Open for business this weekend

For the first time in ages a certain website has opened their weekend links to non members. I completely forgot to look here or there until this evening (Saturday). Hope you are having a good weekend, a few links, hurriedly put together below.

Most Austrians are aholes and wusses:

When inflation gets high, apply numberwang!

https://www.zerohedge.com/markets/and-just-inflation-about-disappear

Facebook’s fact checks are officially just opinions:

https://www.zerohedge.com/political/stunning-facebook-court-filing-admits-fact-checks-are-just-matter-opinion

Big fires in WA following scorching weather earlier this week.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-11/margaret-river-fire-prompts-concern-from-tourism-operators/100691812

Poor Julian, but let’s be honest, if he was in Australia he’d have been extradited years ago. There are still more appeals to be had.

https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-11/julian-assange-can-be-extradited-to-the-us-so-what-happens-now-/100692776

I’m sure you’ve done more and better reading than me this week. Put your links below!

4 4 votes
Article Rating
114 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Jam

I’m new here but old to there. 👍👍 On your site

https://youtu.be/C409zx8jfic

stagmal

check this guy out, dr norman fenton, he argues that all cause mortality rates are peaking at exactly the same time vaccine recipient rates are peaking:

https://youtu.be/6umArFc-fdc

Peachy

Good video… but I think that he concludes merely that the data are inadequately detailed and also unreliable (time of reporting, categorisation between faxed/unwaxed), and THIS Problem with the source data is what is likely causing those peaks, rather than the jabs themselves…??

Last edited 1 month ago by Peachy
bjw678

and THIS Problem with the source data is what is likely causing those peaks, rather than the jabs themselves…??

Sounds a lot like the excuses put forth by the smoking lobby about the effects of smoking, and how it was all just statistical noise…

Freddy

Repost. There is a Covid death link to obesity but it is not what many of you have been implying. The virus attacks fat tissue which triggers a more severe inflammatory response.
COVID obesity fears as study finds the coronavirus attacks fatty tissue (smh.com.au)

Coming

what do you imagine that people were proposing here?

Freddy

I don’t imagine. It has been stated that being overweight implied comorbidities like heart disease and diabetes which is not necessarily the case.

Coming

why can’t it be both?

your link doesn’t contain any evidence for causality either

It simply describes a pathologic mechanism, with no inference able to be drawn about the significance of that effect with regard to mortality

Last edited 1 month ago by Coming
Freddy

It can be both. I too have generalised.

Coming

or even only the implied comorbidities may be relevant, with “fat inflammation” having no clinical relevance at all

But I think this is your own strawman anyway

I don’t remember anybody here ever claiming that it was solely the comorbidities that were relevant to outcomes

In fact, purely the mechanical obesity hypoventilation syndrome (from the physical restriction of thoracic expansion created by excess weight and soft tissue) is possibly the main contributor to poorer outcomes in the obese ventilated patient in general

Freddy

No, neither you nor anyone else on here has ever suggested that people were dying from comorbidities rather than the virus.

Chinese Astroturfer

Either way being a slob is a personal choice and I respect that. But just don’t expect any sympathy from me when your lifestyle choices mean you are in an ICU gasping for your last breath because you couldn’t say no to that chico roll.

Chinese Astroturfer

Being a fat slob is bad for your health COVID or no COVID. It’s especially bad now in a pandemic where the virus seems to have been engineered to target big fat slobs.

Being a fat slob means you don’t care about your health otherwise you wouldn’t be a fat mess of a human being to begin with.

Why would I care about the health of slobs when they clearly don’t care about their own health or their life expectancy?

Vaccinazi

Not that simple.
Culture, advertising, perfect fat/sugar ratio, dumber mind, lower socio-economic origin… all factors that can push one towards obesity without much of a choice per-se. Boiling frog et cie.
I am not saying it is an excuse, the balance of external factors is often prevalent towards a slow glide into inadvertent food abuse.
Market, Chicago Boys, Milton Friedman, Kennedy, applies here. (The last has no meaning whatsoever but I used it to make me sound educated, informed and wise, smarter-than-thee, marsupial style 😉 )

Vaccinazi

So EmBee finally capitulated?

