Anthony Albanese - How long? -3-

[Pakenhamsaint]

Farmers get paid less for their product and I don't know what happens to the viability of beef farming.

If it is a small correction, then it probably works how you describe, but it wouldn't want to be much bigger than small.

I'd imagine many will just pivot trade to East Asian markets

 

[Saint]

Beef prices are at historic highs. They're 50% more than they were in July last year and double 2019 prices.

Our beef producers are gonna be fine. But it doesn't mean they have to drop prices, the price is the price.

It does mean that if US beef was going to compete, it would be already.

 

[nut]

Farmers get paid less for their product and I don't know what happens to the viability of beef farming.

If it is a small correction, then it probably works how you describe, but it wouldn't want to be much bigger than small.

10% on imports…
Ok I’ll pluck some numbers out of my behind. Let’s say $5 a kilo at the port… so an extra 50c per kilo. If the retail price was $15 … it would rise to $15.50. So less than 4% increase in the shop.

 

[Sphynx]

Government spending isn’t inherently bad — what matters is what it’s spent on. If it funds long-term, tangible improvements like infrastructure, health, or education, it’s an investment, not a burden.

Government debt isn’t like household debt. Governments issue their own currency, borrow at low interest, and don’t need to ‘pay it back’ the way individuals do. The key question isn’t ‘How big is the debt?’ but ‘What did we get for it?’

What I want to know is: what do people think they get out of less government spending? Are they under the impression that cutting public expenditure automatically shrinks their tax bills, or that by slashing social programs, the state somehow hands more cash or opportunities directly to them?

Because we all know there’s such a thing as ‘good debt’—debt that funds long-term investments like infrastructure, education, and healthcare—and ‘bad debt’ that just lines private pockets. But the simplistic notion less spending equals personal gain ignores that government spending, when done right, is precisely what supports those public goods we rely on every day.

What’s the personal benefit they imagine? More disposable income? Better job opportunities? Or do they simply equate lower deficits with a healthier economy that, by magic, trickles down to each one of us? I’m curious—what do folks really think occurs on a personal level when government spending is cut?

There's plenty of issues with your posts tbh.

First. You are right in simplistic terms. Government spending is not bad. It's actually a proportional requirement component of aggregate demand. But the composition and efficiency of that spending matters significantly.

It's important governments spend money. However when it does, it needs to make sure it doesn't effect things like consumption (i.e cost of living), investment (i.e foreign invesment, coporate tax revenues, unemployment etc), net exports (again AUD position, sovereign industry developments etc) etc.

Spending isn’t just about “tangible improvements”. It needs to enhance productivity. The only sustainable debt is that which stimulates GDP growth above the rate of debt accumulation. That's why debt-to-GDP ratios matter. If you're not growing GDP proportionately, then the debt burden becomes inflationary, pushes up interest rates, and raises cost of living pressures.

The idea that all government debt is fine because it’s “not like household debt” is only part true. Yes, sovereign governments can issue debt in their own currency, but Australia is not the United States. The Australian Treasury cannot borrow directly from the RBA. Instead, it issues debt to the private market. Banks, super funds, institutional investors. The RBA can intervene through quantitative easing (buying bonds in the secondary market), which may affect bond yields, but those bonds are still liabilities that mature and require repayment or refinancing. That’s real money, not magic beans on an excel spreadsheet.

You’re also oversimplifying with statements like “low interest.” That’s contingent on market sentiment, yield curves, and monetary policy. Bond yields aren’t fixed, they are dynamic, and Australia has to maintain a responsible monetary governance or risk rating downgrades. This directly affects borrowing costs and inflation.


Bad debt isn't simply item's that "line pockets" particularly if it's on the corporate side and promoting innovation. Corporate tax incentives, industry subsidies, and targeted R&D funding may look like corporate welfare, but these are often multiplier investments. For example, funding renewables could expands investment, drives innovation, and feeds back into productivity, exports, and tax revenue and benefits consumption (eased COL).

