The Shock (?) McGowan Exit

Shocked? Yes.

Suprised? No. In fact last year I said many things & changed my mind now & then but one thing I did say out loud was as a result of discussion with other conservatives & non conservatives re Mr McGowan. I thought last year that he'd leave politics completely sometime between March & June of 2023.

I thought i had good reasons thinking that but some of the things I thought (and didn't think/know of) were probably bigger in size, weight & number than I thought. Time will tell. 

I figured we were on the cusp of a recession 18 months ago. I went by the Economic Clock & the dire state of the US Economy & knew interest rates were going to rise, money would begin to lose value (inflation), people would be under greater pressure from mortgage stress, energy costs would rise fast as we pushed away from fossil fuel generated electricity & went into renewables that weren't quite a reliable and or cheaper/parity cost replacement. 

If ever there was a time for steady economic pause, wise reeling in of some types of spending & paying down debt it was then. It wasn't to be & we soon got federal Labor & Labor state governments everywhere excpet Tasmania.

With the economic storm clouds gathering & possible the worst we've seen since the Keating Recession era it was clear that, as they say in the classics (not the Shakespeare, Chekov or Tennesee Williams, more like the classic formula action movies)... "Shits about to get real"

McGowan also made all sorts of deals with all sorts of people all along his rise & rise but made some very powerful enemies within his own party which was on full display when a large contigent of Labor Party delegates at the 2019 Labor State Conference walked out on McGowan's speech with yells of "Shame" and "Bullshit"

McGowan had a target painted on his back but his saving grace was his ability both in the Parliament on his feet & outside with his strategic helicopter view that out witted both his political opponents & his opponents within the Labor Party. He won the 2021 State Election in such a compelling & crushing manner that compelling & crushing are words that fall short. He won his own seat WITHOUT preferences by nearly 83% & the closest contender collected less than 13% WITH preferences. Landslide doesn't describe it. He was still a dead man walking from with his own party but he was pretty much untouchable.

It was clear though, he needed to leave politics on his own terms & certainly jump before he heard the bus start because there were many in his party & in his party room that would be some of the hands pushing him.

He's been touting surpluses for ages & the recent budget predicts a $3.3 Billion surplus for 2023/24 but that's a forecasr & it won't have been the only one & its not like a sitting government to use a more favourable forecast amongst the many from Treasury to beef up the media optic.

The Economic Clock has us on the downward lunge & like that for sometime. Remember much of the surplus we have is not prudent economic management of MetroNet would not be MetroDebt, balloning with out of control budget largesse. It may yet turn out to be the biggest infrastructure cost blow out in WA History. 
The surplus also is a result of favourable exchange rates, increases fees & charges, a previously record high Iron Ore price (and therefore high royalties) and the very favourable GST deal.

Whilst Iron Ore is currently sitting on $102 today, its long term average price is $60/tonne. It's fallen $30 a tonne since March. Its highest point in the last 12 months was $146/tonne. 

For comparison, the last years of the previous Lib/Nat Government... 

2015 - 2017 its was always between $73 and $83 with the lowest point diving to $52
Yes neither Labor nor Liberal would have done a credible job.

2019 onwards its always been above $80, most of it over $105 and it peaked at $220.
Yes both Labor & Liberal would have done a credible economic job.

But China's construction era is over. Iron Ore has been falling off since the paek in July 2021, in fact its halved. Plus interest rates are still rising, inflation is still a huge factor, theres huge cost of living pressures, mortgage stress & we could be on the cusp of a world wide recession if not certianly one for Australia.

If ever the Premier was going to jump ship before his Labor party enemies its about now.
How could anyone have access to economic forecasts...you'd have to be, well I dunno a State Treasurer.

Not sure why he's retiring right now. Exhausted? Possibly. However, why would you not take 3 weeks leave, hand treasurer portfolio over to someone else, coast to the next election & become the longest serving Premier in WA's history? More likely as the economy worsens his prospects worsen.
Add in as I type its Tuesday May 30th, the day after his announcement. Friday is his very last day at work, then he's gone from the Premier's office, gone from Parliament altogether. Next sitting of Parliament is June 13th. He's not casting off duties to others & hanging around for that one week of Parliament to give a farewell speech as is customary & get all the glowing & gushing best wishes speeches as is customary.

