Kayel

joined 2 years ago
[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago (1 children)

Agreed, still off topic. This really was meant to be a global economics piece, not a politics piece.

Obviously I think more needs to be done on housing - end capt. gains discount for property, neg. gearing. But agreed.

What do you is going to happen when the Americans wake up? I think both of us are going to get some replies.

I might delete my comments. This was off topic

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (3 children)

We're off topic.

Yeah, shit was fucked. But the average standard of living went up. As stated, not saying we should elect a dictator, export grain during a famine and refuse to import grain. I wish to return to Australian values, not Soviet ones.

So your argument is we let things get worse, and be thankful of what we have. Cool, chill, you do that buddy.

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (5 children)

Yeah, vibes, that's why the article was published in Nature and you're out here spouting verifiable falsehoods.

I have no interest in arguing off-topic but that's all your interested in; I'll bite. The USSR took a backwards country of starving peasants and turned it into the worlds greatest superpower while defeating the Nazi's and fending off constant interference from the other greatest superpower without foreign capital investment, without colonial exploitation and with constant sanctions.

The leap in living standards was like nothing the world had seen before. And you're arguing the West coming in and buying 99% of their industry for 10% of its worth while stripping them of free healthcare, childcare, housing, and social structures lead to a higher living standard because money number go up. Insane.

My argument is not for Communism. It's for the return to Australian values, the socialist ones of the post war era. An era which the baby boomers grew up in and then preceded to gut for their profit.

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (7 children)

You're off topic.

This conversation is in regard to trade disparity.

Yes, this is a Marxist analysis. But in this thread the argument regards how trade relations are changing.

Australia exports lots

Australia does not manufacture a lot of the goods we consume. We export and import, and if we get a less good deal on both exports and imports, that will affect our standard of living.

I am arguing, in the medium term, we will not get as good of a deal as we have been historically. As such, the cost of living crisis will get worse if we do not alter policies to protect the people.

Edit:

Something to keep in mind with looking at export / import data, is we measure it in money terms, not use-value.

Say India - our 5th largest trade partner - sends us 20 billion in machine parts and clothes. They made them with cheap labour, the actual value to Australia is far higher than that 20 bill. We're getting a good deal. Now say India is trading with south America and Africa - higher demand, higher prices. We still buy from India because we need the goods and the use-value is still higher than the cost. But now we no longer have a trade surplus.

We're discussing if the deal we're getting will get worse for us and better for the Global South.

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago

Is the change in unequal exchange more impactful than Capital accumulation, etc. - I'd like to know. Either way, cost of living is not improving.

I am interested in critical response on whether the increase in productivity will balance out the equalisation of exchange.

But my, unsubstantiated, view is equalisation of trade will increase cost of living even with productivity considered.

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago

Trade with China is essential to Australia, don't get me wrong, the profit of the trade has, and will, change.

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago* (last edited 8 months ago) (10 children)

I am referring to unequal trade, - us getting more in return from the Global South (Asia, south america, Africa, etc.) for what we're giving them.

https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-025-59881-1

https://globalinequality.org/unequal-exchange/

This is true for our trade with China, but I am specifically speaking generally.

"China’s exchange ratio with the Global North has improved over time. During the 1990s, the exchange ratio was on average 34 to 1. In other words, for every unit of embodied labour, materials, land and energy that China imported from the Global North, they had to export 34 units to pay for it. As of 2015, the ratio had declined to 4 to 1." https://progressive.international/wire/2025-04-18-china-unequal-exchange-and-the-present-world-historic-juncture/en

https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S095937802200005X

Does that answer your question?

 

Australia and the West have experienced, hand over fist, improvements in GDP and living standards since we moved our manufacturing and resource extraction overseas*.

Even as the working class got sold out**, living standards improved across the board. The rich got richer and so did the middle class - with most Australians joining the middle class, during and, since the post-war era.

We were getting a good deal on our imports, taking more from poorer countries (Global South) than we gave in return, but that has been coming to an end.

The Global North (the First World) has monopolised trade with the Global South, by Capital and demand but also coercion and regime change, which ensured a good deal. But with the rise of the BRIX and China's Belt and Road initiative, the Global South has more opportunity for equal exchange of goods and services.

While the IMF used third world debt to influence policy change, allowing Western Capital to buy up and exploit industry, Chinese banks are forgiving debts and negotiating mutually beneficial agreements (to the benefit of China).

While Western Capital built limited infrastructure to extract a specific resource, China is investing in not just general infrastructure but education and the creation of a local workforce.

The Global South are trading with each other. They have more options, trade is more competitive - we get less of a deal.

Where previously Australia could afford to give Corporations absurd profits and still have money for the people, this will be less and less possible. Australia needs to re-embrace the policies of the post-war era, which ensured a dignified life, and roll back the last 50 years of neoliberal policy built for an age which no longer exists.

* Not just in the neoliberal era, but all the way back to the start of colonial expansion.

** With manufacturing moving overseas and the denationalisation by various Liberal -and some Labor- governments.

*** consent manufacturing became harder to enforce

[1] https://www.nature.com/articles/s41467-024-49687-y

[2] https://ourworldindata.org/trade-and-globalization

[3] https://www.bu.edu/gdp/2021/03/08/bailouts-from-beijing-how-china-functions-as-an-alternative-to-the-imf/

[4] https://www.worldscientific.com/doi/10.1142/S2377740023500173

CC SA NC

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago

No. These policies don't.

Which policy and why?

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago

The deputy commissioner did not issue a compliance notice because of the remedial steps taken by the UoM during the investigation, including developing a new surveillance policy and amending its terms of use and associated policies.

No consequences for their wrongdoing. They can just retroactively state they track you now.

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago (2 children)

Do not tax income

  • Tax wealth
  • Take royalties for mining
  • Remove the capital gains discount

An income tax is an attack on workers

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago

Do not tax income

  • Tax wealth
  • Take royalties for mining
  • Remove the capital gains discount

An income tax is an attack on workers

[–] Kayel@aussie.zone 0 points 8 months ago

The article is very clear on the timeline.

Funnelled is correct, these contracts are not easy to get access to.

I would also be interested in a further breakdown of contracts and time frames. I suggest Defence release this information.

As stated further down, the genocide has been going on for many decades. Australia is complicit.

 

The Australian Government has funnelled $2.5B of public funding to Israeli arms manufacturers via government contracts. Steph Tran investigates.

 

I haven't seen much reporting on this.

No one is surprised Labor have the Assembly, but that's all the media seem to be reporting on.

https://www.elections.wa.gov.au/elections/state/sgelection#/sg2025

 

It's honestly a bit boring, eat your veggies, eat well, exercise, socialise, don't poison yourself

view more: next ›