Jerry_Atrick

I agree on industrial relations to an extent; The Fair Work Act is a minefield and extends well beyond what would normally be the employer/employee relationship. The CGT reform was needed; and I get a lot of people are going to be affected as a result. But the distortion in the property market was palpable, and now asset classes are all treated equally. Of course, real estate is not a liquid asset, and he probably could have used transitional arrangements. But that would probably have had worse political ramifications. Looking at his performance against the G20 for the period he has been in office and it's a mixed bag; Better on growth; kept peak inflation less than his peers, but inflation is stubborn (probably a facet of an importing heavy nation). Unemployment is significantly lower than his peers: Pre COVID, the LNP did slightly better: But, there were some structural challenges Albo has that they didn't: The LNP governed through ultra-low interest rates the whole time. This is very good for economic growth. And so did most of the rest of the world, which means the money globally was flowing more freely. By the time Albo got in, the interest rates were already rising globally, and the brakes were on. The LNP enjoyed a global environment of low inflation. When Albo took office, the cost of living crisis had already started. The above graph goes until 2019 (so ex COVID). For the whole time the LNP was in, there was a resources boom that contibuted very nicely to the Aussie economy. It is picking up now, but Albo's government didn't quite have that luxury.. and that was a product of mainly Chinese demand and not the Aussie government. There was no geopolitical issues of note during the LNP period, and of course, none off the fuel shocks we are having now. I want to be clear.. I think there is a lot of room for a lot of improvement. But to call him our worst PM since Whitlam is a bit of a stretch.

Should answer your question.. My comparison with SFM is tp show he ain't worse (nor better) than the next one. Am I accepting it? In so much as there isn't anyone too much better to lead at the moment, IMHO. It's not great for me to admit it, but, as you say because of a lack of quality political leaders, is a sad state of affairs and cutting one's nose off to spite their face seems counterproductive given the benefit the change has already had. In terms of picking and choosing promises - I am not sure what you're referring to; all I did was regurgitate stats and I did qualify by saying by itself is not a good comparator. It is meant to be illustrative to Brenden mostly that not only Albo lies. I have to admit, I don't quite understand this comment.. Who was referring to the last government. Didn't Albo take action to stabilise (and return to normal levels) the housing market.. for now and in the future? What have I missed. Yep, he did like - well I believe he did.. And yes, he is paying for it politically at the moment. He timed it so (for him) the correction was swift and more people could afford homes and by the time the next election came around they would be thanking him in the ballot box resulting in a notching up of the price so those affected by the price correction could see the upside. I have to admit, he is not the master of political timing and trying it when there were geopolitical tensions that were likely to spill over and result in a global fuel price shock was not the smartest thing to do, politically. Is that the best you can do. Let me stoop to your level.. if you think the others are better, then your head is firmly wedged in a place where your torso has to form a semi-circle to get your head to. Quite, tightly wedged, too.. And part of my job is to research economies and economic performance. So, here is a graph for you.. It's the 10 year Aussie Federal Government Bond Futures Index: What it is saying is that basically, that 10 year bonds issued by the Federal government are likely to increase in price, meaning a lower yield (interest rate). This is the Standard & Poors index, which is an industry benchmark: https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/indices/fixed-income/sp-asx-australian-10-year-treasury-bond-futures-index/#overview In other words, a lot of highly qualified people who are much better than your and I put together at assessing current and likely future economic performance are putting bets on Australia as they think the current government and the RBA are doing a pretty good job managing the finances and economy. These are futures contracts rather than the bonds themselves and they represent an agreement to deliver a certain number of 10 year Aussie bonds for the stated price at the maturity of the futures contract. These are exchange traded and there is a very liquid market in 10 year Aussie bond futures. The markets are effectively saying, at the moment, we think the cost of borrowing for Australia will come down. That will be predicated by good economic management; otherwise, the riskier the loan, the more interest you will pay. The fixed income market (bonds) is the canary in the coal mine of economic performance- it responds much earlier to economic activity than the stock markets. And the futures market is the early warning system of that canary. At the moment, Australia is looking very good, indeed. Sorry to rain on your parade. Ironically, you may want to bet against the Aussie dollar because as the price rises, the yield drops and investors will look for better returns.. However, the RBA always intervenes to ensure Australia remains competitive in the investor market. What would happen to the curve if any of the others got in? The reality is I don't know. But, as the election gets closer, we should take a look at the curve against who is the favourites and see what it has to show us. Just remember that.. the people who are risking large sums of their money (for many, their livelihoods) are banking on the Australian government and RBA doing a good job managing the economy. Futures are a zero sum game; you bet the wrong way, and you lose it all; they're not like equities where unless the company goes broke, you can extract some value from each share you hold. And, it's not the only thing we could use to measure performance, but it is a good first cut.

