View From The Couch - 10/Feb/2017

When Satire Lands A Punch

Donald Trump has rightfully earned himself a lot of satirical blows. What's funny about President Trump is that he's no different to the Donald Trump on 'the Apprentice', which is to say he's just carried his reality TV persona into the White House, and leaks suggest he is fuming that people are able tome fun of him so mercilessly. His hapless advisor Kellyanne Conway has been a faux-pas machine blessing the world with such notions as 'alternative facts' and a totally imaginary 'Bowling Green Massacre'. Then there is his Press Secretary Sean Spicer who just can't land on the truth.

The novelty news of he week has been just how good Melissa McCarthy's take down of Spicer has been (and it really was spot on as well as hilarious) and Spicer meekly offered that perhaps the Saturday night Live crew were being mean. This is was sort of funny coming form the administration that went out of its way to be mean to women and muslims in the first ten days, so it was a bit rich.

All of this got me thinking a bit because I've been watching 'Designated Survivor' on Netflix and truth be told, they who plays the Press Secretary in that show looks ten times more competent than Sean Spicer. Actually, Kiefer Sutherland's accidental President looks to be ten times more competent than the Donald, and both men are having problems filling positions in their administration, even if it is for totally different reasons (I won't spoil it).

What's interesting about the real life chaos in the White House is that after watching 'West Wing', 'House of Cards' and 'Designated Survivor', most people would have a better idea of how to go about presenting for an administration. Clearly that's not the case with these people, Sean Spicer and Kellyanne Conway. To the extent that politics is a kind of theatre, then what we are seeing is a long-running Broadway show in the Obama Administration giving way to an underground variety theatre troupe, sort of trying things out as they go along. As State Actors go, they're terrible talent. Even with Donald Trump's experience with all the camera hogging he's done in all his life, he's actually not really anywhere near a good a talent as Alec Baldwin who is crucifying him. Melissa McCarthy is far more talented than Sean Spicer, and as for Conway, well...

A picture tells a thousand words. She shot her own credibility and all she has as comparison is Beavis.

The last time the SNL crew got it so well was when Tina Fey did her Sarah Palin back in 2008, and again, what was at play was just what an amateur talent Palin was, next to a consummate professional camera talent as Fey. This doesn't mean politicians ought to go to acting school or that - god forbid - more actors should be drafted into politics. It's just that the capacity for well-executed satire to demolish the pretensions of a politician resides in the gap of camera talent. It also explains the fact that the reason Reagan can be revered by so many Republicans is that at the end of the day, Reagan too was a great camera talent despite his track record as a B-Movie actor. The phrase 'B-Movie Actor' probably disparaged and undersold his genuine strengths as camera talent.

It's a peculiar problem of American Democracy because Americans value public speaking so much and so many of their good orators put across dodgy arguments with great presence and presentation. The very nature of charismatic leadership lends it self to image-over-substance and so it is understandable that a reality TV star beats out a field of bad camera talent, as Donald Trump did. It also means the whole system is susceptible to a talent like Donald Trump to short circuit proper discourse and shoehorn himself in to the White House - which is the big irony in all of this stuff. Therefore, as hard as it is to believe, Trump's still okay talent, but he needs to straighten out his act a lot if he wants be taken seriously.

If one casts one's mind back to recent Australian politics, we can see a parallel in the rise of Kevin Rudd, who basically built a demographic support out of a TV audience which over-rode the political considerations. The fact that he was reasonably equipped to tackle the job of leader and then Prime Minister might have been a tangential aspect to his leadership. What really fuelled his rise to theta was in fact his stint as pundit on a morning breakfast show. Similarly, the rise of WTE Joe Hockey to Worst Treasure EVER was facilitated by the very same show appearing opposite Rudd.

That being said, the leader Trump resembles most in the Australian landscape is of course Tony Abbott. Both men stand firm on the side of denying climate change is real, and both men entered their office as the most unpopular incoming leader. It took two years before the Liberal Party felt compelled to remove their leader in TonyAbbott, so we'll see just how long the US Republicans can tolerate the irrational, temperamental, unstable leadership style of Donald Trump.

