Jerry_Atrick

Yes, as did the UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, and no doubt q few others. Gold reserves were used to back the currency - or more accurately - limit the money supply. I don't know of any country that still uses what was called the gold standard. Up until recent events, some short term swings and a definitive upward trend only started after COVID: I can't easily find a graph from 1997. By comparison, here is the NASDAQ Composite index from 1996: At 2006, the NASDAQ composite is lets say an even 2,000points; Today, it is 22,261, over 10 times its value in 2006. In a straight line,m that is a 1,000 percent increase. Using the chart here: https://onlygold.com/gold-prices/historical-gold-prices/ , in 1996, the price was $369 a troy ounce, today according to the Royal mint, the spot price is $3.652.21, slightly less than 10x the prince in 1996 and the recent increase is because of global risks probably not foreseeable in 1996. But if we look at the NASDAQ curve, it would have given results sooner and then corrected and the rate if increase over time is better. So, yeah.. maybe selling gold was not a good decision, but it depends what they did with the money. If they invested it in NASDAQ following ETFs, they would be slightly ahead. If they invested it in Kodak, they would be quite behind. The reality is they probably invested it in government stuff they normally invest in oir pay for, and how do you measure that? Or maybe they should have invested in bitcoin on its launch in 2009, when it was less than USD $0.01... Google is telling today it is worth USD$85,974.60. That is one hell of a long bubble... Point is, it was not necessarily the wrong decision to dispense with the gold, because we have not provided the net value - there is a cost to keeping gold whether it is your vaults or someone elses. We haven't factored the effect of that on the value of the investment.

The "castle" doctrine does not change this. Even that article effectively admits it. It would be very dangerous if it did

Yes, agree with Nev's post except CBA being the best. Not as bad as ANZ IMHO, but wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

...

Technically, you may be prosecuted but will invoke the criminal defence of self defence. The degree of proportionality is very liberal and based on the danger you perceive. Remember, it is a jury of 12 ordinary people, not a judge, that decides if you went too far. IMHO to label it the "castle doctrine" is a typical US attempt to glorify or sensationalise or dramatise something to rabble rouse. From the article: "Australia does not effectively have a Castle Doctrine but its principles are enshrined in Commonwealth, State and Territory laws." That enshrinement came from Australia codifying the common law of criminal law. In common law, it is the doctrine of self defence. So basically that article is just saying it is not a constitutional right, but what it doesn't say is that the constitution is about the powers of the state, not about substantive components of the law. There is no bill of rights in our constitution.. does that mean the courts don't recognise our human rights?

What.. Are you saying we should sell ourselves out to get some investment we could probably get from... Well, yes,.. because all they want is a return on income, and despite everyone saying they own the world, it is their unit holders - which could be anyone with a pension/superanniuation - that does. I can't recall Blackrock execs lapping up to Chumpy or want to take over the world..

Wow! Sometimes we take them for granted - maybe because we subliminally think they are immortal.. I am not a celebrity person, but he seemed a decent sort of chap.

It depends on what state you're in, to be honest. Generally speaking, in the midwest, yes; in the north east and south west, not so much and the laws of self defence are more like those of England and other more moderate commonwealth founded countries. As an example, although they are scrotes, does someone entering your front yard to nick your fountain while you are upstairs and that person is posing no threat to you deserve to be shot and possibly killed? You may think so, and that is fair enough - we have our values and there is nothing to say my values are superior to yours.. But what if that person had an hionest and reasonable belief that the fountain was nicked from their front yard and all they thought they were doing was, rightly or wrongly, claiming back what was theirs? Yeah, what they were doing was still wrong, but what if it was theirs and you had nicked it? If you are under direct threat, the laws in at least NSW and England (and I presume every state in Australia) determine if the level of self defence was excessive based on what you, not the average person, perceived the threat to be. Once the threat was (or ought to have been) perceived by you as passed, you have very little defence. And the action you take to defend yourself that is allowed is very liberal - it has to be manifestly disproportionate to the threat, and even then it remains a partial defence. This, to me is manifestly reasonable and the US system that allows you to kill anyone entering your land that you perceive may be doing something bad leaves a gaping hole in the law that allows you to kill, say a letter dropper who is chasing a couple of leaflets that escaped thanks to the wind onto your front lawn

I like the cold (I do live int he UK).. and I am troppo (I do live in the UK)...

Nah.. Morning, after the long drive.. cist = cost.. given the news it gained here, I would have thought it was obvious what I woz tarking aboot... This is a typical short term gain, long term pain post. To put it into context, here is the Herald Sun report, hardly a paper that is unbiased and fair, and one that certainly doesn't support Labor: https://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/national/doomsday-predictions-of-climate-change-risk-warns-hundreds-of-australians-could-die-from-heatrelated-ailments/news-story/5dbecbe7914b02f08dcba35a5660b16d Even they couldn't really find anything credible to raise against the report.. Some government bashing.. Now, back to the economy.. if we had of invested incrementally over a longer period if time, you know, when it was first raised to our attention we are skirting with real danger, then the economy wouldn't need to take a big hit to its investment budget. But, no.. lack of vision is now forcing our hand. Needless to say, economically, where we can feed ourselves and keep those 1.5m people alive, of which many will be economically productive may make things better.. Imagine if we had invested a lot and were reaping the cheaper energy while already amortising the cost.. just imagine.. There is no indiustry that doesn't sustain losses before making it big. Just ask Amazon.