Nah, comments there have diluted and drowned in torrents of fecalia.
It is good though to practice self restraint by looking at the comments but not responding.

LSWCHP

Yes. I do that with Sweepers deranged totalitarian nonsense and smug ranting. I’d like to give him a good kicking, but know it would be pointless, so I refrain and feel virtuous.

harry

It was only closed off because that marsupial cunt was spreading shit like a hippo’s tail. It’s back doing it again.

Jam

Yeah that sweeper he/she is a bedwetter for sure.

Chinese Astroturfer

The site is dying. Making people pay a $1 to sign up as a trial member blew up in their face.

It’s one poor decision after another at that site.

bjw678

Making people pay a $1 to sign up as a trial member blew up in their face.

All it would have done was cost them the ever rotating freeloaders who kept signing up with new names, and give a truer picture of how many people actually subscribe, not that i’ve been there for a while.

DJE᳆KA

New names were for ban hammer resistance. I used one same account for 7-8 years and just took ban in the chin each time.

Chuckmuscle

Have been a sub there for years. Won’t be renewing next year. Time to move on me thinks. Like LVOs take on data, particularly immigration and will miss that, but DLS and Becker are crazy re virus (suspect a bit of trump derangement syndrome there). Less and less on market observations and on top of that the comments section is a cesspit (agree, Sweeper is insane).
Do wonder if it is because they starting running money so became a little more conflicted 🤷‍♂️

bjw678

Do wonder if it is because they starting running money so became a little more conflicted 

There economic conclusions were regularly wrong long before that, and the comments became that way when they became more and more intolerant of any suggestion they might be wrong and banned any dissenting voices. Eventually all the dissenting voices left or were banned and you are left with the crazies that align with the site runners.
Add in the covid crazy and that leaves a very small pool of especially crazy people commenting.

DJE᳆KA

Lewdo-Smith became excessively and openly ideological. It is a dangerous ingredient for someone to handle your money, let alone super or both. Once it was clear I will not invest with the fund, the derangement onset was sudden and persistent.

Freddy

I have come up with a theory that education, like most things, is good for you only in moderation. Case in point. Sweeper no doubt would know the intricacies of the monetary system better than most people. However, apparently debt and savings are one and same (printed money is savings!), and the solution to high asset prices caused by too much “savings” is to lower teh rates.

SweeperMEMBER
December 10, 2021 at 8:50 pm
how much saving (debt) is too much saving? So if you want less saving (debt) tax the savers and reduce their interest.

SweeperMEMBER
December 10, 2021 at 9:14 pm
they can’t afford a deposit because the asset price is too high. the asset price is too high because too much saving is bidding down the interest rate.

Ramjet

Wasn’t that the reasoning of the elite ie Bernanke.

Freddy

Can’t remember. It is probably right at an accounting level that all money (including printed money) is one person’s asset and another’s liability, and hence savings and debt are one and the same.

But fuck me. To generalise and come up with such an idiotic solution of perpetually lower rates and higher debt, as the solution to too much debt.

Ramjet

Seems like that is the only solution they have.

Coming

hes partially correct though

the problem isn’t excessive savings (or debt), the problem is the relative distribution

just because debt = savings, doesn’t mean the two are equally distributed

the rich have more savings and less debt, because they have less marginal propensity to spend

The solution to this problem is of course to redistribute wealth which is what none of these fintwit and youtube grifters want to admit
They prefer to just rant about “communism”

Freddy

Rich people keep their savings in assets rather than cash. The only taxing or redistribution that is going on is a transfer of wealth from poorer non-asset-owners to rich asset-owners.

Coming

What a ridiculous statement – even if poor people have 100% of their savings in cash, its irrelevant because that amount is still negligible

M2 is ~$22 trillion – where is the money?
That’s $USD73,000 for every american man woman child – which I can guarantee that >99% don’t have

https://www.valuepenguin.com/banking/average-savings-account-balance

In 2019 the median HOUSEHOLD savings was $5000 and the mean $40,000 which tells you everything you need to know
I can guarantee that the discrepancy would be even worse now

SP500 is holding $7 trillion
https://edition.cnn.com/2021/08/17/investing/cash-companies-balance-sheet/index.html

Rich individuals, families, trusts, private companies etc probably hold more than that amount

Freddy

M2 includes government bonds.

