The state of the economy at the street level

[SirRumpole]

That's fairly obnoxious VC, you don't have to be an @sshole all the time mate.

But for your perusal:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/milton...new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/#43a9f73f3dec

Very brave, but that is what we said about Labor's policies and look where it got them.

There seems to be a trend in a number of countries for politicians to get out of the people's faces.

I personally think that leadership is needed because the private sector just thinks about itself, but "progressiveness" shouldn't be pushed too hard these days in case it turns the sheeple off.

 

[Value Collector]

That's fairly obnoxious VC, you don't have to be an @sshole all the time mate.

But for your perusal:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/milton...new-deal-and-the-cost-of-virtue/#43a9f73f3dec

I wasn’t trying to be obnoxious, I was just actually wondering if you read it.

It’s only 14 pages, after I read it I can’t believe people are actually upset with it, that’s why I asked.

I can understand you would be upset if you had only heard haters and climate change deniers etc talk about it.

 

[Value Collector]

Did you run the figures on changing every building.

Dude, it’s a road map of what needs to be done, if the country is to get to zero emissions, it doesn’t lock anything in, it’s basically a list of jobs that need the country needs to start working on over time.

 

[moXJO]

Dude, it’s a road map of what needs to be done, if the country is to get to zero emissions, it doesn’t lock anything in, it’s basically a list of jobs that need the country needs to start working on over time.

I understand the sentiment. But it was never going to happen.

 

[Value Collector]

I understand the sentiment. But it was never going to happen.

It surely will happen, but they are multigenerational type goals.

 

[Value Collector]

Here is John Oliver’s Take on the green new deal.

He is always good for few laughs.

 

[sptrawler]

Discretionary spending is being eaten away by increases in prices for essentials, power, gas, water, council rates, rents, health insurance, medicines, state government charges and the like.

So on a non increasing income once you pay that stuff off, there is very little else to spend on what companies produce.

On Q&A last night the only person who made any sense was the Centre Alliance Senator Rex Patrick, saying basically gas prices are killing the economy. Dead right and the government has to do something about it.

One of your older posts Rumpy, but you were spot on.

https://www.smh.com.au/business/the...-about-200pc-in-20-years-20190722-p529in.html

From the article:
Since 2000, while the CPI has risen 57 per cent, the cost of hospital and medical services are up 195 per cent, preschool and primary education has increased almost 160 per cent while the cost of electricity has galloped ahead by 194 per cent.


At the other end of the scale, the cost of clothing and footwear is down 10 per cent and furniture prices have risen only 10 per cent.

Against this wages have gone up 78 per cent over this period.

Loading
Thus it is becoming increasingly difficult for many Australians to retain their standard of living or increase their savings .

 

[Smurf1976]

From the article:
Since 2000, while the CPI has risen 57 per cent, the cost of hospital and medical services are up 195 per cent, preschool and primary education has increased almost 160 per cent while the cost of electricity has galloped ahead by 194 per cent.

At the other end of the scale, the cost of clothing and footwear is down 10 per cent and furniture prices have risen only 10 per cent.

A big problem there is that broadly speaking, the ability to reduce expenditure so as to manage personal finances is being eroded.

In a typical household situation the option to not buy new furniture is there and someone could delay that for a decade even. Likewise they can keep wearing their clothes until they're really worn out, they can keep watching their old TV and they can drive an old car and so on if they need to save money.

Trouble is, all those sort of things have become cheaper or at least increased minimally versus the large increases in essential costs. Education isn't optional, same with anything medical and beyond a reasonable extent of efficiency utilities are also a necessity and of course housing most certainly is.

So the minimum costs to live are going up faster than the average, thus seriously squeezing those on a below average income or who want to cut expenses in order to build up savings etc.

As "essential" costs gobble up an increasing portion of disposable income, slowly but surely the "discretionary" sector gets wiped out.

 

[qldfrog]

And i would add insurances and rego, rates, water bills especially the mandatory part of it: i pay 1k a year with 0 use and no tap or toilet in a warehouse.this is Australia ...
Ir is not an easy place to scale the social ladder, the perfect socialism dream, slug the rich,feed the idle, ensure the lower class stay put and our rulers benefit at the next election
Perfect recipe for a local Trump in my opinion, explaining Labour last loss as well
You need a social ladder in a country
Even China has one

 

[SirRumpole]

Eight out of 10 jobs created in the last 12 months have been in the public sector.

So much for a strong economy and business confidence.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-23/jobs-growth-dominated-by-public-sector/11334294

 

[qldfrog]

And most probably just an extra charge on the country and on the remaining private businesses, a satanic loop...
There is no way these figures could be a reasonable expansion due to a growth of the population

 

[Value Collector]

Eight out of 10 jobs created in the last 12 months have been in the public sector.

So much for a strong economy and business confidence.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-07-23/jobs-growth-dominated-by-public-sector/11334294

Job creation is a poor metric from which to judge the economy.

