Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

>>>>> OK, just same building once run/owned by State Government.
>>>>> Not now.
>>>>> Still there economic refugees getting housing paid for them at tax
>>>>> payers expense. The new suburbs are full of "I can't speak english"
>>>>> sopposedly bought in under skills shortages!
>>>>>
>>>>> The Government has designed the 2023–24 permanent Migration Program
>>>>> to
>>>>> address persistent and emerging skills shortages and to attract
>>>>> people
>>>>> with specialist skillsets that are difficult to find or develop in
>>>>> Australia.
>>>>>
>>>>> But you knew that "Daniel65"
>>>>>
>>>> No, Petzl, I don't *KNOW* that!! I might SUSPECT it, even HYPOTHESIS
>>>> it,
>>>> but I don't *KNOW* it, Petzl!!
>>>>
>>> read it here
>>> https://t.ly/_11Wk
>>> 2023–24 permanent Migration Program
>>>>
>>>> And as for your "OK, just same building once run/owned by State
>>>> Government", I don't even think that is correct .... certainly not
>>>> Universally!!

>>> I don't keep track of what government State or Federal runs what!
>>> I were told by State NSW goveernment that Housing Commision (NSW),
>>> gets it's mandates from Federal Government.

>> Bullshit it does and the NSW state govt never ever said anything like
>> that.

> The NSW housing wrote that fact back to me on a complaint about the
> housing commission being selected and dedicated as a halfway house for
> criminals out of prison on release

Just some fool that has never had a fucking clue.

On Wed, 14 Feb 2024 11:54:51 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote
>
>>>>>> OK, just same building once run/owned by State Government.
>>>>>> Not now.
>>>>>> Still there economic refugees getting housing paid for them at tax
>>>>>> payers expense. The new suburbs are full of "I can't speak english"
>>>>>> sopposedly bought in under skills shortages!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The Government has designed the 2023–24 permanent Migration Program
>>>>>> to
>>>>>> address persistent and emerging skills shortages and to attract
>>>>>> people
>>>>>> with specialist skillsets that are difficult to find or develop in
>>>>>> Australia.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But you knew that "Daniel65"
>>>>>>
>>>>> No, Petzl, I don't *KNOW* that!! I might SUSPECT it, even HYPOTHESIS
>>>>> it,
>>>>> but I don't *KNOW* it, Petzl!!
>>>>>
>>>> read it here
>>>> https://t.ly/_11Wk
>>>> 2023–24 permanent Migration Program
>>>>>
>>>>> And as for your "OK, just same building once run/owned by State
>>>>> Government", I don't even think that is correct .... certainly not
>>>>> Universally!!
>
>>>> I don't keep track of what government State or Federal runs what!
>>>> I were told by State NSW goveernment that Housing Commision (NSW),
>>>> gets it's mandates from Federal Government.
>
>>> Bullshit it does and the NSW state govt never ever said anything like
>>> that.
>
>> The NSW housing wrote that fact back to me on a complaint about the
>> housing commission being selected and dedicated as a halfway house for
>> criminals out of prison on release
>
>Just some fool that has never had a fucking clue.
>
It was cleaned up after I forwarded letter to my opposition Liberal
NSW Liberal MP within a month, rubbish (wrecked cars, rubber car
tyres. mattresses, etc.) removed from Housing commission front yards
street signs put back up.
Area became noemal again.
--
Petzl
If voting made any difference,
They wouldn't let us do it- Mark Twain

Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Petzl <petzlx@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Daniel65 <daniel47@nomail.afraid.org> wrote

>>>>>>> OK, just same building once run/owned by State Government.
>>>>>>> Not now.
>>>>>>> Still there economic refugees getting housing paid for them at tax
>>>>>>> payers expense. The new suburbs are full of "I can't speak english"
>>>>>>> sopposedly bought in under skills shortages!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The Government has designed the 2023–24 permanent Migration Program
>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>> address persistent and emerging skills shortages and to attract
>>>>>>> people
>>>>>>> with specialist skillsets that are difficult to find or develop in
>>>>>>> Australia.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> But you knew that "Daniel65"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, Petzl, I don't *KNOW* that!! I might SUSPECT it, even HYPOTHESIS
>>>>>> it,
>>>>>> but I don't *KNOW* it, Petzl!!
>>>>>>
>>>>> read it here
>>>>> https://t.ly/_11Wk
>>>>> 2023–24 permanent Migration Program
>>>>>>
>>>>>> And as for your "OK, just same building once run/owned by State
>>>>>> Government", I don't even think that is correct .... certainly not
>>>>>> Universally!!
>>
>>>>> I don't keep track of what government State or Federal runs what!
>>>>> I were told by State NSW goveernment that Housing Commision (NSW),
>>>>> gets it's mandates from Federal Government.
>>
>>>> Bullshit it does and the NSW state govt never ever said anything like
>>>> that.
>>
>>> The NSW housing wrote that fact back to me on a complaint about the
>>> housing commission being selected and dedicated as a halfway house for
>>> criminals out of prison on release

>> Just some fool that has never had a fucking clue.

> It was cleaned up after I forwarded letter to my opposition Liberal
> NSW Liberal MP within a month, rubbish (wrecked cars, rubber car
> tyres. mattresses, etc.) removed from Housing commission front yards
> street signs put back up.

Because your MP got the HOUSING COMMISSION to do that,

Nothing whatever to do with the federal govt, fuckwit.

> Area became noemal again.

On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 07:48:13 +1100
Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> wrote:

> On 12/02/2024 9:36 pm, Borax Man wrote:
> > On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:25:34 +1100
> > Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
> >
> >> end where one generation could be better off
> >>>> than the one that preceded it.
> >>>
> >>> And an economy that is known to benefit for that constant influx of
> >>> migrants regardless of your (or my) personal opinion about that constant
> >>> flow.
> >>>
> >>>> If immigration drove our economy to where it is today,
> >>>> one must be incredibly self-unaware to crow about these
> >>>> results.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> It's not about 'one' doing any crowing. It's about governments and
> >>> institutions being able to prove that economically, migrants provide an
> >>> economic benefit to the country.
> >>
> >> Yet at what rate? The disastrous European and English experience
> >> raises a question...what if the immigration occurred at half the rate
> >> it did?
> >
> > Considering that we are now seeing a generation, or two, which will
> > have worse living conditions and economic ability than the generation
> > that preceded it, a reversal of a long trend of progress, this
> > indicates failure.
>
> Oh FFS! Not only is that younger generation going to have worse living
> conditions, be less economically well off but they are also dying
> earlier and have poor health outcomes than my generation. NONE of that
> is due to migration!

Right, so that would mean the cleams that migration is a benefit to
us, that it makes our lives better are debunked!

On 16/02/2024 5:29 pm, Borax Man wrote:
> On Tue, 13 Feb 2024 07:48:13 +1100
> Fran <gettingmoredelusionalbythedayistheforger@nutcasewannabeFran.com> wrote:
>
>> On 12/02/2024 9:36 pm, Borax Man wrote:
>>> On Mon, 12 Feb 2024 08:25:34 +1100
>>> Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> end where one generation could be better off
>>>>>> than the one that preceded it.
>>>>>
>>>>> And an economy that is known to benefit for that constant influx of
>>>>> migrants regardless of your (or my) personal opinion about that constant
>>>>> flow.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If immigration drove our economy to where it is today,
>>>>>> one must be incredibly self-unaware to crow about these
>>>>>> results.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> It's not about 'one' doing any crowing. It's about governments and
>>>>> institutions being able to prove that economically, migrants provide an
>>>>> economic benefit to the country.
>>>>
>>>> Yet at what rate? The disastrous European and English experience
>>>> raises a question...what if the immigration occurred at half the rate
>>>> it did?
>>>
>>> Considering that we are now seeing a generation, or two, which will
>>> have worse living conditions and economic ability than the generation
>>> that preceded it, a reversal of a long trend of progress, this
>>> indicates failure.
>>
>> Oh FFS! Not only is that younger generation going to have worse living
>> conditions, be less economically well off but they are also dying
>> earlier and have poor health outcomes than my generation. NONE of that
>> is due to migration!
>
> Right, so that would mean the cleams that migration is a benefit to
> us, that it makes our lives better are debunked

Learn to read.

No-one claimed that migration makes our lives better.

And I repeat, migration is not the cause of falling living standards in
the 4 areas I mentioned and and which is which is impacting on younger
Australians.

Fran wrote:

/snip/
>
> No-one claimed that migration makes our lives better.

Hmmm.
Let us not kid ourselves. The proper function of our econopolitical
system is heavily reliant on the doctrine of mythical "infinite" growth.
Hence it needs population growth by any mean possible. Just look at
countries like Japan for instance where economic stagnation set in for
the last decade because of indigenous population decline coupled with
extremely restrictive immigration policies. Japan is now forced kicking
and screaming into opening its border to immigration and guest workers.

I always find so amusing that right-wing populist propaganda on this
issue always finds fertile grounds even though the political hard right
is the bastion of infinite growth capitalism.

Somehow the oxymoron nature of this scaremongering rubbish escapes those
who fall for this nonsense xenophobic rubbish. The truth is that those
who propagate this crap use it as a well established tactic that diverts
general discontent amongst the great unwashed about the real nature of
the current problems channelling it towards a conjured up false direction.

I was never against a proper, rational parliamentary debate on our
immigration system, but under the current political climate this seems
to be an impossible proposition, much like a fundamental taxation review
or a rethink on the ownership issue of essential public services.

> And I repeat, migration is not the cause of falling living standards in
> the 4 areas I mentioned and and which is which is impacting on younger
> Australians.

Clearly, the causes for the falling living standards of the working- and
middle classes are directly proportional to the steadily increasing
right shift in politics, which enables the corporate upper class to suck
most of the wealth out of society and create a wealth based neo-feudal
aristocracy which now basically dominates the political discourse in
this country as well as elsewhere. (Yes, I admit, I look at this process
from a Marxian analytical point of view, curse be upon me).