He's not not just getting out of the sallon, he's getting out of Dodge & the wild territory as fast as he can.
Yes there's a lot of unseen stuff to unpack & we may not see it ever...but it doesn't add up & the state's economic future as one that is soaring doesn't add up nor stack up.

Then comes the By-election. 
Vince Catania won his seat by the smallest margin, Labor nearly won. He resigned & a by-election came but Labor did not run a candidate. When asked the Premier said its not unusual, it happens from time to time. All he did was explain the frequency of that happening, not why it did. For some reason WA Labor decided not to try & have one of the MPs representing that electorate in Cabinet & the Parliament. Leave it to the Libs & the Nats to fight it out and the electors have no (in theory) input directly to the government.

Mr McGowan won his seat by a gigantuan landslide. Thats the only difference. You can bet they'll run a candidate but the logic comparison between Rockingham & North West Central will require an explantion of epic level mental gymnastics 

McGowan was unaligned, the left will want to win it. The Left was not interested in North West Central, not interested in regional WA. 

Odds are 100 will win you 101 that Labor will stand out as hypocrites & run a candidate in the Rockingham by-election and have immense difficulty explaining the weird juxaposition.

Kinda seems clear.

LABOR HAS NO TIME NOR REGARD FOR RURAL & REGIONAL WA.

LABOR IS STUCK IN A PERPETUAL LOOP OF THUG PAYBACK ON THE REGIONS
AND McGOWAN JUMPED BEFORE HE WAS PUSHED AND BEFORE THE ECONOMY TURNS AND HE LOSES THE THIN & LESS THAN SOLID PERCEPTION OF BEING A GREAT FINANCIAL MANAGER. HE'S GOT A CORPORATE LIFE TO GO TO.

Premier McGowan, Minister Papalia & Recent Gun Offences

No I'm not in anyway going to defend any crime, especially any crime involving a legal or illegal firearm whether it was a fool's mistake, a genuine planned threat or resulted in death or injury.  Never.

So this week there were 2 incidents. One was a gun shop was robbed at gun point, the other a young person is alleged to have returned to the school he was expelled from in an unregistered vehicle & discharged a rifle in the car park & the rifles he had were not registered to him. That's the broadbrush description because until these matters go to court we're not going to know what the hell every detail is. Having said that, it is alleged the young person discharged the firearms but not at any person, then put them down & called police. Police arrived, nothign escalated & the shooter was calmly arrested without any struggle. I say calmly but I'll wait & see what is reported, calmly as in no likelihood of struggle or "death by cop", I'll wait & see but scuttle butt says a young lad might have been distressed in the extreme realising what he'd done in order to possible get attention & help. That's guessing & unconfirmed but Col Blanch's media speech was very calm & professional.

In contrast the Premier wrongly compared this to USA school shootings & fanned the flames most likely for theatrical effect & political drama points. He should have been far more professional, showed some statesmanaship. He should have said...

 "We're still gathering details on the entire incident & everything that led up to it. We'll be providing support for all involved should they need it. Children, teachers, their families, WA Police, the alleged shooter & his family. We ask people to remain calm & allow the professional people involved to go about their business & everyone can go about their lives safely & normally. There is now no threat to the public or police & we ask that the public refrain from social media theorising & allow the in place process to take its unfettered course. Soon as we're able to make further comment we will, but for now there is no threat to the public from that incident. In a seperate unrelated incident there was a robbery at a WA Gun shop and that incident is still live so I won't comment on that at all but will return to the WA Police Commissioner to comment on what he can but I remind you this is an operational matter at the WAPolice are only able to comment so far as they pursue that person" 

And yet he didn't. He fanned the flames & said the government's aim was to reduce the number of firearms in the community. Sadly there is no evidential research to say reducing legal firearms in the community reduces gun crime. Sounds bizarre & counter intuitive.

