Australia’s $911,000,000,000 Debt

[Smurf1976]

To the original subject of this thread, one thought that comes to mind is of government seeking to intentionally create an inflation cycle.

Get inflation and interest rates down.

Refinance debt at low long term rates.

Ramp up inflation and erode its real value.

Ultimately I'm expecting something along those lines to be the eventual outcome. Meanwhile, the population will be distracted by debate about all manner of things other than inflation.

 

[Value Collector]

To the original subject of this thread, one thought that comes to mind is of government seeking to intentionally create an inflation cycle.

Get inflation and interest rates down.

Refinance debt at low long term rates.

Ramp up inflation and erode its real value.

Ultimately I'm expecting something along those lines to be the eventual outcome. Meanwhile, the population will be distracted by debate about all manner of things other than inflation.

Which government though? You aren’t suggesting the Aussie government had the foresight and the ability to send the globe into an inflationary cycle are you?

 

[Smurf1976]

Which government though? You aren’t suggesting the Aussie government had the foresight and the ability to send the globe into an inflationary cycle are you?

Australian government didn't of itself create the inflation situation but rather a lot of Western governments are in the same situation and I'll be surprised if they really seek to do it the hard way, repaying debt with a hefty and increasing rate of interest.

Detail aside, I fully expect them to default in practice. Probably not outright actual default but through the backdoor of inflation.

Or in other words, inflation will remain "above target" for quite some time to come and that won't be accidental.

 

[Smurf1976]

On one hand I think much of the recent discussion is a very long way off-topic and should be moved to another thread or even deleted as it's simply too far off the thread subject. That includes my posts.

On the other hand if I look at the world around me and mainstream public debate then until very recently it has been almost entirely focused on assorted social and other non-economic matters. Go back 12 months and mainstream debate on anything economic was practically zero and thus couldn't get any lower.

I'm thinking that in itself is plausibly a signal regarding the economy, markets and so on. Public concern about economics looks to have bottomed, being massively outranked by social issues, but is now trending back up with the concerns about inflation and we're starting to see some mention of debt and deficits now too.

 

[qldfrog]

On one hand I think much of the recent discussion is a very long way off-topic and should be moved to another thread or even deleted as it's simply too far off the thread subject. That includes my posts.

On the other hand if I look at the world around me and mainstream public debate then until very recently it has been almost entirely focused on assorted social and other non-economic matters. Go back 12 months and mainstream debate on anything economic was practically zero and thus couldn't get any lower.

I'm thinking that in itself is plausibly a signal regarding the economy, markets and so on. Public concern about economics looks to have bottomed, being massively outranked by social issues, but is now trending back up with the concerns about inflation and we're starting to see some mention of debt and deficits now too.

For whoever does not ignore me, as I posted yesterday here, I see that as a voluntary tactic, distracting the voters into so called social issues, splitting them and screwing them thru the wef pushed globalist corporatist socialism.
And when poverty and despair will come ,the anger will not be directed toward the real culprit but toward the favored unfairly privileged ones under the media spotlight
Aborigines, LGBTxxxxxxxx, etc while people will still use FB, eat tofu and Kelloggs cereal to be healthy,be paying over the roof price for their gas and "green" power bill and will get their Amazon prime membership renewed while waiting for their Amazon delivery parcel of made in China/India products.
The great distraction.
They might even wear mandatory medical masks for the privilege

 

[farmerge]

It’s not about political correctness, the LGBTQ community has the highest rate of suicide in australia from any group, even more than return soldiers. Being shown that their community accepts them for who they are will go along way to helping reduce suicides and other mental health problems.

Even parents of LGBTQ people often feel shame etc, and often reject their kids through fear of losing their place in peer groups, it can tear family’s apart, the more people see it’s ok and accepted they better, and the less Ammo the haters have.

If you don’t care about building a more inclusive accepting society I can see why it might all seem a bit much, but it is actually a big deal.

Not to sure if the blokes and some women in the mining industry share your views. The people i know and not just my son are giving it the thumbs down.

 

[Value Collector]

Not to sure if the blokes and some women in the mining industry share your views. The people i know and not just my son are giving it the thumbs down.