Furthermore, we are dealing here with a multi faceted global problem,
not a purely home grown one. The World's economy is in a flux, and the
end is nowhere near in sight.
Blaming Labor for instance for the hard to beat inflation, or the
housing crisis ignores huge problems, which are currently plaguing
economies around the planet.

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

On 19/02/2024 9:45 am, Ördög wrote:
> Fran wrote:
>
> /snip/
>>
>> No-one claimed that migration makes our lives better.
>
> Hmmm.
> Let us not kid ourselves. The proper function of our econopolitical
> system is heavily reliant on the doctrine of mythical "infinite" growth.
> Hence it needs population growth by any mean possible. Just look at
> countries like Japan for instance where economic stagnation set in for
> the last  decade because of indigenous population decline coupled with
> extremely restrictive immigration policies. Japan is now forced kicking
> and screaming into opening its border to immigration and guest workers.

:-)))) Indeed. I follow a couple who moved to Japan and who are living
rurally and all of their neighbours are geriatrics.

I'm certainly not a fan of our infinite growth migration but I am
certainly grateful for all the old folks homes workers and nurses and
Doctors.
>
> I always find so amusing that right-wing populist propaganda on this
> issue always finds fertile grounds even though the political hard right
> is the bastion of infinite growth capitalism.
>
> Somehow the oxymoron nature of this scaremongering rubbish escapes those
> who fall for this nonsense xenophobic rubbish. The truth is that those
> who propagate this crap use it as a well established tactic that diverts
> general discontent amongst the great unwashed about the real nature of
> the current problems channelling it towards a conjured up false direction.
>
> I was never against a proper, rational parliamentary debate on our
> immigration system, but under the current political climate this seems
> to be an impossible proposition, much like a fundamental taxation review
> or a rethink on the ownership issue of essential public services.
>
>> And I repeat, migration is not the cause of falling living standards
>> in the 4 areas I mentioned and and which is which is impacting on
>> younger Australians.
>
> Clearly, the causes for the falling living standards of the working- and
> middle classes are directly proportional to the steadily increasing
> right shift in politics, which enables the corporate upper class to suck
> most of the wealth out of society and create a wealth based neo-feudal
> aristocracy which now basically dominates the political discourse in
> this country as well as elsewhere. (Yes, I admit, I look at this process
> from a Marxian analytical point of view, curse be upon me).

I think that is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too simplistic an analysis. I think
a lot (but not all) of the worsening in outcomes in those 4 areas (worse
living conditions, less economically well off, dying earlier, poorer
health outcomes) can be put down to societal changes.
>
> Furthermore, we are dealing here with a multi faceted global problem,
> not a purely home grown one.

Yep. It's a shame that Trump's idiot and ignorant supporters haven't
bothered to find out what is going on in the world beyond America's
borders....

The World's economy is in a flux, and the
> end is nowhere near in sight.
> Blaming Labor for instance for the hard to beat inflation, or the
> housing crisis ignores huge problems, which are currently plaguing
> economies around the planet.

And, as I'm sure is have pointed out many times before, neither side of
politics is always right or always deserves support. Being a rusted on
voter just proves that voter to be clueless. Little Johnny Howard was
enough to give Josh the advice that ideology should be set aside during
a pandemic so if even an ideologue gets it....

NB: I'm hinting there Ordog.

Fran
> Ördög
>> Fran
>> /snip/
>>>
>>> No-one claimed that migration makes our lives better.
>>
>> Hmmm.
>> Let us not kid ourselves. The proper function of our econopolitical
>> system is heavily reliant on the doctrine of mythical "infinite"
>> growth. Hence it needs population growth by any mean possible. Just
>> look at countries like Japan for instance where economic stagnation
>> set in for the last  decade because of indigenous population decline
>> coupled with extremely restrictive immigration policies. Japan is now
>> forced kicking and screaming into opening its border to immigration
>> and guest workers.
>
> :-))))  Indeed.  I follow a couple who moved to Japan and who are living
> rurally and all of their neighbours are geriatrics.
>
> I'm certainly not a fan of our infinite growth migration but I am
> certainly grateful for all the old folks homes workers and nurses and
> Doctors.
>>
>> I always find so amusing that right-wing populist propaganda on this
>> issue always finds fertile grounds even though the political hard
>> right is the bastion of infinite growth capitalism.
>>
>> Somehow the oxymoron nature of this scaremongering rubbish escapes
>> those who fall for this nonsense xenophobic rubbish. The truth is that
>> those who propagate this crap use it as a well established tactic that
>> diverts general discontent amongst the great unwashed about the real
>> nature of the current problems channelling it towards a conjured up
>> false direction.
>>
>> I was never against a proper, rational parliamentary debate on our
>> immigration system, but under the current political climate this seems
>> to be an impossible proposition, much like a fundamental taxation
>> review or a rethink on the ownership issue of essential public services.
>>
>>> And I repeat, migration is not the cause of falling living standards
>>> in the 4 areas I mentioned and and which is which is impacting on
>>> younger Australians.
>>
>> Clearly, the causes for the falling living standards of the working-
>> and middle classes are directly proportional to the steadily
>> increasing right shift in politics, which enables the corporate upper
>> class to suck most of the wealth out of society and create a wealth
>> based neo-feudal aristocracy which now basically dominates the
>> political discourse in this country as well as elsewhere. (Yes, I
>> admit, I look at this process from a Marxian analytical point of view,
>> curse be upon me).
>
> I think that is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too simplistic an analysis.  I think
> a lot (but not all) of the worsening in outcomes in those 4 areas (worse
> living conditions, less economically well off, dying earlier, poorer
> health outcomes) can be put down to societal changes.

These four items on your is are the direct result of the horrible state
contemporary capitalism. Let us not kid ourselves, even capitalism could
do much better for the large masses if it moderated its current extreme
practices to a lot more gentle form that is provided by adhering to
social democracy.

>>
>> Furthermore, we are dealing here with a multi faceted global problem,
>> not a purely home grown one.
>
> Yep.  It's a shame that Trump's idiot and ignorant supporters haven't
> bothered to find out what is going on in the world beyond America's
> borders....
>
> The World's economy is in a flux, and the
>> end is nowhere near in sight.
>> Blaming Labor for instance for the hard to beat inflation, or the
>> housing crisis ignores huge problems, which are currently plaguing
>> economies around the planet.
>
> And, as I'm sure is have pointed out many times before, neither side of
> politics is always right or always deserves support.  Being a rusted on
> voter just proves that voter to be clueless.  Little Johnny Howard was
> enough to give Josh the advice that ideology should be set aside during
> a pandemic so if even an ideologue gets it....
>
> NB: I'm hinting there Ordog.
> Naughty Fran! ;-) LOL!

Regardless of the public image lying rodent might or might not have
displayed he was (still is) a ruthless strategist, yet a through and
through hard right ultra conservative ideologue even if those who have
come after his political demise among the Liberal Party's leadership
elite were even worse in this respect (except maybe for Turnbull).
Despite of what you might think, I am no Labor supporter, never was.
I simply do not support any outright rightwing or even right leaning
politics nor policies (surprise-surprise coming from a communist, eh?)

However, I clearly recognise for a fact that the Left often gets things
wrong, mainly because its internal disunity on the issue of determining
the most optimal rate of achieving desired social progress. Rushing
blindly policies, which clearly take time to formulate properly and
execute optimally tend to mess things up really badly.

Having said that, I can't name a single thing that the political right
does well socially nor economically. It is plagued by toxic
"individualism" (think of that 'sovereign citizens" nonsense for
instance), the dislike of any change that does not directly benefit them
nor aligns with their demagogy, and of course unapologetic and fully
unashamed greed.
Therefore, it is a sad state of affairs that my voting habits are
forcibly determined by selecting the least worst candidates instead of
the ability picking out the ones really of worthy voting for.

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

On 19/02/2024 1:22 pm, Ördög wrote:
> Fran

>>> Clearly, the causes for the falling living standards of the working-
>>> and middle classes are directly proportional to the steadily
>>> increasing right shift in politics, which enables the corporate upper
>>> class to suck most of the wealth out of society and create a wealth
>>> based neo-feudal aristocracy which now basically dominates the
>>> political discourse in this country as well as elsewhere. (Yes, I
>>> admit, I look at this process from a Marxian analytical point of
>>> view, curse be upon me).
>>
>> I think that is waaaaaaaaayyyyyyyy too simplistic an analysis.  I
>> think a lot (but not all) of the worsening in outcomes in those 4
>> areas (worse living conditions, less economically well off, dying
>> earlier, poorer health outcomes) can be put down to societal changes.
>
> These four items on your is are the direct result of the horrible state
> contemporary capitalism.

Again, that is way too simplistic an analysis. Take for example just
the worsening living conditions. Yes, wages aren't keeping up but there
is also the societal changes in expectations from when I was young and I
don't think that change can be solely linked to "horrible state
contemporary capitalism".

Do you remember the comment about young 'uns doing without their smashed
avocado toast in order to get a home? I think that had a lot of truth
in it. I dunno if you are old enough to remember moving into a house
with no furniture other than a bed (if you were lucky) or if not a bed,
just a mattress on the floor. If you wanted to phone anyone you joined
the line outside a pubic phone box and waited till the phone was free.
etc, etc, etc.

Now that is just one small example but think about it as it applies to
all of those issues I mentioned.... lack of discipline, sense of
entitlement, not taking personal rsponsibility, not being frugal etc etc
etc. Those are personal qualities as opposed to operating factors of
contemporary capitalism. Anyone with even half a brain should be able
to figure out how that contemporary capitalism is trying to get your
money and therefore to thrive and get ahead of the game, you need to use
skills to take on adnd to beat that system.

Let us not kid ourselves, even capitalism could
> do much better for the large masses if it moderated its current extreme
> practices to a lot more gentle form that is provided by adhering to
> social democracy.

And so could those masses if they took personal responsibility, learned
to be frugal and did some planning and were prepared to get up each new
day and do it all over again......