Australia has more guns per capita than Mexico. 
Mexico has more homicides & more gun related homicides than Australia per capita.
Its quite clear, the amount of guns isn't the peak cause of homicides or violent crime.
Mexico has very rigourous processing of applications for a gun licence...although so say it's just slow & ineffective with some applications taking between 3 & 6 months to process.


Gun Ownership
Australia -  14.5  Firearms per 100,000 people   ( #45 in the world)
Mexico    -   12.9 Firearms per 100,000 people   ( # 53 in the world)

Gun Deaths 
Australia - 0.10 deaths per 100,000 people       ( #156 in the world)
Mexico -   15.55 deaths per 100,000 people       ( # 10 in the world)


So in that comparison, its not the number of firearms in the community that is the key driver to gun deaths & gun crime. Now the dismissive answer is "Oh but Mexico is country with greater crime, drugs, drug & people smugglers, cartels..." and I agree. Its not the number of guns that's causing crime, its other factors otherwise we'd have greater crime here...so even the rebuttal proves the point. The number of guns doesn't push the amount of crime, the culture of the society does. 
If Mr Papalia & Mr McGowan's idea had merit then there must be a magical number that stops gun crime. If a person owns what 10 guns they'll be fine, but if they own eleven or more they'll be more likely to grab a firearm they own & kill or rob someone? Or is the magic danger number 2 firearms or 23?

Creating a threat, demonising, then loudly & unrelentlessly pounding the media about that demon & saying WA's only hope & champion is their government who'll fight the threat & save WA is a well worn, well playing trick.
It was Clive Palmer, Outlaw Motorcycle Gangs, COVID, Firearms...oddly didn't go all out on Foot & Mouth Disease like the other threats. Re Palmer & $30 Billion law suit...you go to court THEN you win the case THEN the Judge decides if damages are required THEN the judge decides how much is to be paid. You don't go to court & lodge an invoice for the amount you think you are battling for.
The $30 Billion that would have bankrupted the state was a fictional number...probably by Palmer to get more prestige & attention, possibly an out of court settlement (?) & by McGowan to build a demon that only he could save WA from. The legislation he passed to removed the ability of an Australian citizen taking legal action that the government was likely to lose...it was worked on for months in secret with a law firm & just a couple of people from cabinet & them dropped in the parliament without any notice. The opposition was summoned & informed about it as the Attorney General was on his feet putting the bill to parliament whilst the Premier put the wind up opposing party's leaders to pass it fast or WA suffers. They were out flanked & out foxed and a veyr dubious bill was passed.

That is the hallmark of the current government.

I'll wait to hear more but police en route to the school car park incident had not classified the young person as an "active shooter"
That doesn't mean no threat, but it means at that point, the person is not seeking people to shoot, he isn't holding the guns, he's given up before Police arrive. 
This was not anything like the Premier's horrible political smash n grab effort calling it a south/southern American style event in any way.

He was determined to build the worst demon he possibly could so he can fight the demon he wants, that he knows he can defeat to grab "we're keeping you safe" even though the demon is invented.

Col Blanch's comments were more reserved & precise, the Government's were flame fanning & political motivated.

Appalling. 

 - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Side Note - Late 1950s early 1960s my uncle was a a young lad, a school kid in a small country town & was a member of the local rifle club. Like most kids he had a gun for shooting rabbits etc. In the rifle club he had an ex WW2 Lithgow .303.
He used to go to the rifle club on the weekend to learn & compete. No big deal. 

Difference was, he rode his single speed push bike from home, down the main street with his rife over his back & sometimes he even stopped in the main street to buy sweets. I asked did it freak everyone out. He said no. No one batted an eyelid, it was the same reaction if he was carrying a hockey stick or a cricket bat.

