wayneL
VIVA LA LIBERTAD, CARAJO!
- Joined
- 9 July 2004
- Posts
- 25,581
- Reactions
- 12,708
I must admit (mainly because I have position myself for this), that I agree this is the way forward.
Klaus' great reset sounds far less appealing to be honest.
Economic implications of a SARS/Coronavirus outbreak
- Thread starter greggles
- Start date
Klaus' great reset sounds far less appealing to be honest.
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Posts
- 2,300
- Reactions
- 1,130
I have some petrol that can add to the fire.
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,102
- Reactions
- 16,894
Two past examples from the 1930's in Tasmania that I'm aware of are the road to the top of Mt Wellington and Tarraleah power station.
Both were "make work schemes" in the 1930's and both are still in use. The road is still the only road up the mountain and a common tourist destination whilst Tarraleah still generates about 6% of the state's electricity today. Both provided construction work at the time and have been of ongoing value ever since.
If we're going to spend $ well then things of that nature in all states would seem like the way to do it. Transport, water, energy, communications etc infrastructure or even things like opening up land for housing and putting the roads etc in and selling the blocks at a fixed price.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,049
- Reactions
- 23,589
The Great Ocean Road in Victoria is another that springs to mind.Two past examples from the 1930's in Tasmania that I'm aware of are the road to the top of Mt Wellington and Tarraleah power station.
Both were "make work schemes" in the 1930's and both are still in use. The road is still the only road up the mountain and a common tourist destination whilst Tarraleah still generates about 6% of the state's electricity today. Both provided construction work at the time and have been of ongoing value ever since.
If we're going to spend $ well then things of that nature in all states would seem like the way to do it. Transport, water, energy, communications etc infrastructure or even things like opening up land for housing and putting the roads etc in and selling the blocks at a fixed price.
Sealing the Great Central Road and a Road from Alice straight across to Queensland, would be another good nation building project.
Even duplicating sections of the transcontinental railway, so that trains don't have to sit idle in sidings, would be a huge increase to transport efficiency.
Dona Ferentes
A little bit OC⚡DC
- Joined
- 11 January 2016
- Posts
- 15,099
- Reactions
- 20,482
they're doing that, I think. Laverton to Uluru then NT to Boulia
https://rvdaily.com.au/outback-way-sealed/
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,049
- Reactions
- 23,589
That's great, I have done it quite a few times over the years and always thought it should be sealed. Trucks use it a lot as a short cut, but the N.T side gets cut up pretty badly.
The W.A side has a grader running just about continuously, so is usually pretty good, but fantastic news sealing it.
The scenery is far better than the Nullarbor and it takes 1,000klm off the journey from Alice to Perth.
- Joined
- 3 July 2009
- Posts
- 27,049
- Reactions
- 23,589
Pre virus people spent their disposable income, if their income remains the same and the employment numbers stay the same, people will return to spending the same.
What they spend it on may differ, but in a consumer society, the spend ratio generally returns to the norm IMO.
Discretionary spending $x, non discretionary spending $y and savings $z.
During the lockdown probably no one bought a kayak, but apparently just about everyone bought a bicycle, most bike shops ran out of stock.
Home renovations went through the roof, electronic equipment sales through the roof, Coles and Woolies best quarter ever.
Credit card debt paid down to the lowest ever.
I would be very surprised if peoples spending habits change and I believe spending as a percentage of earnings will return to the long term norm, a lot of retail fat will be ejected from the market place IMO.
It is a well overdue retail enema, build more shops and shopping centers to sell the same stuff at ever increasing prices, so more owners and landlords make more money isn't a sustainable model. Especially if the population isn't growing as quickly.
What they spend it on may differ, but in a consumer society, the spend ratio generally returns to the norm IMO.
Discretionary spending $x, non discretionary spending $y and savings $z.
During the lockdown probably no one bought a kayak, but apparently just about everyone bought a bicycle, most bike shops ran out of stock.
Home renovations went through the roof, electronic equipment sales through the roof, Coles and Woolies best quarter ever.
Credit card debt paid down to the lowest ever.
I would be very surprised if peoples spending habits change and I believe spending as a percentage of earnings will return to the long term norm, a lot of retail fat will be ejected from the market place IMO.
It is a well overdue retail enema, build more shops and shopping centers to sell the same stuff at ever increasing prices, so more owners and landlords make more money isn't a sustainable model. Especially if the population isn't growing as quickly.
Last edited:
over9k
So I didn't tell my wife, but I...