But ok let’s say there are enough rich people who accumulate cash and relative to the peasants they still make up the bulk of all cash. Why tax the fuck out of the peasants via lower interest rates?

Coming

M2 does NOT include government bonds

https://www.stlouisfed.org/financial-crisis/data/m2-monetary-aggregate

The question of who “decides” the rate of interest is a complex one. But it is fairly clear that the federal reserve is not in control

The point is that this is all basic stuff that Marx described over a hundred years ago.
The natural tendency is for money to accumulate in the hands of the few, which in turn collapses the system
Capitalism eats itself

Freddy

There is a good video on YT where Noam Chomsky explains why Capitalism didn’t die after the Great Depression. The short if it is Roosevelt warned all the wealthy people that Marx was right, you will all be lynched… unless you give up some of your money to keep the game going. That was the New Deal.

Last edited 1 month ago by Freddy
Coming

So sweeper is broadly correct

the rate of interest is low ,because the velocity of money is low, because wealth is concentrated in the hands of the rich, who have less relative propensity to spend

it was the inequality that caused the low interest rates in the first place, not vice versa

but I agree that vice versa is probably true, causality goes in both directions self-reinforcing cycle

clearly however the cleanest solution is simply to redistribute the wealth by forced confiscation (a wealth tax of some type) rather than yet more interest rate shenanigans

and I am not really convinced but I am starting to come around to the belief that reserve banks don’t have much control of interest rates anyway

Last edited 1 month ago by Coming
Freddy

I don’t think so. There are assumptions you made that I believe are incorrect. The M2 Mutual Funds definition also includes short-term treasuries of which central banks purchased trillions of to lower short term rates (e.g. TFF in Aus).

Also the savings accounts balances include all the money from aspiring home owners, and simple type retirees who do not know any better other than to deposit at a bank.

I am not convinced at all rich people have their money in cash. And it is silly argument (from Sweeper) to lower teh rates as a fix.

And I will add that you are sounding like a commie with your wealth expropriation :-). Peachy lol’d at my previous suggestions but here goes:
1) Mortgage bonds. You agree to pay off your mortgage over 25 years at a fixed rate. That is it. If rates go up or down nothing changes for your mortgage. No more variable rate mortgages.
2) A high rate or tax concession on savings up to a certain amount (say 20% deposit). Something equivalent to a tax free Inflation Linked Bond.

Last edited 1 month ago by Freddy
Coming

if you believe my definition is incorrect, then provide some evidence/authoritative source. I am always willing to listen

If rich people aren’t holding money , then who is?

Money cannot be destroyed except by paying down loans

Each loan creates a deposit.

If scott farquahrson buys a $100 million house, someone else’s bank account is credit with that deposit

SOMEBODY has to hold the deposits – and it isn’t fucking poor people as evidenced by the links I have provided

Freddy

It was a definition I read but it really doesn’t matter if it is M1/2/3/whatever. The Point is central banks are able to inject liquidity to push up asset prices.

It is also nowhere near 100% funded by deposits. Pre-covid we were well over 40% of mortgage funding coming from offshore bonds.

As for the people who do hold “large” deposits, let me give you a real life example. My friends have been married for a decade with a couple young children, they started off needing $150k for a 20% deposit on a modest house in Sydney. They have now saved around $250k but still around $100k short thanks to the latest leg up in house prices, and zero chance of getting a loan that big now anyway. By Sweeper’s definition my friends have not been taxed enough, their life savings should be bundled in with all the offshore funding, and all the RBA funny money, and classified as too much savings that needs to be taxed further.

Last edited 1 month ago by Freddy
Coming

I don’t read any of that into what sweeper has said

Mortgage “funding” is an artifice anyway – the fed/RBA/APRA/Basel set capital requirements and can make it whatever they want (including 0). That is a separate issue to deposits/loans I don’t believe lending for land or existing shares should even exist – its a pure evil.