They probably need the education the most then. It wasn’t that long ago that the mining industry wasn’t a good place for women to work either, but now they are a growing part of the work force, that took education too, to stamp out sexist discrimination and harassment.

 

[wayneL]

They probably need the education the most then. It wasn’t that long ago that the mining industry wasn’t a good place for women to work either, but now they are a growing part of the work force, that took education too, to stamp out sexist discrimination and harassment.

And now women are subject to discrimination and harrassment again by this nonsense.

 

[Value Collector]

And now women are subject to discrimination and harrassment again by this nonsense.

Only on right wing talking heading shows and podcasts, not in reality. Women have nothing to fear from trans women. Their biggest threats are male gendered men.

 

[wayneL]

Only on right wing talking heading shows and podcasts, not in reality. Women have nothing to fear from trans women. Their biggest threats are male gendered men.

Yes, it is the males, you are absolutely correct.

 

[Value Collector]

Yes, it is the males, you are absolutely correct.

Well it’s not ghosts!

Do you have a wife, daughters or nieces? If you heard they were going to a party and then we’re going to be walking home late at night a little bit tipsy, I bet you would be a little be worried for their safety, and I don’t think it’s because you are worried about ghosts.

Male on female crime is a huge problem.

 

[wayneL]

Do you have a wife, daughters or nieces? If you heard they were going to a party and then we’re going to be walking home late at night a little bit tipsy, I bet you would be a little be worried for their safety, and I don’t think it’s because you are worried about ghosts.

Male on female crime is a huge problem.

I agree

 

[Value Collector]

I agree

View attachment 158342

Would you like me to link the 1,000,000 other cases of females raped by men?

I have doubts if the person in the article was even a genuine transgender person, it says they were in jail previously, some men pose as trans gender in jail to get better treatment. Which is not an argument against actual transgender people, it’s like some one faking an injury, we should ban all wheelchairs just because some people use them to cut lines at disneyworld.

 

[wayneL]

Would you like me to link the 1,000,000 other cases of females raped by men?

I have doubts if the person in the article was even a genuine transgender person, it says they were in jail previously, some men pose as trans gender in jail to get better treatment. Which is not an argument against actual transgender people, it’s like some one faking an injury, we should ban all wheelchairs just because some people use them to cut lines at disneyworld.

I'm not questioning that. That is not the point here and is an absolute bs strawman argument.

 

[Value Collector]

I'm not questioning that. That is not the point here and is an absolute bs strawman argument.

Well I guess I don’t know what your point is about women being harassed, but I am actually not much fussed in finding out. I don’t think you are capable of a rational discussion on this particular topic. So will leave it here.

 

[Gringotts Bank]

For whoever does not ignore me, as I posted yesterday here, I see that as a voluntary tactic, distracting the voters into so called social issues, splitting them and screwing them thru the wef pushed globalist corporatist socialism.
And when poverty and despair will come ,the anger will not be directed toward the real culprit but toward the favored unfairly privileged ones under the media spotlight
Aborigines, LGBTxxxxxxxx, etc while people will still use FB, eat tofu and Kelloggs cereal to be healthy,be paying over the roof price for their gas and "green" power bill and will get their Amazon prime membership renewed while waiting for their Amazon delivery parcel of made in China/India products.
The great distraction.
They might even wear mandatory medical masks for the privilege

"the anger will not be directed toward the real culprit"

That's it. Creating heroes and villians via the media is a key tactic. Add in surprise agonists and antagonists. Build it up, create suspense, release bombshell interviews and revelations. The crazier and more irrelevant, the better. The best example of this is transgenderism, a topic that is probably only relevant to 0.1% of the population, and yet the media is told to pump it 24/7 as if normal people should be interested. Now they're running with the explicit details of trans surgery, drawing an opinion from every man and his dog.

The whole idea, as you say, is to get people fighting among themselves. Distract them from the highly criminal activities of the deep state - and there are many.

 

[Smurf1976]

So far as discussion about people being abused, bullied, raped, robbed or otherwise taken advantage of is concerned, to me it seems an issue of too much detail obscuring what's really going on.

Is it really men assaulting women?

Is it really bosses taking advantage of workers?

Etc.