All this is to say, it's really interesting to find out what an Administration is made of when a satirical punch lands as hard as Melissa McCarthy's turn as Sean Spicer.

Generation Politics

Baby Boomers Versus Millennials

A couple of articles wanted to talk about the generational demographics and their impact on the economy so I think we'll have a look at them today.

The first was in the SMH which characterised the future as a conflict between Baby Boomer interests and Millennials.

Millennials have eclipsed baby boomers in the US, in terms of raw population numbers, but not yet on spending power. At some point this imbalance between these two generations is going to correct itself. 

Yet some investors aren't sitting around waiting for that to happen. Like Denver-based Marsico Capital. On a recent visit to Australia, Marsico portfolio manager Brandon Geisler named the demographic shift that will see millennials rise and baby boomers reach the "backend of their spending curve" as a significant theme underpinning his investing.

"If you think back to the 1990s, what was growth? Growth was technology [stocks], but it was also retail and banking, because you basically followed this demographic and you rode them up. The baby boomers, they levered up, they bought a bigger house, they bought two cars. And now the reality is ... they are downsizing," he told Fairfax Media.

The boomers are still spending of course, but on things like healthcare and travel. That has prompted Marsico, which owns a significant position in ASX-listed Dominos Pizza, to buy into stocks like Norwegian Cruise Line, biotech company Amgen and robotic equipment maker Intuitive Surgical.

"Similarly, we ask ourselves all the time what is that [under-35] demographic really interested in? Because that's going to be the next wave," Geisler says.

It's well documented that millennials prefer to buy experiences rather than things: whether that is reflection of their comparatively paltry spending power or not, they are far less interested in brands and material possessions than their forebears. They spend a lot of time on Facebook (one of Geisler's biggest bets) and love travel (which helps explain a stake in UK budget airline Ryanair).

It's kind of curious that this refrain keeps coming up that Millennials prefer to buy more experiences than things. I know this is anecdotal but the Millennials I know don't seem to be all that more biased towards experiences over things, any more than Baby Boomers I know disavow experiences in favour of things. I've known plenty of Baby Boomers who have disavowed materialism so it's hard to imagine the difference is clear cut. 

I might posit that the apparent preference that comes up in surveys that says Millennials prefer to spend money on experiences than things is a protest at the fact that Millennials have much less money to spend on things, and given the options, they end up with the stated preference of buying experiences. Certainly, if you are making investment choices, you might look at service providers than goods manufacturers in the future, but there are plenty of problems even with that characterisation. 

The second was over at Zero Hedge where there's always a whiff of paranoia. Still, it's probably more pertinent to have the Millennials describe their situation to get a better grip on what motivates them, and what this means.

In sum, millennials’ inflationary basket isn’t as simple as weighting goods within large standard components like food, housing, transportation, and entertainment. Student loans, obviously not directly in the Consumer Price Index, account for one of our largest monthly payments. We therefore can’t afford a house, and a lot of us live with our parents as rental costs continue to climb. Many also can’t afford a car, in which Uber proves especially helpful. That’s why we depend on services that provide access to goods without requiring ownership. This keeps expenses low and convenience high. We care about what our friends think and have serious FOMO (fear of missing out), so we’re less reluctant to save and more inclined to travel or buy new clothes when we can. Fortunately, however, technology and startups continue to bring costs down as we benefit from each other’s contributions online and in the sharing economy. In this sense, we are more privy to the deflationary impact of technology and services, in contrast to our parents’ experience with inflation of physical goods, such as food and gasoline.

The gist of the article at Zero Hedge is that the Millennials are, through restricted choice, embracing deflation. So.... are the demographics really at stark conflict?