On infrastructure. Yes - Roads, rail, tunnels, can be economically useful. If they deliver productivity benefits that exceed their costs. But in Australia's case, we face cost blowouts due to structural inefficiencies. Inflated union labor costs, procurement bottlenecks, low economies of scale, and weak bargaining power. Dollar for dollar, we get nowhere near the same GDP return on public infrastructure as other advanced economies.

Education, on the other hand, historically delivers higher ROI and is a guaranteed slam dunk for productivity. But we’re approaching diminishing marginal returns. Australia already has high tertiary participation and literacy rates. The next frontier is likely in targeted skilling, teaching population-wide tech literacy, digital efficiency, and applied innovation. Blanket spending on education doesn’t move the needle as much as it once did.


TLDR - Economics is not simple. Far from it. There's so many pitfalls at the moment, we are a unique example given our geographical location and economic make up. It's why I laugh at "you had one job" posts about the RBA. It's not easy balancing all of the above. Everything is so easy in isolation if you are talking about government debt without factoring the other components of AD. Just like COL is easily eased by XYZ without factoring the other items.

It's why people need to broaden their mind to all options, rather than just those on party lines i.e ALP = good, LNP = bad, no matter what.

Australia's single biggest problem at the moment, is that everything is political. Everything. Nothing is judged on policy or merit. We will never have reform because of it. If you listen to our leading economists, they all sound like they are broken and in mourning. They know that things are very unlikely to change because of it and we won't get the meaningful chang required from either party. There's too much self interest and everything is about maintaining political power.

The threads on this board are the perfect example of that. Zero balance discussion. Absolute sheep to their political parties or positions made solely on personal opinions of politicians.

 

[SaintsSeptember]

Farmers get paid less for their product and I don't know what happens to the viability of beef farming.

If it is a small correction, then it probably works how you describe, but it wouldn't want to be much bigger than small.

Yeah its the old supply/demand thing.
Short term supply could outstrip demand.
Long term supply could go down.
People are doubting its long term though.

 

[QuietB]

Can we expect to hear the National Party taking a strong stand against Trump on behalf of their constituents?

Do the Americans buy coal from us?

 

[Sttew]

10% on imports…
Ok I’ll pluck some numbers out of my behind. Let’s say $5 a kilo at the port… so an extra 50c per kilo. If the retail price was $15 … it would rise to $15.50. So less than 4% increase in the shop.

And if we proactively promote our beef as the finest in the world, which it is considered by many, the impact on sales may be negligible.

 

[QuietB]

And if we proactively promote our beef as the finest in the world, which it is considered by many, the impact on sales may be negligible.

China will buy it. As long as we don't go out of our way to piss them off on behalf of America again.

 

[Carn The Berries]

This is his plan though.

Even if there is only a % pivot to local product.

Cost of goods increase, importers/corporations pay their tariffs, consumption tax of goods at the consumer level increase, corporate tax potential increase also etc.


Consumer cops most of the brunt of it, there will be a uplift in local industry and then a marginal increase in tax revenue.


The US has a lot more room to move regarding disposal income and cost of living than we do at the moment.


I think Trump has simply said, im going to try and ramp up revenue, local production, net exports etc at the expense of COL, as they have more flexibility with that than other countries.

The average low income rural Republican American doesn't understand what he's doing though. They might see it as a necessary evil if every day items go up, but their buisnesses boom though.

Yep, coming from the bloke who was ranting and raving in a supermarket about the cost of eggs.

If he's trying to sell that CoL isn't an issue, he's a massive hypocrite.

 

[peetoo]

Right wingers everywhere would be absolutely scathing if the democrats did this

We all know that

 

[Achy Blakey Heart]

Right wingers everywhere would be absolutely scathing if the democrats did this

We all know that

Bro...as if the Democrats could ever organize themselves to do something like this....

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think Trump has simply said, im going to try and ramp up revenue, local production, net exports etc at the expense of COL, as they have more flexibility with that than other countries.

But it's the motive behind it.

