durackpl

!!!

[durackpl @durackpl]

@cptcapt @meladoodle Why do you want my taxes to pay for your electricity and water usage, how is it fair?

[durackpl @durackpl]

@JonnyCapitalist @CarolinaLion2 This is a narrow view. The deficit story does not translate into the devaluation of the USD against other currencies—quite the opposite. What does it tell us? For all the deficit in goods and services, the US exports more in capital, and that is what the exchange rate shows.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@bowtiedstocks @MaxGroucho1 He got you there :)

[durackpl @durackpl]

@DavidLe76335983 @JonnyCapitalist @iamDeepakA 1946–94 is 48 years: postwar boom, 70s stagflation, wage/price controls, the 1976 IMF crisis, “sick man of Europe,” endless strikes and early-80s austerity. Which period growth are you referring to, and why couldn’t we have similar growth over the next 50 years?

[durackpl @durackpl]

@JonnyCapitalist @iamDeepakA @DavidLe76335983 I think US debt followed roughly the same trajectory. I only mentioned the UK because I remembered the figures off the top of my head.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@JonnyCapitalist @iamDeepakA @DavidLe76335983 Alternatively, you can study the trajectory of UK public debt after WWII, when it stood at around 250% of GDP, and how it was subsequently reduced to under 28% by the 1990s.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@ChrisEconomist @ChrisEconomist Are you still convinced that an extra $1 billion invested in a data centre by a super fund is less inflationary than $1 billion given to consumers to spend or repay their loans?

[durackpl @durackpl]

@ChrisEconomist That would be true if the gov burned tax money in a bonfire. That’s not what happens.
Pls, explain why $1b spent by consumers is inflationary, but same $1b collected as a tax and spent by the gov on Snowy Hydro 2.0 contactors who then spend that money in shops, is not?

[durackpl @durackpl]

@Aussie_Dad5 @grok Self-sufficiency does not necessarily mean lower prices. The U.S. is largely energy self-sufficient, but prices at the bowser still follow global market conditions.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@ChrisEconomist 2/2 That investment is targeted, granular and flexible. When super funds “invest”, huge pools of capital tend to chase the latest trend: data centres, AI, or the next hype. I’d bet that letting people spend the $26b is actually less inflationary.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@ChrisEconomist 1/2 It’s far from clear what is “more inflationary”: letting people spend an extra $26b, or having super funds “invest” that $26b. When people spend, they signal what they actually demand. Businesses then invest to meet that demand.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@TheKouk By cutting the excise, the playing field between Big Tobacco and criminals would be levelled, allowing the legal tobacco industry to compete directly with and destroy the illegal market - a task now too big for government or police alone.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@Simon_is_simple @HydroCarbon777 The ABS publishes index series for each expenditure category. Yes, the weights change over time as households consumption patterns change.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@HydroCarbon777 @Simon_is_simple Correct, there are categories that have grown faster than income. That is why the ABS uses a weighted average, according to category share in household expenses. The end result is income has grown faster than the CPI.

P.S. Rents have increased by considerably less than income.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@Simon_is_simple @HydroCarbon777 The original post was about the “impact on workers.” For workers, the last 30 years have been the most prosperous in history. If you want to debate monetary terms, go ahead—I can teach you a thing or two. 😉

[durackpl @durackpl]

@HydroCarbon777 @Simon_is_simple There are at least 50 categories that either did not increase at all or increased by less than 100% since 1995. Clothing, furniture, electronics, communications, wine, coffee, poultry—the list goes on. At the same time, disposable income has increased by well over 100%.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@Simon_is_simple @HydroCarbon777 Does it really matter what you pay with? What matters is that, today, a household income can buy more motor vehicles than it could in 1995. You don't consume banknotes; you consume cars, clothing, food, and other goods and services—at least, most of us do.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@HydroCarbon777 2/2 Price clothing or cars in gold and, excluding the last 4 years’ inflation burst, I’d bet the curve slopes down even more steeply. Why? Because household purchasing power grew steadily for ~30 years. Pricing wages in an appreciating asset obscures that reality.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@HydroCarbon777 1/2 Pricing wages in gold doesn’t tell us much. If you want a bigger “wow” effect and steeper decline, price wages in Picasso paintings. Households don’t buy gold every day—they buy food, clothes, cars, housing and travel.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@ChrisEconomist 2/2 The true scale of the off-budget disaster will only be clear when someone aggregates the retained losses across all these investments, as companies do in their financial statements. I've never seen this done, but if the NBN is any guide, the total would be staggering.

[durackpl @durackpl]

@ChrisEconomist 1/2 The logic behind "if off-budget investments pay for themselves, the graph stays near zero" escapes me. If you've found investments that pay for themselves (and more), you'd naturally invest more.