>>> Furthermore, we are dealing here with a multi faceted global problem,
>>> not a purely home grown one.
>>
>> Yep.  It's a shame that Trump's idiot and ignorant supporters haven't
>> bothered to find out what is going on in the world beyond America's
>> borders....
>>
>> The World's economy is in a flux, and the
>>> end is nowhere near in sight.
>>> Blaming Labor for instance for the hard to beat inflation, or the
>>> housing crisis ignores huge problems, which are currently plaguing
>>> economies around the planet.
>>
>> And, as I'm sure is have pointed out many times before, neither side
>> of politics is always right or always deserves support.  Being a
>> rusted on voter just proves that voter to be clueless.  Little Johnny
>> Howard was enough to give Josh the advice that ideology should be set
>> aside during a pandemic so if even an ideologue gets it....
>>
>> NB: I'm hinting there Ordog.
>> Naughty Fran!  ;-) LOL!
>
> Regardless of the public image lying rodent might or might not have
> displayed he was (still is) a ruthless strategist, yet a through and
> through hard right ultra conservative ideologue even if those who have
> come after his political demise among the Liberal Party's leadership
> elite were even worse in this respect (except maybe for Turnbull).
> Despite of what you might think, I am no Labor supporter, never was.

I've never thought you were a Labor supporter. I think you are a
supporter of a theory that lacks sense in terms of how humanity operates.

> I simply do not support any outright rightwing or even right leaning
> politics nor policies (surprise-surprise coming from a communist, eh?)

Not at all a surprise.

> However, I clearly recognise for a fact that the Left often gets things
> wrong, mainly because its internal disunity on the issue of determining
> the most optimal rate of achieving desired social progress. Rushing
> blindly policies, which clearly take time to formulate properly and
> execute optimally tend to mess things up really badly.

And you see it's that very 'internal disunity' which is is why I think
Communist and each and every other political theory (and party) is full
of shit.

All very nice in theory but can't survive contact with real humans. Get
3 people together and there will be disunity so thinking that life or
politics will be any different has never sat well with me as it's just a
denial of how humans operate in society.

> Having said that, I can't name a single thing that the political right
> does well socially nor economically. It is plagued by toxic
> "individualism" (think of that 'sovereign citizens" nonsense for
> instance), the dislike of any change that does not directly benefit them
> nor aligns with their demagogy, and of course unapologetic and fully
> unashamed greed.

Yep. That is a fair assessment.

> Therefore, it is a sad state of affairs that my voting habits are
> forcibly determined by selecting the least worst candidates instead of
> the ability picking out the ones really of worthy voting for.

That is just reality. It was ever thus. We all have to vote for the
least worse option. Railing against it is railing against reality. And
we all do rail till we finally realise how futile it is to do so but
that willnever stop those of us who like to rail.

On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:51:58 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:28:32 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 19:49:25 +1100
>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 15:44:58 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:59:20 +1100
>>> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >
>>> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:23:00 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
>>> >> wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100
>>> >> > Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>>> >> >> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>> >> >> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>>> >> >> >><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> >> > *sip*
>>> >> >
>>> >> >> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax?
>>> And
>>> >> >> death
>>> >> >> >> duties?
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses,
>>> affects
>>> >> >> >the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price
>>> determined
>>> >> >> >by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the
>>> market
>>> >> >> >can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
>>> >> >> >per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
>>> >> >> >in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and
>>> landlords
>>> >> >> >to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they
>>> >> together
>>> >> >> >can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something
>>> >> similar
>>> >> >> >happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage
>>> >> >> earners.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >> >As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those
>>> who
>>> >> are
>>> >> >> >only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as
>>> those
>>> >> >> >who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
>>> >> >> >to the bottom.
>>> >> >> >
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have
>>> to
>>> >> be
>>> >> >> all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in
>>> half.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in
>>> the
>>> >> >> old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're
>>> throwing
>>> >> >> money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that cowboy
>>> >> >> Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that
>>> Keynesian
>>> >> >> drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money
>>> >> would
>>> >> >> stimulate investment in manufacturing.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> The Chinese are still laughing!
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the Commonwealth
>>> >> bank
>>> >> >> which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious
>>> competitor
>>> >> >> to the other round-table sharks.
>>> >> >>
>>> >> >> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't marry
>>> too
>>> >> >> early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less
>>> one
>>> >> >> spends) and save, save, save.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowing
>>> >> > businesses to establish themselves, in particular
>>> >> > during the early stages where they are not yet at a profit.
>>>
>>> >> You are wrong about that. If there is no
>>> >> profit, there is no income to negative gear.
>>>
>>> >> You are confusing negative gearing and a business
>>> >> being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.
>>>
>>> > If they are working a job,
>>>
>>> Most new businesses don't.
>>>
>>> > have a share portfolio that pays dividends,
>>>
>>> Most new businesses don't.
>>>
>>> > they are making an income. That attracts a tax.NG applies to this.
>>>
>>> Most new businesses don't.
>>>
>>> >> > My argument is that the application of this concession
>>> >> > to housing doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
>>> >> > your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.
>>>
>>> >> Being a landlord is a business, stupid.
>>>
>>> > Thats a stretch, really is a stretch.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> > I'll ask the next landlord I see for their ABN number then.
>>>
>>> You don't need an ABN to be a business.
>>>
>>> > Someone who has bought a second house
>>> > and lends it is a businessman now!
>>>
>>> Always has been, and plenty have more than one too.
>>>
>>> > Spare me...
>>>
>>> No thanks, bullet in the back of the neck for someone as ignorant as
>>> you.
>>>
>>> >> > The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within
>>> the
>>> >> > scope.
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no such claim.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >> > It could make sense to say that income from the property itself,
>>> >> canbe
>>> >> > under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no tax deduction against the income from the property
>>> itself.
>>>
>>> >> What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
>>> >> from the property against your other taxable income.
>>>
>>> > Thats how NG works.
>>>
>>> What I said.
>>>
>>> > If you make a loss, that loss is deducted from
>>> > your taxable income. If you lose $20K, thenyour taxable income is
>>> > reduced by 20K,
>>>
>>> What I said.
>>>
>>> > regardless of whether that taxable incomecomes from your property or
>>> > not.
>>>
>>> What I said.
>>>
>>> > So you can effectively lower the income tax you pay from your9-5 job
>>> > through your "business" of renting out your second home.
>>>
>>> It isnt a second home if you rent it out all the time, its a business.
>>>
>>> > This is not the same as carrying over losses,as may happen if you
>>> sell
>>> > shares at a loss,
>>>
>>> You can't carry over that loss, you pig ignorant clown.
>>>
>>> > which would in later years bededucted from capital gains.
>>>
>>> Not if it isnt realised, you pig ignorant clown.
>>>
>>> >> > I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an suitable
>>> tax
>>> >> > concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a tree
>>> >> > removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the
>>> expenses
>>> >> > from the intial purchase.
>>> >>
>>> >> That's not negative gearing.
>>> >>
>>> >> > At some point this situation will change.
>>> >>
>>> >> Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
>>> >> a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
>>> >> that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
>>> >> of their hobby.
>>> >>
>>> >> > The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,
>>> >>
>>> >> Of course it does with a holiday house that yousometimes rent out
>>> when
>>> >> you arent using it yourself.
>>>
>>> > This is a different scenario to buying up residential propertyin the
>>> > suburbs, outbidding those who want to buy to reside.
>>>
>>> Duh.
>>>
>>> > People keep bringing up exceptions
>>>
>>> That isnt an exception.
>>>
>>> > to justify a different norm.
>>>
>>> There is no 'norm'
>>>
>>> >> > especially when the investor is buying an already built house.
>>> We >
>>> >> treat these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.
>>> >>
>>> >> Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.
>>> >>
>>> >> > I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy votes,
>>> >>
>>> >> You can make the same stupid claim about not having
>>> >> to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.
>>> >>
>>> >> > for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)
>>> >>
>>> >> Because they are some of the better pain in society.
>>> >>
>>> >> > and to prop up the market.
>>> >>
>>> >> The market doesnt need propping up.
>>>
>>> > Yet it is propped up.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> > We KNOW its propped up because when changesto NG is proposed, or
>>> change
>>> > to migration, peopleopenly state that it will impact (lower) prices.
>>>
>>> Bullshit.
>>>
>>> >> > I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when the
>>> >> > investor is also the builder.
>>> >>
>>> >> No one cares what you could be swayed to support.
>>> >>
>>> >> Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
>>> >> property available for those who can not or not yet afford
>>> >> to buy the property they are living in.
>>> >>
>>> >> > Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property*
>>> torent
>>> >> > out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
>>> >> > price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.
>>> >>
>>> >> Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.
>>>
>>> > Again, the idea that its like buying a business is just preposterous,
>>>
>>> Being a landlord is a business.
>>>
>>> > a cultural creation to coddle landlords.
>>>
>>> Not when the rental property is making a profit
>>> and only a completely incompetant landlord isnt
>>> doing that with the rental market so tight.
>>>
>>> > I may as well argue that having shares means I'm a businessman,
>>>
>>> Are you seriously trying to claim that no one
>>> does nothing but own property and renit it out ?
>>>
>>> Even you can't actually be THAT pig ignorant.
>>>
>>> > or that I run a business sellingmy own labour to my employer.
>>>
>>> Plenty of contractors do just that, you pig ignorant fool.
>>>
>>> And they need to have an ABN to do that.
>>>
>>> > Why not.
>>>
>>> Why not indeed.
>>>
>>> > Ridiculous.
>>>
>>> Your sig is sposed to be last with
>>> a line with just -- on it in front of it.
>>>
>>> >> > If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for
>>> >> > passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does
>>> not
>>> >> > allow a profitable ROI,
>>> >>
>>> >> Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> >> > then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
>>> >> > the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.
>>> >>
>>> >> Pity about the need for more rental housing.
>>> >>
>>> >> > This it where it becomes grossly unfair.
>>> >>
>>> >> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>> >>
>>> >> > That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it
>>> out,
>>> >> > not only outbid others who wanted to buy
>>> >> > it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they CHOSE
>>> >> > to pay a high price.
>>>
>>> >> And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.
>>>
>>> > Yes, provide rental housng to the person whowould have otherwise been
>>> > able to buy it.
>>>
>>> Few renters are, fool.
>>>
>>> > Landlord outbids the first home buyer, thenrents it to the first home
>>> > buyer claiming aNG tax concession because he overpaid.
>>>
>>> They actually charge the rent that provides a decent
>>> return in the current very tight rental market, fool
>>>
>>> > We wouldn't need as many rental propertiesif housing wasn't hoarded by
>>> > investors.
>>>
>>> They aren't hoarded, they are rented out in the very tight rental
>>> market,
>>> fool.
>>>
>>> >> > This ultimately inflates property prices, because if
>>> NegativeGearing
>>> >> > was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger lossand would be
>>> >> > compelled not to value the property so highly.
>>> >>
>>> >> And the house would not be available to someone who needs to rent.
>>> >>
>>> >> > The whole point of Capitalism is that we discover the true price
>>> of
>>> >> an
>>> >> > object.
>>> >>
>>> >> BULLSHIT. There never is any such animal as a true price.
>>>
>>> > Then we may as well get the state to set theprice, their price as good
>>> > as any other right?
>>>
>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>
>>> >> > You can calculate the true value of an investment property
>>> >>
>>> >> There is no such animal.
>>> >>
>>> >> > based on ROI from rental, and that valuemust be less than the
>>> income
>>> >> > obtained from
>>> >> > renting it out in order for it to be profitable.
>>> >>
>>> >> Not necessarily, particularly when the property
>>> >> is purchased because you have decided the
>>> >> capital gain will be what matters as it often is.
>>> >>
>>> >> > If the house must be purchased at $560K or lessin order to be
>>> >> > profitable when you rent it out,
>>> >>
>>> >> That is fanciful in the current market.
>>> >>
>>> >> > then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
>>> >> > Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial
>>> decisions.
>>> >>
>>> >> It isnt necessarily a bad financial decision, stupid.
>>>
>>> > Then in that case, remove the tax concessions,
>>>
>>> And see the very tight rental market get even tighter, fool.
>>>
>>> > and let these people make smart decisions.
>>>
>>> That's what they do.
>>>
>>> > If they overborrow,
>>>
>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>
>>> > that is on them. If they decide atAuction to pay $X and make a
>>> loss,
>>>
>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>
>>> > that is on them. No one forces anyoneto invest money and make a
>>> loss,
>>>
>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>
>>> > especially property investors.
>>>
>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>
>>> > No one forces me to borrow money to buy shareswhere the yield won't
>>> > cover repayments + interest.
>>>
>>> You don't get to negatively gear in that situation, fool.
>>>
>>> > As a tax payer I vote against supporting this.
>>>
>>> And your vote is completelely irrelevant, just like you are.
>
>> Well, if all this was good for the country, we wouldn'thave a long
>> standing housing crisis, would we?
>
>We don't have a long standing housing crisis. All we
>have is a tight rental market due to the fact that we
>have been stupid enough to allow hordes of migrants
>into the country, far fewer than we build new houses.

