Donate to Remove ads

Got a credit card? use our Credit Card & Finance Calculators

Thanks to johnstevens77,Bhoddhisatva,scotia,Anonymous,Cornytiv34, for Donating to support the site

Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

A virtual pub for off topic, light hearted pub related banter and discussion. No trainers
CliffEdge
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1554
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 434 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#500954

Postby CliffEdge » May 17th, 2022, 12:13 pm

Clitheroekid wrote:
CliffEdge wrote:Sound like the politics of envy again.

You could wheel out this old cliché about any strategy that's designed to redistribute wealth from the rich to the poor.

Do you think that such strategies are fundamentally wrong?

Yes. I think they prevent effective measures from being implemented to help the poor. The fundamental principle of calling it "redistribution" is wrong and detracts from analysing and designing ways of meeting the needs of the poor, many of whom cannot help themselves, through no fault of their own, eg low earning potential, learning difficulties, addiction, criminal tendencies, low intelligence, illiteracy, innumeracy etc.
Immediate measures I would take include banning short-term loans, online gambling. If it isn't already, all housing benefit should be paid to the landlord.

I would ban private dentistry, scrap prescription charges, ban private medicine, ban private education. A good example of considering fairness rather than equality. Wait for the comments about individual free choice etc!

A good example of effective interventions is the NHS, a fantastic success but hobbled by private practice.

scrumpyjack
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 4812
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 10:15 am
Has thanked: 605 times
Been thanked: 2675 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#500955

Postby scrumpyjack » May 17th, 2022, 12:14 pm

Dod101 wrote:I have read through CK's post again and can see nothing in it which is trying to promote equality, just a slightly better way of trying to tackle the housing crisis in this country.

It is no good shouting the politics of envy or the goal of equality or whatever. Come up with a solution to our housing crisis, and the ridiculous cost of housing (in relation to incomes) in this country.

Dod


The solution is simple, in theory, - More houses or fewer people.

CliffEdge
Lemon Quarter
Posts: 1554
Joined: July 25th, 2018, 9:56 am
Has thanked: 452 times
Been thanked: 434 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#500959

Postby CliffEdge » May 17th, 2022, 12:30 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:
Dod101 wrote:I have read through CK's post again and can see nothing in it which is trying to promote equality, just a slightly better way of trying to tackle the housing crisis in this country.

It is no good shouting the politics of envy or the goal of equality or whatever. Come up with a solution to our housing crisis, and the ridiculous cost of housing (in relation to incomes) in this country.

Dod


The solution is simple, in theory, - More houses or fewer people.

More what? More houses you say. This is the kind of vague thinking that doesn't offer effective solutions.

The Cornish single mum. Where is the father? Is he helping her to find a home? Were they married? If she is given a house (the equal of a house bought by a young married couple who've scrimped and saved and worked all hours, and delayed parenthood), what will she do? Have another baby and demand a bigger house? There is a subculture which is at war with civilised society. Just ask a policeman on a Saturday night in a city.

If she needs it ,she should have access to safe comfortable, supervised accommodation at an affordable rent. No more no less.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18678
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6561 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#500966

Postby Lootman » May 17th, 2022, 12:46 pm

Dod101 wrote:Come up with a solution to our housing crisis, and the ridiculous cost of housing (in relation to incomes) in this country.

But do we really need to? Every house that comes up for sale gets sold, or the price reduced until it does. Every home that is offered for rent is rented, or the rent is dropped until that happens.

So housing clearly is affordable because people keep affording it!

Now there are some places I cannot afford to live: Aspen, Aruba, Monaco, Andorra etc. My solution is to not live in those places rather than expect somebody else to subsidise me living in a desirable place that I cannot afford.

Similarly if you cannot afford Cornwall, Mayfair or Hampstead, then how about Clacton, Mansfield or Halifax?

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#500970

Postby Dod101 » May 17th, 2022, 1:07 pm

CliffEdge wrote:There's no way now that I would get into buy to let which is a shame as I would quite like to provide a nice place for someone to live at a reasonable price.


I assume therefore that you will be giving a substantial amount to Shelter. Such a donation might help to meet your desire.

Dod

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#500971

Postby Dod101 » May 17th, 2022, 1:10 pm

scrumpyjack wrote:
Dod101 wrote:I have read through CK's post again and can see nothing in it which is trying to promote equality, just a slightly better way of trying to tackle the housing crisis in this country.

