Leitho would staRve to death with a fridge full of eggs

Fuck, those blokes at MB are smoking something weird.


What exemplary softcockery.

you can’t make an omelette without breaking a few eggs. Leitho would love affordable housing but will immediately oppose any steps that might make housing affordable.

he’s written a great resume for a future political job.

5 3 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments

its part of their weird fixation with being sensible rational centrists etc, they support absolutely nothing radical in their agenda and are afraid to stick their noses out or deliver a bit of tough love, and a cosnequence stand for absolutely nothing.

remember their old “do nothing” malcolm line? that’s them now. they’re just another voice in the chorus of the do nothing crowd. i call it the no pain aussie attitude, there can be no consequences, no suffering, nothing bad for anybody in australia EXCEPT the people who already have nothing. that’s why NOTHING GETS DONE, NOTHING CHANGES, because nobody wants to accept that in order for good things to start to happen, there’s gotta be some pain in the process.

‘centrist’ softcockery is the enemy of all things good.

Miguel de Sousa

Personally I stave off Leith the egghead since he went full altright


how is he alt right at all bruz


People turning right at intersections are alt-right as far as the woke left are concerned.


When you go too far left you lose perspective and everyone appears to be far right, even those who are still left of centre.

Miguel de Sousa

Captain Skynews, 2GB isn’t right/altright ? OK then…


Leith has also appeared on ABC. Are they alt-right?

Miguel de Sousa

Now? Pretty much, actually.


Years ago. MB appearing on ABC or supporting Progressive issues like SSM doesn’t quite fit your narrative.

Last edited 3 years ago by Freddy
Miguel de Sousa

It doesn’t!!! Just like the altright bullcrap

Miguel de Sousa

It only looks like I’ve swung because the altright proved to be a such a psyop lie fraud that I call it out too


Given how punitive the measures actually are, I bet they get overturned in a year at most.

Although given interest rates are rapidly approaching 0 will it make much difference either way?

Edit: Is this also an admission by NZ that removing the ability to offset against unrelated income didn’t do much of anything?

Last edited 3 years ago by bjw678

Normally I like most of Leith’s articles, he’s balanced and a reasonable centrist and has worked tirelessly to bring many EZFKA issues to the fore, even if he doesn’t yet realise he’s living in EZFKA (that may simply be a measure of his optimism). However I too saw that article and thought WTF?

A tax deduction for borrowed capital is a tax subsidy to both those borrowing the capital and those lending the capital.

Works the same way as a tax deduction for Superannuation is a lifestyle tax deduction for the saver, and an industry shot in the arm for managed funds.

I’ve long advocated that there should be no tax deduction for any interest, sure consumption might fall, as more expensive equity would be needed, but it would solve the problem of radically under-pricing the cost of current consumption and resources against the future economy and environment that everyone is so interested in saving.

Miguel de Sousa

MMT. Taxes are wokist propaganda


MMT is an appeal to selfishness and a response by the elites to ensure that they both satisfy the baying crowd’s demands for more, while guarantying that they will never really have to pay for it.

Marc Faber sums it up best (from 7min)


Last edited 3 years ago by Stewie

but it would solve the problem of radically under-pricing the cost of current consumption and resources against the future economy and environment that everyone is so interested in saving.

People lending each other money is only effecting the allocation of current resources. It is impossible to bring future consumption forward on a population wide scale, you merely move it forward and back between individuals in the population.
We can only mine what we can mine and that won;t change no matter how much is loaned or printed into existence. Workers don;t appear out of thin air, they must be taken from another task.


There are no new workers.
There may be idle workers, but these could be mobilised without creating new money.
New money just changes the allocation of resources, it doesn’t effect future resources by borrowing from the future. Future workers will be there whether loans are made today or not.


More money circulating is accounting and doesn’t change the available work output. Admittedly to achieve the same without the money would require significant change to how our system works.
It’s still not borrowing from the future though.


#125: The Reign Of Keynes, Part II — Lord Robert Skidelsky – The Jolly Swagman Podcast (josephnoelwalker.com)


“the laws of neoclassical economics favour the creation and maintenance of an oligarchy. They’re designed to help the rich get rich and keep them rich, and part of that is to have a reserve army of the unemployed”


Interest rates form the yield curve, which in terms of pricing assets is used to “discount” future expected earnings streams.