On Wed, 21 Feb 2024 14:45:08 +1100, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:

> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 15:51:58 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Feb 2024 14:28:32 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 19:49:25 +1100
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 15:44:58 +1100, Borax Man <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:59:20 +1100
>>>> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >> On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 10:23:00 +1100, Borax Man
>>>> <rotflol2@hotmail.com>
>>>> >> wrote:
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > On Sat, 10 Feb 2024 09:10:37 +1100
>>>> >> > Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> On Fri, 9 Feb 2024 07:53:12 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>>>> >> >> <rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> >On 2024-02-08, Peter Jason <pj@jostle.com> wrote:
>>>> >> >> >> On Thu, 8 Feb 2024 13:02:59 -0000 (UTC), Borax Man
>>>> >> >> >><rotflol2@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> >> > *sip*
>>>> >> >
>>>> >> >> >> aAnd, while I'm at it, why not re-introduce the luxury tax?
>>>> And
>>>> >> >> death
>>>> >> >> >> duties?
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >I think the supply of money more than the supply of houses,
>>>> affects
>>>> >> >> >the price of housing. If supply isn't plentiful, price
>>>> determined
>>>> >> >> >by what the market can bear, will increase of the burden the
>>>> market
>>>> >> >> >can take is increased. Increasing the number of wage earners
>>>> >> >> >per dwelling effectively increases what the household can bear
>>>> >> >> >in terms of house prices/rentals, which allows sellers and
>>>> landlords
>>>> >> >> >to further increase prices. If you have 3 wage earners, they
>>>> >> together
>>>> >> >> >can pay far more than one wage earner. I would think something
>>>> >> similar
>>>> >> >> >happened when it became more common for both parents to be wage
>>>> >> >> earners.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >> >As a solution, it would just lower the standard, and push those
>>>> who
>>>> >> are
>>>> >> >> >only living say, one couple per dwelling, out of the market as
>>>> those
>>>> >> >> >who are willing to share outcompete and outbid them, ie, a race
>>>> >> >> >to the bottom.
>>>> >> >> >
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> I might be missing something, but why does negative gearing have
>>>> to
>>>> >> be
>>>> >> >> all or nothing? A simple reform would be to cut the benefit in
>>>> half.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> Of course buying a house has always been difficult, although in
>>>> the
>>>> >> >> old days the banks required 30% deposit whereas now they're
>>>> throwing
>>>> >> >> money at the lender. This goes back to the 1980s when that
>>>> cowboy
>>>> >> >> Reagan unleashed the banks to become speculators. And that
>>>> Keynesian
>>>> >> >> drone Greenspan who thought flooding America with borrowed money
>>>> >> would
>>>> >> >> stimulate investment in manufacturing.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> The Chinese are still laughing!
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> In Yankee-brown-nosing Oz we had the floating of the
>>>> Commonwealth
>>>> >> bank
>>>> >> >> which more sensibly might have been retained as a serious
>>>> competitor
>>>> >> >> to the other round-table sharks.
>>>> >> >>
>>>> >> >> But the old rules still hold; bet against the crowd, don't
>>>> marry
>>>> too
>>>> >> >> early, hold down two or more jobs (the more one works, the less
>>>> one
>>>> >> >> spends) and save, save, save.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > Negative Gearing is geared more towards allowing
>>>> >> > businesses to establish themselves, in particular
>>>> >> > during the early stages where they are not yet at a profit.
>>>>
>>>> >> You are wrong about that. If there is no
>>>> >> profit, there is no income to negative gear.
>>>>
>>>> >> You are confusing negative gearing and a business
>>>> >> being able to carry losses from tax year to tax year.
>>>>
>>>> > If they are working a job,
>>>>
>>>> Most new businesses don't.
>>>>
>>>> > have a share portfolio that pays dividends,
>>>>
>>>> Most new businesses don't.
>>>>
>>>> > they are making an income. That attracts a tax.NG applies to this.
>>>>
>>>> Most new businesses don't.
>>>>
>>>> >> > My argument is that the application of this concession
>>>> >> > to housing doesn't quite make sense as buying a house for
>>>> >> > your *personal* wealth is not akin to running a business.
>>>>
>>>> >> Being a landlord is a business, stupid.
>>>>
>>>> > Thats a stretch, really is a stretch.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>>
>>>> > I'll ask the next landlord I see for their ABN number then.
>>>>
>>>> You don't need an ABN to be a business.
>>>>
>>>> > Someone who has bought a second house
>>>> > and lends it is a businessman now!
>>>>
>>>> Always has been, and plenty have more than one too.
>>>>
>>>> > Spare me...
>>>>
>>>> No thanks, bullet in the back of the neck for someone as ignorant as
>>>> you.
>>>>
>>>> >> > The second problem is the claim thatall your income falls within
>>>> the
>>>> >> > scope.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There is no such claim.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >> > It could make sense to say that income from the property itself,
>>>> >> canbe
>>>> >> > under the scope of tax deduction, but income from other sources?
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There is no tax deduction against the income from the property
>>>> itself.
>>>>
>>>> >> What happens is that you can offset a loss of income
>>>> >> from the property against your other taxable income.
>>>>
>>>> > Thats how NG works.
>>>>
>>>> What I said.
>>>>
>>>> > If you make a loss, that loss is deducted from
>>>> > your taxable income. If you lose $20K, thenyour taxable income is
>>>> > reduced by 20K,
>>>>
>>>> What I said.
>>>>
>>>> > regardless of whether that taxable incomecomes from your property
>>>> or
>>>> > not.
>>>>
>>>> What I said.
>>>>
>>>> > So you can effectively lower the income tax you pay from your9-5 job
>>>> > through your "business" of renting out your second home.
>>>>
>>>> It isnt a second home if you rent it out all the time, its a business.
>>>>
>>>> > This is not the same as carrying over losses,as may happen if you
>>>> sell
>>>> > shares at a loss,
>>>>
>>>> You can't carry over that loss, you pig ignorant clown.
>>>>
>>>> > which would in later years bededucted from capital gains.
>>>>
>>>> Not if it isnt realised, you pig ignorant clown.
>>>>
>>>> >> > I'm not against Negative Gearing per se, I think it is an
>>>> suitable
>>>> tax
>>>> >> > concession when an investor, say, purchases equipment to run a
>>>> tree
>>>> >> > removal business and the income initially doesn't cover the
>>>> expenses
>>>> >> > from the intial purchase.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That's not negative gearing.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > At some point this situation will change.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Not necessarily. Plenty of very small business never makes
>>>> >> a profit and plenty pretend that their hobby is a business so
>>>> >> that the tax department is effectively paying some of the cost
>>>> >> of their hobby.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > The application of this idea to housing doesn't fly,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Of course it does with a holiday house that yousometimes rent out
>>>> when
>>>> >> you arent using it yourself.
>>>>
>>>> > This is a different scenario to buying up residential propertyin the
>>>> > suburbs, outbidding those who want to buy to reside.
>>>>
>>>> Duh.
>>>>
>>>> > People keep bringing up exceptions
>>>>
>>>> That isnt an exception.
>>>>
>>>> > to justify a different norm.
>>>>
>>>> There is no 'norm'
>>>>
>>>> >> > especially when the investor is buying an already built house.
>>>> We >
>>>> >> treat these two scenarios as synonymous when they aren't.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Just as true of plenty of other business deductions.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > I see Negative Gearing as a "freebie" to investors, to buy
>>>> votes,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> You can make the same stupid claim about not having
>>>> >> to pay capital gains tax on the primary residence.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > for self interest (politicians often have investment properties)
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Because they are some of the better pain in society.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > and to prop up the market.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> The market doesnt need propping up.
>>>>
>>>> > Yet it is propped up.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> > We KNOW its propped up because when changesto NG is proposed, or
>>>> change
>>>> > to migration, peopleopenly state that it will impact (lower)
>>>> prices.
>>>>
>>>> Bullshit.
>>>>
>>>> >> > I could be swayed to support Negative Gearingfor housing, when
>>>> the
>>>> >> > investor is also the builder.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> No one cares what you could be swayed to support.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Negative gearing clearly increases the amount of rental
>>>> >> property available for those who can not or not yet afford
>>>> >> to buy the property they are living in.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > Finally, when an investor buys an *already existing property*
>>>> torent
>>>> >> > out, as happened in my street, they are buying an asset ata known
>>>> >> > price, with a pretty good idea of what the income will be.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Just as true of anyone buying a business to get into that business.
>>>>
>>>> > Again, the idea that its like buying a business is just
>>>> preposterous,
>>>>
>>>> Being a landlord is a business.
>>>>
>>>> > a cultural creation to coddle landlords.
>>>>
>>>> Not when the rental property is making a profit
>>>> and only a completely incompetant landlord isnt
>>>> doing that with the rental market so tight.
>>>>
>>>> > I may as well argue that having shares means I'm a businessman,
>>>>
>>>> Are you seriously trying to claim that no one
>>>> does nothing but own property and renit it out ?
>>>>
>>>> Even you can't actually be THAT pig ignorant.
>>>>
>>>> > or that I run a business sellingmy own labour to my employer.
>>>>
>>>> Plenty of contractors do just that, you pig ignorant fool.
>>>>
>>>> And they need to have an ABN to do that.
>>>>
>>>> > Why not.
>>>>
>>>> Why not indeed.
>>>>
>>>> > Ridiculous.
>>>>
>>>> Your sig is sposed to be last with
>>>> a line with just -- on it in front of it.
>>>>
>>>> >> > If they are buying the asset, which has already been created,for
>>>> >> > passive income, and they are offering a purchase pricewhich does
>>>> not
>>>> >> > allow a profitable ROI,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Which clearly does provide rental housing for someone.
>>>> >>
>>>> >
>>>> >> > then the responsibility is solely on the investor, and
>>>> >> > the tax payer should not be subisdising them one iota.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Pity about the need for more rental housing.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > This it where it becomes grossly unfair.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Even sillier than you usually manage and that's saying something.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > That investor that bought the house on my street, onlyto rent it
>>>> out,
>>>> >> > not only outbid others who wanted to buy
>>>> >> > it, but can claim a tax concession on any income,because they
>>>> CHOSE
>>>> >> > to pay a high price.
>>>>
>>>> >> And provide rental housing in a very tight rental market.
>>>>
>>>> > Yes, provide rental housng to the person whowould have otherwise
>>>> been
>>>> > able to buy it.
>>>>
>>>> Few renters are, fool.
>>>>
>>>> > Landlord outbids the first home buyer, thenrents it to the first
>>>> home
>>>> > buyer claiming aNG tax concession because he overpaid.
>>>>
>>>> They actually charge the rent that provides a decent
>>>> return in the current very tight rental market, fool
>>>>
>>>> > We wouldn't need as many rental propertiesif housing wasn't hoarded
>>>> by
>>>> > investors.
>>>>
>>>> They aren't hoarded, they are rented out in the very tight rental
>>>> market,
>>>> fool.
>>>>
>>>> >> > This ultimately inflates property prices, because if
>>>> NegativeGearing
>>>> >> > was not avilalble, the investor would eat a larger lossand would
>>>> be
>>>> >> > compelled not to value the property so highly.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> And the house would not be available to someone who needs to rent.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > The whole point of Capitalism is that we discover the true price
>>>> of
>>>> >> an
>>>> >> > object.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> BULLSHIT. There never is any such animal as a true price.
>>>>
>>>> > Then we may as well get the state to set theprice, their price as
>>>> good
>>>> > as any other right?
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, as always.
>>>>
>>>> >> > You can calculate the true value of an investment property
>>>> >>
>>>> >> There is no such animal.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > based on ROI from rental, and that valuemust be less than the
>>>> income
>>>> >> > obtained from
>>>> >> > renting it out in order for it to be profitable.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> Not necessarily, particularly when the property
>>>> >> is purchased because you have decided the
>>>> >> capital gain will be what matters as it often is.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > If the house must be purchased at $560K or lessin order to be
>>>> >> > profitable when you rent it out,
>>>> >>
>>>> >> That is fanciful in the current market.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> > then it cannot be worth more than that as an investment property.
>>>> >> > Landlords must eat the consequence of their bad financial
>>>> decisions.
>>>> >>
>>>> >> It isnt necessarily a bad financial decision, stupid.
>>>>
>>>> > Then in that case, remove the tax concessions,
>>>>
>>>> And see the very tight rental market get even tighter, fool.
>>>>
>>>> > and let these people make smart decisions.
>>>>
>>>> That's what they do.
>>>>
>>>> > If they overborrow,
>>>>
>>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>>
>>>> > that is on them. If they decide atAuction to pay $X and make a
>>>> loss,
>>>>
>>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>>
>>>> > that is on them. No one forces anyoneto invest money and make a
>>>> loss,
>>>>
>>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>>
>>>> > especially property investors.
>>>>
>>>> They don't in a very tight rental market. They
>>>> get to charge whatever rent they like, fool.
>>>>
>>>> > No one forces me to borrow money to buy shareswhere the yield won't
>>>> > cover repayments + interest.
>>>>
>>>> You don't get to negatively gear in that situation, fool.
>>>>
>>>> > As a tax payer I vote against supporting this.
>>>>
>>>> And your vote is completelely irrelevant, just like you are.
>>
>>> Well, if all this was good for the country, we wouldn'thave a long
>>> standing housing crisis, would we?
>>
>> We don't have a long standing housing crisis. All we
>> have is a tight rental market due to the fact that we
>> have been stupid enough to allow hordes of migrants
>> into the country, far fewer than we build new houses.

