There was a pre-budget lull in the federal polling storm this week, but the BludgerTrack aggregate has nonetheless had the regularly scheduled Roy Morgan and Essential Research results to play with. Both recorded next to no change on last time, and the changes on all indicators of voting intention have been barely measurable. Despite that, the seat projection has Labor up one in New South Wales, Tasmania and Western Australia (the results in the latter being particularly remarkable at present), but down two on the back of a very small voting intention shift in highly sensitive Queensland. Last week I reported that I was going to start counting Fairfax as a Liberal National Party seat, so today’s announcement by Clive Palmer that he would not be recontesting the seat was very timely. The result is that the Coalition is down one seat on last week rather than two, and “others” is now recorded as four seats rather than five. Nothing new this week in the way of leadership ratings.
Preselection news:
• Liberal MP Ann Sudmalis has had her preselection confirmed for her south coast New South Wales seat of Gilmore, after suggestions she faced a moderate-backed challenge arising from her perceived public criticism of the Baird government over council amalgamations. The Prime Minister had made it known that he did not wish for any move against Sudmalis to proceed, out of concern at factional tensions being stoked ahead of the election. Two state Liberals, Kiama MP Gareth Ward and Bega MP Andrew Constance, are reportedly eyeing the succession to Sudmalis in 2019. You can read a lot more about this electorate in yesterday’s Seat du jour.
• The Liberal Party’s trial preselection plebiscite of party members in Parramatta has been won by Michael Beckwith, development operations manager for Lend Lease. The other candidates were Jean Pierre Abood, a Parramatta councillor; Charles Camenzuli, a structural engineer and building consultant who ran in 2010; Maroun Draybi, a local solicitor and hardline conservative; and Felicity Finlay, a school teacher. You can view the recent Seat du jour entry on Parramatta here.
• The Liberals have preselected Yvonne Keane, deputy mayor of The Hills Shire and former television presenter, for the western Sydney seat of Greenway. Keane was also a preselection aspirant in 2013, but the numbers were sewn up by the power bloc of Blacktown councillor Jess Diaz on behalf of his son, Jaymes Diaz. Following a disastrous campaign, Diaz suffered a 2.1% swing in favour of Labor incumbent Michelle Rowland in this highly marginal seat. Step this way for today’s Seat du jour entry on the seat.
• The Nationals preselection to replacing the retiring John Cobb in Calare has been won by Andrew Gee, the state member for Orange, ahead of Orange councillor Scott Munro, Wellington councillor Alison Conn and Bathurst businessman Sam Farraway.
• John Hassell, Pingelly grain farmer and CBH Board director, is the Nationals candidate for the regional Western Australian seat of O’Connor, which was won for the party by Tony Crook from Liberal veteran Wilson Tuckey in 2010, then lost to Rick Wilson of the Liberals when Crook bowed out after a single term in 2013. Hassell has pledged to serve as an “independent WA National” if elected.
• The Canberra Times reports that the Liberals have endorsed candidates for the two seats in the Australian Capital Territory: Livestock and Bulk Carriers Association director Robert Gunning in Fenner, and lawyer Jessica Adelan-Langford in Canberra.
Multiply money is limited by the value of the deposit.
Creation is not
To make my point crystal clear. Many now shop electronically to avoid getting cash robbed.
No currency there just the measure of value we call money
misfit
Call it multiply all you like. Its referred to by economists as creating money. Its increasing the money supply that is creating money.
As I said I think part of it is a crock trying to explain what is happening in practice however its the best we have so far.
What is not in doubt is that taxation funds government spending.
Lizzie @ 918,
“But as Ferguson is a PB protected entity, I decided not to discuss it”. I don’t trust Ferguson anymore than Sales, although Sarah is clearly more intelligent than Leigh. I guess Leigh and Annabelle hang around together so that the other doesn’t feel so dumb.