I was supposed to go to the US this week for work. I managed to get out of it thanks to the daughter starting university. I have lived in the US by proxy and it can be a great place, but, even 25 years ago now, when the country was more unified, it had deep seated problems caused by inequality and indifference. I will never forget the day I was accosted by deprived black people near Philadelphia railway station - they only wanted help. It was heart-breaking. I have also thought about living there, too. I will be visiting their shortly as a friend has sadly contracted/developed Parkinson's disease. If I had have moved there when first invited, I would have a decent percentage of a company doing very well.. life's missed opportunities, I guess. There are (or were) cities I had thought of moving to in the USA. Pittsburgh has long shed its grimy industrial image and is (or was) generally a clean, safe and family oriented city; Boston and a lot of the North East seems a great spot Bismarck in North Dakota appeals as well. Not much down south to think about..

So, how many people *think* the recently released report on clumsy change I'd a conspiracy theory and still want fossil fuels, even if they were 1/2 the cist of renewables? Do nothing and the cost is much higher.

I thought Spotlight was a haberdashery chain.. I guess there is a show there as well. I know some people here feel aggrieved with the justice system, and it may well be justified (pardon the pun). But a "couple" of things: There are many components to the "justice" system. @red750 - what you are mainly complaining about is the policing - and it is probably without the full pictue. For example, Why is only 15 of the 350 Australian contacts only being followed up. Is it manpower? Have many moved to another country? Have any since died? Have any already been nabbed and brought to justice? A cavlier statement that only 15 of the 350 on the phone are being actively followed up is pretty meaningless without any context? In criminal law, the well established jurisprudence is that a person is innocent until found guilty in a court of law. Your statement he was arreested, charged, and released on a suspended sentence does not make sense. A suspended sentence would imply he has already gone to court and been convicted, and the sentence was suspended. But this was not at least echoed in your text. Assuming it is the report of Spotlight, that would seem very inaccurate. It may be that he has been released on parole.. But, if he has been convicted, he would be added to the NSW Child Protection Register, where a whole lot of protections lick in (I would have to do the research). I think it makes it untenable for the assailant to live in his original area, but would have to double check. If he is on parole, this would have been subject to an application to a magistrate at a local court. If the police or the DPP think the accused is a danger, they will present their case, and the defence will obviously present theirs. The magistrate, if satisfied that defendant is a danger will remand the defendant into custody awaiting tial. The criminal law is designed to make it harder for the prosecution than the defence. This is to ensure there are inbuilt protections from state overreach and infringment on rights. While in this case, it is hard to see where that is justified, while there are still grave miscarriages of justice (wasn't there one recently), as a whole, it is considered more desirable than not. Most of the justice is dispended in the court - not the police. As this is an indictable offence, it woulf have most likely gone to the district court of NSW; If it is serious enough and it was in the public interest/required declaration of law that was ambiguous and important enough, it may have gone straight to the Supreme court. If there was enough publicity that it would risk a fair trial based on likelihood of most potential jurors being tainted by publicity, then it owuld have neen heard by judges - otherwise a jury - 12 ordinary citzens - would hear the case. I would suggest that this case would have got quite some publicity across Australia, given the nature of the media. One of the facets of our legal system is it is adversarial - and the outcome can hinge just as much on the competency and skill/panache of the representatives as the law themselves. So, yes, this can produce some perverse results, but that is what appeals are for. Of course, the law is expensive and not really within the remit of the average person, to be honest. Everyone in the justice/judiciary system make mistakes. But, generally, at least with regards to criminal conduct, it is largely a lot better than it has been. I am not sure if this is the right video as I haven't watched it, but there is a short with Neil Degrasse Tyson where the studies show every year that people feel more insecure, more scared and more worried about being victims of crime, despite crime being a falling trend for decades. This is because the MSM (and SM) go more and more for the outrage to get viewers. Apparently, it is wired in our brain to be more converned about potential threats than nlife being great.

You will need to switch off javascript, but this is a great article of what can be done.. : https://www.theage.com.au/world/north-america/australia-must-reject-the-us-model-of-political-violence-but-there-s-a-bitter-pill-20250914-p5muw8.html

Well, her first night went well.. She has already made quite a few friends. She realises she took way too many trinkets and we will be probably there next Saturday to pick up some surplus stuff. Nope.. She doesn't have a car anymore and I can't see her carrying it all on a train. When they were buying the acctoutments for her room, my partner purchased her some condoms. As I was peeking at her shopping, my daughter proclaimed I may get a little flustered.. Of course I wasn't.. But I offered her two bits of advice: 1. Don't be the town bike (apparently, that is not a saying anymore so I had to explain); and 2) make sure when you look back on your memories, you won't think to yourself yuk! What on earth was I thinking with him (or her)! The move went well; it is a nice room with a great view over the Exe valley, the other students seem nice. The dog is I think a little piney... I do miss her...