- Joined
- 12 June 2020
- Posts
- 5,225
- Reactions
- 7,315
Yeah, that along with bracket creep to slowly pay what remains off would be the lowest-pain solution IMO.
But we'll see what our central bank overlords decide.
over9k
So I didn't tell my wife, but I...
- Joined
- 12 June 2020
- Posts
- 5,225
- Reactions
- 7,315
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,102
- Reactions
- 16,894
Agreed in terms of lost services and so on. Nobody's going to go clubbing 7 nights a week or watch 100 films at the cinema due to what they missed out on. Etc. Some minor amount might be recovered, things like events being rescheduled and so on, but it's mostly lost.
Goods though I'm not so convinced since quite a few things have been outright booming. Renovations, IT equipment, bicycles and so on and of course toilet paper. Some areas have been outright smashed but others have boomed. That someone who stocked up on paper will buy less paper going forward but will still in due course replace their suit or lawn mower seems at least plausible when viewed over the long term (eg looking back a decade from now).
Putting that to the side, I do wonder to what extent our economic structure and system itself is adding unnecessarily to the problems?
In short I have a suspicion that I can't prove one way or the other. That suspicion is that central banks, government and business between them to considerable extent assumed perfection. Lending up to the limit of what could be serviced and things like that - always risky and prone to blowing up when a bump occurs. If so well that fragility will have amplified the economic damage and the pandemic isn't to blame for that having occurred, it was merely the trigger for the inevitable.
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Posts
- 2,300
- Reactions
- 1,130
So back to economics, what is a life worth?
"Cabinet papers have previously revealed jailing him will cost $NZ3.59 million ($A3.33 million) for the first two years of his stay at Auckland’s Paremoremo Prison."
https://www.news.com.au/national/cr...a/news-story/28af4bd217e231ac8553bd4ee72b6c18
So along with the discussion of how much we should throw at saving some lives, we have a person that costs lives, but the goodies in our society would say that all lives should be spared, regardless if they are murderers.
The above demonstrates how far we are removed from reality.
I can save the NZ govnits $A3.32M, single bullet, solved said problem.
If this is a forum about shares, trading and investing, it seems worthless are few are willing to deal with or discuss the reality of life and death.
Happy trading, just need a human to trade with.
"Cabinet papers have previously revealed jailing him will cost $NZ3.59 million ($A3.33 million) for the first two years of his stay at Auckland’s Paremoremo Prison."
https://www.news.com.au/national/cr...a/news-story/28af4bd217e231ac8553bd4ee72b6c18
So along with the discussion of how much we should throw at saving some lives, we have a person that costs lives, but the goodies in our society would say that all lives should be spared, regardless if they are murderers.
The above demonstrates how far we are removed from reality.
I can save the NZ govnits $A3.32M, single bullet, solved said problem.
If this is a forum about shares, trading and investing, it seems worthless are few are willing to deal with or discuss the reality of life and death.
Happy trading, just need a human to trade with.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,666
- Reactions
- 11,967
How much do you reckon could be saved if we shoot the entire prison population ?
- Joined
- 25 February 2011
- Posts
- 5,685
- Reactions
- 1,218
What ?!! Shoot all of Melbourne!!!
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,666
- Reactions
- 11,967
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Posts
- 2,300
- Reactions
- 1,130
So I have tried to be good, I have given consideration to Joe, who manages this forums, but you continue to antagonise.
You SIR are a xxxxxx, and if you disagree, I have PM my details, lets see the man/woman you are.
But please provide constructive conversation than taking things to extreme, it is this extreme that polarises society and creates discontent.
Or, I have misinterpreted, your statement, and you would rather spend $2M keeping a killer alive than providing support to others that have tried to provide and benefit our society.
I am calling you out, as a keyboard warrior.
- Joined
- 26 March 2014
- Posts
- 19,666
- Reactions
- 11,967
I'm not going to respond to your PM because I can spot an internet stalker when I see one.
Sure there are a lot of people that society would be better off without but trying to reduce everything to a dollar value is invalid. There is more to society than money, but our opinions differ on this, so be it.
I'll give you an example.
Suppose this guy has a "road to Damascus" moment and actually comes to realise what he's done and is sorry for it and the communicates this out to those who may be considering doing what he did. If he turns others off from similar actions then he may eventually save a lot of lives so his life is not entirely wasted.
To me, that's a better outcome than shooting him and making a martyr out of him.
Of course, he may die unrepentant, but who knows ?
But this thread is about the coronavirus isn't it ?
Why not start a thread on the value of life if you want that discussion.