As he suggested, times have changed a lot & oddly there's probably less firearms in the community now, there's been amnesties, buy backs, calibre restrictions, some guns banned altogether, actual requirements to have a gun licence. Its not the number of guns that have changed, something in society has changed & somehow we're not feeling safer unless we're heavily regulated or perhaps over regulated. It might be because that is to make up from parentling that nowadays lacks strong strict boundaries & kids are being taught to be good citizens obedienat to the government instead of being taught how to be good adults in the old days.
Its not really the number of guns in society that is the prime driver of gun crime. It jsut isn't. Its something in society itself. Time to be honest.

Minister Papalia & WAPolice Bureaucrat Changes to WA Firearms Laws

Yes deaths from firearms are topical, serious & unacceptable. No argument there but any changes to firearms laws must be based in verifiable facts & data AND NOT EMOTIONAL SENTIMENT.

I say this because I got into a discussion & it was very one sided, well no, two sided...strongly, definitively 2 immovable sides but one side had a few facts the other didn't. So no, it did not go well. No one was hurt or abused or anything like that, it didn't go well because despite the introduction of facts, no minds were changed.

It started with the Firearms Laws in WA have to be updated, that updates were way overdue. I said "Yup 100% probably should be reviewed every 5 years regardless"
(I should say I didn't point out I was a legal firearms owner, that I put a submission into the Govt before & after the Law Reform Commission report was handed down, 2017 I think?)

Ongoing mental health checks for all firearms owners being brought in was a good idea & what did I think?
I said if it helps bring a positive outcome I'm for any reform.
(I should say I didn't point out that I didn't think the introduction of mental health checks would serve any positive outcome, would add immense cost & would not be able to predict any future criminal behaviour)

Next I got hit up with the idea that limiting the number of firearms to 5 was also a good idea & make the public safer.
I said again, if it helps bring a positive outcome any reform is a good idea.
(I should point out I didn't point out that I didn't think there was a magical number of firearms that was safer for the public and a magical number that automatically increased gun crime or gun deaths. If a person is a fit & proper person with genuine need for 2-5 guns & not committing crime it is no logical or plausible to say the same person with more than 5 firearms would suddenly, automatically be likley to commit a gun crime or cause a more crime. Its just not true) 

Next I got told these changes ought to come in now & the gun fanatics should be shut down & probably should be banned from owning firearms.
OK, now I thought it was time to say something more aligned with facts & less polite fence sitting, this is where things went from real friendly to real prickly.

All I said was, if someone is any sort of fanatic then we should look if they're the type of person who should be able to get a firearm. If they're a known member or supporter of known terrorist group, drug cartel then I don't think they'd be able to get a firearms licence, or shouldn't perhaps background checks aren't thorough enough but if the firearms are all legal, there's a proven genuine need, they're used, maintained & stored safely and securely and the applicant is a fit & proper person...I don't think there's any provable possible problem with owning 5 guns or 50 guns.

Well it went like an internet argument that eventually winds up with some obscure reference to Nazis (Godwin's Law of Nazi Analogies). Adolf Hitler & his followers weren't mentioned but the other person straight away went to "We don't want to be like the US is".
Why? Well because it's apparently the Gun Death Capital of the World.

Now yes, I knew some obscure (to most others) facts. Because I'd heard this argument before & I went and checked what was what just a few days earlier.

This is not word verbatim quote but it's pretty close to what I said off the top of my head.

Lets look at the facts & go to a year that's Pre-Covid so its without any massive non firearm event impact across a society that pushes any numbers in the statistics up or down.
Take 2019.
In 2019 the US Population was 328 million with roughly 40% of Americans being gun owners.
There were more guns than people, as in 120 guns for every 100 people.
Also in 2019 there were 6 million Americans legally carrying guns daily.
There were 33-34,000 gun deaths in the USA that year.

