Gorgritch_Umie_Killa @ Gorgritch_umie_killa @aussie.zone

Posts

20

Comments

351

Joined

2 yr. ago

Tldr: Its all a bit farked, work needs doing lets all pitch in.

I would like to point out that public housing will pay for itself in economic benefits.

I think you're right, but only in time. Problem is it'd be a huge upfront and ongoing cost until a future payoff. And this assumes all of the dividends from a public housing commission can be counted. Intangible benefits are hard to count..

A problem with the old economic system, is the benefits of these things couldn't be quantified. The neoliberal economic swing came and convinced self-regarding people, which we all are, of the tangible benefits of the new system.

That Friedman-esque system is now the old system. It greatly enriched two to three generations, and created a system of non-productive highly valuable assets that can be borrowed against. This in itself isn't too bad, if thats all it did.

Now wages are continually capped, for many reasons all leading to inflation. I'm not sure whether i find that a legitimate worry anymore. When inflation is more acceptable to occur everywhere else in the economy but wages, that tells me the reserve bank doesn't have the tools it needs to do the job its given.

Maybe a limited ability for the RBA to vary broad based taxes is a better system than interest rates. If you want radical that would be radical.

Taxing vacant residential properties might be cathartic, but doesn't fix any of the driving issues. The Airbnb taxes are probably needed for certain hotspots, but again its not really a radical thing to do. Both suggestions chop around the sides of the housing issue in the country.

The inequality is real, the generational divide is great, and if allowed to continue will pull the classes of our so called classless society further apart.

In this environment the young have no choice but to get radical. What has happened to wages in comparisson to everything else over the last ~40 years should be considered theft. From the wage workers and wealth creators, to the rentier class.

Personal liberties are hard, because we all have less than we assume. The State often doesn't know or care what we do, and doesn't assert its sweeping powers very often and thats a good thing. Codifying rights could lead to more problems, and costs than exlecting people to act like adults.

Libertarians are generally among the most foolish people i've ever known, one persons rights is anothers responsibilities, libertarians want all the rights without the responsibilities of looking after everykne elses rights.

Capitalism needs a change, and thats going to mean active governance (not necessarily more expensive), and probably more radical populist government policies.

The authoritarian populists would be a mistake, they will only favour their base 'fixing' the economy like a wrestling match, instead of fixing it like a repair.

But again is the general population willing for this? I don't think so yet.

Best thing young people can do is join and become an active member in a local political branch. Help set party direction. Demand change through the structures that are already in place ossifying because we've been directed to fend only our own wolves at the door that we've forgotten, humans are pack animals to.

Where the hell did i stop talking about housing?..... my bad.

We gotta get rid of this shit. We can't pass this problem on to future generations.

So your first comment pointed me in a different much wider direction. Reducing prices of houses now, and by any means, could be catastrophic. Too many peoples future wealth is tied up in their mortgages to banks, and banks themselves are highly reliant on expected return.

Building public housing is a more acute solution to your first comment. I don't know why Labor haven't begun a public housing commission. The only reason i can think is the industry hasn't had a 'true, start to finish' public housing commission for a long time.

Your talking thousands of new government employees, long term supply contracts, limited and possibly 'popularly' rejected house designs, not to mention the initial outlays to buy and prepare the land and all those costs.

A Public Housing Commission could be a long term project, but you couldn't start works tomorrow, it would take a bazooka to the budget (not saying Australia couldn'thandle it, but it'd be a hard sell), and you have to judge whether the wider population of voting Australia is ready to commit to such an ideologically different capital project structure.

Plus all the stuff and problems i've missed and not understood properly.

I'm not sure Australians, en masse, would be ready to go along with a project like that, and as individuals there would be a plethora of reasons for dissent a government would ne required to at least attempt to address.

Well, unfortunately they're right. House prices, thanks to consecutive governments have been allowed to become a central pillar of our economy. If we allow that enormous private debt bruden to become unstable, by a drastic cut to house prices say, then we'll start resembling the third rate economy Keating warned about pretty bloody quickly.

I still don't agree that its only a supply issue, the demand levers are stacked to ratchet prices one way that is a key contributor to the soaring prices. We ignore the demand side, we ignore half the problems in the housing system.