But as it currently stands the percentage of deposits that are removed from M2 measures by bank capital raising is miniscule (4.5% of liabilities according to Basel)

The point is that there are TRILLIONS of deposits just sitting in commercial bank accounts
The vast majority of this is in the accounts of public corporations (at least 30%), and ultra-rich individuals(billionaires)/private companies/trusts etc (probably at least 50%)

Your friends $250,000 isn’t going to move the needle and isn’t what sweeper was referring to

Freddy

I accept what you are saying about the cash in the system from billionaires and corporate accounts.

I don’t accept Sweeper ignoring the money being injected by central banks, and then suggesting the house prices are so high as a result of all “savings” in deposit accounts.

Last edited 1 month ago by Freddy
Coming

how do central banks inject money?

I’m not sure that they do

They try to stimulate lending, which injects money (and debt). I’m not sure that they succeed in doing that

The intention is to get private money growth (debt) to grow the economy and increase consumption/spending/employment

Its a dumb concept, since it will result in malinvestment and asset bubbles, which inevitably collapse on themselves

The only alternative (aside from deflationary collapse and depression) is government spending on infrastructure etc, but they are self-constrained by being legislated to sell bonds “to fund it” which is a dumb and pointless process. So we end up with the federal reserve buying the bonds

The answer is, of course, accepting the reality of MMT

Freddy

CBs were buying up trillions in bonds. As you mentioned further up, if someone buys an asset then the seller is receiving $$$.

Deflationary collapse is not fait accomplit, neither is interest rates being pre-determined. Think back to the GFC. There was about $4 trillion in toxic asset. They could have just transferred those toxic assets to the central bank balance sheet, locked up a few fraudulent and negligent bankers, and off we go retaining higher rates and implementing more prudent lending. They instead chose a very different and much more expensive path.

But granted that was ultimately determined by the Obama government rather than the central bank.

Last edited 1 month ago by Freddy
Peachy

Very good post

Coming

CBs were buying bonds FROM COMMERCIAL BANKS

USING RESERVES

Now if you believe most economists descriptions of QE, that does not increase money or deposits.
It increases reserves (which isn’t money), and pushes down the overnight rate

Now, I will accept that some people have claimed that the fed is buying also from the primary dealers. And that this may result in new deposits, but most people (both fed and outsiders) refute that

If you can please provide some links that you have read that might suggest that they do, can you please share them

Peachy

Now if you believe most economists descriptions of QE, that does not increase money or deposits.

It increases reserves (which isn’t money), and pushes down the overnight rate

i remember when we discussed this in the EZFKA context.

we disagreed about whether Exchange Settlement Account balances held by banks at RBA could ever be used as money (or if they were just tokens that could pass between banks and the RBA in their little walled garden).

RBA never responded to the question I sent them. But pfh007 agreed that ES balances could be “cashed out” and leave the walled garden.

fwiw.

Coming

The issue is – who would the banks give the cash to to spend?

The reserves belong to the bank, not their customers.

I can’t imagine a bank buying assets with a suitcase full of notes.

They also wouldn’t just give the cash away to customers without also lowering their deposits, because then they have basically swapped their bonds for nothing

But its an interesting question

This video provides some more meaty legislative detail (US only)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbSvNO4wD9U&t=320s

Peachy

The issue is – who would the banks give the cash to to spend?

The reserves belong to the bank, not their customers.

I can’t imagine a bank buying assets with a suitcase full of notes.

that’s the easy part. One you accept that “reserves” or ES balances are assets just like any other asset (at least in EZFKA), then they are effectively fungible with other assets from a balance sheet perspective. We don’t need to be distracted with whether the assets are in the form of reserves, notes & coins, loans receivable, bullion, derivative positions.

the implications are straightforward – banks exist in order to capture surplus assets over time (ie “profit”). Just like any other company.

if transactions (of whatever form) with the central bank enable the banks to end up with surplus assets in the form of “reserves”, then that’s a profit.

Just the same as if they got surplus assets by lending out $1,000 to a credit card customer and collecting repayments of $1,050.

What do you do with profits? Either invest in some venture to make even more profits or pay to shareholders as dividends and share buybacks.

