Adam The God

Certainly a good signing for St Kilda, but I think we have to take the trade period as a whole. At the moment, it's ordinary. Let's see what happens.

A state can't really become insolvent. It issues all debt in AUD, so the Fed can pay off any debt owing in AUD. The Victorian economy is nowhere near bankruptcy and has a decent balance sheet. And yeah, I'm sure his plan was to go from the strongest economy, propping up national GDP (at the same time the Fed was in recession) to one of the weakest. It won't take long to get the Victorian economy going again. It should be on top again by December. Andrews is an Essendon supporter by the way, not Geelong.

You say 'Dan's friends', but what you're really talking about is media hysteria. The ALP haven't been remotely unionist since the 1970s. The unions represent corporate power. They've been apart of the wage suppression through the neoliberal period (Shorten negotiated some shocking deals for workers and Hawke was the first president of the ACTU put in place by the executive arm). It was Hawke and Keating who smashed the unions with their multiple accords in the 1980s. If we put a strong plan together that embodies 'Melbourne' and employs people (ie jobs), I think you'll find the proposal will get through. Particularly, as we're one of those rare businesses right now without debt, it's a no brainer.

No worries. Precious metals. You can't pay your taxes in PMs but enough of the population still have no idea how modern monetary operations work. Crypto currencies for a start are ridiculous. They'll never be taken up, because the currency issuer provisions itself by issuing and then taxing. China understands its fiscal capacity. I think they'll be fine if they can maintain power and stay away from wars. I'll check out John Lee though. I was producing a project on the OBR at one point. It's fascinating.

I think it's less about Republican voters versus Democrat voters, although that's also in there somewhere. Many who voted for Trump were seemingly sick of not being heard by the political establishment. Trump was able to very effectively character assassinate Clinton by linking her with the establishment. Bernie Sanders is very similar. And it's happening all across neoliberal Europe too (Le Pen, Five Star, Johnson etc). They're anti-establishment. Where Trump is concerned, he represents himself, but in order to maintain some power he's pursued one off tokenistic moves like using the power of the US state to ensure Ford moved their factory back to the US, instead of going ahead in Mexico. His prison reforms also played to a certain base too and because he positioned himself as a non politician and businessman, his focus on jobs resonated with people more than the words of the establishment would. He didn't care about these people, he cares about power. It's how China works. It's why they're pursuing the One Belt One Road project. To lift their people out of poverty, but also and mainly, to maintain power. Despite being someone from outside the alleged political elite, he's a very effective politician and his political theatre (rooted in Russian political technology, blending theatre and politics - see HyperNormalisation) has had the establishment completely confused for 2-3 years. I think it's too simplistic to view groups of people in monolithic terms and the last 4 years has probably taught the supposed left that. Whether they recognise this is another thing.

Yeah, I think Trump had some things right at a superficial level. We need capital controls to return. Financialisation and speculation (things kicked off by Hawke and Keating in this country and put on steroids by Howard and Costello) do not contribute to the public purpose and pump up GDP, but also leave real wages flatlining. That's not good for firms or households. We need to focus on our domestic economy. That doesn't mean we can't have international partnerships, but neoliberalism has lead to wage stagnation and instability, and eventually populism. It may well have one more push left it in, but if deficit spending doesn't take centre stage soon and allow households and businesses to save, it will buckle. When Clinton ran consecutive surpluses at the end of the 90s and triggered the dot com bubble recession (every US Depression by the way, was proceeded by the Fed running consecutive fiscal surpluses), it seemed like people would realise debt driven economies were unsustainable. Incredibly though, households and firms started borrowing even more and it triggered the GFC, which started in the housing market. Australia was obviously particularly well sheltered from this, but the downside of that is we've learnt no market discipline and so banks continue irresponsible lending and governments (mostly LNP) have encouraged and are encouraging more and more debt in the private sector. I think COVID definitely sped up the process, but we've been in per capita recession since 2018 and if you look at real wages and household savings since the 1980s, they've been in steep decline. In terms of asset classes, PMs are about the only undervalued asset class with ties to fundamentals. I keep telling my friends who are interested in getting into the housing market, if you can, wait a year or two, because you'd be buying at the peak of the market. As for the future, I think when enough people are frustrated, there eventually comes a tipping point. Unless our major parties provide a genuine alternative, someone else will. Despite this, I'm genuinely positive about the future, because there are ways and means to increase living standards and wealth creation in our own country, without being reliant on FDI and running a surplus on the trade account (which we rarely do anyway). What's wrong with China's demographics?

The neoliberal EU is about to disintegrate. That was a construct created by the French Socialists. Will the Democrats realise who they're supposed to represent? Who knows, but if they don't they'll be voted out. The neoliberal period has been a disaster for wages and the earth we're living on. The golden age of capitalism saw a full employment agenda. That needs to return. As for the size of the crash, the RBA are modelling a 50% contraction of the housing market and the big banks are putting aside billions to protect themselves against defaulted loans. Problem is it'll be nowhere near big enough. The Fed Gov will backstop them, but that will only prolong the problem. There's too much private debt. I reckon there'll be an election in August to coincide with the Senate half elections. If the stimulus is lifted in March as predicted, there'll be mass defaults, on the eve of an election.

