Discussion in 'Parramatta Eels' started by Gronk, Dec 10, 2018.
Banks are shit. I'm going to walk past one tomorrow and do a pressed ham against the window.
Yep, I would sell some of the assets in my trust fund before relying on banks for a loan.
Trust fund. Is that like a war chest?
This is a good plan. everyone should do this.
In the short term, during negative circumstances, immigration can prevent us from solving economic issues. Well, not prevent, but make it more difficult.
Unfortunately, that's where we're at right now. So, a short term reduction would give us a better opportunity to get our house in order.
Having said that, you'd need the right economic policies to get that job done, as well. I'm not making any inferences about whether our current policies are or aren't right for that task - just saying that we'd need that, as well. Immigration reduction is not a magic bullet. It's one part of the puzzle. If the other pieces don't line up then we're screwed whether we tinker with immigration or not.
I’d be be interested to see the profits and share prices of our big 4 banks during the 91 “recession we had to have” and the 09 GFC and bet you a schooner of new that there was a considerable dip. Indeed I will shout you another if you can show me that there is more to gain from merkins defaulting than general profits during a buoyant economy.
I think it makes perfect sense that the banks would want a recession so they can seize the property of those that default, after all when they on sell that property for less than what it was previously worth, they replace the virtual money they were owed with less virtual money they now have.
And every one knows that one virtual dollar in the hand is worth two in the bush.
Wouldnt they prefer people to borrow more and keep making payments.
They basically double their money over the period of loan. Then make money off insurances etc....
If they have to sell the property the person who buys may take a loan with another bank?
Again though this makes the assumption that immigrants are net job takers, or a net drag on our economy, and I don't see how we can in one sentence say that immigration has been good for the country in the past, as we all agreed, and make an argument for that proposition. that's logically inconsistent, particularly at a time where despite unemployment rising a few points, it's still historically low.
Pointing to the fact we are now in a per capita recession, we know that without the increased economic contribution of population growth, we would now be in an actual recession. Unless somehow we can magically argue that the only contribution to economic activity population growth is now making is to dilute that which would otherwise be there. Good luck to anyone attempting that argument.
This makes no sense at all.
Well if a recession nobody would be borrowing. Wouldn't it be better if people are borrowing so they can make interest off them.
I know sarcasm is the lowest form of wit.
You are assuming that the positive aspects of immigration are all economic. I'd say that the cultural positives far outweigh the economic positives, even though the economic positives are there. For me, at least, that's what I meant when I said they have been positive.
You don't get high (or even medium) level economic contribution from the lower wage earners, which a lot of immigrants are (I would say the majority, but I have no figures to back that up), so they have a negative impact during a per capita recession. During times of increasing or flatlined unemployment, they also either increase welfare payments themselves or take low paying jobs, thus keeping citizens on welfare. That increases the financial burden on the government and reduces their ability to spend money on stimulus while also seeking to maintain a surplus (which is the problem atm with the government).
During good times, when we're rich (and picky), such has been the case over the last two decades up until the last couple of years (even during the GFC), lower wage immigrants fill the jobs we arrogantly don't want to do, so they're great (economically), because they stop wage growth running rampant and blowing inflation to the Moon. Now, however, when things aren't so rosy, the only thing they will contribute is to take those jobs at a low wage and thus keep the wages down. They do this through ballooning the labour pool out and keeping the market in favour of the employer.
It's not an oxymoron to say that immigration is a negative during an economic downturn. It's common sense, especially since a significant portion (if not a majority) of immigration comes in the form of low wage earners. That's good during an economic boom but bad during an economic slump.
Immigration keeps unemployment from dropping (great when you're sub-4.5% and want to keep a lid on inflation, bad when you're above 5.0%) and keeps wages low (great when you want to keep a lid on inflation, bad when inflation is at or below 2.0%).
And historic levels are, to be straight, irrelevant, now. Historically, we've just run budget deficits and that was it. Now, ideally, we want to run surpluses and have something in the bank for when something goes wrong (GFC, for example). So, we want the government to find other ways to stimulate the economy other than their spending - and keeping unemployment under 5.0% is the best way to do that. At the moment, with wage growth low, no ammunition left in the cash rate barrel, inflation under 2.0% and unemployment at >5% and not falling, there's not many levers you can pull before the government is forced to spend money and risk the surplus.
And we don't want to risk that surplus if we don't have to. We want to, if possible, clear our debt and put some money in the bank. There's every chance of something else going wrong with the global economy right now and our best bet is to be as tight as possible to prepare for that.
I too suspect banks would prefer the asset of mortgage debtors rather than owning the real estate.
I suspect banks would find a way to profit regardless because they have the moral fibre of asbestos.
But what do I know, I'm just a sarcastic sheeple...
It's about their risk profile, not their ethics.
Honestly mate, there is just so much here that is just plain wrong it's difficult to know where to begin.
Without going into a ramble as, I'll make a few points
Your assumption that migrants are predominantly low skilled / low paid is incorrect and takes no account of those that come here and create employment ( yes they actually do ).
With the latest unemployment figures whilst employment dropped, so did the participation rate
And we don't need a surplus, historically there's been like about 17 ( can't remember the exact figure ) since federation. Surplus' are for when the government wishes to take money out of the economy, that's hardly what's needed in a downturn.
Certainly not the Irish/British.
Separate names with a comma.