Coming

they’re not fungible though, except for notes

they can’t leave the reserve system except in the form of bank notes (maybe)

Are the banks then going to take trillions of dollars of notes and start spending them to buy assets for their shareholders?

It might be technically possible, but it isn’t realistic

Peachy

This video provides some more meaty legislative detail (US only)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zbSvNO4wD9U&t=320s

I will try to get through this.

Freddy

What you are saying doesn’t make sense to me but I accept a lot the inner workings are over my head.

Firstly, the CBs were buying all sorts of bonds and in USA especially there was the controversy of them buying junk bonds, and a heap of bonds off BlackRock who were using the money to directly purchase property for themselves. Also the controversy of listed companies taking the piss by issuing more corporate bonds and doing share buy backs with those funds.

edit: just adding that RBA stopped buying because they said they didn’t want own 100% of the bonds. That also kind of implies the constraint of only buying bonds off banks did not actually exist.

Secondly, if the bonds are purchased using RESERVES, then hasn’t that money been removed from a virtual vault and now out there in the system, and replaced by a bond certificate as collateral?

Last edited 1 month ago by Freddy
Coming

I agree there is a deliberately high level of obfuscation and unnecessary complexity

If you listen to jeff snider he believes that this is because all the fed has is smoke and mirrors – they don’t have the legislative authority to do anything meaningful, so they have to make people BELIEVE that they do

Which is why Powell went on 60 minutes and said that the fed prints money

But I don’t know that I believe that story either. As you say – where is the detail of the junk bond purchases? How was it arranged, and through whom?
If the junk bonds were purchased from commercial banks through the reserve system, then it isn’t money printing

Similarly, some people (eg Joseph Wang “Fedguy”) claim that the fed buys bonds from the secondary market via primary dealers which is then frankly money printing (as the primary dealer’s commercial bank would credit them with deposits in exchange for the bond)
But I cannot find anywhere any detail on what % of total QE this was, for instance. Nor any official source confirming this

If you watch the video I posted above it seems that there is no legislation that would allow the fed to do this so it seems impossible

Wrt the RBA not wanting to own all the bonds – maybe commercial banks would buy bonds from the secondary market, and then could sell them to the RBA for reserves. Thereby eventually all bonds would end up in the RBA’s hands?

Wrt to the second question I’m not sure I understand what you mean. The reserves are created by the reserve bank ex nihilo. The bonds are effectively removed from circulation, until their expiration date, at which point I presume they are rolled over for new bonds.
The reserves yes are circulating in the “system” available to use for settlements between banks (or to extinguish in exchange for cash notes I guess)

The point that some of these guys make which I find hard to get my head around is that the fed FORCES the commercial banks to sell their bonds to them. The commercial banks don’t necessarily want to do this, since the bond may pay an interest return which is more than what the banks get on reserves (would be 0 if not for the fed paying IOER). But I don’t really understand what form the interest payments take for either – I’m assuming that the IOER is paid in the form of MORE reserves, since the Fed doesn’t have the ability to credit actual deposit accounts

But as I said, the more I read the less I understand

Freddy

maybe commercial banks would buy bonds from the secondary market, and then could sell them to the RBA for reserves

That would work. Every organised crime syndicate has it’s henchmen.

Wrt to the second question I’m not sure I understand what you mean. The reserves are created by the reserve bank

The RBA creates reserves and buys the bonds. I thought the only limitation in creating reserves was what they could do with those reserves? i.e. they can’t directly monetise it and start handing it out to people. But they can buy bonds with newly created reserves and hold onto those bonds as collateral? The bit in bold is what I read in the texts and see on the news. That is the bit you seem to be questioning though.

If it was true, then if I am rich dude holding $10m in bonds, and they RBA (via the banks maybe) offer me $11m for the bonds. That is $11m in my hands that has come out of thin air?

Coming

Again, I don’t know that the rba can give a “dude” anything

since dudes don’t have ES accounts, and therefore have no way of receiving the newly minted ES balance in exchange for their bonds

the dude could sell his bond to a commercial bank , who in turn could sell it to the rba in exchange for reserves

but again I’m not sure how that benefits the bank since reserves don’t earn much if any interest , and I am fairly certain that interest would be paid in the form of more ES not actual money (since the rba can’t print it) – and those extra ES can’t be distributed to shareholders as profit

again I am not an expert

with regards to your bolded question , I am lost

why would the rba want or need collateral ? Collateral for what ?