If it's not Trump in four years, it'll be someone else. The Democrats are like the rest of the centre left parties in the Western world. Completely abandoned their base and working people and front big capital nowadays. I hear Pelosi and other 'moderates' have already blastered so called 'socialist' elements in the party for allegedly being the reason for Trump's good showing in this election. When the rest of the party sits on the centre right, it makes the centre left position look radical. Real wages have been in steep decline since the 1970s and it's when all the traditionally centre left parties turned to neoliberalism and fraudulent economics. These economics have been fuelled by deregulation and private debt, and have eventually led to stagnation. So without a change in economics, these parties will be left marooned. If you look at the ALP here, I think they'll win the next election because even with the media oligarchy in this country, you can't have an underutilisation rate of 20.3% and expect to be re elected. I think that underutilisation rate is going to get worse next year too. This doesn't mean the ALP are offering a radically different approach. They'll be better for the country, but not necessarily for working people. Labor essentially sit where John Hewson's LNP did. They're fiscally and socially conservative. The Democrats are the same and with the spectre of COVID lingering for years, people need answers and people need jobs. I'm not convinced the Democrats will provide many more jobs than Trump would. Biden at least has one of the most influential economists in the world on his economic team and I think she could well be the Milton Friedman of the next 25 years in terms of influence.

Public money. Keystrokes at the RBA. You don't have to be in power to get investment for your electorate.

I said this in the other thread, but the Deputy leader of the Opposition is Richard Marles and he's the Member for Corio. He's a key Labor Right powerbroker. He pumps money into the club.

Fiscal stimulus won't hit goods and services at all. The QE program that the RBA has been undertaking since March will mean the private sector shifts to riskier debt in the housing market as bonds dry up. The overnight interest rate has been 0.1% since March when their QE flooded the banks with reserves and drove the interest rate to the floor. The BoEs QE program has done very little except increase housing prices slightly, because it's taking risk free money out of the fund manager's hands and the banks. Fiscal stimulus is needed otherwise we'll suffer the same result as the UK. Our housing market will crash next year anyway as our private debt burden grows too great (second highest in the world). Fiscal stimulus and fiscal deficits create private sector surpluses. Without fiscal deficits or government spending, there is no private sector wealth creation. When that happens, the private sector has to turn to debt. The fiscal stimulus can be poorly directed, but won't directly cause inflation. If the private sector can't save, it gets caught in a cycle of indebtedness that eventually causes stagnation and the system to buckle. We've been in this state for 25 years. The RBA has also been buying up the debt of state and territory governments, and in effect is funding the states and has been since March. This allows the states to deficit spend when it doesn't suit the Federal Government to be seen to be doing this. Keating started our demented obsession with surpluses and kicked off the neoliberal period, but before him both sides of politics understood the importance of fiscal deficits. Menzies ran large fiscal deficits and a full employment agenda (minus frictional unemployment). The neoliberal period has seen real wages flatline and private debt soar. This country is in the midst a paradigm shift and we're heading back to fiscal deficits. It'll be far better for the private sector and our country. And we don't pay for any of this. Federal tax revenue is used to control inflation, discourage bads (alcohol and cigarettes) and encourage goods. The Federal Government spends first by crediting exchange settlement accounts at the RBA. Our GST revenue is filtered down and spent by the states though, but not by the Fed.

The club may well try this, but I wouldn't.

I can go with everyone but Smith. I'd play Melksham or Fritsch there.

Each to their own. If Harmes was tried off half back for a few games and it didn't work, it is what it is. This is not what happened. He was tried off half back the entire year, except for the last quarter before he got injured. It was patently obvious it wasn't working and yet we persisted. Poor management IMO. Jake Melksham. Was very ordinary all year and struggled to stay involved for large parts of games.

Good post. I like this. I'd hold Viney forward and get him to attend forward stoppages and play pressure forward otherwise. I think we can get this balance right.

I'd be more likely to believe that Yze has come in and gone WTF are we doing playing him off half back? Get him into the midfield. Someone mentioned yesterday on Demonland that Harmes' role would be different next year, so makes enough sense. Alternatively, that Goodwin is simply prepared to play him in midfield next year. He did finally throw Harmes into the midfield in that final game where Harmes got injured. He was in there for the final quarter and almost turned the game. Blind Freddie and all that, but with longer quarters next year, we should utilise a larger midfield.

So arrogant.

I wouldn't go near Rohan. It's hard enough working out whether a guy that can kick goals consistently in Fritsch canactually be afforded to play forward when he doesn't tackle. Not only does Rohan not kick goals consistently, he doesn't tackle consistently either.

It completely depends what the offer for Gus was/is.

I'm fine with keeping Baker on the list, but I'm not fine with relying on him to be our second winger. I also don't think we'll rely on him solely next year.

Let's wait until it finishes.

This sounds like you should have followed them up. If you asked for a call back and weren't free for the call back, it's beholden on you to call them back IMO.

All of this has already been reported on Demonland, but fair enough.

And yet we still signed Dawes. I reckon there's still a strong chance he goes.

Settle down. Trade week hasn't started yet.