It is no good shouting the politics of envy or the goal of equality or whatever. Come up with a solution to our housing crisis, and the ridiculous cost of housing (in relation to incomes) in this country.

Dod


The solution is simple, in theory, - More houses or fewer people.


Indeed as I said higher up this thread.

Dod

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#500972

Postby Dod101 » May 17th, 2022, 1:17 pm

Lootman wrote:
Dod101 wrote:Come up with a solution to our housing crisis, and the ridiculous cost of housing (in relation to incomes) in this country.

But do we really need to? Every house that comes up for sale gets sold, or the price reduced until it does. Every home that is offered for rent is rented, or the rent is dropped until that happens.

So housing clearly is affordable because people keep affording it!

Now there are some places I cannot afford to live: Aspen, Aruba, Monaco, Andorra etc. My solution is to not live in those places rather than expect somebody else to subsidise me living in a desirable place that I cannot afford.

Similarly if you cannot afford Cornwall, Mayfair or Hampstead, then how about Clacton, Mansfield or Halifax?


I know, I know. But there are not many houses as far as I know which are available even in the lower priced areas and there are a lot of people who are living in very substandard housing. People born and brought up in a particular area of the country want to stay there and cannot because of high house prices often it would seem, caused by incomers who can, and many of these become second homes for them. In all equity that is not right. I am not sure that I could buy a house of my choice say in Zurich and yet we seem open to all comers.

Dod

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10690
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#500988

Postby UncleEbenezer » May 17th, 2022, 2:40 pm

Dod101 wrote:
UncleEbenezer wrote:
dealtn wrote:
UncleEbenezer wrote:
The greater blame lies in the system that privileges property ownership with a state-enforced monopoly,


What state enforced monopoly?

The one that puts the organs of the state - police and both civil and criminal justice systems - at your disposal if I and my very large and intimidating friends take up residence in your home without your permission.


What a very odd way of looking at life. So you do not believe in our capitalist society?

Dod

I believe entirely in capitalism as the means of innovation and production.

I also believe (in principle; practice may vary) in the organs of state I referred to. And that those who benefit most from them - such as those with a lot to protect - bear proportionate costs, which is not the case. Only hard-earned income is substantially taxed; unearned gains arising from property subsidies and monopoly rights are not, with productive investment falling somewhere between the two extremes.

Lootman
The full Lemon
Posts: 18678
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 3:58 pm
Has thanked: 628 times
Been thanked: 6561 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#501002

Postby Lootman » May 17th, 2022, 3:44 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:I believe entirely in capitalism as the means of innovation and production.

I also believe (in principle; practice may vary) in the organs of state I referred to. And that those who benefit most from them - such as those with a lot to protect - bear proportionate costs, which is not the case. Only hard-earned income is substantially taxed; unearned gains arising from property subsidies and monopoly rights are not, with productive investment falling somewhere between the two extremes.

An odd comment because if you genuinely "believed in capitalism" then you would not refer to the profits from such as "unearned".

Nor would you fail to understand why the tax rates on the returns from at-risk capital should be lower than on the income from labour - something that is true in almost every western nation.

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#501010

Postby Dod101 » May 17th, 2022, 4:14 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:
Dod101 wrote:
UncleEbenezer wrote:
dealtn wrote:
UncleEbenezer wrote:
The greater blame lies in the system that privileges property ownership with a state-enforced monopoly,


What state enforced monopoly?

The one that puts the organs of the state - police and both civil and criminal justice systems - at your disposal if I and my very large and intimidating friends take up residence in your home without your permission.


What a very odd way of looking at life. So you do not believe in our capitalist society?

Dod

I believe entirely in capitalism as the means of innovation and production.

I also believe (in principle; practice may vary) in the organs of state I referred to. And that those who benefit most from them - such as those with a lot to protect - bear proportionate costs, which is not the case. Only hard-earned income is substantially taxed; unearned gains arising from property subsidies and monopoly rights are not, with productive investment falling somewhere between the two extremes.


Thanks for the clarification. I do not think that we are that far apart. The unearned gains from property subsidies is a very particular issue. Presumably you are referring to the untaxed gains on residential property and the Help to Buy Scheme and other subsidies provided by the government, possibly with the best intentions, but certainly with quite predictable and malevolent consequences for society in general.