What he's really saying is 'the world has bent us over economically and we've carried the can for 80 years, not any more! We'll show them bastards'

Which is akin to this

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will know the main effect will be on the US citizens, not really a lot on anyone else. It's like cutting one's nose to spite one's face.

Go ahead chump, be tanty infantile phuqwit, no one gives a flying.

 

[Sphynx]

But it's the motive behind it.

What he's really saying is 'the world has bent us over economically and we've carried the can for 80 years, not any more! We'll show them bastards'

Which is akin to this

Anyone with a modicum of intelligence will know the main effect will be on the US citizens, not really a lot on anyone else. It's like cutting one's nose to spite one's face.

Go ahead chump, be tanty infantile phuqwit, no one gives a flying.

I think that’s what his messaging is….

Deep down the US trade deficit is killing growth in their economy.

The only way to counteract that is to increase consumption (so wages and or reduce cost of living, which is already low), investment (who’s investing in US industry vs emerging markets?) etc or increase government spending. Obviously he’s banking on the net export deficit to be slashed.


I think he’s banking on local investment to increase to counteract any reduction in foreign investment.

He’s going to spend more, with the money flowing in from the tariffs. You would think this will be allocated to multiplier initiatives like manufacturing, tech, education and maybe even large local public works.

The million dollar question is, will this crush the US population so much that it drops spending? Or do they legitimately turn to local options? It all hinges on the American people continue to spend and not go into their shells, or turn American.

It’s a big gamble with the American people.

He sort of ‘wins’ either way from an American perspective (sound familiar for Trump?) Either American importers and thus its people underwrite the spending spree he’s about to go on with their savings, disposable income etc and he’s applied a second GST/VAT without campaigning on that to the Republican base.

Or the American people turn local and there’s a massive slashing of the net export issue, he gets bumping tax revenues, local investment etc Hero of American industry type stuff.


The real loser is the rest of the world as they net import $1.2 trillion per year.

His biggest risk is counter tarriffs. Thats why they keep threatening countries against it (how’s the cheek?)

Theres no point slashing the trade deficit if it is just cancelled out by a massive reduction of exports. From Australias perspective, it effects a minor % of exports, if the ENTIRE world put counter tariffs on the US it obviously effects every single item they export.

 

[peetoo]

Trumps gamble is that he thinks he could defecate directly into a MAGA voters mouth and still get their vote.

He may actually be right, the voter needs more protein

 

[Saint]

I think that’s what his messaging is….

Deep down the US trade deficit is killing growth in their economy.

The only way to counteract that is to increase consumption (so wages and or reduce cost of living, which is already low), investment (who’s investing in US industry vs emerging markets?) etc or increase government spending. Obviously he’s banking on the net export deficit to be slashed.


I think he’s banking on local investment to increase to counteract any reduction in foreign investment.

He’s going to spend more, with the money flowing in from the tariffs. You would think this will be allocated to multiplier initiatives like manufacturing, tech, education and maybe even large local public works.

The million dollar question is, will this crush the US population so much that it drops spending? Or do they legitimately turn to local options? It all hinges on the American people continue to spend and not go into their shells, or turn American.

It’s a big gamble with the American people.

He sort of ‘wins’ either way from an American perspective (sound familiar for Trump?) Either American importers and thus its people underwrite the spending spree he’s about to go on with their savings, disposable income etc and he’s applied a second GST/VAT without campaigning on that to the Republican base.

Or the American people turn local and there’s a massive slashing of the net export issue, he gets bumping tax revenues, local investment etc Hero of American industry type stuff.


The real loser is the rest of the world as they net import $1.2 trillion per year.

His biggest risk is counter tarriffs. Thats why they keep threatening countries against it (how’s the cheek?)

Theres no point slashing the trade deficit if it is just cancelled out by a massive reduction of exports. From Australias perspective, it effects a minor % of exports, if the ENTIRE world put counter tariffs on the US it obviously effects every single item they export.

Tariffs in the US won't help US exporters.

