morry040 @ morry040 @kbin.social

Posts

0

Comments

87

Joined

2 yr. ago

What's a bigger problem than the IMF? Corruption.

The article itself links to another Oxfam report that details how correctly taxing the wealthy in these poorer countries would provide all of the critical social services that these regions are lacking.
https://policy-practice.oxfam.org/resources/the-middle-east-and-north-africa-gap-prosperity-for-the-rich-austerity-for-the-621549/

If it is not an additional layer of bureaucracy, where I can find information that explains which minister or government body that the Voice will make representations towards? Will it direct representation to the existing NIAA or will it replace this government agency?

When explaining the concept to my parents and grandparents, it has been challenging to convince them that this is not just ATSIC 2.0. Their concerns are that the corruption that occurred within that former organisation will be harder to control as the organisation would now have a constitutional shield to protect against criticism or accountability.

I doubt it. The whole "representation" part seems over-hyped. It's being promoted almost as if it will be a dedicated seat in parliament. The more likely outcome that it will just end up being a committee that reports into the existing NIAA structure and we don't end up seeing anything more impactful than what the NIAA is currently delivering.
If the Voice goes ahead, we can look forward to it running into the usual government bureaucracy, leading to disappointment once it becomes clear that government legislation doesn't solve issues that are occurring at the local, community level.

These are the design principles from the working group: https://voice.gov.au/about-voice/voice-principles

The 272-page final report from the co-design working group has all of the minute detail about how they engaged with the National Indigenous Australians Agency (NIAA) to design the Voice proposal, including recommendations on how it should operate: https://voice.gov.au/sites/default/files/resource/download/indigenous-voice-co-design-process-final-report1.pdf

The report, which includes 17 recommendations: https://cacyp.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2023/10/CACYPPreliminary-Report-2023.pdf

As for the causes:

Want to know what the ballot paper will look like? Check it out here: https://aec.gov.au/referendums/vote/completing-the-ballot-paper.html

The text under A Proposed Law will read:
To alter the Constitution to recognise the First Peoples of Australia by establishing an Aboriginal and Torres Strait Islander Voice. Do you approve this proposed alteration?

I did my postal vote the other day and that was all that they give you, so just remember that you're expected to do all of your research and decision making before you get to the ballot box.

It's a poorly designed chart, likely published this way so that it confuses the average reader and hides how bad the numbers actually are.
If you add up the year-on-year budget performance, the Jan-Aug 2023 budget performance is about 2.6 trillion rubles WORSE than last year.

The reporting tries to cover up these bad numbers by focusing on the surplus in June 2023 - the highest result since March 2021. However, the June result would not offset the deficit experienced in April 2023, let alone the Jan and Feb deficits.

There's even a hilarious typo in the news story where the author has stated "800 trillion" instead of the actual "800 billion" result, plus they mixed up the months - the 800B was in June, not August. They really should run these numbers past an analyst before printing the story, but I expect disinformation is the real goal.

And it didn't just go extinct by luck. It's a good case study of how to control and/or eliminate a virus (e.g. COVID):

"The rapid and global implementation of social distancing measures, masking, and the profound early reduction in international travel resulted in a substantial reduction in flu transmission."

We shouldn't concede that the public has to pay more to fix this problem. We just need to pressure our government representatives to prioritise funding for education above that of other areas.

The average teacher makes $84,810 per year.
It is estimated that there are 307,041 full time teachers.
This equates to a full teacher salary budget of $26B. We know that education is managed at the state level, but let's just experiment with a scenario whereby the federal government decides to provide a funding boost to salaries. Giving all teachers a 25% pay rise would cost $6.5B per year.
How much was the 2023 budget surplus just recently announced by the government? $22B.
So, the government could have covered a 25% pay increase to all teachers in Australia, using a third of the surplus that they realised in this year's budget.

Ok, that's for one year, but what about future years, you might ask...
Well, how about we take some of the funding from the scrapping of Stage 3 tax cuts. The Parliamentary Budget Office estimates that the cost of the Stage 3 tax cuts will be $313B over a decade ($31.3B per year). Those tax cuts could even be watered down so that they don't impact lower incomes. The top 20% of income earners in the country receive 73% of the benefit from those tax cuts.
Let's only have tax cuts for the bottom 80% of income earners. That would still give us $22.8B per year in extra budget that we allocate to education. It's that simple.