This IMHO is where the mispricing of current resource consumption against future consumption occurs – we in the temporal present value things in the future, like clean air, available resources, healthy environment less than those future residents undoubtedly will.

That is the source of my criticisim in terms of miss-pricing brought about by debt, it encourages present consumption over future consumption, to a much higher degree then the use of equity loans. Tax relief for interest vs none for equity only further exacerbates this issue.

If debt was not tax deductible and did not lead to this misallocation, yes misery would arguably be higher in the present and the development of the Global economy would most likely be many orders of magnitude less (so far), but then so to would the negative externalities like excessive population growth, environmental destruction, etc.

Arguably a slower more ordered rate of development may have even given humanity the possibility of developing the wisdom that should have accompanied our technology leaps forward.

I’ll accept that the possibility also exists that the technological advancement would never have come or rivaled todays accomplishments, as perhaps it needed a level of critical mass that only the wanton resource consumption facilitated by debt based consumption could achieve – but really it is all a moot point.

Last edited 3 years ago by Stewie

would you accept that the same workers would do the same work and people would have the same wants, with or without debt. The price is all that would change.
If there was a quarter of the gold that actually exists would we all be poorer, or would gold be worth 4 times as much?


“would you accept that the same workers would do the same work and people would have the same wants, with or without debt.”

I would agree with this statement provided you split ‘wants’ into ‘needs’ and ‘wants’, like the difference between an affordable town house on 3.5 time earnings and a McMansion on 7 times earnings.

“The price is all that would change.”

Yes – but before going further what are we defining “price” as? Price in Gold, Price in Debt?

Price is a social construct – it doesn’t exist except in the minds of humans in terms of exchange. But what are we exchanging?

My view is that we are actually exchanging ‘Work Done’ as in the surplus economic and social capital that exists within a society, generated by prior work, determines the ability of that society to set the price of anything. With no society there is no price. More work done, more productivity more ability to both set a higher price and get more for that price.

So in one way, ‘price’ is a reflection of the ability of individuals within that society to transact AND it is a social construct in that it also depends on things like Trust, and the soundness of money, etc. What makes money sound? Well for one thing a stable society with excessive levels of economic and social capital.

“If there was a quarter of the gold that actually exists would we all be poorer, or would gold be worth 4 times as much?”

Obviously with 1/4 of the gold in the world but the same level of economic activity we would be just as well off, no richer no poorer, but the social construct that bestowed ‘price’ onto gold would obviously result in it purchasing 4 times as much.

However, IMHO it is incorrect to compare gold to debt in respect of price. Gold is social construct that represents a current claim against work performed in the past, while Debt is a social construct of a claim against work to be performed in the future.

While they may both be used to “price” something in the present, in terms of ‘trust’ they represent two different levels of assurance.

Gold represents ‘work done’ it cannot be magicked into existence – it is finite. I mean this from the point of a human, sure more of it can be mined and at some point in the future maybe we can mine it from asteroids, but in terms of the available supply for all intensive purposes it is finite. If we want more of it, we have to ‘work’ for it, direct part of the surplus social and economic capital to mine and refine more of it.

Where as ‘Debt’ represents future work – which can be magicked into existence for virtually no effort. Going back to my point above “What makes money sound? Well for one thing a stable society with excessive levels of economic and social capital.” What does debt do to society? It white ants it – giving people access to it reduces the future surplus available to them, it makes society less stable if instead of spending that debt productively, say on income producing assets, it has instead been spent on pure consumption.

Would it be possible to buy up all the assets in the world with gold? I doubt it – first you would need to do an enormous amount of work in order to transact and obtain it all, this would require you to generate vast amounts of social and economic capital in order to accumulate it, in which case the rest of society would become wealthier and an equilibrium would be reached that imho would prevent you from buying everything up.

Would it be possible to buy up all the assets in the world with debt? IMHO it as already been largely done – the suspension of disbelief around debt as a form of money, and the fundamental lack of trust and value that it represents in the form of future obligations, means that those who’ve been able to issue it had largely done just that over the past 30 to 40 years.