Dod

UncleEbenezer
The full Lemon
Posts: 10690
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 8:17 pm
Has thanked: 1459 times
Been thanked: 2965 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#501036

Postby UncleEbenezer » May 17th, 2022, 5:32 pm

Dod101 wrote:[
Thanks for the clarification. I do not think that we are that far apart. The unearned gains from property subsidies is a very particular issue.
Dod

It goes back a long way. It came crashing in to my life when as a young graduate I found myself priced out of living in London, not by market forces as I understood them, but by government money in housing benefit underwriting rents and thus (in London) putting a floor on them which was almost exactly equal to my income before tax. Since then we've had all kinds of schemes like "local housing for local people" in the later Thatcher years "key worker" schemes under NuLab, etc, all of which - like housing benefit - pour money in to housing pushing prices ever higher.

In 1983 I was outraged to find that my taxes were paying to price me out of housing. Noone was commenting on it back then, but only after moving well away from London in 1985 could I afford to rent a room, let alone a flat (my first place better than a student room was when I moved to Germany, where the housing market was much better).

A decade ago, Help to buy was interesting in the reaction it provoked: commentators were united in condemning this then-new bung to the property oligarchy. Here's something I blogged in 2011 (the reference at the end is to another such scheme, "shared ownership").

But something more interesting is happening. Instead of the mainstream media cheerleading all these interventions, they’ve united to rubbish them. Across the political spectrum, we have a remarkable degree of agreement:

Ian Cowie in the Telegraph (political right): You really could not make it up. Government proposals for taxpayers to underwrite looser mortgage lending for first time buyers may help buy-to-let landlords exit the housing market with handsome profits before house prices fall further. But they are unlikely to be of lasting benefit to anyone encouraged to take on excessive debt before interest rates rise from their current historic low and more homebuyers find themselves in negative equity.

Mary Ann Sieghart in the Independent (political centre-left): The one thing missing from today’s housing strategy will be an outright acknowledgment that lower house prices would be a good thing. It’s still too much of a political taboo. But ministers know that it’s exactly what the younger generation need. So do prospective buyers and their parents.

Matt Griffith in the Guardian (political left): While some of the initiatives – notably the government’s pledge to provide insurance for mortgages to new-build properties – are the equivalent of an intergenerational mugging: the state underwrites young people taking on a huge debt for an asset that is clearly overvalued.

Andrew Ellison in the Times (political right): A strange conspiracy maintains the high cost of homes – hence these weird schemes to help the first-time buyer.

James Saft at Reuters: Under the plan both builders and the government would contribute funds to partially indemnify lenders against what I am betting are the inevitable losses. Borrowers, who are almost by definition younger and less well off, will still bear all losses, but will be rewarded with the chance to take out the kind of loan which has proven time and again to be a bad idea.

Wow! They really are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Just a shame they took so long to notice the problem! Evidently this blog was ahead of its time, for example in August 2007: … the taxpayer money going into this helps inflate the price of anything nice, by lifting the market in general.

88V8
Lemon Half
Posts: 5769
Joined: November 4th, 2016, 11:22 am
Has thanked: 4097 times
Been thanked: 2560 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#501063

Postby 88V8 » May 17th, 2022, 7:40 pm

CliffEdge wrote:....the needs of the poor, many of whom cannot help themselves, through no fault of their own, eg ....addiction, criminal tendencies, low intelligence, illiteracy, innumeracy etc.

We have very different notions of 'no fault'.

UncleEbenezer wrote:It goes back a long way.

I believe the govt will always err on the side of avoiding a fall in house prices... negative equity... especially as the churn of people moving house and consequent spend on alterations, decoration and white goods is so significant to the economy.

They will never have the courage to start reducing the population which would remove the 'housing shortage' and the price spiral at a stroke.

But there are plenty of people who if you gave them a house, plus an income for doing nothing, would still be miserable and broke and bleating to the BBC.

V8

Dod101
The full Lemon
Posts: 16629
Joined: October 10th, 2017, 11:33 am
Has thanked: 4343 times
Been thanked: 7534 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#501067

Postby Dod101 » May 17th, 2022, 7:45 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:
Dod101 wrote:[
Thanks for the clarification. I do not think that we are that far apart. The unearned gains from property subsidies is a very particular issue.
Dod

It goes back a long way. It came crashing in to my life when as a young graduate I found myself priced out of living in London, not by market forces as I understood them, but by government money in housing benefit underwriting rents and thus (in London) putting a floor on them which was almost exactly equal to my income before tax. Since then we've had all kinds of schemes like "local housing for local people" in the later Thatcher years "key worker" schemes under NuLab, etc, all of which - like housing benefit - pour money in to housing pushing prices ever higher.