The most interesting way this is playing out is in the current democratic campaign. Hillary Clinton is the choice of the establishment and beats Bernie Sanders in the above-50 age category, which happens to be the lower limit of the Baby Boomers. Sanders is dominating the under-50 set, which means he's winning the Gen-X and Gen-Y/Millennial vote, and this trend becomes more pronounced as the age group nears 21. This Democratic preselection is the very generational conflict in close-up.

It's interesting that it is not a Gen-X or Gen-Y politician who is garnering these younger votes. Instead it's a man who is a veteran of the 1960s civil rights movement and other long-forgotten battlefields of political activism. Hillary Clinton is still the poster child of the Baby Boomer generation, just as her husband ushered in the generational change of Baby Boomer impact on politic back in 1992. Their constituents are necessarily who they are. Given that the Millennials outnumber Baby Boomers and if you add in Gen-X, it would seem Hillary Clinton's candidacy is in great trouble. This might be the last US Presidential election where the Baby Boomer voice carries the election, and it might not even work out that well given the numbers.

In that light, Michigan going to Sanders today might be a sign of things to come. Yes, Hillary Clinton is about 200 delegates ahead, but because all the Southern states are done, it also means her big guns have fired. From here on in, the advantage goes further towards Bernie Sanders' support territory as well as demographics. We'll see if that 200 delegate lead really holds up. The coming months may well show it's just not enough. And should Sanders go all the way on the back of his support, it's probably curtains for the Baby Boomer block vote holding massive sway over American politics. 

View From The Couch - 26/Feb/2016

This Isn't Working

There are days where I think Malcolm Turnbull might be smart, lucky and rich, but maybe - just maybe - he's not very good at this politics thing. It's a weird thing to say about a guy who is immensely popular and managed to become Prime Minister of this country but... there are moments where it looks a lot less certain, a lot less solid. For instance, he now has a coterie of backbenchers who are holding his policy platform to ransom.

It comes as Mr Turnbull and his Finance Minister, Mathias Cormann, continue to discuss the unorthodox move of bringing forward appropriation bills in Parliament to before the May budget in order to keep a double-dissolution election option open without risk of the government running out of money to pay public servants.

Fairfax Media reported earlier that informal discussions had been held about bringing forward budget day, but the latest thinking is believed to favour the early introduction of the appropriations - also called supply bills - which would clear the way for a snap poll to be called either before the budget or immediately after. 

Proponents say there is no legal problem with appropriating funds prior to the budget but admit the move would be tantamount to admitting an early election call was imminent.
The $15 billion figure is a similar amount of money that would have been available to spend after a GST rise to 15 per cent, which would raise about $35 billion, and the payment of compensation to low-income earners. 

The group of Liberal economic dries are, in particular, determined to kill any change by the Coalition - such as a dollar limit on the amount that can be deducted - to negative gearing because in the words of one MP, "why would we attack Mum and Dad investors?"

Which is all very weird. We appear to have a Prime Minister with very little authority over his own party in spite of his high personal polls.

The quick answer to the rhetorical question why the Liberal Party might attack the Mum and Dad investor might be because they're way in over their heads and need to back out before the shit hits the fan. In fact, not doing so is a kind of moral hazard situation that the conservatives and economic dry types hate so much. Making matters worse, negative gearing as it stands is kind of the wrong economic incentive that encourages the very same moral hazard that conservatives hate so much. 

Put more bluntly, the very same Mum and Dad investors are now the most indebted people on the face of this earth. Yes, Australia has the highest per capita private sector debt and the majority of it is locked up in mortgages. The whole point of winding back negative gearing is to take the wrong incentives out of the system, so the same Mum and Dad investors can make a more rational decision, based on a more rational economic policy. 

I'm pretty sure this is not lost on Malcolm Turnbull. It's just that he seems incapable of explaining this to his own side and making them shut the hell up. You'd think a conservative PM could explain traditional conservative economic policy to his own side. Of course, it might be that these backbenchers aren't conservatives at all but simply just "greedy cunts" as Paul Keating would have characterised them. Turnbull is letting these people hold his office to ransom too much. He should be playing hard ball with his side if he wants to get anything serious done. A leader is only good as his willingness to whack his own side to make the deal stick. Even I know that - why doesn't the prime Minister? 