Last edited 1 month ago by Coming
Freddy

Collateral wrong terminology. I mean the RBA hold onto an asset.

And I know they can’t buy off me directly. They can’t even buy off the government directly. The commercial banks would get to clip the ticket.

That reminds me. The most reliable source on the internet :-). At 3:09

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PTUY16CkS-k

Gouda

I struggled to reconcile that concept of debt=savings until getting a mortgage.
But now I have 7 figures in debt, fully offset by 7 figures in saving. It’s a break glass in case of emergency fund, but I don’t intend to spend any of that or use “equity mate” because even at low interest rates, it’s still a hefty amount.
So how is the government going to tax my “savings” or twist my arm to encourage me to spend more?

I think the problem is not so much education, but there being a disconnect with real world experience to apply that knowledge effectively.

“Lower teh rates” to increase spending works in theory. But one can’t consume endlessly, and at some point you need a place to store “stuff.” If the asset bubble prices you out, then you’re just going to have to save even more for longer for that deposit which means even less spending.

We also see the same with the immigration debate, with the most vocal idiots who are priced out of ever buying a house cheering on their own demise.

canuckdownunder

I pop in over there once in a blue moon just to gauge the level of lunacy.

I assume the MB fund is based on 100% vaccine hopium because the comments reflect this idiocy. Like how the unvaxxed should be charged with manslaughter for killing the vaxxed. WTF?

Ramjet

Well, yeah. MB Fund is overweight travel stocks. That is why DLS was writing rubbish about how Biden should send us the J&J (aka clot shot).

stagmal

not since october, they sold a lot of those positions.

canuckdownunder

I love how Dictator Dan is now putting Tennis Australia in charge of letting in the unvaxxed players. I guess the sponsors want all the big names there.

Ramjet

Classic outsourcing of the risk. If it is a success, he will claim credit, if it doesn’t he will blame Tennis Australia. The MSM are wetting their pants about Omicron and a European spike in cases and yet here we are wanting to bring in these players. Hey, don’t worry, you will be mandated to have your fourth Pfizer shot by the time of the first serve.

stagmal

having an aus open w/o djovovik or whatever would make it the fischer price tier aus open anyway, there’s no way they can’t have him

stagmal

holy shit i read the mb weekend weeks, skippy is out in force in that thread posting absolute undecipherable bullshit at every possible instance

LSWCHP

I think he’s gone off his meds lately. He’s become quite aggressive and even less coherent than usual, if that’s possible.

harry

Also, it is an unmitigated cunt.

Ramjet

Thanks for sharing the inflation numberwang. Does anyone else agree that the inflation is far from transitory? Here in EZFKA, the elite got rid of manufacturing and now we don’t have enough AdBlue. A shortage of diesel and fertiliser is going to be very inflationary. Given China banned the exports of urea, they have found one thing that will screw us over.

Freddy

I still think it is transitory. Last week I linked to a graph that showed that supply was now higher than pre-covid levels, and implied that demand only higher now due to stimulus payments. That will sort itself out.

They are only panicking in the US because they have realised that many people who resigned are never coming back, which means wages could rise over there causing a wage and CPI rise spiral. That too can be sorted out by opening the immigration floodgates as will happen here.

I am hoping USA actually do get genuine inflation and Australia doesn’t. Force the RBA to choose between collapsing AUD or mortgage defaults.

Ramjet

The RBA has a third option, 300k more people by June. The increase in diesel costs can be offset by lower wages. No collapsing AUD and no collapsing house prices. Innovation the EZFKA way.

Freddy

Suppressing wages would make matters worse. That was my point that if Australia does not get wage inflation like the USA then RBA cannot increase rates. If we get the situation where real rates in USA are significantly higher than here than the AUD is going down and the RBA will have to choose.

Real interest rate (%) – United States, Australia | Data (worldbank.org)

Ramjet

Suppressing wages only makes matters worse for the working class. The elites will ensure Australia does not get wage inflation.