All nice fleeting statements, but can you back it up with hard evidence?

This is where you should do a little more research before cherry picking. Every PM or political party has broken some promises. I touched on CGT already.. The reality is, as Albo said, something had to be done... It was getting worse and worse for the average Australian and that is not a good place to be. But, as I said, every political party/PM breaks promises.. some will definitely be intentional and some will be responding to conditions. For the record, I think the CGT promise as a lie and they had every intention of overhauling it. And, yes, while I agree with the outcome, he should have been more upfront about it.. Or maybe less upfront and vague about it. But, for the record, I looked up the number of broken promises between Albo and SFM. I have not validated these, but as a guide: [Edit] This is the result of an ABC/RMIT Fact Check.. In all honestly, there is not too much to draw from these as there is a big number in progress for the current government - some may fail for valid reasons and some may fail for political reasons. But my point is there is 20% of the SFM promises failed. All leaders/political parties lie or break promises. And quite materially by the looks (not calibrating size/importance of the promise). You can prattle on targetting the side you don't like and think the sun shines out of the posterior of the side you do like.. That is your prerogative. But don't be surprised if others take a different point of view and come back at you. I wouldn't worry too much about it.. If it isn't already a defence to defamation, a half witted lawyer could probably successfully persuade the court that a statement claiming fact is so devoid of truth that no average person could believe it to be true. (That is not legal advice by the way... )

I actually did touch CGT, and implied in it was the negative gearing (as it is part of a tax package that was disproportionately creating demand in an asset class against all other asset classes considered for investment). I suggest you read my post. I am prepared to stand behind what I say and provide references accordingly when required (which I am sure other forumites sometimes loathe the extents I will go to). It equalises treatment of one investment asset class.. and guess what. although the fundamentals would still include investment residential property in a portfolio for stability and growth, people (investors) are going knee jerk. And also, unlike other investment classes, residential property is for people to live in and build some security, The way it was being treated through preferential tax treatment was to artifically inflate the price denying millions of Aussies who aren't as cash rich as others a chance of financial security. A lot of young (and increasingly older) can't rely on the bank of mum and dad. To me, it is a positive step forward and it is not socialist. In fact the regime was in effect wealth socialism - artificially funnelling asset (or redistributing) to the more wealthy and already secure in society using tax incentives to inflate demand. You;re against socialism, but in a perverted way, it is redistributing the wealth - which is what socialism is about. It took a lot of balls to do the right thing as the backlash was always going to be huge. That to me, is the definition of leadership and one of the reasons why Albo has earned my respect as a leader. I still think he can do a lot better, but compared to the competition and many of his predecessors of both colours, he is not doing bad.