Or is it really a case that whoever has the stronger position is taking advantage of (abusing, bashing, robbing, whatever) the person in the weaker position? That is, it's about relative strength and any detail beyond that is a reflection of that strength but not itself the cause.

Take any example and it's the stronger person in that context who abused the weaker person. Because if the weaker person tries to abuse the stronger then, if they truly are stronger, they can win the fight.

Men are on average physically stronger than women so no surprise that men assaulting women is far more common than women assaulting men. But if a particular woman is stronger than a particular man then the risk is she assaults him not the reverse. It's not gender that determines it, it's just physical strength.

Bosses are usually in a stronger position in the workplace than employees. Hence it's far more common that bullying in a workplace comes from above rather than below or at most extends sideways. Frontline workers generally can't bully boards and CEO's to any major extent - if they think they are it's only because the victim is allowing them to do so for whatever reason.

Relating to that is the concept of strength in numbers.

A group of average women could easily overpower a single man in a physical fight if they're determined to win.

A group of workers, more commonly known as a union, sure can bash management over the head if they want to.

Etc.

If there's one thing someone in power fears most it's the formation of a large, co-ordinated group below them. Hence pretty much anyone trying to "break" something follows the same basic pattern of dividing those below into manageable chunks then, ultimately, individuals.

In business terms if management wants to abandon (for example) the blue collar workforce side of its' operations and outsource that whilst keeping the white collar side then the first step is to divide them. Physically if possible, get the office to one site and the workshop to another site, but ultimately split them by any means possible.

Next step divide the workshop into construction and maintenance or whatever other groups of work can be identified. The more groups you can find, and the smaller they are and the fewer people in each, the better.

Now split each of those groups on the basis of profession, trade or other position.

Instead of a group of (say) 100 workers you've now got a few electricians, a few labourers, a few welders, a few plumbers and so on. Lots of little groups with no more than a few people in each.

If at all possible, recruit a spy. Someone in the workshop who's on your side. You'll do some deal with them that gives them a cushy job when it's all over but in the meantime their job is to inform you.

Now do everything you can to create conflict between the groups. A "musical chairs" situation is a perfect way to do that - if everyone knows someone's going then all of sudden it's a very different environment.

Via your spy, find out which group the others hate the most and blame for all their troubles. Get rid of them first - the others won't come to their rescue.

Then do the next. Rinse and repeat. At all times denying you're going to get rid of the whole thing, insisting it's just downsizing and you're keeping the most valuable. That way, you keep the conflict going, you keep tensions high, and you keep everyone at each other always glad to see someone go and it wasn't them.

Once there's not many left, you can now drop the bombshell and just hand the few remaining a redundancy and shut the whole thing.

Done.

If you've worked in big business or government during a period of turmoil and downsizing then you've probably seen some version of that play out. Change the details to suit but the basic concept is very standard.

Whilst issues of abuse and so on are very real and not to be made light of, if the aim is to understand what's really going on then we need to grasp that it's the strong abusing the weak and that's the attribute of relevance. If the victim had greater strength in the relevant area (physical, emotional, whatever) or the perpetrator had sufficiently less strength then it wouldn't happen.

Bullies don't go around looking for the strongest person with the most friends they can find then target them, right? Nope, they go after the one who's relatively weak and with the smallest network of allies and thus the lowest effective strength. Or in other words, they look for a power imbalance firmly in their favour. Most would've seen that at school and it applies right through society.

That generically explains a great many things. People get stuck on the details of the perpetrators and victims but in truth the only one that matters is relative strength in the relevant area (eg physical, financial, etc) and the stronger party choosing to exploit it.

 

[Smurf1976]

And when poverty and despair will come ,the anger will not be directed toward the real culprit but toward the favored unfairly privileged ones under the media spotlight

Whilst in some ways I think this thread has gone way off topic, in other ways it's a great illustration of the problem.

All the arguing about problems that ought be solvable serves to distract from the ~$1 trillion elephant sitting patiently in the corner growing steadily larger.

This thread is, strangely, not a bad illustration of how that works.

 

[qldfrog]

So far as discussion about people being abused, bullied, raped, robbed or otherwise taken advantage of is concerned, to me it seems an issue of too much detail obscuring what's really going on.

Is it really men assaulting women?

Is it really bosses taking advantage of workers?

Etc.