Ramjet

Isn’t AdBlue used to reduce pollution? This EZFKA so we will do the override so the elites get their goods and our kids get the pollution.

Didn’t we have an enterprising family in Perth that wanted to build a fertiliser plant and ANZ bankrupted them?

I thought the issue with fertiliser plants are the volatile compounds. Easier to have them overseas with less stringent regulations. I remember spilling fertiliser in my father’s Ute and it started to eat away at the metal.

emusplatt

yep, used for reducing NOx via the SCR
https://www.dieselforum.org/about-clean-diesel/what-is-scr

stagmal

its my b day today 🙁

Freddy

Happy birthday bud.

LSWCHP

Well I’d buy you a beer if I was in Dubbo. Have a good one!

Gouda

Have a good one!

Ramjet

When their ABC finally works out that renewable energy projects aren’t all that green:
https://www.abc.net.au/news/2021-12-12/queensland-wind-farms-clearing-bushland/100683198

But I guess it makes people like Simon Holmes a Court very wealthy rather than promote things like double glazing, floor to ceiling insulation and other measures that reduce demand.

emusplatt

been talking to blokes servicing these wind turbine panjandrums, and they’re quite scathing wrt the green label placed on these machines.
evidently there’s a lot of waste servicing these turbines.

emusplatt
pnut5678

Excellent rant from Neil Oliver. I think everyone has had a gutful of these cunts. The contempt they have shown to the the ordinary people is staggering.

Ramjet

The contempt was always there, they just made no effort hiding it for Covid.

Gouda

Labor might actually be learning something…

https://www.dailytelegraph.com.au/news/nsw/anthony-albanese-wont-back-governments-mass-immigration-plan/news-story/325ae6cbabc1b2fb06b0dde0fcd1ebea

Anthony Albanese has signalled Labor won’t back the return of mass immigration ahead of next year’s election after the government revealed it wants to take 160,000 new migrants each year.

Treasurer Josh Frydenberg on Saturday revealed the government plans to increase Australia’s permanent migration by an extra 120,000 people than previously predicted over the next two years. The numbers will be unveiled on Thursday in the mid-year budget update.

Mr Frydenberg told The Australian the extra migrants “will support stronger economic activity, providing a welcome boost to our economic recovery”.

But speaking to News Corp, Labor leader Mr Albanese refused to back the government’s move on migration, opening the way for the issue to be a battleground at the upcoming poll.

The government has been under pressure from business groups to bring forward the ­return to large-scale immigration as the economy suffers from a shortage of skilled workers as it roars back to life post-pandemic.

But senior Labor sources said they believed the government was vulnerable on the issue because workforce shortages were causing wages to rise and any move that threatened this would be unpopular.

T

Lol
comment image

Last edited 1 month ago by T
Peachy

fuck me!

bjw678

Gender is clearly the central issue in 1984…

T

All I want for Christmas…
comment image

Peachy

That sweater is too big for her…

T

Bless you for putting up with all our antics mate very appreciated.

Reus's Large MEMBER

FMD, is it too much to ask for one of her from Santa

T

Life goals
comment image

Freddy

Any F1 fans on here? How good was that ending?

Eagle

Holy shit. How good

Well worth waiting up

Reus's Large MEMBER

I missed it, but socials are on fire with differing opinions, over some controversy that I have not looked up yet

Hoody

Yep you did, my bad. I meant to post a different one and didn’t realise I hadn’t until it was to late. Sorry

DJE᳆KA

Not sure if any of listed data are relevant ‘against’ use because none are life threatening.
What is *not* listed is adverse effects in yr5, yr10, deaths that are independently assessed to be/not be wax related etc.

There is a chance many of the websites listing adverse effects are Manchurian candidates

Hoody

So what your trying to say is,

Ring-a-ring-a-covid
A arm full of doses
A booster
A booster
We all fall down

bjw678

 Further, the COVID jabs generate much higher adverse effect rates than any other vaccine, non life threatening and life threatening.

Any other vaccine that has been approved for use.
And this is probably why no mRNA vax’s where approved pre covid for anything else.

Last edited 1 month ago by bjw678
Hoody
Peachy

Very good short essay. Thanks.