Adam The God

I don't think we need any more evidence that Tom shouldn't be seen within 50 metres of the backline, so hopefully he finds a new home this afternoon.

[censored] Josh Mahoney! We've been bent over again! Why didn't this deal get done three weeks ago?

I'd pay $600k a year for Treloar. What a bloody bargain.

Yep, changes like the wind. And reckon who he supports definitely has a say in this.

I think Strategy and Analysis would go hand in hand in these tighter soft cap times.

This kid is a no brainer. Nothing is ever guaranteed in the drafting process, but he has what we lack and could be the perfect partner to Oliver and Petracca.

Here are the ABS Labour Stats until the end of September, before Victorian lockdown ended. Still way too high across the board, but the state by state unemployment rate is illuminating. ACT 3.8%, NT 4.8%, Victoria 6.7%, WA 6.7%, SA 7.1%, NSW 7.2%, TAS 7.6% and QLD 7.7%. https://www.abs.gov.au/statistics/labour/employment-and-unemployment/labour-force-australia/latest-release#:~:text=Back to top-,Key statistics,Participation rate decreased to 64.8%.

You'd think they'd release a couple earlier just to keep some interest up, but you're right. They did the same thing the last two years. Almost farcically so.

The Minsky double-century. We don't have to rely on foreigners to service our debts. We can sell domestically. Our external account has been in deficit since the mid 1970s. We're not concerned with a surplus on that account. The LNP Gutwein Government are looking at exporting renewable hydrogen. I'd suggest surplus renewable energy might become a major export. The two major parties at Fed level are so wedged on climate action that the community and consumers are screaming for renewable investment that will bring cheaper energy prices. Such a no brainer. So what does the SA LNP Government do yesterday? It places a tax on EV. Mindboggling. We could be a powerhouse in renewable energy, science and tech, but the two major parties are too conservative to move with the times. But as you say, the credit boom is going to end in tears very soon.

Alan Kohler's ABC Finance segment last night said the Vic economy had already caught up with NSW. A lot of this is credit driven, but so is the wider economy.

If it takes two second rounders to land Brown, who cares. We get an immediate best 22 player and I'd argue a better player than Cameron. The other thing about Brown is he's incredibly difficult to match up, because like Jackson, his reach is enormous. The King brothers and Daniher are similar threats for this reason. Brown improves us significantly.

I'm still not changing my stance on ruckmen, but I don't recall ever saying we wouldn't get a second rounder for him. This seemed very likely as soon as he requested the trade. Given our leverage in the situation, we needed to get something in the vicinity of a second rounder. I don't particularly rate Preuss as a player, but he'll be able to fill a need for GWS. We've hopefully now got the currency to land Brown and wriggle ourselves back into the first round of this year's draft.

I find it unbelievable that Phillips is on $600k. It must be an overestimate, because they can't be paying wingers $600k when they're paying Grundy, De Goey, Treloar, Elliot etc. It's really no wonder that they're trying to squeeze 3 guys out in the one off season just to re-sign De Goey. Their list and contract management has clearly been an utter disaster.

Most held off having a swing until the deal was invariably done. Preuss was always going to land a second rounder. Two years left on his contract and a commodity like a ruckman (yes, I know, I don't rate them, but clearly other clubs do) and it was always likely he'd be able to fill a #1 ruck spot. Well done, MFC though. ;)

Haha, like clockwork every year. Two weeks before trade period: "Mahoney's [censored]. WTF is he doing? Why haven't we landed the player we need already?! Melbourne being bent over again!" First week of trade period: crickets... Final few days and hours: "Well done, Mahoney. Well done, MFC."

That has very little to do with the state's balance sheet though...

That's true. He'd be a good signing for us, not St Kilda.

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.