Solomon

Advanced members
  • Content count

    2220
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

33 Good

About Solomon

  • Rank
    Inimitable

Profile Information

  • Gender
    Not Telling
  1. Brilliant Cobran!!
  2. I love it Anders. Thanks for posting. I hope this kid grows up to become the next Walt Disney.
  3. The immigration debate is likely to be a crucial election issue. Currently there are something like 215 million migrants in the world, and Australia falls into the top 10 migration countries. This current period from about 2010 is now considered to be one of the largest human migration periods in history. It is difficult to fully determined the level of forced migration to voluntary migration. But one statistic is abundantly clear. The rise in female migration. I think I have begun to appreciate more clearly recently why both Labour and Libs want to retain this high level of immigration. (Consider me "slow", but it is unusual to find such bi-partisan support between the two parties) Their predominant thinking is this: That rapidly increasing the number of Australians will increase the taxation band (ie; more residents, more services, more purchases, more jobs, more tax), stimulate the economy by providing increasing number of consumers (in a consumer society, if you run out of consumers its curtains for business) and in turn provide additional candidates for the supposedly expanding workforce. It's called - Growing the nation!! I think this policy is primarily being driven by the banks, or at least economists who have long recognised that a debt laden society requires an increasing number of sardines, to hook into the debt train, so that the banks fractional reserve banking system doesn't completely unravel. They continually require new candidates for debt because otherwise the tide goes out and they are found to be swimming naked. It is now slowly dawning on those who have begun to see it, that a closed system (like a country) is never as simple as changing one element, and naively believing other elements of the system won't be affected. You see, their thinking would be fine, if our world was only economically based and defined. It isn't! There is a humanitarian element. What, I think the various politicians have failed to take into account has been the human behaviour and cultural characteristics of large groups, and the wistful nature of group dynamics. Groups develop their own culture, and will resist external influences. The only tool, politicians have is legislation. They know they cannot legislate for positive relationships. Large groups without meaningful employment and productive use of their time, is dangerous and destructive. We have seen such behaviour around the world in many countries. Governments, realise they are restricted to only offering formal controls, becase they can only legislate for break-downs in relationships. Criminal activities, or relationship abuses. The law is always dealing with the worst case scenario. Politicians want a positive outcome from their immigration policy, and they don't want to be involved with increasing conflict in their social sphere. They are now desperately trying to educate people of the benefits of having so many people added to our economy every year. Whilst we bring people from other countries on a drip feed level, they are more likely to assimilate. This has been the case in the past with Australia's moderate level of immigration. But when we greatly increase the mass, we run the risk of changing the entire demography of our nation. I believe this is what is happening in Europe and is a part of the underlying narrative in the USA and Canada. The "natives", are not welcoming the intrusion and change to their own culture (culture = previous traditional norms). Further, I happen to think their economic model is wrong as well. It takes time when you arrive in another country to locate meaningful employment, identify where you want to live, reach the level income necessary to obtain a mortgage, and become a debt/tax slave. In the meantime the welfare system has to take up the slack - otherwise you have homeless, hungry or even dead people starting to stack up around the place. Not a good look for any politician. This increase in the welfare spending requires more taxes, and so effectively it can easily stifle growth. We are walking a very fragile line here. The current mob in power are trying to alleviate this by offering tax cuts to stimulate the economy, but I have to wonder whether it can work, because in effect it is now just a catch-up. Our cost of living has long ago exceeded what these tiny incentives might have gained. My questions would be. Where does the cut-off lie? Can the politicians now even turn off the spigot of immigration, without the economy all collapsing around them? Yet the averse scenario is to ever so slowly watch our social fabric unwind, with increasing social unrest. I would like to hear your thoughts.
  4. I never had a phone when I was 17! My parents wouldn't let us use the phone for relationship calls. The phone on the wall was for emergencies and important business calls only.
  5. I don't find too much in that report to give optimism for those looking at home price reductions. I find it increasingly difficult to identify a single factor in our world economy that might allow prices to fall to affordable. If it was going to happen, it should have happened by now. With the ability to create money from nothing, I don't think governments really care. They will be more than happy to have home prices at an average of $5 or $10 million in a decade, and regard that as good economics. Everything is geared towards "growth at all costs" at the expense of any sense of decency. No government (or politician) anywhere in the world wants to be hailed as those who put a stop to growth and prosperity. It is just a total misnomer for a politician to be heralding, lets stop this incessant growth analogy. Every political party has to be able to point to their achievements. That's how they get elected. Anything other than growth is considered a political failure.
  6. Ahhh! Real estate, the joy of the masses. The wonderful little boxes of wood, steel, concrete and paint that just go up and up and up in value. And the lecherous creatures that it attracts with its promise of multi-millionaire status in just a few short years. Thanks for sharing your personal story zaph. $225,000 capital gain in 7 yrs. That's a pretty good investment zaph if you get the price you are after. It takes me five years to earn (gross) that amount of money. And when I think about all the work and time I've had to put in to get it, I can see, I should have just bought a wooden box. Did you do any improvements to the property, or is that all based on land/house value increase? All the very best to you on your intended sale.