Last edited:
- Joined
- 6 January 2009
- Posts
- 2,300
- Reactions
- 1,130
You flatter yourself. Lol
Garpal Gumnut
Ross Island Hotel
- Joined
- 2 January 2006
- Posts
- 13,348
- Reactions
- 9,472
- Joined
- 14 February 2005
- Posts
- 15,102
- Reactions
- 16,894
Thinking about the long term impacts of this overall situation, I'm thinking that a change in psychology of the masses is one plausible outcome. Just some random thoughts here really. 
My basic theory is that we all know that certain risks exist. Examples:
We know that we'll eventually die and that there's a small but not insignificant chance that this happens far earlier than we'd assumed.
We know that the historic building we wanted to see somewhere overseas might burn to the ground due to an accident of some kind.
We know that the band we want to see live might never tour again. They might split up or someone dies or they just decide to call it quits.
And so on. Whatever's on that "bucket list" we know there's some chance you might have to cross bits of it off, you never get to see that building and you never attend a concert by that singer, and there's a small chance that you die far sooner than you'd expected.
What's changed however is that the whole lot's gone. All of a sudden you can't see any show by any band anywhere. Doesn't matter whether it's anything from heavy metal to retro pop to an orchestra, the whole lot all of a sudden is gone, kaput, you ain't seeing nothing. That's a risk that nobody would have previously considered - the idea that literally the entire concept of live music comes to a halt just wasn't credible until it happened.
Likewise all of a sudden it's not just that you can't travel to some place overseas because there's a war or there's a natural disaster or whatever. All of a sudden those in Melbourne can't just decide that OK, well if they can't go to wherever in Europe then they'll go to the NT or Tasmania instead and for that matter they've never been to Adelaide so might do a road trip and check that out too. Nope, can't do that either indeed they can't even go to Geelong. Heck even the Melbourne CBD is in practice off limits for many.
That's a drastic escalation of the risk that you can't do something, whatever was on your list, that most wouldn't previously have considered. You've got money, you're in good health, the building's still there, the band's still together, there's no war, there's no natural disaster and so on but it just isn't happening. You ain't going nowhere.
Meanwhile careers are in tatters, businesses are stuffed and so on. All manner of "tomorrow" plans are in complete disarray.
I'm thinking that we may see a "live for today" mentality once this is all over. The whole concept of sacrifice now but you can always do x tomorrow has had the rug pulled out from under it. All of a sudden you've either been to London (or wherever, just an example) or you're not going there anytime soon and so on. All of a sudden money can't actually buy a lot of things you'd assumed it would be able to buy.
Meanwhile at the same time the risk of not having money has been largely removed by the actions of government. Economy falls in a serious hole? Well now we know what happens - welfare gets doubled. All of sudden the risk of living pay to pay just got a lot lower.
So where all that brings me to is a thought that the balance just shifted. The risk of running out of money just got lower and the risk of having money but not being able to spend it has turned out to be far more real than most had expected. That being so, I'm thinking that once this is all over, those who are able to do something now, whatever that is, may be more inclined to do it now rather than leaving it as a future plan. In other words a "live for today" mentality.
Just a random thought as to the long term implications. I may well be wrong etc.
My basic theory is that we all know that certain risks exist. Examples:
We know that we'll eventually die and that there's a small but not insignificant chance that this happens far earlier than we'd assumed.
We know that the historic building we wanted to see somewhere overseas might burn to the ground due to an accident of some kind.
We know that the band we want to see live might never tour again. They might split up or someone dies or they just decide to call it quits.
And so on. Whatever's on that "bucket list" we know there's some chance you might have to cross bits of it off, you never get to see that building and you never attend a concert by that singer, and there's a small chance that you die far sooner than you'd expected.
What's changed however is that the whole lot's gone. All of a sudden you can't see any show by any band anywhere. Doesn't matter whether it's anything from heavy metal to retro pop to an orchestra, the whole lot all of a sudden is gone, kaput, you ain't seeing nothing. That's a risk that nobody would have previously considered - the idea that literally the entire concept of live music comes to a halt just wasn't credible until it happened.
Likewise all of a sudden it's not just that you can't travel to some place overseas because there's a war or there's a natural disaster or whatever. All of a sudden those in Melbourne can't just decide that OK, well if they can't go to wherever in Europe then they'll go to the NT or Tasmania instead and for that matter they've never been to Adelaide so might do a road trip and check that out too. Nope, can't do that either indeed they can't even go to Geelong. Heck even the Melbourne CBD is in practice off limits for many.
That's a drastic escalation of the risk that you can't do something, whatever was on your list, that most wouldn't previously have considered. You've got money, you're in good health, the building's still there, the band's still together, there's no war, there's no natural disaster and so on but it just isn't happening. You ain't going nowhere.