“No currency there just the measure of value we call money”
Thank you we now agree. Money is merely an IOU to facilitate trade. It has no intrinsic value of its own.
guytaur Friday, May 6, 2016 at 10:50 am
Perhaps by the time Turnbull and Morrison have finished with the economy they will be.
corporate_misfit Friday, May 6, 2016 at 11:08 am
Actually, I think taxation (of things like grains as it precedes money) was probably invented by strongmen and thugs because it was easier than farming.
On a sort of unrelated note, you might be interested in this: The sinister, secret history of a food that everybody loves
corporate_misfit @ #950 Friday, May 6, 2016 at 11:18 am
Luckily for you, all his advise is publicly available. However, it is sometimes a little hard to interpret before the event. I am happy to offer you my interpretation services at a suitable rate. Which of course won’t cost you anything, since you can simply “invent” the money and put it in my account.
B.C
Thanks for that very interesting reading…
“However, it is sometimes a little hard to interpret before the event”
But always a a good excuse after the event..just like neoclassical economics
guytaur @ #953 Friday, May 6, 2016 at 11:22 am
It sure is. At the same time, it’s also creating a liability. The difference between the banks and the government is that the government can create money without creating a consequent liability.
Xenophon pitting the boot into LNP on ship building right now.
No SA jobs
B.C
This mught amuse you
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/worldviews/wp/2016/05/05/donald-trump-will-soon-be-getting-briefings-from-u-s-spy-agencies-it-might-not-go-well/?tid=hybrid_experimentrandom_1_na
@ Guytaur – 640 jobs lost today, thousands created in 2030. I think we know which is more likely to change votes.
sspencer_63: Huge story in Health #estimates. Health dept officials admitting parents being told Child Dental scheme closed, even though no bill passed.
It is a very silly notion to compare leaders of different eras.
Like John Kennedy, Whitlam (and I wholeheartedly embraced his ideas back then, though only very young) became a more myth than reality. Yes he was brilliant. Yes he could carry a crowd. But in those days the stump speech was all you had to get the message out there.
If either Kennedy or Whitlam had survived … the “might” have led brilliant governments but then again they might not. The habit to glorify “what might have been” skews reality, especially when you try to compare later leaders with this rose-coloured template.
Each leader is a product of his/her own time and his/her own personality. To expect a ‘light on the hill’ style Shorten is selling him and the current generation short. That idealised person is not who is needed right now … and when you REALLY look at it, to desire that type of leader is kind of naive.
Shorten is the current face of the broader ‘normal’ Australia. Turnbull is the current face of narrower ‘affluent’ Australia. (Gillard/Rudd and Abbott all represented aspects of our collective ‘self’). The message platform is now so diverse that to be a single, idealised leader won’t cut it. That is why Turnbull is probably more vulnerable.
The current question is: do the majority want ‘normal egalitarian’ Australia or ‘greedy affluent’ Australia.
GuardianAus: News Corp reports third-quarter loss of $149m after revenue falls 7.3% https://t.co/MrTTsH3Lzz
I don’t know where they came from but I know where they are now…in the Liberal Party.
“The current question is: do the majority want ‘normal egalitarian’ Australia or ‘greedy affluent’ Australia.”
Or more simply – More or less equality than we currently have
???? Has Malcolm been screeming at the cat again?
Mark Di Stefano @MarkDiStef 2m2 minutes ago
We’re on with the PM and “special envoy for trade” Andrew Robb. Turnbull sounds very raspy.
The current question is: do the majority want ‘normal egalitarian’ Australia or ‘greedy affluent’ Australia.
Normal egalitarian – 50.6%
Greedy affluent – 49.4%
… at the moment, anyway.
ABCNews24: #BREAKING: Opposition Whip Ian Rickuss has announced that @TimNichollsMP is the new leader of @LNPQLD replacing @SpringborgMP #auspol
I wonder how much of a black hole this creates in the Coal budget – growth next year to be 2.5-3.5%, not 4.5% as optimistically assumed by ScoMo.
