Property investment in a steady state economy - can it work?

Hi Spiderman

I'm wondering what you are referring to here? From my recollection Dr Hamilton is relatively mainstream in his views? At least compared to Peter Singer...?

I agree that Hamilton's values don't confront life itself, unlike Singer's (for whom a human baby is a rather low form of life, and Singer is lauded as a 'bioethicist').

But Hamilton has a streak of ascetic brown-bread puritanism, much like the Victorian improvers of the late 1880s, the temperance ladies of the 1920s, 1950s wowsers or the 2000s health nuts.

Such values (a variant of which is praised on this forum such as thrift and saving before spending on doodads) make a lot of sense.

And non-attention to them (by adopting habits like junk food, consumerist debt, gambling, alchohol and drug addiction) clearly causes poverty and misery.

People without much to start with (eg many aborigines) seem to suffer most.

However in our society turning this into a moral crusade, especially where this promotes a 'my habits are better/higher/more cultural than yours' attitude does promote a backlash.

Hamilton's hobby horse is plasma-TV style consumerism. He basically attacks the things that most people aspire to (McMansion, private schooling, private health, a boat, etc).

I reckon he's probably right but as 'non materialists' are a minority of the electorate (but higher in affluent areas) his views have support in 'educated circles' but are not mainstream.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hi HE,

Apologies for seeming a bit harsh, but this part of your statement...

there really aren't all that many people in genuine fear of their life

.... is quite wrong. There are hundreds of thousands of people displaced every year who are genuinely in fear of their lives. They end up in refugee camps and on boats to all parts of the world, not just here.

We live in such a cocooned world here, where 3000 boat people seem so many......

bye
 
Hamilton's hobby horse is plasma-TV style consumerism. He basically attacks the things that most people aspire to (McMansion, private schooling, private health, a boat, etc).

Agreed. I guess what threw me was equating "non-materialism" with "masochism". I see them as completely separate. The fact that you get enjoyment from a walk on the beach or a spot of gardening instead of a plasma TV doesn't make you a masochist! :)
 
We live in such a cocooned world here, where 3000 boat people seem so many......

bye

3000 seems a lot when the govt spends 80,000 per head in their first year here on detention centres, kickbacks to the Indonesians, teams of immigration lawyers, motel accommodation, personal trainers, and trips to Gold Coast theme parks.

And the government commissioned Access Economics Migrant Fiscal Impact Model 2008 found humanitarian migrants create a net fiscal deficit economically in their first 20 years in Australia.

For us to accept more humanitarian refugees, we need to borrow foreign money to fund their accelerated transition into our developed english speaking welfare state. Then we need to pay interest on that borrowed money from other revenue, because the humanitarian migrants don't pay their own way for at least 20 years.
 
I was just having a conversatomwjere I let it all out about my feelings on how this refugee "debate" has been created /played upon by both abbott and gillard as was done by howard before them, for the sake of political pointscoring and how it dis-heartened me. It really does, hearing people being so mean when they speak of assylum seekers as if they are a threat, completely ignorant of the numbers but adamant in their views. And the silly leadwrs just pandering to it with Gillard saying I don't think it's racist at all for people to be concerned about immigration and refugeess.... what a line, write that by yourself ? that convinced that there's more idiots than thinkers voting obviously.

Instead of being a fkn leader and leading - I used to think things should go /were a certain way every now & then mum/dad would explain to me that it's not & sometimes the answer to it was "because", but usually it was "why do you think ?!" They didn't just go along with what I'd say if it was wrong just so I'd like them, they did their job.

Anyway, after all that, Bill & High Equity you guys have given me hope back
 
Last edited:
Agreed. I guess what threw me was equating "non-materialism" with "masochism". I see them as completely separate. The fact that you get enjoyment from a walk on the beach or a spot of gardening instead of a plasma TV doesn't make you a masochist! :)

Hamilton also doesn't mind a bit of censorship, being at one with Family First etc:

http://www.arnnet.com.au/article/323758/greens_split_isp_filtering/

Net censorship could work in an outer suburban seat full of proper middle-class families (like the better off outer suburbs of the big cities) where there is indeed concern over 'child safety' and 'family values'.

But not in an affluent inner-suburban seat of independently-minded small-L Liberals, uni students, tech-savvys and IT business/geek types) like Higgins.

Hence my analogy between old-style (often Christian) 'set-right do-good' puritans and today's greens (generally athiests but sometimes claim some form of environmental spirituality).
 
Unless Australia completely closes its borders to all trade, there is no possibility of immunity from global currency fluctuations, and the impact of these on Australia's own inflation (or deflation) rate. This is just one of the many thoughts that immediately sprung to mind as I read the OP's post.