Fran
/snip content for brevity/

....
> Again, that is way too simplistic an analysis.  Take for example just
> the worsening living conditions.  Yes, wages aren't keeping up but there
> is also the societal changes in expectations from when I was young and I
> don't think that change can be solely linked to "horrible state
> contemporary capitalism".

So you are suggesting that expectations are just too high. Why is it
then that reality over-performs the expectations of the
millionaire/billionaire upper-class yet it regularly fails those below
them? We live on a finite planet with obvious limits to wealth creation,
this is a truly zero sum game.
Conditions have clearly changed since we both grew up and with today's
technology and interconnectedness many things are achievable for large
masses of lower class people, which was not the case in our childhood. I
see no reason for people being content with conditions that lag behind
what is possible.
Furthermore one of the biggest reasons why inequality is increasing and
corporate capitalists are getting bolder and bolder in ripping of the
rest of us is the demise of the political Left. There is nothing left to
threaten the kind of hegemony they strive for: the USSR is history,
labour movements are a thing of the past, all significant political
parties are either somewhat right leaning or outright on hard right.
.....
> Do you remember the comment about young 'uns doing without their smashed
> avocado toast in order to get a home?  I think that had a lot of truth
> in it.

(Talking of which, my avocado trees are having a bumper crop this year.
It looks like I will be knocking on my neighbours doors giving away the
surplus avocados by the buckets).

.....
> I dunno if you are old enough to remember moving into a house
> with no furniture other than a bed (if you were lucky) or if not a bed,
> just a mattress on the floor.  If you wanted to phone anyone you joined
> the line outside a pubic phone box and waited till the phone was free.
> etc, etc, etc.

Fran, I do know near poverty quite well from early childhood onwards.
I lived out of a luggage in sublet rooms and shared accommodations for
many years and there were days when I had precious little else to eat
other than a potato and maybe some onions.
I do not wish that on anyone. Just because I had it hard I see no reason
to expect others to live through such depravity. I wish to see the
coming generations doing it easier, that is part of what it means for me
to be on the political left.

In my first job here in OZ (many years ago) I did live off a staggering
weekly income of $40. Yes, I have climbed the wealth ladder since then,
but I have never forgotten it. And precisely this is why I count myself
as a communist and firmly want the establishment of a Marxian economic
system.

.....
> Now that is just one small example but think about it as it applies to
> all of those issues I mentioned.... lack of discipline, sense of
> entitlement, not taking personal rsponsibility, not being frugal etc etc
> etc.

Older generations always complain about these kind of
things...generation after generation after generation. But I won't join
that choir.

Of course, it is also a sad fact of our lives that the creation of
unreasonable expectations are nurtured by a heavily consumption based
hard capitalist system clearly leads to some negative consequences.

> Those are personal qualities as opposed to operating factors of
> contemporary capitalism.  Anyone with even half a brain should be able
> to figure out how that contemporary capitalism is trying to get your
> money and therefore to thrive and get ahead of the game, you need to use
> skills to take on adnd to beat that system.
>
So those who ain't "tough enough" to survive capitalism should just live
absolutely miserable lives w/o any hope. Is this a not form of social
Darwinism?
There has always been a conflict between personal needs/reed and the
needs of the collective throughout human history...slavery, feudal
absolutism and now robber baron capitalism. So far this conflict has not
been successfully resolved anywhere, not even through in those failed
attempts at transitioning us out of our current social misery into a
better kind of collective minded society.
But past failures do not mean we should just throw up our hands and give
up trying.

.....
> And so could those masses if they took personal responsibility, learned
> to be frugal and did some planning and were prepared to get up each new
> day and do it all over again......
>
Let us not fall into the trap of eternal repetition of endless
struggling w/o achieving almost nothing. After all human society has
progressed to a stage where living the mind numbing treadmill lives do
not have to be an absolute necessity.
This planet has enough sustainable resources to ensure people do not
have to die of hunger and untreated ailments even if they currently do
so. Capitalism clearly leads to the decline of social consciousness.