63% were suicides.
15% were justified police deaths

5% were accidental as in accidental discharge with a person killing themself or another.
That leaves 17% of which we don't know very much at all to make enough valid conclusions to make a plan to reduce death.
We don't know how many of those 17% deaths were legal or illegal guns.
We don't know how many were drug & gang related.
We do know that that 17% included "mass shootings" but sadly we also know that any incident gang related where 3 or more people were shot dead are included in "mass shooting" and some states use a different cut off number for "mass" shooting than others. One well known mass shooting in Philadephia that year turned out to be a dispute between 2 people with guns, legal or not we don't know & because people were accidently killed & the death toll was above 3 it went into the same statistical cohort as a school shooting.
So I'm not exactly sure which death cohort can be lessened by America adopting a 5 gun per person limit. We do know that not all but nearly all gand related deaths involving gang members or drug disputes involved people who've gone to jail, people who are ineligible to legally buy a gun (so they use illegal guns) & we know in Chicago...well you can't buy guns there & yet they have a serious gun crime epidemic.
Which changes do you think will lessen gun crime, by how much and how that will work exactly the same in WA?

The reply I got was jaw dropping to me..."What sort of person has access to those sort of statistics, are they even accurate?" 

I just said, yes I think its all accurate, I read up them only a few days ago. On the public record from the Authorities...I didn't make them up.

I didn't say this at the time, wish I had but here's no evidence or research for saying a reduction in gun ownership will drop suicides by whatever number that 63% works out to be. But grab the calculator, that number in 2019 works out to be around 20,000 suicides will be somehow magically lessened if gun ownership is lessened to 5 per person...zero valid reason let alone factual data. No data at all to suggest or prove 5 guns per owner will lessen the 4-5000 justified police killings by gun either.

There is no valid research to say less guns will reduce deaths, are we going to reduce the number of cars on the roads & restrict people's daily alcohol intake & sentence people to imprisonment for  smoking cigarettes?
Makes no sense. 

Then I got, "I can't believe you're even saying this, its astounding you defend guns"

I pointed out I'm not attacking nor defending anyone nor anything, I'm putting forward the facts & I am saying I support any reforms of any laws that make sense & have valid data behind them. Restricting people to a number makes no sense.

Again I didn't say this at the time, but I think it would have made no difference...
People that are involved with ballistic sports usually have one for their competition & not unusual to have a back up firearm in case the usual one breaks/malfunctions during competition. I know people that compete in 4 or more disciplines. Some hunt. Some do feral control, some are hunting for food.
If they have a genuine need, meet the background checks, maintain, use & store the firearms safely AND have a genuine need then there is no number of firearms that will suddenly turn them into a gun suicide or a killer. Its just not even fanciful, its 100% untrue.

Bring the facts & bring everyone along. Don't ram through just because you have a gut feeling or reckon that might help. I pointed out something previously on mental health checks...we're grossly understaffed for mental health professionals in WA but most psychologists take many hours, sometimes as many as 10-15 hours to establish a patient baseline BEFORE they can make a disagnosis. In Western Australia there's 90,000 licenced firearms owners so are we expecting 10 hours of lead up to a diagnosis that cannot predict future behaviour like murder or suicide is helpful?

10 hours x 90,000 is nearly a million clinical hours to cover every licenced shooter in WA. Divide that by a 30 hour working week we're going to need what another 30,000 mental health workers clinically trained to make a diagnosis of a condition but not able to make an accurate prediciton of crime, suicide, assault or murder?
Its just facts we need, not emotional.

That last comment (I won't repeat) was a very prophetic comment because the comment came back with swear words telling me to go somewhere & calling me a below the waste body part.
Very non-adult, very fact free, very emotional

My position remained the same then as it is now. If it helps bring a positive outcome I'm for any reform...but it must be a well thought out plan or change that has facts behind it, lots of rigourous discussion from everyone around it & no knee jerk cold slap idea that's more about creating a demon & killing it with a fact free stick just to get a political hug/vote/donation from others who don't think to ask about the facts & research.

I don't really understand the Hashtag thing but that aside...