I Hate It When Things Close

Some years ago at the height of the GFC, Starbucks closed a slew of their stores in Australia. They had picked the wrong moment to expand with their stores when all of a sudden, carrying debt became a dirty word. I was walking through Martin Place on the day they announced the mass closures, and I could see they were having a staff meeting about it in their store. It just looked terrible, witnessing all these people losing their jobs in a very public place. I didn't particularly like their offerings, but it was just terrible to see them in that situation. 

Anyway, Dick Smith stores are closing and 3000 people are about to lose their jobs. 

Dick Smith's debts total about $400 million including $140 million to its banks, National Australia Bank and HSBC. 

Dick Smith staff will now have to liquidate the remaining stock, which is understood to have a book value of about $200 million. 

It's the second fire sale in three months for the chain, which launched a desperate pre-Christmas clearance in a bid to prop up sagging sales.

One Dick Smith worker said the sale was likely to kick off as early as Friday.
The store manager said it was an anxious time for staff even though they knew the end was nigh. 

"There was a false sense of community for a while with everyone trying to look on the bright side and then there was the news about a potential buyer from China," he said.
"But we have an update this morning, saying no more customer orders and we thought uh oh!" 

"Then when we got told about a national conference call . . . and we knew that this was probably going to be bad news, not good."

It has to be said, Dick Smith stores were terrible. They didn't offer up a big range of stuff, they didn't offer up a good range of stuff, they weren't price competitive and they never really had up to date stuff. It was kind of the electrical doodad shop you went to when you couldn't get to any other electrical doodad shop. You couldn't decipher what the selling proposition was, when compared to its competitors, let alone if it even had a unique selling proposition at all. You just couldn't understand how it was supposed to operate, let alone compete with JB HiFi. As it turns out, neither could they.

A long time ago, this kind of something-nothing shop sort of blundered on in the market place. Grace Brothers which turned into Myers, was for years operating like this where you could get second tier goods for second tier prices guaranteed to leave you somewhat dissatisfied. Not surprisingly, Myers has been on the ropes for the last decade because it simply has no edge whatsoever in the modern retail marketplace (and never really had anyway). In many ways it's not surprising at all that Dick Smith stores hit the wall. 

Nonetheless I really do feel for the employees in the stores. It's terrible watching a long time going concern close down. Working through the process is even worse. Some of these private equity people that brought about the debt-laden IPO need to be investigated. 

The Meaning Of Bernie In The US Presidential Elections

It's 56 years since John F. Kennedy was elected President. There have been equal years with Republicans and Democrats in the White House since 1960: Nixon with 6; Ford with 2; Reagan with 8, George Bush Snr. with 4; and Dubya with 8 making 28. Kennedy with 3; Johnson with 5; Carter with 4; Clinton with 8 and Obama with 8 including this year also makes 28. It's surprising because it feels like there have been more years under Republicans and crazy ones at that: Nixon, Reagan and Dubya make you want to reach for the American Psychiatric Association's DSM. It was also a long time between Kennedy who was a Northern Democrat and Obama who is from Chicago. 

The years since Kennedy's assassination have been quite depressing from a progressive point of view, up until Barack Obama. If we cast our minds back to the 2008 election, Obama's campaign essentially ambushed and derailed Hillary Clinton's campaign, largely on building from the grassroots, and this in turn delivered the first Northern democrat President since JFK. Which goes to show it hasn't been easy for a Northern Democrat to get up. Just think of Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis and their terrible campaigns in 1984 and 1988 respectively. And while Bill Clinton's two terms gave some respite, he was decidedly a Southern Democrat who wooed back the Southern vote. Thus the rise of Obama in 2008 signals a new direction for American politics. All of a sudden, the Northern Democrats are a big force, thanks to a progressive grassroots. 