On the supply side, if they're really interested in fixing supply the government are gona have to look at a more directive approach to the market. Maybe Chalmers should lend O'Neil his copy of Mission Economy by Mariana Mazzacato.

States his case well.

The referral to the potential for precedent is well made, he keeps it acute, to the particular relations in the arts community, but expresses well juat how widely that the implications of that precedent would be felt.

I will call them sansculotte.

Theres no line for the Liberals to win a young constituency of voters on this. They voted in line with Labor and waved it through Parliament.

Part of me knows this is a populist strategy, but there is the chance that the Parliament has been privy to information the public isn't.

Three things make me wonder if theres some urgent-ish security concern raised in regards radicalisation of young people driving this,

1. Both Partys generally line up on National Security matters.
2. They cut debate, and oversight. Maybe to save time, maybe because they are allowed to specify the real reason.
3. The Big Social media companies haven't wet the bed and begun a campaign against it.

If this is related to security, then theres probably other clues. It'd be interesting to see if theres a difference in different country's Social Medias reactions, say tiktok's reaction as opposed youtube's? There could be a clue there. We're not far off the Aus election, but we have also just witnessed a fairly hot election in the USA, maybe we should be looking back at that, instead of forward.

Or i'm wrong and its just a populist election move that the Liberals weren't going to let Labor capture the narrative on.

Um, AFP are letting this slip by hey? These people recruiting for a foreign military in broad daylight and the AFP haven't lifted a finger?

With friends like these...

Watch out jlai.lu the aussies are comin!

doing authentication or just gathering their ID data

So i did read last week when i's going through the explanatory notes that sites would have to explicitly state and gain permission for the specific use of the data proposed.

I didn't have time to read into that bit much, but it seemed like it might be setting a higher bar than the 'check and forget' boxes around now. So i'm cautiously hopeful this part of the amendment could be quietly good.

I's talking about products in general, not new v old media. I actually had Jack Welch of GE in my mind when i wrote the comment yesterday.

That doctorow was a longer read than i's expecting, clicked on a lot of links as well. This is why its taken soblong for me to reply :p I really liked the part about 'heating'.

The heating part made me think about how youtube rarely showed me videos from channels i'd liked previously, i had to go looking for them, while the recommended videos showed so much weird crap.

I still think its no different to the 'ever lasting search for the latest eFficiEnCeeeeee saving' every MBA learns by rote.

But i take your point, User Attention is what these companies are selling. Like good little MBA's they are doing everything they can to exploit that value from the user attention assets they have, and are singularly failing to build any new assets of any value.

I, and at least one other person here sent submissions in specifically mentioning the fediverse.

Mine wasn't a very technical submission, i tried to focus on the value and potential destruction of that value if safeguards aren't allowed for nascent social media.

So at least there is a record of it. My worry is all the Muskivites submissions will drown out ones like mine.

Certainly is better. But i don't think it needs a 'technology industry' specific term.

Old terms like market monopolisation, or corruption of the public sphere.

Or something like those are better, because nothing the tech platforms have done is new, their tactics aren't different from any other company seeking to dominate their respective product market. The key difference being the speed at which their product travels around the world.

Pretty impregnable net the legislative writers have cast there.

Meh, never liked the term.

I never felt it captured the seriousness of the undermining of the public's access to reliable information, by the ownership of these public sphere's being captured by profit maximising entities.

The temptation to skew algorithms to profit maximisation instead of best information delivery has proven too great, its why a fundamental shift away from the walled garden concept is required. In my view.

Further to this, how do you police that on something like the fediverse? Is @Aussie.zone going to shut down because the onus of checking IDs too much for a small social media provider?

I'm worried about this. I see no protections other than the minister's discretion for small social media being liable for civil penalties of $9million. Thats the kind of money that freezes the social media market in place, allowing only the very largest to be involved.

This is of course if the fediverse admins are unable to implement reasonable steps for age verification.

I'm not technical, so i'll be interested to know peoples thoughts on the implementation, and maintenance of age verification?

Can't see where they state the definition for 'material', what does it say?

Great! Been missing the rail posts on here though! :)

Hooli dooli! Hi Baku! Nice to see you again!

Every 40k author is tearing up their manuscript right now and starting afresh,

...the screaming chainsaw missile tore through the mid-morning air, the astartes all laughed as it sliced though half a squad of guardsmen as they ate breakfast...