 #ReformsDoNotIncludeOverReachOrBurden

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just an aside, a theocracy is when the political leaders, the leaders of the nation are religious leaders. That's what a theocracy actually is. When people say bureaucracy people just think its the Public Service but...No. A Bureaucracy is where a country is run by the bureaucratic leaders and the public service doesn't serve the public, it serves the Bureaucratic leaders. This is the Swamp when people made the clarion call it "Drain the Swamp" This is what's happening in the USA & opposition to the Swamp is growing. We have a bit of swamp going here to because when bureaucrats & the minister construct bills to become legislation WITHOUT public comment period, without stakeholder consultation & generally get industry or stakeholders in to quietly listen to them, then ignore what they've said or asked for & just start explaining what will be...your options are shut up & comply or speak up thanking us as you comply or suffer more consequences you can call payback. No call to rise up. Rather join an advocacy group or get involved supporting them as they support you.

No, Seriously...What is a woman?

"What Is A Woman?" - Matt Walsh first coined the iconic question or at least cemented in the lexicon by producing a must watch film with that question as the title. 

It is actually a very rational question that shines a bright beams of fresh sunlight on the whole premise of why state & federal governments have a "Minister of Women's Interests"

So “anyone who identifies as a woman" means being a woman is chosen social sub culture identity like a goth, hippy, metalhead. It now means the gender wage gap is immaterial. You can chose to be a Yuppy or a Goth or a Man or a Woman & have the corresponding average earning capacity that goes along with that identity choice...maybe you'll do better than the average or a lot worse but in any case, you choose & if one is worse than the other it reflects your choice...so not the problem for anyone else to fix. Logic (although its remarkably absent in Identity Politics) would suggest there will be a Minister for Goth Interests soon & Hippy Interests and so on.

Stressed point - On this the feminists are strangely dead quiet.

Now is this is all about the Identity a person chooses that logically means “Anything” is viable as a chosen identity choice in which case if you identify as a cat, let the authorities know if you don't have an owner & are no a registered & chipped animal. You can be taken to the pound, be assigned a vet for your care until you’re neutered & await pet adoption by whomever wants you & is happy to pay your pet licence. Spoiler alert…a lot are not adopted & get put down but hey…

Humans are top of the animal kingdom so, hang in there til PETA saves the day. Although that’s a political group, they don’t keep or rehome any animals. As a cat you have to be an animal, do not have personhood, citizenship, voting rights, no money or assets...so you're either a licenced pet or you're a feral. Sound ridiculous doesn't it, can't compare it with LGBTQI+... But cat or transman transwoman its all only a self chosen identity. It's all the same under this nonsensical illogical premise. I mean you created this derangement that doesn’t work. Embrace it for all its stupidity If you cannot define a woman as anything other than those that choose to live as the non defined identity callen women, its got no value beyond a socially constructed self identity choice. You don't get extra rights. If you do, Goths do, Surfies do, Metalheads do, Bikers do, Hippies do and they ALL need to be graded along with Men & Women on the gender pay gap scale...no one has any prominence over another. I not many members of Parliament say women are those who live as women. Many. They hate & avoid the "What is a woman? question like acid covered plague nowadays...now they know they strapped a whole bunch of logic grenades to their chest, pulled all the pins & threw the pins at those who question them. They have argued their way into logical quicksand with pockets full of brick pavers & wearing big old cement shoes. Which also runs another big into view to sit on them whilst they sink in the quicksand... Sex & gender no longer exists. It must no longer exist in toilets...currently there has been a push for that & in some places its happening. But the even bigger one, it must no longer can exist in sports. We cannot have any more men, nor women brackets in sport or we have to open it to all self chosen identities. Who will end up with the Olympic Record for Bhuddist Goth Women's Javelin OR is it humans against humans and no sub culture social construct identity isn't used? None in or all in...can't be preferential & biased or oppress some with exclusion. Currently Identity Policis is destroying women's sports Stressed point - On this the feminists are strangely dead quiet. I know of a number of sitting MPs that have this logical dilemma. They are super strong feminists & yet say those who live as a woman are women. Strangely this means death to any sports endeavour most young girls might aspire to. They most likely are going to be competing against anyone who "lives as a woman" even if they were born male & became and lived as relatively strong males for most of their life. If someone was truly a feminist they would not accept that a woman is anyone (born male or female) who lives as a female. They would be living the traditional line. Stressed point - On this the feminists are strangely dead quiet. As are the Members of Parliament who like to remain in a vague cloud & play verbal distraction games. I should remind you, they're on a 3-4 year contract & they have to pretend to be doing you well whether they do anything or not ro get re-elected. Now its possible those feminists have fully embraced "woman" as being a self chosen, social construct identity like goth, hippy, surfie, metal head...and there's no political need to argue any debatable oppression if its a chosen identity. No gender, no females, no feminism, no feminists...that's logically making a lot of sense but I think its more likely to be chosen silence due to the embarassing logic implosion they have stapled to their forehead.