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/business/markets-live/markets-live-rba-comes-clean-20160505-gonqee.html (11:46)
Exactly CM.
With ‘confidence’ low … does this mean the aspiration ideal is higher, or more realistic? Turnbull & Co continually appeal to the so-called aspirationals … but since the GFC has their degree of aspiration begun to wane? Is the swinging voter content to have steady ‘same’ rather than 8 negatively-geared houses, for instance? The electorate is being offered two pictures right now, and in the past 3 parlts the aspirational voter has been sold a pup each time (for whatever reason). Abbott made the pendulum swing very high one way and I am hoping that common sense rules this time around and the steady trumps unrealistic desire
What’s the next stage up from deceitful lying? This government’s got it nailed.
And although sometimes it’s farcical, I hope we never lose Senate estimates.
If nominal spending (number of dollars spent) increases at a faster rate than real production, inflation happens. High inflation is destabilizing because it means everyone has an incentive to spend all their money now while it’s still worth something, and if everyone is spending rapidly at the same time on a declining, static or slowly increasing supply of real goods and services, the inflation only gets worse.
The federal government, like all buyers of goods and services, is constrained by the availability of real goods and services that are for sale in the currency. But the federal government does not face a financial or revenue constraint on its spending. This is what makes the federal government very different from a household, firm, local government, or state government.
The federal government needs to keep its spending within real resource constraints. The Australian economy currently has a vast amount of unused real resources (unemployed and under-employed people). Increasing the deficit to mobilize unused real resources into production would not be inflationary. Increasing the deficit for this purpose would increase real output, employment and incomes, and alleviate the many social ills connected with unemployment.
BREAKING: Tim Nicholls is the new leader of the LNP, winning the vote by two votes, 22 to 19.
Mr Mander was knocked out in the first round after receiving 10 votes.
http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/queensland/lnp-leadership-spill-party-will-unite-behind-leader-20160506-gonvkc.html
“Tim Nicholls is the new leader of the LNP, winning the vote by two votes, 22 to 19.”
Two votes: doesn’t seem settled to me.
Queensland arithmetic.
Trump admires Putin.
Nuff said.
guytaur @ #972 Friday, May 6, 2016 at 11:56 am
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ifLh-TtPvcM
Federal government bond issuance is a voluntary activity that is done for a variety of reasons, corporate welfare foremost among them. The voluntary nature of federal government bond issuance was obvious in the early 2000s when the federal government was taking more money out the private sector than it was spending into it, but the financial industry prevailed on the government to continue issuing new government bonds (even though this is nonsensical if you accept the premise that Commonwealth Government Securities “pay for” federal government deficits). If there’s no deficit to “pay for”, why was the federal government still issuing bonds during the years of surpluses?
Dovey
I take it you are a Greens/Sanders/SYRIZA supporter?
Putin is the one underpinning such noble endeavours as the latest aerial bombing slaughter of women and kids in a refugee camp in Syria.
If you want Trump and Putin please do take them.
Money is created by lending. “Depositing” simply shifts money. It involves the exchange of debit and credit entries between accounts. Lending creates those debit and credit entries in the first place.
J341983
Re Clinton. Well said.
Every criticism I hear of Clinton is usually based on some republican/ right wing smear.
They have been trying for nearly 30 years to destroy Clinton without success.
It is both sad and pathetic that some so called progressive people claim to prefer Trump over Clinton.
On what possible issue that most progressives find important would Trump be better than Clinton on?
I have heard some people say that she is part of the establishment.
That may be true but I would suggest that given Trump sits inside the 0.001% of wealthy people in the US after having been born into a millionaire family and Sanders who has spent the last 40 years as a politician (his only ever real job) including the past over 20 years in Washington then by any measure those two opponents are the very definition of ‘establishment’.
Can anyone give me one issue that they truly think Trump would be more progressive on than Clinton?