Or is it really a case that whoever has the stronger position is taking advantage of (abusing, bashing, robbing, whatever) the person in the weaker position? That is, it's about relative strength and any detail beyond that is a reflection of that strength but not itself the cause.

Take any example and it's the stronger person in that context who abused the weaker person. Because if the weaker person tries to abuse the stronger then, if they truly are stronger, they can win the fight.

Men are on average physically stronger than women so no surprise that men assaulting women is far more common than women assaulting men. But if a particular woman is stronger than a particular man then the risk is she assaults him not the reverse. It's not gender that determines it, it's just physical strength.

Bosses are usually in a stronger position in the workplace than employees. Hence it's far more common that bullying in a workplace comes from above rather than below or at most extends sideways. Frontline workers generally can't bully boards and CEO's to any major extent - if they think they are it's only because the victim is allowing them to do so for whatever reason.

Relating to that is the concept of strength in numbers.

A group of average women could easily overpower a single man in a physical fight if they're determined to win.

A group of workers, more commonly known as a union, sure can bash management over the head if they want to.

Etc.

If there's one thing someone in power fears most it's the formation of a large, co-ordinated group below them. Hence pretty much anyone trying to "break" something follows the same basic pattern of dividing those below into manageable chunks then, ultimately, individuals.

In business terms if management wants to abandon (for example) the blue collar workforce side of its' operations and outsource that whilst keeping the white collar side then the first step is to divide them. Physically if possible, get the office to one site and the workshop to another site, but ultimately split them by any means possible.

Next step divide the workshop into construction and maintenance or whatever other groups of work can be identified. The more groups you can find, and the smaller they are and the fewer people in each, the better.

Now split each of those groups on the basis of profession, trade or other position.

Instead of a group of (say) 100 workers you've now got a few electricians, a few labourers, a few welders, a few plumbers and so on. Lots of little groups with no more than a few people in each.

If at all possible, recruit a spy. Someone in the workshop who's on your side. You'll do some deal with them that gives them a cushy job when it's all over but in the meantime their job is to inform you.

Now do everything you can to create conflict between the groups. A "musical chairs" situation is a perfect way to do that - if everyone knows someone's going then all of sudden it's a very different environment.

Via your spy, find out which group the others hate the most and blame for all their troubles. Get rid of them first - the others won't come to their rescue.

Then do the next. Rinse and repeat. At all times denying you're going to get rid of the whole thing, insisting it's just downsizing and you're keeping the most valuable. That way, you keep the conflict going, you keep tensions high, and you keep everyone at each other always glad to see someone go and it wasn't them.

Once there's not many left, you can now drop the bombshell and just hand the few remaining a redundancy and shut the whole thing.

Done.

If you've worked in big business or government during a period of turmoil and downsizing then you've probably seen some version of that play out. Change the details to suit but the basic concept is very standard.

Whilst issues of abuse and so on are very real and not to be made light of, if the aim is to understand what's really going on then we need to grasp that it's the strong abusing the weak and that's the attribute of relevance. If the victim had greater strength in the relevant area (physical, emotional, whatever) or the perpetrator had sufficiently less strength then it wouldn't happen.

Bullies don't go around looking for the strongest person with the most friends they can find then target them, right? Nope, they go after the one who's relatively weak and with the smallest network of allies and thus the lowest effective strength. Or in other words, they look for a power imbalance firmly in their favour. Most would've seen that at school and it applies right through society.

That generically explains a great many things. People get stuck on the details of the perpetrators and victims but in truth the only one that matters is relative strength in the relevant area (eg physical, financial, etc) and the stronger party choosing to exploit it.

And this is exactly the same in term of dividing to conquer by the few mega corporates and global agenda vs both people and nations.
So the tribes, the religion of wokeness to replace Christian ..or other belief, the class warfare,
United people make revolutions , upset rulers and create fundamental positive change,split society make pogroms , lockdowns and misery.
And people are kept busy on FB, ASF going to Disney World and watching netflix instead of using their brain and looking at what is happening to the whole society
The debt remains

 

[dyna]

Ah ! So the trillion bucks is the debt.
I was thinking it was about those damned submarines .
What a waste of taxpayer's money. All in the vain hope of putting the wind up the Chinese .