Given that I wrote a detailed CPI analysis yesterday (Wednesday), I’m going to follow up on my Wednesday post today, which covers a range of topics. Last week I was criticized on social media for merging in last Wednesday’s post – Launch of CoffEEE Financial Resilience Barometer – Version 1.0 (October 18, 2023) – Scientific information (results of research projects) and commentary on the current situation in the Middle East (and music, etc.). I have been accused of trying to drive traffic to a research website by including discussions that are irrelevant to the subject matter (situation). The point is, in my usual Wednesday posts, I just kind of wander around and write about various topics I’ve been thinking about over the last week, but I don’t want to write a full post either. I don’t play clickbait or anything like that. Anyway, today I’m promoting a just-released long interview video I did in September, talking about some framing issues and providing the usual musical snippets to calm us all down.
Video – Seeking full employment without falling into the neoliberal trap
I recorded a rather lengthy interview on September 27, 2023 with Lynn Fries, an American journalist who produces video content at Global Political Economy, or – GPE News Documents – Headquartered in Geneva.
dialogue– Seeking full employment without falling into the neoliberal trap – Contains complete records of access rights and conversations.
The place in Kyoto where Lynn and I Zoomed together wasn’t quite suitable for the task, but we tried our best.
The traversal I’m covering marks some material that will appear in a book project I’m currently working on.
This is an edited YouTube video stream of the conversation.
When public comments undermine the true purpose
I often read articles or hear media broadcasts in which journalists have a valid message to convey to their readers, but frame it in such a way that the message gets lost in the fiction—and the fiction takes the reader offside.
This article in this week’s Melbourne Age (24 October 2023) is one example – Hate all the monster utes on our streets?Your tax dollars help pay for them.
As you can see from the title, there are two messages:
1. There are too many four-wheel drive SUVs on the road to transport kids to school every day.
2. Our taxes “pay for them” to some extent.
The first assertion is correct and something needs to be done about it.
The second proposition is pure fiction.
The first thing I want to say is that this reporter organized a six-month forecasting panel of economists of which I was a member.
I resigned earlier this year because I was tired of reporters asking for my opinion, then ignoring it and prioritizing mainstream views that, in my opinion, were wrong.
It seems like this approach is just a whitewash and promotion of the mainstream fiction that my career perpetuates.
So I don’t like his work at all, the problem is that he has a national platform to express his storylines.
The correct side of the tax story is that current federal tax policy allows people to “write off assets such as vehicles for tax purposes” — so they can buy large SUVs and utility vehicles — and then write off a substantial amount of their tax liability.
Thus, the structure of tax policy that provides incentives to purchase some products rather than others simply means that taxes affect relative prices and bias consumer choice in favor of relatively cheaper goods, other things being equal.
But jump from this correct observation to the next conclusion:
These tax breaks cost us all. For example, a $20,000 threshold would result in taxpayers missing out on nearly $700 million in revenue over the next two years…Taxpayers are now costing the federal government important revenue by providing tax breaks to specific groups of people…
The potential loss of tax revenue from subsidies (concessions) is largely irrelevant.
This is not a “cost” to me or any other taxpayer.
It does not limit what the government can do in terms of spending, except that it increases non-government spending on more expensive cars/trucks, which may reduce idle resource capacity in the economy.
The real problem with these SUV armies roaming the streets is the environmental impact.
1. They use more gasoline.
2. They take up more space – Currently, Standards Australia (which sets standards for the size of normal parking spaces in public places) should increase the “standard size” to fit these giant hunks of metal.
This means that more land will be cleared within the development to accommodate parking needs, given that there are currently fewer cars accommodated in the space allocated.
3. They are heavier, damage roads more quickly, and require more frequent maintenance.
4. Weight is related to another issue – they are death machines in accidents because their center of gravity is higher, and their weight momentum means that when an accident between two small cars does not result in serious consequences, they will be more Frequently crashing small cars and their drivers. Same injuries and deaths.
These are the reasons why tax incentives don’t work and should be abandoned.
Somehow the main problem is less tax revenue for the federal government, this idea only leads us into the abyss of fiction that the federal government is fiscally constrained and is using “our” money (as taxpayers) to fund these It pays for owners of terrible vehicles to help.
Episode 2 will be released tomorrow – October 27, 2023
What can you see – smith family – what’s next as they grapple with the complexities of themselves and money.
At the end of the first episode, we have them arguing about whether taxpayers fund government spending.
Kevin makes a discovery in episode two that puts him in the right perspective on the issue, but also puts him in more conflict with his right-leaning father.
Music – The Rolling Stones
One of the first bands I really liked was the Rolling Stones (and Peter Green’s original Fleetwood Mac).
It’s amazing that after all these years they can still pull it off. It gives hope to all us aging musicians (-:
So they just released a new album – Hackney Diamond – their first original album since 2005.
This is another classic of Mick Jagger and Keith Richards’ songwriting skills.
Mick Jagger and Lady Ga Ga’s protest was a bit over the top, but the song is great.
That’s enough for today!
(c) Copyright 2023 William Mitchell. all rights reserved.