It's enough to make one sort of wonder if Hillary Clinton's problem is that next to Bernie Sanders, she's not Northern Democrat enough. She may even not be Southern Democrat enough. Bernie Sanders is of course, espousing a lot more progressive politics. There was at one time great expectation for Elizabeth Warren running, because she too is more progressive than the Clinton camp. There are strong indications that the younger demographic is radically slanted towards the progressive end of the spectrum. 

The more historic view I take on the Sanders campaign is that it is the first time since Robert F. Kennedy was gunned down in 1968 that a Democrat is running with a very progressive platform. It's the first time in 48 years we're seeing the kind of galvanising force assembling a strong youth vote turn out, in favour of the Progressive cause. Sanders' platform - much more than Obama's platform - inherits the legacy of the1960s activism and builds upon it until it finally reaches the middle of American politics. It's the moment the protest songs and the hippies and the activists and the New Left finally arrive, decades late - but better late than never. 

It's funny because back in 1992, Bill Clinton fooled us all into thinking *he* was that guy. The fact that he wasn't is demonstrated by his presidency, by the things he was not able to achieve in office. It's actually the kind of baggage that really weighs down Hillary Clinton's campaign. 2016 is 24 years beyond 1992. There's a whole generation of kids who grew into adults, not believing in the Clinton name, and they'll be out there not voting for her. Should Sanders get up over Clinton, there are going to be a lot of 'Regressive Left' types who are going to be upset. But then they were upset when Obama got up over Hillary in 2008 and that didn't exactly change anything for them. The Clinton supporters are essentially Baby Boomers who are still fooled by the Clinton name. 

As for Bernie Sanders, in a certain way, the most impressive thing about him is how long he's been fighting for equality. He has been 'on message' since before Generation X was even born. The photos that have emerged from his activism in the early 1960s are heartening. They give us great strength and let us understand that it is possible to fight the power for a lifetime and make it count. If the defining characteristic of leadership is to inspire people into being their best, then certainly Bernie Sanders has that quality in spades.

That's him right there during some sit in in 1962. It could have been you, it could have been me in another time and place; but as it turned out, it was him all along. If people really think the 1960s activism meant something more than just what people did to kill boredom, they really ought to look into Bernie Sanders. 

The Education-Jobs Disconnect

The Worst In A Generation

Here's an article that paints a familiar picture. It shows that the relationship between education and employment is a lot more tenuous than assumed by large parts of our society, up to and including the government.

Among tertiary students, one in two said they felt so pessimistic about their prospects that they were considering further study so they could avoid making career decisions.
Their doubts may be justified. Today's graduates are facing the worst job prospects in a quarter of a century - and perhaps even longer, the latest research shows. 

"I wouldn't use the word 'bleak' … but these are the toughest labour market conditions since the early 1990s, that's for sure," says Graduate Careers Australia strategy and policy advisor Bruce Guthrie. 

"The demand for graduates has dropped away."

Ooh, I remember that '92-'93 peak. That was something else. I had experienced the '87-'88 unemployment as a dropout without any qualifications and found that challenging - it took about 8weeks to find any kind of job - and they were relatively benign years for youth unemployment. I spent most of 1993 working at AFTRS, trying to finish my graduation film, and remember being burnt out by September when I finally finished it. As a graduate, it took me until February the following year to find a full time job.

Back in 1993 before the "internets" as GHW Bush derisively called it, you were scouring the newspaper for job ads and applying for things that were remotely related. What was amazing was the utter dearth of jobs. You could go three weeks without seeing a single job in the arts sector. I couldn't get back into the ABC, and there was really nowhere I knew to tug at getting a job. I eventually lucked out and got picked up by a Japanese ad agency in East Sydney, but that was simply blind luck of the sort where a blind squirrel runs into a nut by accident.