Last edited 3 years ago by Stewie

get rid of all property handouts and exemptions imo, just pull the rug right out from under all these fuckers

ruin their picnic

there was this absolute legend in the abc comment section on fb called amy hertford who was taking on all the boomers a few weeks ago when she said she didnt think mortgage payer should have had their repayments frozen when covid hit last year, it was brutal staring right into the abyss of the economic anti-logic the average punter employs to justify the psycho housing bubble

Last edited 3 years ago by stagmal
Miguel de Sousa

Lol that was about saving the banks not house prices 🤦‍♂️


The handouts and exemptions aren’t actually property specific though. You need to create specific clauses to exclude property from the general rules.
You can negatively gear your shares if you want.


Can’t even claim against rental income. I am suddenly an Ardern fan.

Miguel de Sousa

I’m a peachy fan. We are sooooo past the point where that MP crap matters – claim capital gains, simples.


Too difficult to make any major changes. You need a significant majority like Ardern and risk pissing off voters with dictator-like behaviour.


Narrator: …and this is moment when Leith became Jessica Irvine.


I eagerly await Leith’s diet book, he can call it
“Losing weight is easy when your full of shit”


“I have campaigned hard for affordable housing for a decade”
MB have been campaigning hard for monetary easing/QE for the last couple of years at least.
Said monetary easing/ QE has had precisely the opposite affect in every other country. As it is now doing in ezfka.
They also came out against labour when they ran for election on winding in neg. gearing and franking credits, as well as raising the mininumum wage of potential migrants to 70k or there abouts.
There was a comment once about the possibility of DLS secretely being massively invested in property, tongue in cheek , but sometimes you wonder.
They were also big proponents of crushing the young under covid lock downs.
Now double rooting them with skyrocketing shelter costs.
Watch what they do not what they say.


“Said monetary easing/ QE has had precisely the opposite affect in every other country. As it is now doing in ezfka.”

Unfortunately Australia is a nation fully integrated into debt based economics and the resultant private credit creation economy, so in reality we have little ability to operate a interest rate policy much outside of the band offered by the US.

MB were theoretically correct in the policy solution they offered, loose credit and tight Macroprudential – indeed even the moderate effects of MP were shown to be able to significantly curtail asset price movements.

However they failed to apply the EZFKA lens and consider the reality that if they did enact it the only thing they would have succeeded in doing would be to slow Australian growth and depress Australian asset prices, which would make it even easier for foreigners to purchase on the cheap. Unless there were significant changes to foreign ownership laws in regards to Australian assets, which of course goes against our EZFKA ethos.

There is no single policy option that will give Australian’s what they need in regards to the security for their future and that of their kids. What is required is a whole suite of reform in order to extract ourselves from the carefully constructed web of Globalist laws and financial chains that we find ourselves presently ensnared within.

Basically to transform EZFKA back into the semblence of what Australia once was, and I mean this in a economic and social sense, where our economy and society was our own and not a plaything of the Globohomo elite, requires the complete unwinding of nearly every reform carried out since 1970.

It would require things like abolition of the Administrative Appeals tribunal, so that tribunals can constantly interfere in the execution of enacted administered or executive processes, re-introduce export boards and tax them from Australia to end the process of commodities being sold at bargin prices to affiliated offshore ‘marketers’ mainly domiciled in Singapore, and then resold at regular market prices, strict currency controls, abolition of the RBA ‘independence’, massive restrictions on foreign ownership. The list goes on.

MB weren’t guilt of supporting the wrong policy, they were just guilty of thinking that it would make any difference.

Last edited 3 years ago by Stewie

Leith would just pick something up at Aldi

did everyone read that bizarre fucking article the other day ? Where he was wanking off over Aldi


I thought it was interesting, I obviously replied with a few comments.


Articles are becoming more bizarre by the day. The only articles that gets lots of comments are property related with half the comments by bcnich and his Armageddon predictions. Why anyone would renew their subscription is beyond me.


I think that they’re experimenting and trying to find a new niche.

Given their lack of understanding of the ACTUAL* value they provided, namely a news aggregator and community of like-minded peoples I don’t think they will ever find a permanent niche.

*In my opinion anyway.

Alternately they are just getting lazy as the thing collapses.

Last edited 3 years ago by bjw678

i like the aldi stuff they do from time to time, but imo aldi is massively overrated, i agree with the comments on the thread that talked about how the savings at aldi are mostly smoke and mirrors.