  7. I don't know Barnaby Joyce personally. I am not intimately involved with the situation. I am therefore a little loath to comment, but........ It is worth remembering that this was the man, who was once second in charge of our country. Every human being has sexual urges, and in certain cases they are difficult to control given circumstance and environment. Many late nights isolated away from wife and family, etc. Most of us control this to the best of our ability. In this respect though we are all very similar. But I doubt this is what was really under judgement. After all, thousands of people have affairs and destroy their marriages every day around this country. No. It was his position of power, that drew the focus. And from my position of relative safety behind the computer screen, I can observe that he made some seriously stupid decisions regarding the matter. I thought the turmoil had died down. He should have let the sleeping dogs lie. Kept a low profile, and maintained his seat in parliament, even if it was on the back benches. He could have slipped off into obscurity after a few years and received his lucrative parliamentary pension. But his pride (or is it arrogance) wouldn't let him do this. He had to have the last word!! To then think that he could financially benefit from the scandal, and not receive outcry by the public is to completely misunderstand public life, or public sentiment. I have to wonder then, if he every really understood his constituency? Society is often prepared to accept/forgive a mistake, but they don't like people to personally benefit from their benevolence. But it also highlights for me how quickly a person can fall from grace with the public. (Yes, I know he is public fare for the media, and a lot of these politicians flirt with the media to get the spotlight on them.) But to go from darling to disgrace in a matter of months is a fascinating and debilitating fall. While we may ogle and glare from the sidelines, and secretly thank God that it isn't us undergoing this scrutiny, I'm not sure we have the right to throw too many stones either. I guess its a matter of perspective. I don't know now whether he can continue in politics. He may have jeopardised it all. I therefore can only wish him well for the future, as I would any other human being who gets themselves into a predicament of their own making. And most of us do!!
  8. Making it harder and harder to get off the grid. If you want to stay outside of the system just don't try to fly or have your children unregistered. Surely they could only access dna, if the children were born in state institutions. Reality is proving to be closely related to fiction.
  9. We really are different here!!!!
  10. This is just ludicrous. It is true. Mr Bumble from Oliver Twist got it right, "the law is an ass."
  11. Thanks guys. That makes sense.
  12. I couldn't find a copy of the speech Philip Lowe presented yesterday, so I can't perceive the context for his comment, but if he sees a need for a rate rise, I would like to know what is the driver. Is it the housing bubble any longer, or something else more insidious? Is it wage freeze, in which case would a rate rise influence companies to hire or to fire? Is it price inflation on good's or services? Again I ask which way would a rate rise drive these things. I say this, because as the housing bubble comes off the boil, wouldn't the RBA be more likely to want to hold rates where they are, for a slow release? Any manipulation of the levers could set off a domino. In my/our focus on housing, have we actually missed some other section of the economy that is a cause for concern. I'm asking questions, because I don't see from any recent data, any indication that a rate rise is warranted.
  13. Hi zaph, Don't worry. I'm not in any danger of exploding, but I have been watching this unfold for over 30 years in Australia. The "builder" generation lived in corrugated iron huts with often 10 or 12 in the one house. That often built their own homes, and surprisingly many of those homes still stand. (They don't build them like that any more!) That wasn't good enough for the next generation. They wanted larger dwellings and smaller families. Baby boomers went even further. Governments in cahoots with banks and real estate saw a market ripe for picking. With government regulation driving the nature of builds associated with increased costs, they slowly created an industry that destined many not to be able to afford to build or buy a home. We are seeing the end result of decades of policy that ramped up the whole home market "business". We can never go back now. They have burnt all the bridges that once allowed a keen young couple to purchase a small block of land and construct their own home. Now we have a situation where only a select few own far more houses than they can live in, and others will never own. I would love to see some historian trace the history of our current home price bubble. It would be fascinating to see what legislations were introduced at Federal, State and Local government levels that contributed to the increasing prices. Maybe there is a PhD in it for someone. Thanks for caring zaph.
  14. Not going to see any change then! I don't fully know why, but this whole report makes me extremely angry. These people couldn't possibly empathise with people who see no possible way of ever owning their own home, without extreme and massive debt. And I would dearly love to know - How implicit in the rampant rise of home prices since the year 2000 have politicians truly been? They are intimately connected with the information that must be channelled through government agencies. This is insider trading at its finest. Is the Royal Commission into the Financial sector even going to include and consideration of government policies? And why aren't the Real Estate industry included in this Royal Commission. They are "hand in glove" with the banks and mortgage brokers, and even the Superannuation industry. I can't help but feel the whole housing mess has been a sustained conspiracy to keep many people in the lifestyle they have become accustomed. Filthy rich!!!
  15. I think I agree with Mr Med. The zip files are cumbersome to load and then unpack. I guess I will just have to persevere. Thank you Cobran for trying. Regards. Sol.