......
> I've never thought you were a Labor supporter.  I think you are a
> supporter of a theory that lacks sense in terms of how humanity operates.

Hmmm.
Humans have evolved as a social species. We just have to find the proper
balance between the individual and the collective needs. Assorted forms
of socialist ideologies try to achieve this outcome yet our currently
dominating socio/econopolitical system is about eradicating the collective.
The thesis of "there is no such thing as society" seems to dominate the
ruling classes across the planet. And sadly this nonsense attitude has
also penetrated the public mindset, just look at the USA, Brazil or
Argentina as horrible examples. Our own parliamentary rightwing politics
is also dominated by the same kind of toxic individualist nonsense.

.....
> And you see it's that very 'internal disunity' which is is why I think
> Communist and each and every other political theory (and party) is full
> of shit.

Hmmm. I respectfully totally disagree.
Writing off as bullshit the socialist aspect of human existence serves
only the interests of those who currently rule the roost.
Why do you assume that disunity on the Left could never be overcome?
It certainly isn't going to be easy.
Sadly I don't think that currently humans are willing to change the
established status quo. It would have to be something drastic that could
change the public mindset.

......
> All very nice in theory but can't survive contact with real humans. Get
> 3 people together and there will be disunity so thinking that life or
> politics will be any different has never sat well with me as it's just a
> denial of how humans operate in society.

I have been hearing this kind of defeatist argument since childhood.
I find it nothing more then an excuse to justify the current misery of
human existence.
The facts remains that humans do cooperate with each when the shit
really hits the fan: wars, natural disasters, etc.
Let's build on that observation.

We are yet to see the worst of what climate change brings to the planet.
Who knows, maybe then as a matter of bare survival we will get to gather.

.....
> That is just reality.  It was ever thus. We all have to vote for the
> least worse option. Railing against it is railing against reality.  And
> we all do rail till we finally realise how futile it is to do so but
> that willnever stop those of us who like to rail.
>

And I've thought I was the eternal pessimist here! ;-)

W/o striving for something better live is simply not worth living, even
if failure is the likely outcome.

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil

On Fri, 23 Feb 2024 10:06:22 +1100, Ördög <ordog@your.service.biz>
wrote:

>Fran
>/snip content for brevity/
>
>...
>> Again, that is way too simplistic an analysis.  Take for example just
>> the worsening living conditions.  Yes, wages aren't keeping up but there
>> is also the societal changes in expectations from when I was young and I
>> don't think that change can be solely linked to "horrible state
>> contemporary capitalism".
>
>So you are suggesting that expectations are just too high. Why is it
>then that reality over-performs the expectations of the
>millionaire/billionaire upper-class yet it regularly fails those below
>them? We live on a finite planet with obvious limits to wealth creation,
>this is a truly zero sum game.
>Conditions have clearly changed since we both grew up and with today's
>technology and interconnectedness many things are achievable for large
>masses of lower class people, which was not the case in our childhood. I
>see no reason for people being content with conditions that lag behind
>what is possible.
>Furthermore one of the biggest reasons why inequality is increasing and
>corporate capitalists are getting bolder and bolder in ripping of the
>rest of us is the demise of the political Left. There is nothing left to
>threaten the kind of hegemony they strive for: the USSR is history,
>labour movements are a thing of the past, all significant political
>parties are either somewhat right leaning or outright on hard right.
>....
>> Do you remember the comment about young 'uns doing without their smashed
>> avocado toast in order to get a home?  I think that had a lot of truth
>> in it.
>
>(Talking of which, my avocado trees are having a bumper crop this year.
>It looks like I will be knocking on my neighbours doors giving away the
>surplus avocados by the buckets).
>
>....
>> I dunno if you are old enough to remember moving into a house
>> with no furniture other than a bed (if you were lucky) or if not a bed,
>> just a mattress on the floor.  If you wanted to phone anyone you joined
>> the line outside a pubic phone box and waited till the phone was free.
>> etc, etc, etc.
>
>Fran, I do know near poverty quite well from early childhood onwards.
>I lived out of a luggage in sublet rooms and shared accommodations for
>many years and there were days when I had precious little else to eat
>other than a potato and maybe some onions.
>I do not wish that on anyone. Just because I had it hard I see no reason
>to expect others to live through such depravity. I wish to see the
>coming generations doing it easier, that is part of what it means for me
>to be on the political left.
>
>In my first job here in OZ (many years ago) I did live off a staggering
>weekly income of $40. Yes, I have climbed the wealth ladder since then,
>but I have never forgotten it. And precisely this is why I count myself
>as a communist and firmly want the establishment of a Marxian economic
>system.
>
>....
>> Now that is just one small example but think about it as it applies to
>> all of those issues I mentioned.... lack of discipline, sense of
>> entitlement, not taking personal rsponsibility, not being frugal etc etc
>> etc.
>
>Older generations always complain about these kind of
>things...generation after generation after generation. But I won't join
>that choir.
>
>Of course, it is also a sad fact of our lives that the creation of
>unreasonable expectations are nurtured by a heavily consumption based
>hard capitalist system clearly leads to some negative consequences.
>
>> Those are personal qualities as opposed to operating factors of
>> contemporary capitalism.  Anyone with even half a brain should be able
>> to figure out how that contemporary capitalism is trying to get your
>> money and therefore to thrive and get ahead of the game, you need to use
>> skills to take on adnd to beat that system.
>>
>So those who ain't "tough enough" to survive capitalism should just live
>absolutely miserable lives w/o any hope. Is this a not form of social
>Darwinism?
>There has always been a conflict between personal needs/reed and the
>needs of the collective throughout human history...slavery, feudal
>absolutism and now robber baron capitalism. So far this conflict has not
>been successfully resolved anywhere, not even through in those failed
>attempts at transitioning us out of our current social misery into a
>better kind of collective minded society.
>But past failures do not mean we should just throw up our hands and give
>up trying.
>
>....
>> And so could those masses if they took personal responsibility, learned
>> to be frugal and did some planning and were prepared to get up each new
>> day and do it all over again......
>>
>Let us not fall into the trap of eternal repetition of endless
>struggling w/o achieving almost nothing. After all human society has
>progressed to a stage where living the mind numbing treadmill lives do
>not have to be an absolute necessity.
>This planet has enough sustainable resources to ensure people do not
>have to die of hunger and untreated ailments even if they currently do
>so. Capitalism clearly leads to the decline of social consciousness.
>
Ordog's just pissed because he missed out on buying Donald Trumps
"Never surrender High-Top Sneakers"
<https://www.tiktok.com/@wavesoftruth/video/7337056729517018414>
Then reselling them for Thousands of Dollars!
<https://www.albawaba.com/node/get-your-trump-branded-shoes-399-now-1553482>
https://t.ly/Xo2Hh
Thousands of dollars for $300 Trump-branded sneakers
Despite the booing, the sneakers in question are high in demand, and
they are already being scalped and sold for thousands of dollars on
the online shopping platform eBay.
*********************
But don't worry these "Made in the USA" shoes will be on sale again.
<https://www.amazon.com/dp/B0CW1V92JJ>
Don't forget to but a MAGA cap as well.

Trump will be selling plastic Straws shortly get in fast
the paper one's taste horrible!
--
Petzl
TRUMP ISN'T RUNNING AGAINST BIDEN HE'S RUNNING AGAINST THE CLINTON'S,
BUSH'S, HAMA'S ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX, CNN, MSN, NPR, MURDOCH'S, SOROS,
ETC

Petz is readying himself for GoonCon 3+ inebriation throughout the
coming weekend:

/snip/

> Ordog's just pissed because he missed out on buying Donald Trumps
> "Never surrender High-Top Sneakers"

Yeah...the adult discussion between Fran and me just went fully over
your drunken head. Oh, well...at least you were consistent!
:-P :-P :-P

/snip all your posted insanity including your idiot sig/
Ta!

PS: So you did buy one of those gilded beauties from your golden
showered hero from Mar-a-Lardo! Thanks for the confirmation...but now
how are you going to afford all that booze to satisfy your alcohol
addiction for the rest of the year...after all those useless boots go
for a nice sum of $US 8000 a pair! I am sure your over generous
Centerlink allowance won't cover such additional luxury! :-P

--
Ördög
The on duty Newsgroup Devil at your service

On 23/02/2024 10:06 am, Ördög wrote:
> Fran
> /snip content for brevity/
>
> ...
>> Again, that is way too simplistic an analysis.  Take for example just
>> the worsening living conditions.  Yes, wages aren't keeping up but
>> there is also the societal changes in expectations from when I was
>> young and I don't think that change can be solely linked to "horrible
>> state contemporary capitalism".
>
> So you are suggesting that expectations are just too high.

I'm suggesting that there has been a change in expectations. My
generation couldn't rely on the bank of mum and dad and so knew we
wouldn't get bailed out if the shit hit the fan. We had very little
access to credit, had savage bank managers who were really tough on
anyone who tried to get loans, and therefore our expectations were set
by what we knew was realistic in terms of what we could afford to pay
for on the funds we had (or could pay off over time).

Why is it
> then that reality over-performs the expectations of the
> millionaire/billionaire upper-class yet it regularly fails those below
> them?

Well my husband and I would have to be considered to be millionaires
given our assets as probably you would too given that you own 2 houses
(IIRC). So lets leave us millionaires out of the equation but before I
drop us, I'd say my expectations are exceptionally modest - I drive a 10
year old car that I love (and my husband's car is the same model as my
10 year old car and he too loves his car), I buy very, very few clothes,
I buy plants but prefer to raise my own from cutting or seed, I love to
do my craft and cook, potter round my house and garden and take a few
short trips now and then but that's about it in terms of expectations.
We carry no debts.