In 1983 I was outraged to find that my taxes were paying to price me out of housing. Noone was commenting on it back then, but only after moving well away from London in 1985 could I afford to rent a room, let alone a flat (my first place better than a student room was when I moved to Germany, where the housing market was much better).

A decade ago, Help to buy was interesting in the reaction it provoked: commentators were united in condemning this then-new bung to the property oligarchy. Here's something I blogged in 2011 (the reference at the end is to another such scheme, "shared ownership").

But something more interesting is happening. Instead of the mainstream media cheerleading all these interventions, they’ve united to rubbish them. Across the political spectrum, we have a remarkable degree of agreement:

Ian Cowie in the Telegraph (political right): You really could not make it up. Government proposals for taxpayers to underwrite looser mortgage lending for first time buyers may help buy-to-let landlords exit the housing market with handsome profits before house prices fall further. But they are unlikely to be of lasting benefit to anyone encouraged to take on excessive debt before interest rates rise from their current historic low and more homebuyers find themselves in negative equity.

Mary Ann Sieghart in the Independent (political centre-left): The one thing missing from today’s housing strategy will be an outright acknowledgment that lower house prices would be a good thing. It’s still too much of a political taboo. But ministers know that it’s exactly what the younger generation need. So do prospective buyers and their parents.

Matt Griffith in the Guardian (political left): While some of the initiatives – notably the government’s pledge to provide insurance for mortgages to new-build properties – are the equivalent of an intergenerational mugging: the state underwrites young people taking on a huge debt for an asset that is clearly overvalued.

Andrew Ellison in the Times (political right): A strange conspiracy maintains the high cost of homes – hence these weird schemes to help the first-time buyer.

James Saft at Reuters: Under the plan both builders and the government would contribute funds to partially indemnify lenders against what I am betting are the inevitable losses. Borrowers, who are almost by definition younger and less well off, will still bear all losses, but will be rewarded with the chance to take out the kind of loan which has proven time and again to be a bad idea.

Wow! They really are all singing from the same hymn sheet. Just a shame they took so long to notice the problem! Evidently this blog was ahead of its time, for example in August 2007: … the taxpayer money going into this helps inflate the price of anything nice, by lifting the market in general.


Many thanks. A lot of good sense there. I always enjoyed Mary Ann Sieghart. She wrote in The Times, surely an indication that it is fairly well balanced politically despite the Murdoch ownership.

Dod

SimonS
Lemon Slice
Posts: 531
Joined: January 4th, 2021, 9:28 am
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#503060

Postby SimonS » May 26th, 2022, 8:02 pm

[quote="servodude
Rather than ruin things.. couldn't they improve the public transport, set a useful minimum wage and encourage healthy competition in the E-Vehicle market?
-sd[/quote]

I seem to remember that the Low Pay Commission report back around 2000 commented that the Minimum Wage was already distorting prices in two industries, Care and Hospitality. It recommended that the wage was not raised. It was ignored.

It was seen that in Care, where for many "customers" the ability to pay is finite. and hence the ability to earn is restricted, that the structure was being savaged by the fact that many experienced, motivated and qualified people (retired nurses and the like) were finding that the minimum wage was squeezing completely unqualified, lowest-cost staff up against their pay levels. Since there is in our modern society the presumption that one only takes instruction from people who are paid more, the skilled personnel were being regarded as totally replaceable and leaving in droves.

The report admitted that it was part of the Cabinet policy to squeeze the 'profit' out of Care Homes for ideological reasons, but with the politicians inability to actually implement a replacement system for when their gratuitous destruction leaves a gaping hole in society. (true, the Cabinet at the time was of the opinion that by forcing people to sell their properties they could fund the large number of government dependents. but found that the tax on dementia was, mystifyingly, unpopular)

My wife recently had an operation that didn't go according to plan, but the resultant inability to return home, just going to the toilet took two carers, meant that she was farmed out to a care home disguised as a Nursing Home (half the cost of staying in a Hospital). The effect is frankly scary, most of the staff are untrained, there aren't enough staff to respond to the frequent alarms with degrading / disgusting results (unable to move she was left on several occasions to soil herself and some of the other customers, currently able to recognise their surroundings admit to being driven into dementia by the infantile lifestyle of those who have been their longer.

