% floor is ridiculous and dangerous, because people will jump in and have so little equity that it becomes an uphill battle. Particularly, with the economic uncertainty. Unfortunately, most of that $5 billion social housing money from the Victorian State Government is going to private developers, so the housing problem is a massive issue, but the biggest issue is the lack of investment in the country and its people. If you don't spend, you don't allow people to save and then service their debts. You push them towards unsustainable credit and a cycle of constantly paying of debt, rather than having true equity. I do think we should be looking at a blend of the past. A version of the so-called managerial welfare state capitalism that Menzies led is the answer to our problems and a greater understanding of the economy and how it operates. Chifley and then Menzies used very similar economics, fiscal deficits and full employment. But they were operating on the fixed exchange system, so when the OPEC oil shocks hit, the Keynesians had no answer for what was happening. We've been floating since 1983 and our fiscal capacity is so much greater. Economics is where the reset should come from. It tough times, usually there is that paradigm shift (as per the 1970s OPEC oil shocks). I think prosperity is completely within our reach. When you have billionaires and such wealth inequality, that's less prosperity and more a shambles. I think there are certain industries that shouldn't be run as markets (healthcare/aged care) and others that need to be mixed between government and private sector (like energy). We have answers to our problems. The majority of the politicians just haven't seen those answers yet or are too stubborn to see them.

Yep, spot on. One of my best mates is in commercial real estate. He's a blue sky junkie, but he says things are dead. It's always been a no brainer to lower overheads and have people work off site if possible. COVID has provided businesses with an excuse to finally make the shift. I would be very surprised if the club hasn't heard that it is very likely there'll be money around for us and a new home base in 2021.

I've probably been having too many economic discussions within football threads and although some is relevant, much of it is no longer. I thought we could use this thread to continue the discussion outside of the football main board. The discussion around whether neoliberalism (privatisation, deregulation, austerity, globalisation, free trade and surpluses) is coming to an end is an interesting point to start on. @Grr-owl mentioned that "the neo-liberal era will end in with a great deleveraging, triggered by events undeniably attributable to the effects of anthropomorphic climate change. I'd take a bet that a bunch of big insurance companies, and the reinsurers, go broke from the cumulative disasters..... and take out the banks as they go. I reckon AF might think the above was plausible, but the question of when is the really salient one: I think the neo-liberal bubble has one more great big blow to go. As we come out of Covid, the world will boom 4-5 years and then BOOM! After that it's a depression, realignment and restructuring, and a low growth future (which I'm fine with). I expect AF won't agree with that timing, but I'm interested to knock the idea around." I think 4-5 years is certainly a very realistic timeframe for the end of neoliberalism, particularly as countries like the US will try to desperately cling to neoliberalism. Biden is already sounding like a Republican candidate and has stacked his transition team with neoliberals. Trump's voice will have a distinct appeal to many working voters across the next 4 years. America may well be in trouble, because without a shift in the fiscal rhetoric and a pivot away from big capital to working people, America is going to be at the mercy of more extreme elements. Emma Dawson, the former advisor of Senator Stephen Conroy, now head of Per Capita (think tank) wrote an article in the Financial Review the other day stating that given America is so divided, a centrist like Biden will be perfect to heal their divisions. I couldn't disagree more. The disparity between big capital and working people in America is so vast at the moment that believe in nothing, corporate pandering centrism is precisely what led to Trump and will lead to others like him. The 99% need to be put front and centre of mind and the extreme wealth held by the 1% needs to be redistributed in the coming years. When that many people who want to work have no work, the capitalist system becomes unstable and there is nothing robust about neoliberal capitalism, or as Minsky called it, money manager capitalism. But let's try and keep this discussion to Australia as much as possible. Here are a couple of points for our discussion. Our private debt burden which crossed a staggering 200% between gross household debt and after tax income in 2016, is the second highest private debt burden in the world. This will have an impact. Further deregulated private bank lending, which former LNP leader John Hewson has called irresponsible. This will increase the private debt burden. Both major parties are wedged on climate issues. I can see both major parties collapsing in the next decade. The Coalition always seem to be near implosion because you've got this unhappy marriage between the free market Liberals who couldn't give a stuff about the regional areas that are being so impacted by climate change and the Nationals who seem to intensely dislike metropolitan folk telling them what to do. While the ALP really are the LNP from the 1980s. You've got the fiscally and socially conservative Labor Right faction who constantly clash with the fiscally conservative but socially progressive Labor Left faction. So you've got the moderates on Labor Left and the conservatives on Labor Right. It really does resemble the Hewson-lead LNP. Anyway, there's a lot to cover, and really, discuss whatever you want. (nice rambling AF)

And their customers finance their loans for them. It's pretty outrageous. The vast majority of the broad money supply is created by private banks issuing deposits. There should be many more smaller private banks, rather than 4 super TBTF banks. Instead of backstopping them all, they should take them over (like they did in the US for a time during the GFC) and/or let them fail. If you have $250,000 in your bank account, it's guaranteed by the Australian Government anyway. Let people shift their money into safer banks and insolvent firms should be allowed to fail. You get no market discipline otherwise.