Increasing trade barriers introduces an inefficient brake on the economy which it doesn't need. It hurts the US most, because they're the ones with the barriers being thrown up.

The question is: Where will investment go? Will companies invest in US production capacity that won't come online for months or years, when the tariffs might last for 3.5 years?

10% isn't really enough to move anything.

It's really just an additional sales tax on US consumers to pay for massive tax cuts for the rich (which they're about to pass through Congress without anywhere near the reduced spending to match).

If countries do reciprocal tariffs it will hurt everyone again. But, they could do selective ones like Canada and Mexico and just pick on red state products like Kentucky Bourbon, Harleys, Teslas and social media.

 

[Carn The Berries]

I think that’s what his messaging is….

Deep down the US trade deficit is killing growth in their economy.

The only way to counteract that is to increase consumption (so wages and or reduce cost of living, which is already low), investment (who’s investing in US industry vs emerging markets?) etc or increase government spending. Obviously he’s banking on the net export deficit to be slashed.


I think he’s banking on local investment to increase to counteract any reduction in foreign investment.

He’s going to spend more, with the money flowing in from the tariffs. You would think this will be allocated to multiplier initiatives like manufacturing, tech, education and maybe even large local public works.

The million dollar question is, will this crush the US population so much that it drops spending? Or do they legitimately turn to local options? It all hinges on the American people continue to spend and not go into their shells, or turn American.

It’s a big gamble with the American people.

He sort of ‘wins’ either way from an American perspective (sound familiar for Trump?) Either American importers and thus its people underwrite the spending spree he’s about to go on with their savings, disposable income etc and he’s applied a second GST/VAT without campaigning on that to the Republican base.

Or the American people turn local and there’s a massive slashing of the net export issue, he gets bumping tax revenues, local investment etc Hero of American industry type stuff.


The real loser is the rest of the world as they net import $1.2 trillion per year.

His biggest risk is counter tarriffs. Thats why they keep threatening countries against it (how’s the cheek?)

Theres no point slashing the trade deficit if it is just cancelled out by a massive reduction of exports. From Australias perspective, it effects a minor % of exports, if the ENTIRE world put counter tariffs on the US it obviously effects every single item they export.

That would be all well and good if the US manufactured EVERYTHING. There may be some opportunities for substitution, but I don't think that will be enough to maintain supply and keep prices down. The only option I can see is an increase in inflation for little overall return to the people of the US (anyone who thinks Trump can be trusted to reinvest any incremental tariff revenue should seek help immediately).

In Trump's mind, industries will miraculously grow instantaneously to undercut higher imported products. It sounds great, but in reality has a snowflakes chance in hell of happening.

 

[The Punter]

I think there is also a thought in MAGA Nation that the 1890s, when there were high tariffs and no federal income tax, was the golden age because of those two things. So let's go back to that.

 

[nut]

Tariffs are ultimately a tax on consumption.
It’s where he redirects that tax revenue that counts. IMO.

 

[Sphynx]

Tariffs are ultimately a tax on consumption.
It’s where he redirects that tax revenue that counts. IMO.

Yes and no.

Only if there's not another viable alternative in the local market without the tax on it.

Consumers and stores will generally gravitate towards those.

The US is an enormous economy and there's viable local alternatives to just about everything.


I know what I'd be doing in niche industries if I was a local US producer/manufacturer, prices and margins would be going up just below viability against the other international products. In those key markets, they should be making margins like they haven't in recent time.

End consumer still gets the finger though.

 

[peetoo]

So iPhones just for US market manufactured there? Every lst component?

 

[beez]

I think there is also a thought in MAGA Nation that the 1890s, when there were high tariffs and no federal income tax, was the golden age because of those two things. So let's go back to that.

As someone who believes in higher taxation, I actually like the idea of zero (or very very little) income tax below the median full-time wage offset by a much higher GST. I have no idea what GST figure would be needed to offset the tax revenue, and I appreciate the regressive tax argument, but I do think there is something in the psyche of the individual that less taxation on income (irrespective of higher taxes elsewhere) would create a more liberated polity and thus more amenable to governments as a whole.