So with a disaster forecast and a complete inability of successive governments to do anything, why would we expect them to implement proper public transport policies, or enable proper competion between the ( five) global car companies.

One would suggest that the current lot couldn't organise a piss-up in a brewery, but the indications are that that's about the limits of their ability.

SimonS
Lemon Slice
Posts: 531
Joined: January 4th, 2021, 9:28 am
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#503077

Postby SimonS » May 26th, 2022, 9:16 pm

UncleEbenezer wrote:
Dod101 wrote:
UncleEbenezer wrote:
dealtn wrote:
UncleEbenezer wrote:
The greater blame lies in the system that privileges property ownership with a state-enforced monopoly,


What state enforced monopoly?

The one that puts the organs of the state - police and both civil and criminal justice systems - at your disposal if I and my very large and intimidating friends take up residence in your home without your permission.


What a very odd way of looking at life. So you do not believe in our capitalist society?

Dod

I believe entirely in capitalism as the means of innovation and production.

I also believe (in principle; practice may vary) in the organs of state I referred to. And that those who benefit most from them - such as those with a lot to protect - bear proportionate costs, which is not the case. Only hard-earned income is substantially taxed; unearned gains arising from property subsidies and monopoly rights are not, with productive investment falling somewhere between the two extremes.


There seems to be an unwillingness here to look at root causes, instead people are jumping onto their bandwagon of choice, punishing the rich, taxation on 'unearned' income and so on.

But if we look at root causes, we often find it is the very democratic system we so adulate. We elect politicians who particularly in the last decades, get elected by promising the unattainable to a particular sector of society. Dyed in the wool political activists will no doubt differ, but Tony Blair won his landslide not from reforming Labour, not from inventive financial policies, not from reforming public services but by targetting the specific million or so voters who wanted to stop hunting. Boris didn't win because he had a plan for Britain's future but he promised Brexit as an end in itself, without any consequential effects. As many studies point out, the split in numbers between convinced and committed voters of the major parties is currently so

We either need to educate the romantics not to vote for charlatans however enticing they may seem, or we get politicians who believe in their responsibility to run the country for the good of the inhabitants, rather than the desires of the inhabitants.

From one point of view, it would be irresponsible of a politician to interfere with the excesses of our housing system because it is the single biggest non-government industry in the country. it dwarfs all others, whether measured by the value of assets, number of people involved , the number of stakeholders, the significance (particularly to politicians as it is said that the 'happiness' factor is closely correlated to the increase in value, and they get elected by the happiness factor).

So our politicians will not tackle the problems of immigration because it drives the pressure on housing (Britain's population has risen in the last 40 years only through immigration, the indigent population is falling]. So regardless of whether we need it or want it, immigration will continue because that's where the money is; just as the motivation for socially destructive activities like on-line gambling is simply that it makes the politicians popular, whereas stopping it would make them unpopular.

Recently a review of climate change investigated Australia's coal industry, Australia is simply the third most polluting country on the planet, which is an astonishing claim for a country of 26 million people! Very simply, Australia has the biggest coal mines and they export vast quantities, enabling China for example to fuel their coal fired power-stations, which they could not do without Australian Coal. The Australian Government won't interfere withe the exports because it nets them huge amounts of money on which their famed "good life" is totally dependent. In addition the trades Unions for the coal industry will not allow the industry to be cut back (in an interview that could have come straight from 1960's Britain) unless such industry guarantees that it will be in the ability of the current coal employees, that any re-education would be entirely voluntary and fully compensated, that current coal employees would not be at a disadvantage to people being brought in to set-up the new industry and that no-one would suffer effective demotion (ie, if you were a charge hand of a team of coal miners you'd still be a charge hand of a team of computer collaborationists!)

If the world can be held to ransom while life becomes less survivable by such political obstinacy, do we really believe our politicians would voluntarily take the responsible road, or our electors choose a route not signposted by their own ideology?