Billionaires have extreme amounts of money and I look at those oligarch
type people I just think how boring their life is. Even the King loves
to garden and knows the satisfaction that can bring. The billionaire
party animal, private jet, seen here there and everywhere types seem
dull and boring and mindless to me. Short answer - I can't answer your
question as to what their expectations might be as even if I was a
billionaire, I'd see those sorts of people as being vacuous and
worthless and I wouldn't want to associate with them.

We live on a finite planet with obvious limits to wealth creation,
> this is a truly zero sum game.

Obviously.

> Conditions have clearly changed since we both grew up and with today's
> technology and interconnectedness many things are achievable for large
> masses of lower class people, which was not the case in our childhood. I
> see no reason for people being content with conditions that lag behind
> what is possible.

Seriously????? Your "what is possible" has, in recent decades, been
shown to be fueled by personal debt and the constant replacement of
perfectly good items/infrastructure/goods to keep up with increasing
expectations has been about "fashion" and "keeping up with the Joneses"
and is a selfish brat "I want.." response. Your suggestion is
completely irresponsible and not thought through IMO.

> Furthermore one of the biggest reasons why inequality is increasing and
> corporate capitalists are getting bolder and bolder in ripping of the
> rest of us is the demise of the political Left. There is nothing left to
> threaten the kind of hegemony they strive for: the USSR is history,
> labour movements are a thing of the past, all significant political
> parties are either somewhat right leaning or outright on hard right.

Yes that is indeed one strand of why inequality is increasing BUT you
never pay enough attention to personal responsibility. You always
ignore that and put the blame on capitalists, corporations, the right,
greedy businesses etc.

It is still possible even in this day and age for individuals to do well
over time. I'm not saying it is ever going to be easy but it is
certainly doable and knowing how the system works and how why
corporations want to get our money makes it a pretty easy to climb that
ladder.
> ....
>> Do you remember the comment about young 'uns doing without their
>> smashed avocado toast in order to get a home?  I think that had a lot
>> of truth in it.
>
> (Talking of which, my avocado trees are having a bumper crop this year.
> It looks like I will be knocking on my neighbours doors giving away the
> surplus avocados by the buckets).

Lucky bugger. What variety is it? Do you get frosts at all where you
live? I have thought of getting myself a tree from Daleys.

..
>> I dunno if you are old enough to remember moving into a house with no
>> furniture other than a bed (if you were lucky) or if not a bed, just a
>> mattress on the floor.  If you wanted to phone anyone you joined the
>> line outside a pubic phone box and waited till the phone was free.
>> etc, etc, etc.
>
> Fran, I do know near poverty quite well from early childhood onwards.
> I lived out of a luggage in sublet rooms and shared accommodations for
> many years and there were days when I had precious little else to eat
> other than a potato and maybe some onions.
> I do not wish that on anyone. Just because I had it hard I see no reason
> to expect others to live through such depravity. I wish to see the
> coming generations doing it easier, that is part of what it means for me
> to be on the political left.
>
> In my first job here in OZ (many years ago) I did live off a staggering
> weekly income of $40. Yes, I have climbed the wealth ladder since then,
> but I have never forgotten it. And precisely this is why I count myself
> as a communist and firmly want the establishment of a Marxian economic
> system.
>
> ....
>> Now that is just one small example but think about it as it applies to
>> all of those issues I mentioned.... lack of discipline, sense of
>> entitlement, not taking personal rsponsibility, not being frugal etc
>> etc etc.
>
> Older generations always complain about these kind of
> things...generation after generation after generation. But I won't join
> that choir.
>
> Of course, it is also a sad fact of our lives that the creation of
> unreasonable expectations are nurtured by a heavily consumption based
> hard capitalist system clearly leads to some negative consequences.

Glad you do realise that there is such a thing as unrealistic
expectations. That was my point about moving into a house with no
furniture. I dunno if you are on Facebook for your local area but if
you are, pay attention to what people say and how often you see the same
comments: The council should...., The local member should...., why isn't
the govt doing something about..... All those dumb buggers who think
it's always someone else's job and not theirs......

>> Those are personal qualities as opposed to operating factors of
>> contemporary capitalism.  Anyone with even half a brain should be able
>> to figure out how that contemporary capitalism is trying to get your
>> money and therefore to thrive and get ahead of the game, you need to
>> use skills to take on adnd to beat that system.
>>
> So those who ain't "tough enough" to survive capitalism should just live
> absolutely miserable lives w/o any hope. Is this a not form of social
> Darwinism?

Those who aren't tough enough to survive capitalism would probably have
trouble surviving under any political system. No system can provide for
everyone and particularly the outliers as I'm sure you must know.

> There has always been a conflict between personal needs/reed and the
> needs of the collective throughout human history...slavery, feudal
> absolutism and now robber baron capitalism. So far this conflict has not
> been successfully resolved anywhere, not even through in those failed
> attempts at transitioning us out of our current social misery into a
> better kind of collective minded society.
> But past failures do not mean we should just throw up our hands and give
> up trying.

No.

....
>> And so could those masses if they took personal responsibility,
>> learned to be frugal and did some planning and were prepared to get up
>> each new day and do it all over again......
>>
> Let us not fall into the trap of eternal repetition of endless
> struggling w/o achieving almost nothing.

Now hang on a moment. We humans are certainly NOT in the "achieve
almost nothing trap". Our current living standards are pretty amazing
IMO.

After all human society has
> progressed to a stage where living the mind numbing treadmill lives do
> not have to be an absolute necessity.

And human society is certainly not at that stage (or at least not in
western societies).

Fran
> Ördög
>> Fran >> ...
>>> Again, that is way too simplistic an analysis.  Take for example just
>>> the worsening living conditions.  Yes, wages aren't keeping up but
>>> there is also the societal changes in expectations from when I was
>>> young and I don't think that change can be solely linked to "horrible
>>> state contemporary capitalism".
>>
>> So you are suggesting that expectations are just too high.
>
> I'm suggesting that there has been a change in expectations.  My
> generation couldn't rely on the bank of mum and dad and so knew we
> wouldn't get bailed out if the shit hit the fan.  We had very little
> access to credit, had savage bank managers who were really tough on
> anyone who tried to get loans, and therefore our expectations were set
> by what we knew was realistic in terms of what we could afford to pay
> for on the funds we had (or could pay off over time).
>
>> Why is it
>> then that reality over-performs the expectations of the
>> millionaire/billionaire upper-class yet it regularly fails those below
>> them?
>
> Well my husband and I would have to be considered to be millionaires
> given our assets as probably you would too given that you own 2 houses
> (IIRC).  So lets leave us millionaires out of the equation but before I
> drop us, I'd say my expectations are exceptionally modest - I drive a 10
> year old car that I love (and my husband's car is the same model as my
> 10 year old car and he too loves his car), I buy very, very few clothes,
> I buy plants but prefer to raise my own from cutting or seed, I love to
> do my craft and cook, potter round my house and garden and take a few
> short trips now and then but that's about it in terms of expectations.
> We carry no debts.

The facts remains that those who are only "millionaires" on paper
because they own basically "unproductive" assets, namely the house or
apartment they live in thus can't ever sell because they won't be able
to ever buy another one given today's over inflated prices. There is
absolutely no point in comparing them to those who sit on liquid assets
like large investment portfolios, off shore bank accounts and insane
salaries and bonuses.

BTW our Xtrail is as old as your car is (and fingers crossed we will get
even more years out of it before it gives up on us)! In fact we only own
a single vehicle which is quite sufficient for our needs. My wife still
owns a sowing machine with which she rather mends old clothing instead
of rushing out buying new ones. These days we rarely go out to eat I do
the cooking mostly from scratch (i.e. no frozen TV dinners ever), and
yes I do have a smallish veggie garden.
And yes, we are also luckily debt free.

Of course, our expectations are not the same as some young couples just
raising a their kids, both working long ours and live in a medium to
high density apartment building and trying to pay off insane amounts of
debts.

> Billionaires have extreme amounts of money and I look at those oligarch
> type people I just think how boring their life is. Even the King loves
> to garden and knows the satisfaction that can bring.  The billionaire
> party animal, private jet, seen here there and everywhere types seem
> dull and boring and mindless to me.  Short answer - I can't answer your
> question as to what their expectations might be as even if I was a
> billionaire, I'd see those sorts of people as being vacuous and
> worthless and I wouldn't want to associate with them.

I'd say that those billionaires who do not fully succumb to a totally
vacuous wasteful life style, party drugs and parading themselves around
in the equally vacuous high society regularly tend to move on from
enjoying their hoarded material wealth to obsessing over personal power.
They move on from being useless leaches on society to a nasty predatory
megalomaniac existence. These are those really nasty creeps who make the
life of their employees a total misery, the very ones who try to gobble
up or simply kill off every single competitive business ventures big or
small in existence and having already achieved obscene amount of wealth
that way they start to meddle around with other people's lives by
interfering with all levels of politics. Just think of Clive Palmer, the
Murdoch family, the Koch Brothers, Elon Musk, Trump, etc...
>
>> We live on a finite planet with obvious limits to wealth creation,
>> this is a truly zero sum game.
>
> Obviously.
>
>> Conditions have clearly changed since we both grew up and with today's
>> technology and interconnectedness many things are achievable for large
>> masses of lower class people, which was not the case in our childhood.
>> I see no reason for people being content with conditions that lag
>> behind what is possible.
>
> Seriously?????  Your "what is possible" has, in recent decades, been
> shown to be fueled by personal debt and the constant replacement of
> perfectly good items/infrastructure/goods to keep up with increasing
> expectations has been about "fashion" and "keeping up with the Joneses"
> and is a selfish brat "I want.." response.  Your suggestion is
> completely irresponsible and not thought through IMO.