But I don't know enough about how Australia's economy functions to appreciate whether something like that would even be workable.

 

[SBD Gonzalez]

I think that’s what his messaging is….

Deep down the US trade deficit is killing growth in their economy.

The only way to counteract that is to increase consumption (so wages and or reduce cost of living, which is already low), investment (who’s investing in US industry vs emerging markets?) etc or increase government spending. Obviously he’s banking on the net export deficit to be slashed.


I think he’s banking on local investment to increase to counteract any reduction in foreign investment.

He’s going to spend more, with the money flowing in from the tariffs. You would think this will be allocated to multiplier initiatives like manufacturing, tech, education and maybe even large local public works.

The million dollar question is, will this crush the US population so much that it drops spending? Or do they legitimately turn to local options? It all hinges on the American people continue to spend and not go into their shells, or turn American.

It’s a big gamble with the American people.

He sort of ‘wins’ either way from an American perspective (sound familiar for Trump?) Either American importers and thus its people underwrite the spending spree he’s about to go on with their savings, disposable income etc and he’s applied a second GST/VAT without campaigning on that to the Republican base.

Or the American people turn local and there’s a massive slashing of the net export issue, he gets bumping tax revenues, local investment etc Hero of American industry type stuff.


The real loser is the rest of the world as they net import $1.2 trillion per year.

His biggest risk is counter tarriffs. Thats why they keep threatening countries against it (how’s the cheek?)

Theres no point slashing the trade deficit if it is just cancelled out by a massive reduction of exports. From Australias perspective, it effects a minor % of exports, if the ENTIRE world put counter tariffs on the US it obviously effects every single item they export.

Actually I think the most likely outcome is utter chaos in US industries.

The complexity of the multinational supply lines of major US companies makes the effect impossible to predict other than that it’s going to be a giant cluster****.

There will be some very difficult consequences for all other nations, but I hope the Australian government is working round the clock to find the many advantages it can gain while US industries are in damage control.

 

[Sphynx]

Actually I think the most likely outcome is utter chaos in US industries.

The complexity of the multinational supply lines of major US companies makes the effect impossible to predict other than that it’s going to be a giant cluster****.

There will be some very difficult consequences for all other nations, but I hope the Australian government is working round the clock to find the many advantages it can gain while US industries are in damage control.

Yes, fair point.

 

[Carringbush2010]

I think that’s what his messaging is….

Deep down the US trade deficit is killing growth in their economy.

The only way to counteract that is to increase consumption (so wages and or reduce cost of living, which is already low), investment (who’s investing in US industry vs emerging markets?) etc or increase government spending. Obviously he’s banking on the net export deficit to be slashed.


I think he’s banking on local investment to increase to counteract any reduction in foreign investment.

He’s going to spend more, with the money flowing in from the tariffs. You would think this will be allocated to multiplier initiatives like manufacturing, tech, education and maybe even large local public works.

The million dollar question is, will this crush the US population so much that it drops spending? Or do they legitimately turn to local options? It all hinges on the American people continue to spend and not go into their shells, or turn American.

It’s a big gamble with the American people.

He sort of ‘wins’ either way from an American perspective (sound familiar for Trump?) Either American importers and thus its people underwrite the spending spree he’s about to go on with their savings, disposable income etc and he’s applied a second GST/VAT without campaigning on that to the Republican base.

Or the American people turn local and there’s a massive slashing of the net export issue, he gets bumping tax revenues, local investment etc Hero of American industry type stuff.


The real loser is the rest of the world as they net import $1.2 trillion per year.

His biggest risk is counter tarriffs. Thats why they keep threatening countries against it (how’s the cheek?)

Theres no point slashing the trade deficit if it is just cancelled out by a massive reduction of exports. From Australias perspective, it effects a minor % of exports, if the ENTIRE world put counter tariffs on the US it obviously effects every single item they export.

Obviously the sentiment aligns with chumps isolationist schtick.

 

[morton5]