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#503089

Postby servodude » May 26th, 2022, 11:03 pm

SimonS wrote:The Australian Government won't interfere withe the exports because it nets them huge amounts of money on which their famed "good life" is totally dependent


..and how did that go for their political careers? ;)

SimonS
Lemon Slice
Posts: 531
Joined: January 4th, 2021, 9:28 am
Has thanked: 112 times
Been thanked: 315 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#503164

Postby SimonS » May 27th, 2022, 1:15 pm

servodude wrote:
SimonS wrote:The Australian Government won't interfere withe the exports because it nets them huge amounts of money on which their famed "good life" is totally dependent


..and how did that go for their political careers? ;)



It depends how one views outcomes.

According to one source the recent electoral upset was in part caused by the lack of talk about climate change by the politicians in power..
but at the same time:

"Despite Labor coming out victorious in the election, doubts remain about what this will mean for Australia’s commodities and energy industry. Due to the intrinsic nature of fossil fuels within the Australian economy, it will be difficult for the Labor party to phase out heavy fossil fuel use and exportation successfully. The coal industry has become a key income generator for Australia, generating A$87.04bn in 2019, up from A$38.32bn in 2016. "

So one suspects that this is to some extent an example of the current discussion here. An electorate sector, the sub 30's who want something done about climate change, brought in a party w3ho claimed they would do 'something'. But the mining / commodity sector isn't the low hanging fruit it appears, it is the underpinning of the Australian economy., ditching it in any significant way will have marked repercussions on the lifestyle and aspirations of an even bigger electoral sector, those who like their lifestyle.

Australians have some indication of the consequences, they have one single client who has been the cause of a great deal of wealth. The strength of the apparent market fed the growth and value of the lobster fisheries. When the client decided to ban Australian lobster as a part of the trade war, the lobster fishery returned to its pre-boom size and thousands were out of a job and hardship followed.

Generating alternative industry is hard to do, because everyone wants to be in the same something new.

So pandering to the climate change sector of the electorate without a credible plan may be somewhat like invading Iraq/Afghanistan. Easy to do, but long term makes for unelectable politicians.....unless like America one replaces the entire administration every time the President changes (or sneezes in some cases).

servodude
Lemon Half
Posts: 8271
Joined: November 8th, 2016, 5:56 am
Has thanked: 4435 times
Been thanked: 3564 times

Re: Poor and miserable or rich but dissatisfied?

#503168

Postby servodude » May 27th, 2022, 1:33 pm

SimonS wrote:
servodude wrote:
SimonS wrote:The Australian Government won't interfere withe the exports because it nets them huge amounts of money on which their famed "good life" is totally dependent


..and how did that go for their political careers? ;)



It depends how one views outcomes.

According to one source the recent electoral upset was in part caused by the lack of talk about climate change by the politicians in power..
but at the same time:

"Despite Labor coming out victorious in the election, doubts remain about what this will mean for Australia’s commodities and energy industry. Due to the intrinsic nature of fossil fuels within the Australian economy, it will be difficult for the Labor party to phase out heavy fossil fuel use and exportation successfully. The coal industry has become a key income generator for Australia, generating A$87.04bn in 2019, up from A$38.32bn in 2016. "

So one suspects that this is to some extent an example of the current discussion here. An electorate sector, the sub 30's who want something done about climate change, brought in a party w3ho claimed they would do 'something'. But the mining / commodity sector isn't the low hanging fruit it appears, it is the underpinning of the Australian economy., ditching it in any significant way will have marked repercussions on the lifestyle and aspirations of an even bigger electoral sector, those who like their lifestyle.

Australians have some indication of the consequences, they have one single client who has been the cause of a great deal of wealth. The strength of the apparent market fed the growth and value of the lobster fisheries. When the client decided to ban Australian lobster as a part of the trade war, the lobster fishery returned to its pre-boom size and thousands were out of a job and hardship followed.

Generating alternative industry is hard to do, because everyone wants to be in the same something new.

So pandering to the climate change sector of the electorate without a credible plan may be somewhat like invading Iraq/Afghanistan. Easy to do, but long term makes for unelectable politicians.....unless like America one replaces the entire administration every time the President changes (or sneezes in some cases).


I was more thinking about how the lack of engagement on the issue has left the Liberal party routed and not by a swing to Labor.
With the promotion of Dutton to leader they've signaled that they're moving deeper in to the weeds and I can't see them resurrecting quickly.
Meanwhile Labor will be looking at the cross bench with the realization that it can happen to them (as indeed Kristina Keneally falling to get elected suggests).
It's going to be interesting


Return to “Beerpig's Snug”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 10 guests