Who despite not being as liberal as Sanders (who has spent his days representing the very white and very very liberal state of Vermont) was rated to have the 11th most liberal voting record as a Senat ahead of some that the left heap praise on such as Barrack Obama and John Kerry.
The crap about her being a neo-con or representing the right wing of the Democratic party is ridiculous and displays a complete lack of understanding of US politics by those who say it.
It is not surprising that the most vocal criticism of Clinton over the years and currently has been from white males who not coincidentally make up the majority of Trump and Sanders supporters).
😡
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2016/may/05/two-thirds-of-australias-emissions-fund-spent-for-just-7-of-2030-target
Boerwar
Possibly only because Putin earlier praised Trump. Trump craves praise and adulation and praises those who give it in return.
Briefly
Friday, May 6, 2016 at 12:14 pm
“Money is created by lending. “Depositing” simply shifts money. ”
Example : $1000 deposited Assume 10% kept for liquidity
$900 available for lending
$900 deposited – 10% kept
$810 available for lending
$810 deposited – 10% kept …etc.
Thew initial deposit is multiplied. This does create some money but the amount is finite unless the bank wishes to lend money it does not have….or not keep reserves to pay the depositors who make a call on their money….
Govts with FIAT currencies such as ours are not limited in this way
When is Jay Wetherill actually going to get off his arse and do something about the state of SA’s economy. Same as Nick Xenophon. About the only think they excel at is whinging and blaming others.
Why should the Federal Government be the only job creator in SA ?
Pure laziness, Wetherill should just pick the phone and have a chat to Daniel Andrews, he just might get some tips on how to run a state .
[ I guess Leigh and Annabelle hang around together so that the other doesn’t feel so dumb.]
Cruel, but fair. I would like an ALP pollie to take the assumptions that Sales makes in many of her questions on. I get the impression that she lacks the intellect to respond to something that deviates from her prepared script.
Oh, good. I’m sure the man who was Treasurer in the fondly remembered Campbell Newman government and the public face of much of their very popular economic policies will do very well as Opposition Leader.
That said, at least they didn’t have to flip a coin to decide this leadership ballot.
That there is your first mistake.
Hi Scott, checked your email?
Briefly
Briefly and Guytaur correct and misfit is incorrect: banks create money by writing loans, they do not multiply up deposits into their reserve accounts (nor do they multiply up deposits into depositors accounts, though the latter is possible whereas the former is not). They are constrained by the market prices of money and by credits standards (if they remember), not by ratios
Misfit is incorrect and Guytaur is correct: taxes do not fund Commonwealth spending, Commonwealth spending creates money and in the immediate sense funds itself. Taxes simply destroy money; the Government may choose to keep the two somewhat in balance (it turns out to be infeasible to keep them precisely balanced, thereby demonstrating that they are not in fact linked) and supply bills could choose to make taxation a precondition (or prerequisite) for supply. In practice it is more like an arbitrarily delayed co-requisite, but it need not even be that – it is a political choice and nothing more.
Whoever said Zimbabwe (or Yugoslavia, or Hungary) is relevant to Australia is incorrect. The only historical example of any relevance whatsoever is Weimar Germany and the actual history is different to what is remembered (including by the Germans, mainly due to the occurrence of the Nazi regime between then and now)
http://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/may/06/immigration-department-pays-compensation-sacked-nauru-save-the-children-workers
It should be:
EG Theodore
Friday, May 6, 2016 at 12:40 pm
Some confusion please read…https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reserve_requirement
Australia abolished its reserve requirements in july 1999 bu they currently aiming at around 10%
Misfit is incorrect and Guytaur is correct: taxes do not fund Commonwealth spending, Commonwealth spending creates money and in the immediate sense funds itself. You are actually agreeing with me and disagreeing with Guytaur who is arguing that the source of money is purely taxation.
Your observation regarding Weimar Germany is correct
beat me to it!!
Hi All,
Can anyone tell me if MMT is what Steve Keen proposes, or are his models, such as Minsky, a different thing.