Here's a more detailed Reuters article, which also links to the original NY Times article. The News24 article did not provide such a link (bad journalist!).
https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/evidence-suggests-errant-ukrainian-missile-caused-market-deaths-new-york-times-2023-09-19/

The claims are also refuted in this article: https://www.pravda.com.ua/eng/news/2023/09/19/7420435/

Pravda's claim that the Buk air defense systems are not in service does seem valid as it was reported way back in April 2023 that Buk missiles were going to be depleted by May 2023. https://time.com/6271538/ukraine-air-defense-shortages-russia/

As your own link states:
Ironclad is not a law firm, and this post does not constitute or contain legal advice. To evaluate the accuracy, sufficiency, or reliability of the ideas and guidance reflected here, or the applicability of these materials to your business, you should consult with a licensed attorney. Use of and access to any of the resources contained within Ironclad’s site do not create an attorney-client relationship between the user and Ironclad.

Please refer to the Google Maps Terms of Service: https://www.google.com/help/termsmaps/
By using the service, every user agrees to these terms.

Section 3:
Actual Conditions; Assumption of Risk. When you use Google Maps/Google Earth's map data, traffic, directions, and other content, you may find that actual conditions differ from the map results and content, so exercise your independent judgment and use Google Maps/Google Earth at your own risk. You’re responsible at all times for your conduct and its consequences.

You're expectations of Google would be like demanding that the map company who printed maps must provide a free, updated map every time that the roads change. Life doesn't work that way - sometimes people need to take responsibility for their own stupidity.

As soon as you legally change your name, it becomes your legal name. The only places where you would need to state that original name might be on something like a passport / visa / or tax return.

If your goal really is to try and change some perspectives, then I would recommend reading this article on how to talk with others about racism.

https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2021/02/social-psychologist-offers-key-to-ending-racism/

GAZETTE:How do you break through?

LIVINGSTON: I’ll start with the discomfort. People are afraid of conflict in these kinds of conversations. But research has shown that conflict can actually be productive, if it’s the right type of conflict. Task-based conflict is when people disagree about the best course of action. And person-based conflict is when you say, “I think you’re an idiot for [arguing that viewpoint].” So try to focus on the problem and not the person. The second thing is to engage in conversations with curiosity and not with certainty. Research shows it’s much more productive to be in what is called inquiry mode versus advocacy mode. What you’re trying to do in these conversations is either to discover what the truth is — by asking questions — or to discover a common ground. And you can’t do that if you’re too deeply entrenched in your own convictions or ideological position.

Ah yes. The imaginary GDP created from trading properties with each other.

In the 7 properties that I have rented over the last 15 years, I have never known a landlord to just kindly "update" their property. The properties are at an acceptable standard when first purchased and the only way that things change is when something breaks, is damaged, the tenants complain, or the owner is preparing to sell. This is probably influenced by the majority of landlords outsourcing property management to agencies (research suggests 75%), who are financially motivated to provide the minimum basic standard for maximum financial gain.

Do you have any data or research on the profile of sellers? I find that there is not a lot of research out there, so I'm curious to learn how I would explore your claim that most sellers use their proceeds to invest in small business. Selling a property just to buy a property helps the real estate sector and some banks, but I think that calling it a valuable contributor to GDP is a stretch.

What we do know is that people in older age brackets typically own their own home (78%+ for the 65+ age group). However, people in that age bracket also demonstrate a decline in consumption, spending about the same as someone in the 15-24 age bracket. This could be interpreted to show that older sellers are not freely investing the returns from their property sales back into the broader economy. Instead, they are conserving their money to last through retirement.

I've been thinking about this perspective for a while now, so it's good to see the topic raised in the mainstream media. If you compare a business investment or buying shares in Australian companies with investing in property, there is much greater value to society and positive flow-on effects from business investing.
A business can use the investment to hire staff, produce more goods / services for export, and growing revenues mean more tax revenue for the government.
With investment properties, the owner buys a property by outbidding someone who may have just wanted a home and they then proceed to charge that same group with a rent burden. No additional jobs are created from the investment property and a cost burden is placed on the renter, reducing their disposable income.

As a society, we need to start thinking about investment properties in the way that we would think about fossil fuels. We know it is easy and it makes money, but it's bad for future generations and we need to transition to alternatives.

Yeah, it's a small amount compared to what is actually needed. In the bill digest, it's mentioned that government's 2021 review of affordable housing estimated that "the number of social housing dwellings required over the 20 years from 2020 to 2040 would be 614,000, plus 277,000 affordable housing dwellings. It estimated the cost of closing this shortfall at $290 billion."

That said, the Greens' pressure on the negotiations has definitely improved the proposal. The first reading of the bill mentioned that the $10B commitment was just going to sent to the government's investment fund and that withdrawals would be capped at $500m per year. That means that Labor's original plan was for the $10B to be spread over 20 years. Compare this to the $290b estimate of what the country actually needs over the next 20 years and it's clear that Labor only ever wanted to fix 3.4% of the problem.