I have lots to say about this. Maybe it's a topic for General Discussion. ? I don't like the contract because I'd prefer we had more money to offer Oliver and Petracca, but it's not really apples for apples. I rated Tom's 2018 season and a bit of his 2017 season, but outside of that, I've not rated him as a player and I think our soft cap would be better without, but for 2021 he's a Melbourne player, so I hope he can prove me wrong and find another role. Giving Jackson two years extra years versus one (so into his fourth AFL season instead of only his third), is not the same as giving Tom a 5 year deal. That said, I didn't have a problem with Tom's deal at the time.

Interesting tidbit. Climate science is only really political in the US and Australia. Germany, the UK, Canada etc all believe in the science. I suspect most of the US and Australian politicians do too, but they're paid very well to do the opposite. And @DeeSpencer, yeah, Punt Road is one of the busiest roads in Melbourne. Lots of eyes on that site each day.

Yep, she did. She was a liar and is most synonymous with neoliberalism, but it actually started in politics on the left side. Denis Healey was the original neoliberal politician (trying to target the money supply). Currency issuing governments spend by crediting bank accounts at the central bank on behalf of Treasury. The BoE knows this, but the current Chancellor of the Exchequer has just come out again to claim the government cannot create the currency and that tax payer money is what funds government expenditure. So where did the firms and households get the money from? And before you say private banks, private banks make loans before they have the funds and then find reserves when the customer wants to clear the payment. It's a lie and it shackles our capacity as a 'society'. Thatcher also didn't believe in 'society', but conservative politicians before her did. I agree with you on giving Richmond money. It's not the greatest look given their wealth, but no one will hear about grassroots footy clubs, whereas we'll hear about Richmond.

Where'd you hear that mate?

Disagree. It may not be a good business decision for state governments, but for Federal Governments it's a very good idea if it's stimulating growth. Most of it is public money rather than taxpayer money anyway and if it goes to people and jobs, and has the ability for some public access, then I don't see the problem. I think we'll get our base and it'll likely have some hybridity to it, between public and club use. Win, win, win.

All of that's fair, RE: freedom of movement. I don't mean to sound like I disagree with all freedom of movement. The problem I have is that's gone too far one way IMO and actually rewards disloyalty more than loyalty. If players want to leave for more opportunities and because they're not getting on with their employers, sure, but if it's just about chasing an extra $200-300k, I don't like it. But maybe that's just me.

The housing market has not burst though. It's growing exponentially. The suburb I live in has grown 17.5% this year alone. QE will shift the financial institutions from bonds to housing and shares. The housing market growing is fine if people can service their debt, but household debt is double wage income after tax, so clearly it is unsustainable. And I think anything less than full employment minus frictional employment is inefficiency. That's a lot of lost productivity in the economy and lost wages that can stimulate aggregate demand and actually increase profits for business. It's no brainer economics. Anyway, seems we disagree and that's fine. How do you feel about the way AFL contracts are going? The freedom of movement. It's being justified in a very similar way to the EU. You can't stop the market. Well, yes, you can. You regulate it and maintain a bit of ethics and morality. If a club has taken a chance on you, you're being paid very well, I no longer buy the argument that players have a short amount of time in the game to maximise their financial gain, and therefore should be allowed to move to whatever club they want to. I can see why the club extended Jackson for an extra year, but I'm sure they would have preferred an extra two years.

Good call mate. If I was a player manager, I'd be very wary and I don't think Collingwood are fooling many with their spin. Their fans are ropable and it'll be fascinating to see the impact to their squad next year.

We'll see mate. Hope I'm wrong, but can't see enough job creation. From your RBA article - "The unemployment rate peaks at a little below 8 per cent in coming months, before gradually declining in 2021 and 2022 to just above 6 per cent at the end of the forecast period." 6 per cent is a million people that can work, without it. That's a stagnant and inefficient economy, which will have socialised impacts that will heighten the problem. The RBA have modelled a 50% contraction in the housing market next year and all the big banks have put billions aside to offset the loan defaults. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2020-10-27/rba-warns-coronavirus-economic-recovery-will-be-unpredictable/12819312 As for AFL contracts, I think player movement with the AFLPA has gone to ridiculous levels. This hyper player freedom of movement tears at the fabric of the game IMO. It begins to resemble the hollowness of so many American 'franchise'-driven sports.

I'd actually love Petracca to get the captaincy or share it with Gawn in time. Trac has grown from a selfish player a few years back (ie blinkers with ball in hand) to become a selfless, game breaker. They're very good qualities to have in a captain. I'd give him another year and then offer it to him at the end of next year. Yze's been at the club a lot longer than 6 days...

It won't. The next 4-5 years will be beyond stagnant. I don't like the one year contract. Commit a bit longer. We took the punt on you at pick 3. I'll take the one year, but not particularly happy about it.

Each to their own. I don't know how many times I have to say it. I rate midfielders much higher.

Disagree. The guy was an AA mid in his third season. Has them all covered.

Would you take all three mate?