Why don't you spend time convincing us just how bad he has been for Australians. The inflation you have at the moment is largely globally driven and Australia, which is heavily dependent on imports of fuel thanks to decisions made way back in the Howard era where Japan and China buys gas off us at knock down prices and on-sells for the profits. This denies Australians accessing their own resources at what should be these knock down prices, but also results is massively lost profits locally as a result and also increased input costs as we have to buy our energy at global rates. Sadly, your issue at the moment should be with Chump. The CGT reform - yep can be argued as a bit overboard for some asset classes and it will depend on where you sit in terms of the housing market. If you are a house owner in the cities, yep you are probably spitting a bit as the prices return to a more natural normal rather than the artificially high prices resulting from a disproportionate incentive to invest (and create unnatural demand) in an investment asset class because it was treated more favourable from a tax perspective than other asset classes. However, longer term, the prices will stabilise and those who recently purchased or use leverage to fund investment will be back in the black. But at the same time, it makes housing affordable for people.. who need housing.. Also, as I said unless you owe money on your house wyere you have seen your equity fall a bit, or you are using it as leverage, it will make no real difference as the price relative to other properties will be in synch... Pursuing net 0 is absolutely the right policy for both longer term energy security and a simple fact - it will be over the same amortisation period as fossils, be a lot cheaper. So, for the future of the country, this is vital and people who are wedded for short term pricing are just kicking the can down the road. And that is before the environmental costs kick in. There is only one developed and not too many major emerging markets that aren't pursuing renewables as a, if not the major source of generation. Yes, China is building fossil plants still; its demeand is insatiable, but its is building renewables at a much bigger rate. I am not sure where this sits, but at least a policy promise of the Albo government is to buy Australian. i.e. use public money to channel into Australian rather than foreign interests. As I said, I am not sure where it is. In the fuel crisis, Albos was far quicker than most other nations to reduce tax to reduce the burden on the consumer; many countries (such as the UK) didn't do that at all. If you compare the above to the previous conservative government (and I did a fuller analysis somewhere else), then largely Australia is better off than pursuing the LNP policies, and good luck to you if you think PHON's policies are going to result in an economic nirvana. There are some things that Albo needs to get a grip on.. definitely: Sovereign debit has increased past $1TN. Australia still retains it's AAA+ status with all major agencies, but this is something that needs to be reigned in. The Gas Excise should be applied. Look at Norway and Qatar to understand why. AUKUS is a joke - we could use that same amount to build a locally owned and controlled defence industry pumping out weapons that would really be of use to us. The Fair Work Act, I think is overly onerouos - not so much on the pay and conditions, but all of the other obligations it imposes. There was a case where an award was won under the fair work act because, as I recall, the employer didn't take appropriate steps to protect an employee from domestic abuse... I have to look it up, but it was along those lines. That is, to me anyway, clearly beyond the responsibility of the employer (maybe with some narrow exceptions). AI is coming and it is going to bite faster than people realise. Provision and structural changes are needed to insulate Australia from the worst. I am sure I have missed from both sides of the argument. Labor could do a lot better, but if we had LNP or PHON, they would also need to do a lot better if they implemented what they said they would... and they would have to do a lot more to even catch up to Labor. I am not a "socialist" by any any stretch of the word except one... I do think that people have to work for the economy, but the economy also has to work for the people. And I do believe in a fair reward for risk..Capitalism so far has the most effective allocation of resources. Of course, the fully competitive market can only ever be a theory, and I think you are mixing up true socialism with ensuring fairness in the markets. The disproportionate rewards compared to the risks taken especially at the multinational or large corporate level is currently obscene.

Can you seek compensation from the govmint?

Keep drinking... Unless you have evidence/reference of course. Would take some amount to convince the Murdoch media to change their view on Albo.

Interesting. Search term for Google: "what is anthony albanese's original name" Response:

It is slang these days fort keep believing the conspiracy theories... I didn't immediately discount your claim, but thought it was strange more hadn't been made of it by the right wing MSM in Australia, So I took a look and It took all of 7 seconds to work out that it was a lie and most of where it was being claimed was on social media. With all due respect, objectively, it looks like an example of latching onto a conspiracy theory to confirm one's bias, especially in today's age where it is fairly easy to fact check. So, I don't resile or apologise. And I don't consider it a personal insult. If you want to criticise anyone in public, get the facts, otherwise, expect to be called out for it. BTW, if you read my posts, especially about the federal elections, my opinion of Albo is that he is not the greatest leader; I was very critical of him on many things. Pork barrelling seems to be a new found pursuit as well (note, seems). On the whole, not that it matters much, but he has earned my respect as a reasonable PM for Australia and when you look at the alternatives proffered up by any other party, that team has not done a bad job. They could definitely do a lot better (IMHO - according to my values which no doubt are different to yours). On Farcebook, I have recently ventured beyond Marketplace to its wider ecosystem. The law of multipliers applied to that toxic swamp explains exactly why there is impending social doom globally.

Er, given the allegation is false, I am not sure how you come to that conclusion

Keep drinking the kool aid.. .. he was not born Anthony Ellery no matter how much Facebook says he was. And if he changed it when he was a child, it's a bit early to seek Italian votes.

That should read Norman - you can thank autocorrect for that one

I have to admit, I don't know who you're talking about.. but I haven't been living in Australia for c. 30 years. Care to enlighten me? Are you saying Antony Albanese was born Andrew Elroy? If so, where did you get that from? A quick flick on the intersplodgy say he was born Anthoney Normal Albanese.. And there is no reference whatsoever to any prominent figure called Andrew Elroy.

This may well have been posted before.. But in case