It should be judged on the total amount of goods and services being produced, distributed and consumed.

If you judge based on job creation, you would have to say that the USA’s agricultural sector has not grown in 200 years.

Because today there is pretty much the same number of people employed on farms as there was in 1819 when 80% of the population worked on farms.

But today less than 1% of the USA work on farms but they feed a population almost 100 times the size they used to.

 

[SirRumpole]

Job creation is a poor metric from which to judge the economy.

It should be judged on the total amount of goods and services being produced, distributed and consumed.

If you judge based on job creation, you would have to say that the USA’s agricultural sector has not grown in 200 years.

Because today there is pretty much the same number of people employed on farms as there was in 1819 when 80% of the population worked on farms.

But today less than 1% of the USA work on farms but they feed a population almost 100 times the size they used to.

The unemployment rate, as flawed as it is, along with the under employment rate are reasonable metrics to measure the economy.

Say we had a highly mechanised mining and agriculture industry (which we do ), exporting lots of stuff overseas, but an unemployment rate of 10%, would the economy be going well ?

Consumer consumption in this country is pretty weak so people are just not buying as much stuff as they used to so that reflects the state of the overall economy.

 

[Value Collector]

The unemployment rate, as flawed as it is, along with the under employment rate are reasonable metrics to measure the economy.

Say we had a highly mechanised mining and agriculture industry (which we do ), exporting lots of stuff overseas, but an unemployment rate of 10%, would the economy be going well ?

Consumer consumption in this country is pretty weak so people are just not buying as much stuff as they used to so that reflects the state of the overall economy.

Think of it this way.

Let’s say we had almost total mechanization across all industries, and we produced 3 times the amount of product and services we did today.

But we had 9o% unemployment, would the economy be going well?

I say hell yes.

At the end of the day, the real judge is how much is being produced and consumed in real terms.

I mean back in 2001 when I had to pay $89 per month for my mobile plan that included nothing, was the economy some how more productive than it is today when I only pay $30 per month but get unlimited calls and texts, 300 mins international and 30 gig of data.

The fact the price has reduced and the services increased is a sign of strength not weakness.

 

[SirRumpole]

But we had 9o% unemployment, would the economy be going well?

I say hell yes.

At the end of the day, the real judge is how much is being produced and consumed in real terms.

Unemployed people don't tend to consume a lot on NewStart.

 

[Value Collector]

Unemployed people don't tend to consume a lot on NewStart.

But they will consume a lot more than an unemployed person in the past.

You can bet almost every person on new start has a mobile, and they make calls a lot more frequently than I did back in 2001 when I was paying 30 cents per 30 seconds, and $89 per month for that privilege.

also the $1 menu a McDonald’s and others like it has items cheaper than I would have had to pay in 2001 etc etc.

Flights are cheaper, cars are cheaper, renting movies is cheaper, internet is cheaper, interest rates are cheaper. etc etc

Across the board more things are being produced and consumed, and thats the ultimate point of an economy.

Think about it, would you want higher employment even if it meant lower production?

 

[Smurf1976]

But we had 9o% unemployment, would the economy be going well?

I say hell yes.

The economy as such might be going well but it would not be at all well serving the interests of the population, at least not in the absence of truly massive redistribution in the form of welfare to the 90% who are unemployed in that example.

The trains running on time is not a worthwhile achievement if it's done by means of preventing passengers from boarding them. Etc.

 

[qldfrog]

Unemployed people don't tend to consume a lot on NewStart.

So do you separate economy and overall debt?
In that case easy, we can have a booming economy by just giving everyone 100k...
A bit like Trump did via tax cut..
France spent the last 50y doing relance par la consommation
Aka boost economy by giving people money..minimal wage, welfare etc
You just end up with a bankrupt country
No, we are not in a great economy, yes newstart is low but we can not afford to go deeper on debt
One point seemed missing is that nowadays, when you boost consumption, you mostly increase wealth in china or overseas
Your cheap ham comes from europe, your canned vegies from Thailand or SA, your phone....
How much of that extra 100buck in welfare will stay here?
Most will go to a landlord pushing RE price rest overseas with black market cigarettes and drugs
Pushing a bit but
And every month, one billion in interest only on our federal debt..that could build a few hospitals...but it is true not buy many submarines...

 

[Value Collector]

The economy as such might be going well but it would not be at all well serving the interests of the population, at least not in the absence of truly massive redistribution in the form of welfare to the 90% who are unemployed in that example.

The trains running on time is not a worthwhile achievement if it's done by means of preventing passengers from boarding them. Etc.

All rich families will squabble about exactly how he pie gets cut up, that’s just politics.

But even our current system would see a good rise in the the general standard of living, as prices dropped from the increase in efficiency etc.

 

[SirRumpole]

The trains running on time is not a worthwhile achievement if it's done by means of preventing passengers from boarding them. Etc.

Yes Minister comes to mind with the hospital with no patients being so efficient compared to the ones that actually heal people...