Hmmm. I am not talking about that sadly shrinking middle class.
What should be possible for everyone in any advanced and enlightened
society is the attainment and holding onto the basic necessities of living:
Sufficient healthy nourishment, clothing, a roof over one's head,
affordable access to physical and mental healthcare, education, public
transport, meaningful work, proper work-life balance, a healthy
environment and a properly functioning safety net in case of unexpected
disasters.
W/o 80% of the wealth and resourced sucked out of the economy by upper
class vultures there is no reason why these basics could not become the
universal bottom line. Suggesting otherwise is what I would regard as
completely irresponsible.>
>> Furthermore one of the biggest reasons why inequality is increasing
>> and corporate capitalists are getting bolder and bolder in ripping of
>> the rest of us is the demise of the political Left. There is nothing
>> left to threaten the kind of hegemony they strive for: the USSR is
>> history, labour movements are a thing of the past, all significant
>> political parties are either somewhat right leaning or outright on
>> hard right.
>
> Yes that is indeed one strand of why inequality is increasing BUT you
> never pay enough attention to personal responsibility.  You always
> ignore that and put the blame on capitalists, corporations, the right,
> greedy businesses etc.

That I have never done, thus you make here a false assumption...
No socially well functioning society could ever exist with what you call
"personal responsibility". That is why I always emphasise a proper
balance between the needs of the individual and the collective.
Irresponsible behaviour the part of the individual would necessarily
negate any such proposition.
What I do is regularly complaining about the irresponsible behaviour of
capitalists and corporations, mostly because what they do effects
society directly and as a whole a lot more so than what my working class
neighbour down the road might ever do wrong. That does never mean that I
actually ignore asocial behaviour at the individual level.
>
> It is still possible even in this day and age for individuals to do well
> over time.  I'm not saying it is ever going to be easy but it is
> certainly doable and knowing how the system works and how why
> corporations want to get our money makes it a pretty easy to climb that
> ladder.

Yes, it is possible...sometimes. But that theory of pulling oneself up
by one's own bootstraps is very fallacious. If that happens these days
it tends to be the exception rather than the rule.
It is clear that people on general try to cope with what they have one
way or another. That is nothing more than bare survival instinct. But
that does not mean they they achieve to live well nor even get over the
poverty line.

>> ....
>>> Do you remember the comment about young 'uns doing without their
>>> smashed avocado toast in order to get a home?  I think that had a lot
>>> of truth in it.
>>
>> (Talking of which, my avocado trees are having a bumper crop this
>> year. It looks like I will be knocking on my neighbours doors giving
>> away the surplus avocados by the buckets).
>
> Lucky bugger.  What variety is it?  Do you get frosts at all where you
> live?  I have thought of getting myself a tree from Daleys.

Well, this is a crazy story on its own.
At my first accommodation on a rented property after I have returned to
OZ I have found growing out of the owner's compost heap a couple of
avocado and mango saplings. Initially I have transferred them into pots,
and then took them with me to my own home. There I planted them out into
the garden and gradually they grew bigger and taller. The mango tree was
a bit of a struggle at the beginning because naturally it ain't very
frost tolerant, not even that light frost we occasionally get here at
the foot of the Blue Mountains. For a number of years I had to put it
under shade cloth protection for the winter months, but somehow it has
survived and now it is OK on its own with just a few frost bitten leafs
during winter, The avocados on the other hand have never needed any
protection.
I assumes where you live now gets a lot more intensive frost than what I
have here, so good luck with trying. I think planting trees close to
each other in a group (like I did here) does let them protect each other
to an extent.

On 25/02/2024 11:57 am, Ördög wrote:
> Fran
>> Ördög
>>> Fran >> ...
>>>> Again, that is way too simplistic an analysis.  Take for example
>>>> just the worsening living conditions.  Yes, wages aren't keeping up
>>>> but there is also the societal changes in expectations from when I
>>>> was young and I don't think that change can be solely linked to
>>>> "horrible state contemporary capitalism".
>>>
>>> So you are suggesting that expectations are just too high.
>>
>> I'm suggesting that there has been a change in expectations.  My
>> generation couldn't rely on the bank of mum and dad and so knew we
>> wouldn't get bailed out if the shit hit the fan.  We had very little
>> access to credit, had savage bank managers who were really tough on
>> anyone who tried to get loans, and therefore our expectations were set
>> by what we knew was realistic in terms of what we could afford to pay
>> for on the funds we had (or could pay off over time).
>>
>>> Why is it
>>> then that reality over-performs the expectations of the
>>> millionaire/billionaire upper-class yet it regularly fails those
>>> below them?
>>
>> Well my husband and I would have to be considered to be millionaires
>> given our assets as probably you would too given that you own 2 houses
>> (IIRC).  So lets leave us millionaires out of the equation but before
>> I drop us, I'd say my expectations are exceptionally modest - I drive
>> a 10 year old car that I love (and my husband's car is the same model
>> as my 10 year old car and he too loves his car), I buy very, very few
>> clothes, I buy plants but prefer to raise my own from cutting or seed,
>> I love to do my craft and cook, potter round my house and garden and
>> take a few short trips now and then but that's about it in terms of
>> expectations. We carry no debts.
>
> The facts remains that those who are only "millionaires" on paper
> because they own basically "unproductive" assets, namely the house or
> apartment they live in thus can't ever sell because they won't be able
> to ever buy another one given today's over inflated prices. There is
> absolutely no point in comparing them to those who sit on liquid assets
> like large investment portfolios, off shore bank accounts and insane
> salaries and bonuses.

Ummmmmmm. I'm not going to go into how our assets are distributed but I
will repeat that I listed my expectations for good reason.
>
> BTW our Xtrail is as old as your car is (and fingers crossed we will get
> even more years out of it before it gives up on us)! In fact we only own
> a single vehicle which is quite sufficient for our needs.

We've got 3 daily drives - in addition to our own cars we brought the
farm ute here when we left the farm. It's 20 years old, looks like shit
but it's engine is as good as the day we bought it. We use it for
towing and taking my garden detritus to the local tip. It's slow but
it's got the pulling power of a bulldozer. :-)

My wife still
> owns a sowing machine with which she rather mends old clothing instead
> of rushing out buying new ones.

LOL. Do you want to hear about my collection of vintage sewing
machines? I have 3 treadles (2 Singers, 1 Bebarfald Bluebird), at least
2 hand cranks, multiple old black electric Singers that could be used as
boat anchors if I didn't use them to sew with and various other 'badged'
machines. I have a 'new' Bernina that is as least 25 years old but I
prefer to use my old Singers and 3 overlockers. I used to do tailoring
when I worked and had to look professional but now I just sew for
pleasure and for mending like your wife does.

My husband is into British sports cars from the 1920s to the 1960s. I'm
into old sewign machines covering a similar time frame and just like
him, I'm into my machines for the fine engineering. :-)

These days we rarely go out to eat I do
> the cooking mostly from scratch (i.e. no frozen TV dinners ever), and
> yes I do have a smallish veggie garden.
> And yes, we are also luckily debt free.

Ditto.
>
> Of course, our expectations are not the same as some young couples just
> raising a their kids, both working long ours and live in a medium to
> high density apartment building and trying to pay off insane amounts of
> debts.
>
>> Billionaires have extreme amounts of money and I look at those
>> oligarch type people I just think how boring their life is. Even the
>> King loves to garden and knows the satisfaction that can bring.  The
>> billionaire party animal, private jet, seen here there and everywhere
>> types seem dull and boring and mindless to me.  Short answer - I can't
>> answer your question as to what their expectations might be as even if
>> I was a billionaire, I'd see those sorts of people as being vacuous
>> and worthless and I wouldn't want to associate with them.
>
> I'd say that those billionaires who do not fully succumb to a totally
> vacuous wasteful life style, party drugs and parading themselves around
> in the equally vacuous high society regularly tend to move on from
> enjoying their hoarded material wealth to obsessing over personal power.
> They move on from being useless leaches on society to a nasty predatory
> megalomaniac existence. These are those really nasty creeps who make the
> life of their employees a total misery, the very ones who try to gobble
> up or simply kill off every single competitive business ventures big or
> small in existence and having already achieved obscene amount of wealth
> that way they start to meddle around with other people's lives by
> interfering with all levels of politics. Just think of Clive Palmer, the
> Murdoch family, the Koch Brothers, Elon Musk, Trump, etc...

Or Warren Buffet? Dunno that it could be said that he's gone the same
way as those you mention. But then nor has Bill Gates or Twiggy Forrest.
>>
>>> We live on a finite planet with obvious limits to wealth creation,
>>> this is a truly zero sum game.
>>
>> Obviously.
>>
>>> Conditions have clearly changed since we both grew up and with
>>> today's technology and interconnectedness many things are achievable
>>> for large masses of lower class people, which was not the case in our
>>> childhood. I see no reason for people being content with conditions
>>> that lag behind what is possible.
>>
>> Seriously?????  Your "what is possible" has, in recent decades, been
>> shown to be fueled by personal debt and the constant replacement of
>> perfectly good items/infrastructure/goods to keep up with increasing
>> expectations has been about "fashion" and "keeping up with the
>> Joneses" and is a selfish brat "I want.." response.  Your suggestion
>> is completely irresponsible and not thought through IMO.
>
> Hmmm. I am not talking about that sadly shrinking middle class.

Neither am I.

> What should be possible for everyone in any advanced and enlightened
> society is the attainment and holding onto the basic necessities of living:
> Sufficient healthy nourishment, clothing, a roof over one's head,
> affordable access to physical and mental healthcare, education, public
> transport, meaningful work, proper work-life balance, a healthy
> environment and a properly functioning safety net in case of unexpected
> disasters.

And I'm saying that is still attainable.

> W/o 80% of the wealth and resourced sucked out of the economy by upper
> class vultures there is no reason why these basics could not become the
> universal bottom line. Suggesting otherwise is what I would regard as
> completely irresponsible.>
>>> Furthermore one of the biggest reasons why inequality is increasing
>>> and corporate capitalists are getting bolder and bolder in ripping of
>>> the rest of us is the demise of the political Left. There is nothing
>>> left to threaten the kind of hegemony they strive for: the USSR is
>>> history, labour movements are a thing of the past, all significant
>>> political parties are either somewhat right leaning or outright on
>>> hard right.
>>
>> Yes that is indeed one strand of why inequality is increasing BUT you
>> never pay enough attention to personal responsibility.  You always
>> ignore that and put the blame on capitalists, corporations, the right,
>> greedy businesses etc.
>
> That I have never done, thus you make here a false assumption...