This is what Identity Politics is. It is a gross & debilitating cancer on society.

So with that in mind, you might want to check this video of the Queensland Minister for Women's Interests...  https://twitter.com/i/status/1655893546933837831

Inflation, Debt (Personal & National) & a Possible Recession

Inflation - Ask an economist their opinion on an economic matter, the joke is you'll get several answers to cover several bases. As mocking as that seems, there is some validity to it (IMHO) because there are often variables. More often the multiple answers are more linked to a predicition sought. Whilst the fundamentals are rock solid, players pulling big tricks can throw the findamentals off track for a while but as sure as night n day follow each other, eventually the fundamentals pull everything back onto the old normal set path. At some point the old concpet rules "Everyone has to pay the ferryman". Someone sells, someone pays, someone steals & someone works hard doing the right thing.

Ideology drives some to see things as they clearly are not...in the hope many will be fooled. You can fool people, but not theruling fundamentals. Excess spending, by individuals, companies or governments WILL happen despite good advice or perhaps because it was good advice but you will have to pay it back or lose stuff. Its kinda how it works in capitalism. There's no getting around it. There are definitely moving parts, sometimes lots of them. Some known, some unknown and some unforeseen despite the best laid plans of man & mice. For example, if you invest $100 in a reputable bank for 12 months at a rate of 5% I can tell you easily you're going to returned $100 plus $5.00 interest when the Investment Deposit matures. Known others are though, you're likely to have some bank fees & possibly some tax inplications. If you invest $100 in a listed company NO ONE can tell you with 100% guarantee what the return will be. But if you use the known fundamentals, know a little about the business (who supplies inputs & who buys the produced product or service), what likely exposure or opportunities lay lurking AND you read the company's reported financials & go a lot deeper than just checking the share price and the P/E Ratio who can have a better idea. It's still a risk & compared to the bank, there's a greater return because there's a greater risk. The banks do have a government guarantee if all economic hell breaks loose...to a point. Less risk, less return. Is taking on too much risk bad for you? Yes, that's what too much means. Too much means bad for you. That is the problem with predictions about the economy. It's not like the plain & simple bank prediction. It can have many moving parts & it outside influences, some big, small or devastatingly massive either way with little to no notice. The fundamentals of an economy remain unchanged. There are still broadly only 3 asset classes. Cash, Shares & Property. There is still the economic clock that was first made a thing back in the 1950s. It's not gone away, it still applies and in our lifetimes it probably won't go away if it ever does. Another thing that hasn't gone away is false economic ideology. Socialism has grown as a fad despite it never ever having worked as a fair & viable replacement of a capitalist system, nor able to offer anything even remotely looking like growth let alone sustainable growth. Socialists will tell you, arm chair keyboard ones, that there's is huge protection from inflation under Socialist structures because vile & greedy companies cannot reap excessive profits away from working people. Its false. Its false thoroughly, through & through. In fact to be so passionate about these sort of ideas whilst they have no logical basis in anyway is a testament to those who'll lie about anything staring them right in the face & their crooked hope others will join their delusion. Inflation is largely caused by the diminishing value of money in an economy. As the worth of that money falls, things will become more expensive & people will have trouble making ends meet. That's not caused by inflation, thats basically what inflation is. If a Government embarks on Quantative Easing, that is printing money or borrowing more foreign currency to push into out banks then the value of the money will decrease. The amount of money needed to buy a thing "inflates". When an economy grows, experiences real growth more money will be made available, lower interest rates to stimulate the economy thats been lagging or maintain it further. Great...except sooner or later that extra money in the system will reach a tipping point and its value will fall. Now how do greedy companies with excessive profits cause inflation? Well to twist this lie you need to not quote a rate of return as a percentage, you need to quote revenues, that is cash flow in & nearly always the Socialist extremists (yes they are extremists) will not only lie, they'll cherry pick numbers and it won't be profits, it'll be revenue & nearly always citing millions of dollars revenue (because big numbers can sound scary if played right) and the cloaked lie always uses EBIT or EBITDA.

