Leaderboard

Trump doesn't need any ballroom. He hasn't got any Balls. What do you think of his NEW Statue of Himself? Covered in Gold-leaf and cast in bronze. Remember the One Saddam Hussein had? The people cheered when that was toppled. Statues don't mean Stature. Nev

Feel free to point out when a journalist actually has worked for a solar panel or wind turbine manufacturer for 2 years.

The Nickel mining story was aired 6 months ago. Almost all of the nickel is for the stainless steel industry, not EVs. The presenters fossil fuel bias and links have been well established. Channel 7 had to close comments within a couple of days as almost all were highly critical of the claims made. NMC batteries for EVs are now in the minority but even so 98% of all minerals including lithium, cobalt and nickel are recovered in battery recycling so are not wasted and reduce the need for expanded mining. LFP is now the dominant technology for EV batteries but sodium batteries are becoming available and making major inroads in to the battery storage industry. They are also between 30% & 60% cheaper given the abundance of sodium & ease of extraction. Start with evaporating sea water to get NaCl, common salt, separate the 2 elements and you have sodium and chloride.

The Trump photo passports are a special edition to celebrate the 250th anniversary & cost more than a normal one. It is a great way to get extra special attention from immigration officials around the world especially countries Trump has bad mouthed which is all of Europe, UK, China, japan, all of Oceania, most of central & South America & both immediate neighbours. No sane American who travels would want one. BTW the photo of the Aussie flag is probably genuine as the flags were being installed on lamp posts by workers from the Washington municipal authority. Someone discovered it fairly quickly & they were taken down but it is an indictment on the American education system that teaches only American geography, history etc so council workers & obviously some of their superiors wouldn't know the difference. King Charles speech to Congress was eloquent and covered a number of touchy subjects that criticised the US & Trump without naming names & he received a lengthy standing Ovation. Trump had no idea that he was being told to pull his head in & thought it was wonderful.

I suppose we should talk about the latest "attempt" on Trump. This the resolution of this incident is becoming a twisted tale, and we may end up with a piece of material that has more holes than a string vest. I invite you to watch this video which raises doubts about the inital statements issue by the White House. What has been said, and what has been published from other sources, coupled with the way the White House has been shown to handle the truth loosely, raises the level of our scepticism. If you do watch the video, skip the ad which runs from 3:00 to 4:10.

I know noting of economics, so this will no doubt highlight my ignorance, but can someone explain how, when inflation is increased by outside forces, such as the middle east crisis and the increased cost of fuel, that punishing the victims by increasing the interest rates is going to solve the problem? Surely this will only push prices, thus inflation, higher.

I think your point is a reasonable one. This is what AI says, for what it's worth: "It’s true that if inflation is caused by something like higher fuel costs, then demand isn’t the initial cause—so in that sense, raising interest rates doesn’t fix the root issue. But where demand does matter is what happens next. If demand stays strong, businesses can keep passing on those higher costs, workers push for wage increases, and inflation becomes ongoing rather than a one-off spike. That’s what interest rate rises are trying to prevent. They reduce spending enough that businesses find it harder to keep increasing prices, so inflation doesn’t get embedded in the system. So it’s not really about saying ‘demand caused this’, it’s more ‘demand determines whether it keeps going.’”

My understanding is that raising interest rates is supposed to prevent runaway inflation. "Increasing interest rates lowers inflation by making borrowing more expensive and saving more attractive, which reduces consumer and business spending. This decreased demand slows economic growth, cooling the economy, and reducing pressure on businesses to raise prices, ultimately lowering inflation." It does, however, inflict financial stress on people who are struggling. The ordinary person suffers for something they have little control over. In this case, the orange ones Iranian adventure. On the subject of interest. Let me strenuously state that my worldview is not dictated by total self-interest. In my case, I retired early, and I am living off my super. Since the orange one is wrecking the world economy, I have pulled out my super, and it is all now in term deposits. This money has to last me a little while longer. A rise in interest rates for me personally is a bonus. To stress again, I do have empathy for mortgage holders.

I'm not an economist either but I think it's intended to suppress demand. The basic idea is that forcing people to pay more on their home loan leaves less money for other things (yes I know - like food and medical costs) so demand across the economy goes down, supply remains the same, so this is meant to push prices down. That's what I think anyway - happy to be corrected by someone who actually knows.

I agree. You raise a very Pertinent Point. Interest rates are a very blunt instrument.. Nev.

Trump thought it was great but Vance didn’t by all accounts because he was smart enough to understand what Charles was really saying.

Maybe it's a cunning plan to stop despairing intelligent people from fleeing the US.

I suggest our rate of immigration is about right. The reserve Bank wants more unemployment than we Have. We might even want more workers.. Nev

Yeppa, that'd be a very short one. For some reason and they've been playing it for decades but Ausstralia and some of our pollies think Australia is someone special and different to all the others and it deserves it's hand held and special treatment. As if Chump gives too fks.

"The presenters fossil fuel bias and links have been well established." Why do we keep seeing such attacks on sources rather than on the information? In my opinion, many if not most journalists have an anti-fossil fuel and nuclear bias that is obvious to see and affects everything they write. But there is no point in saying so every time a source is quoted.