I totally agree Jen. I don't believe the majority of the electorate, journalists, or politicians understand how a floating exchange rate effects supply/demand equilibrium, trade, and employment. For all intents, it is impossible for an economy with a floating exchange rate to prosper from trade....which puts the onus for economic growth on growing credit and population. And if credit growth doesn't grow production at an equal rate, then ..... banana republic.
 
how is it fair that we only look after the few boat people that make it to our shores? we turn a blind eye to the drownings at sea and other terrible events these people go thru to just say, ' well if you make it this far i guess you can stay'. what a load of fence sitting rubbish. we either support these people here or we don't. There are millions that want to come in and if we accept that this is our problem and we have an obligation to fix it then we should be clearing thousands of acres of bushalnd, building new cities and using our vast resources to import these people. Relaistically it is probably the fastest way to get the population to 300 million anyway. it will mean a massive drop in living standards and our way of life will be forever changed but at least it will be somewhat on our terms and we may be able to rebuild our standard of liviing from there
 
Hi Ausprop

I guess there is some potential middle ground here - perhaps we could do a little more than we currently do so as to pull our weight with the rest of the world with what is an international problem.

I haven't done sufficient research to come up with a number but I would have thought we could easily accomodate a number greater than 3000 and less than 50,000 in genuine refugees before we could legitimately point out that other nations could do more. Just accepting 3000 refugees per year is an embarrassment in an international context.

Bill is right - genuine refugees today number in the hundreds of thousands per year but that load is spread across a lot of nations so there's no need to exaggerate the impost for us to be a bit more generous to those with no alternative.

WW - I believe numbers of that magnitude are a result of the pacific / timor / offshore solution. Unfortunately our esteemed High Court has neutered onshore processing options, so that is what we are left with. I imagine that cost would be reduced in future if economies of scale can be achieved... or we had a referendum on onshore processing.
 
There are millions that want to come in

Looking again this may be our source of disagreement. "Economic refugees" don't qualify for asylum so there is no threat of millions qualifying to come to Australia.

And yes it sure would be nice if we could establish a mechanism where genuine refugees don't have to arrive by boat...
 
huh? a strong currency = an improvement in living standards

a strong currency under a floating exchange rate mechanism, makes a country less internationally competitive. It boosts imports, and is a drag on exports. This exports jobs offshore and increases unemployment. This has been the Australian and US experience since a floating exchange rate was adopted. It also has adverse effects on capital inflows.

Leigh Harkness explains it well.
 
I haven't done sufficient research to come up with a number but I would have thought we could easily accomodate a number greater than 3000 and less than 50,000 in genuine refugees before we could legitimately point out that other nations could do more. Just accepting 3000 refugees per year is an embarrassment in an international context.

Some stats on our refugee intake appears here:

http://www.immi.gov.au/media/fact-sheets/20planning.htm
 
a strong currency under a floating exchange rate mechanism, makes a country less internationally competitive. It boosts imports, and is a drag on exports. This exports jobs offshore and increases unemployment. This has been the Australian and US experience since a floating exchange rate was adopted. It also has adverse effects on capital inflows.

Also helps explain the rise and rise of China over the recent period. You would have to say that Western democracies have shown themselves to not be up to meeting the demands of the last few decades compared to a well run single party State. Now any tariff retaliation for China's currency controls would send the US into an inflationary spiral for everything they import.

Seems to be playing out like a game of chess for them - with every move a winner. One can only hope there is a big weakness in there somewhere because I really don't like our chances with the Chinese being a dominant global superpower. We would then find out some of the distinct disadvantages associated with a single party State... :(
 
We would then find out some of the distinct disadvantages associated with a single party State... :(

Not so much the advantages of the single party state, but the disadvantages of an electorate that values other things above a long range view to a sustainable economy, and has a penchant for leisure, non manual labor, public holidays, and saying 'she'll be right mate'.
 
In my blisfully ignorant interpretation Winston, that somunds osmehwat how you seem to have described some of Greece's problems ! :confused:
 
In my blisfully ignorant interpretation Winston, that somunds osmehwat how you seem to have described some of Greece's problems ! :confused:

Well we're not Greece, yet...and hopefully I'll be dead by the time Australia is as bad off as Greece....which is why I am caring less and less about the direction Australia goes.

If I am not dead, maybe I'll seek political asylum from the persecution of militant Aussie Greens and Commies, in Norway, and bludge off their welfare system in my final years....and watch from afar as Australia attempts to borrow foreign dollars to transition from third world to developed, 30 million humanitarian refugees from the inevitable global warming, ongoing overpopulation of Africa, and Muslim infighting.
 
Relaistically it is probably the fastest way to get the population to 300 million anyway. it will mean a massive drop in living standards and our way of life will be forever changed but at least it will be somewhat on our terms and we may be able to rebuild our standard of liviing from there


Well, thank goodness you only want 300 million and not 500 million like you've said before.
That's much better, it means a living standard of an Indonesian, rather than an Ethiopian.


See ya's.
 
There are millions that want to come in and if we accept that this is our problem and we have an obligation to fix it then we should be clearing thousands of acres of bushalnd, building new cities and using our vast resources to import these people.


The more you think about it, the more ludicrous it all gets. These third world nations are growing the global population at an extra 80 million a year. If we took the entire global gain for just 4 years we'd get a population of 22 million + 4 times 80 million equals 340 million. Then what? These countries would still be the same population, they'd still all be starving, they'd still be fighting and killing each other due to overpopulation and religion, and we'd have stuffed our own country for nothing.

Great idea there?


See ya's.
 
Back
Top