That's not profit. That's not taxable profits. That's not freed up cash they can use. Its Earnings. Its Earnings BEFORE INTEREST TAX DEPRECIATION & AMORTISATION That's not profits. A company not doing well can have a high number in revenue EBITDA but at the end of the financials, it might have hiuge borrowings, costly supply issues or a falling market $100 in revenue EBITDA might not mean much is any profit at all. Greedy excessive profits. This is a real sticking point. If you use millions its easier to say greedy when you're decieving people. You put the $100 in the bank your return is measured as a percentage. What is the precentage ROI? Why would you not look at the profits as a percentage return on investment when assessing if profits are excessive or fair/reasonable? And what percentage is deemed excesssive? Have you ever heard anyone say "Got to ring my accountant/financial planner/advisor...my profits are excessive" ? Ever heard that? It is complete nonsense. Its a judgement made upon others by people who don't understand what they're not looking at. Does anyone seriously think Twiggy or Gina Rienhart have a huge stadium sized vault at home full to the bring of dollar coins & hundred dollar notes? No. When they, or Elon Musk make money they re-invest it. What happens when their personal or their company's profits get invested? Well the aim is to make more profits not loses, not restrict it to stay below some "excessive profits" level. So that invested money, it go into gold bars or cash deposits in banks? No, it'll build companies, products to raise a profit return. Guess what happens to make that happen? Jobs are create. No slavery. People agree to work for them & are paid. Usually quite well. SO there's lie number 368 proven false & misleading. Excessive profits? 1) Determine by who? 2) What is acceptable as a profit & what percentage is the first plank of excessive? 2% acceptable? 5% or maybe 10% 16% acceptable or excessive? If 7% is an acceptable company profit by the Left Extremists, what happens when interest rates on a deposit account at a bank reaches 10-12% ? Guess what, there's a lost profit. Yes there's ups & downs in a market but some small businesses would be better off putting money in the bank for some length of time & not starting a business, stimulating the economy & employing people. The real underlying code for socialists is all profit they aren't personally getting is wrong. Socialism is the culture & ideology or envy & potentially theft. Recently an Aussie socialist ran the excessive profits line on me. He works for a foreign owned company, bought out be another massive foreign owned company. The amounts of profits they make exceeds those mentioned in the video of the left wing Australian Institute that he used to support his premise. Of course I can only find their earning had gone up 16+% over a year after expanding. Its a multi billion dolalr enterprise over all but those "earnings" are revenue ala EBITDA not profits so we have zero idea if he works for a huge multi national in profit or losing money. Or in profit what ROI % it is. NOR will the social media expert say what is an acceptable profit & what's excessive. Kinda like "What they're doing is making profits they don't need to, they're excessive, that is bad by a huge unknown amount that I don't know if its actually revenue, profits or if the firm is operating & trading whilst insolvent...its the vibe" This is when you'll quickly take them to task & 2 things can happen, well maybe 3 or 4. You'll be blocked/muted or they simply disappear and run the same line with someone else. Or they'll Switch Lanes & point to the great things that Socialism has provided. THIS was a classic self own for one socialist extremist...(I am not even kidding. A concocted comic was their main argument)

When it was pointed out that those things, except car brakes, predated Karl Marx, were not listed in Das Kapital & are by no stretch of any logic or indeed actual verifiable fact ACTUAL SOCIALIST IDEAS the Socialist Extremist hit block. One post, hit block. They know nothing, won't listen to anything different & won't accept anything except full unquetionable acceptance. Yeah. That kinda sounds like socialist dogma.