Meanwhile careers are in tatters, businesses are stuffed and so on. All manner of "tomorrow" plans are in complete disarray.
I'm thinking that we may see a "live for today" mentality once this is all over. The whole concept of sacrifice now but you can always do x tomorrow has had the rug pulled out from under it. All of a sudden you've either been to London (or wherever, just an example) or you're not going there anytime soon and so on. All of a sudden money can't actually buy a lot of things you'd assumed it would be able to buy.
Meanwhile at the same time the risk of not having money has been largely removed by the actions of government. Economy falls in a serious hole? Well now we know what happens - welfare gets doubled. All of sudden the risk of living pay to pay just got a lot lower.
So where all that brings me to is a thought that the balance just shifted. The risk of running out of money just got lower and the risk of having money but not being able to spend it has turned out to be far more real than most had expected. That being so, I'm thinking that once this is all over, those who are able to do something now, whatever that is, may be more inclined to do it now rather than leaving it as a future plan. In other words a "live for today" mentality.
Just a random thought as to the long term implications. I may well be wrong etc.
- Joined
- 8 June 2008
- Posts
- 12,433
- Reactions
- 18,095
Fully agree and we see it everyday here: people who had planned to move up the coast to retire do it nowThinking about the long term impacts of this overall situation, I'm thinking that a change in psychology of the masses is one plausible outcome. Just some random thoughts here really.
My basic theory is that we all know that certain risks exist. Examples:
We know that we'll eventually die and that there's a small but not insignificant chance that this happens far earlier than we'd assumed.
We know that the historic building we wanted to see somewhere overseas might burn to the ground due to an accident of some kind.
We know that the band we want to see live might never tour again. They might split up or someone dies or they just decide to call it quits.
And so on. Whatever's on that "bucket list" we know there's some chance you might have to cross bits of it off, you never get to see that building and you never attend a concert by that singer, and there's a small chance that you die far sooner than you'd expected.
What's changed however is that the whole lot's gone. All of a sudden you can't see any show by any band anywhere. Doesn't matter whether it's anything from heavy metal to retro pop to an orchestra, the whole lot all of a sudden is gone, kaput, you ain't seeing nothing. That's a risk that nobody would have previously considered - the idea that literally the entire concept of live music comes to a halt just wasn't credible until it happened.
Likewise all of a sudden it's not just that you can't travel to some place overseas because there's a war or there's a natural disaster or whatever. All of a sudden those in Melbourne can't just decide that OK, well if they can't go to wherever in Europe then they'll go to the NT or Tasmania instead and for that matter they've never been to Adelaide so might do a road trip and check that out too. Nope, can't do that either indeed they can't even go to Geelong. Heck even the Melbourne CBD is in practice off limits for many.
That's a drastic escalation of the risk that you can't do something, whatever was on your list, that most wouldn't previously have considered. You've got money, you're in good health, the building's still there, the band's still together, there's no war, there's no natural disaster and so on but it just isn't happening. You ain't going nowhere.
Meanwhile careers are in tatters, businesses are stuffed and so on. All manner of "tomorrow" plans are in complete disarray.
I'm thinking that we may see a "live for today" mentality once this is all over. The whole concept of sacrifice now but you can always do x tomorrow has had the rug pulled out from under it. All of a sudden you've either been to London (or wherever, just an example) or you're not going there anytime soon and so on. All of a sudden money can't actually buy a lot of things you'd assumed it would be able to buy.
Meanwhile at the same time the risk of not having money has been largely removed by the actions of government. Economy falls in a serious hole? Well now we know what happens - welfare gets doubled. All of sudden the risk of living pay to pay just got a lot lower.
So where all that brings me to is a thought that the balance just shifted. The risk of running out of money just got lower and the risk of having money but not being able to spend it has turned out to be far more real than most had expected. That being so, I'm thinking that once this is all over, those who are able to do something now, whatever that is, may be more inclined to do it now rather than leaving it as a future plan. In other words a "live for today" mentality.
Just a random thought as to the long term implications. I may well be wrong etc.
Imagine how hard it will be to convince people to put money in super, sacrifice to fight global warming etc
And the political parties and governments took another hit
How can anyone trust them now?
Manipulation everywhere: you do not need masks becoming mandatory on the beach
Etc etc
Expect more brexit and Trump surprises
A fall of the EU ..the institution has been gone missing during the last 6 months so a whole already damaged overinflated balloon now deflating fast.
Expect impacts on euro, shares there
Similar threads