When I reflect on the numbers being reported at the time, youth unemployment was hitting 20-something percent as an average across the nation, so having any kind of degree was no guarantee one would find a job. If it's sitting under 1-in-4 since 2010, then kicks up to the same kind of peak (worse, actually), what it's saying is that there is a backlog of graduates who are simply not getting in to the workplace.

It's a little disingenuous talking about this sort of thing as if somehow Gen-Y job seekers are a different category of job seekers to those in the past, and they are to blame for part of this for having silly expectations about their careers. They're most certainly not to blame - it's the entire market place for jobs that's changed significantly as a result of demographics and economic change: Mature economies with slow growth simply don't have the need to take on new graduates; The older workers are still working on; many Baby Boomers are delaying retirement; economic growth is in low single digits, and there simply aren't enough places for new graduates opening up.

"It's a global phenomenon. We're going into a phase where work is precarious," she says. 

"For the first time in history, people who are qualified are struggling to get a foothold ... professionals are now on contracts or doing casual work, whereas becoming a professional of some sort used to mean you'd get a proper job." 

In 2011, 26 per cent of 18- to 34-year-olds had a bachelor's degree or higher, compared with only 5 per cent in 1976, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.

In a day and age where universities are asking people to pay huge fees, the same universities are going to come under scrutiny for their graduates who don't get placed, especially if the students are carrying astronomical debt. I don't know how I would advise a young person today about how to go about with their tertiary education or gaining employment. The ease with which you can get an education in, say, media, is in no relationship to just how rare and difficult it is to get a job in the media. Or Graphic Design (the 1980s dream job). Or Marine Biology (the 1970s dream job) before that. It's not surprising that 90% of people who study any given area do not end up working in that area.

The lousy thing about stories like this is that there isn't a political solution for something like this. It's not like some government(s) can put in some policy to make the field more accessible for young graduates. It's something fundamentally structural about our society whereby we have to monetise everything in order to pretend there is real economic growth. In doing so we've monetised education without thinking of the consequences, and one of the unintended consequences is that it is being manifestly demonstrated how there is no real connection between getting a qualification in an area and getting a career in that same area.

Talking About My Generalisation

Generalising Generations

I was on the phone to Pleiades today and he sort of laughed and said I was a bit heavy on the Baby Boomers yesterday, and being one of them he wanted to appeal to me that not all Baby Boomers were bad. Which, of course they're not; and most certainly not even half of Gen-X is particularly good. They're really rough demographic handles to talk about a large chunk of the population, and any generalising is bound to contain gross, boundless, indefensible inaccuracies.

Still, my problem is that years ago when I started blogging, I put up the stupid line "Gen-X View of The Universe" like it mattered and have been somewhat bound by that less-than-stellar choice. Had I hoisted "Dissenting Voice In The Universe", I might have had some more leeway to be just as general (and generalising), but without putting myself in one corner of the universe all the time.

Yes, Justin Trudeau is a Gen-Xer, as is David Cameron, but they have hardly anything common with each other politics-wise, and as a commentator, I can assure you I have even less in common with both men. Waving around the banner phrase is simply a kind overstatement of something that is probably a lot more subtle and fleeting.

The moment the demographic question comes to the fore the most, at least in Australia is that policy-makers have drawn lines in the past and into the future whereby things like HECS and HELP have landed firmly on Generation X while the Baby Boomers hardly got touched by it, and even the extension of the retirement age out to 67 applies from Generation X. The different laws covering superannuation contributions and taxation are likewise demarcated on the line - and the only reason I could think of was that the people who have drawn the line there were not Generation X.

Thus, it's not about what we are like, or what they are like; it's that demographically speaking, different rules and regulations have applied to the different generations, and this has resulted in different outcomes for people in different demographics. As a long time observer, it has been clear that a lot of rules had to be rewritten for Generation X because the money that used to be there is somehow no longer there. And so compared to the Baby Boomer generation, higher education cost more for Gen X (and even more for Gen Y), public primary and secondary education was poorer for Gen X (and even poorer still for Gen-Y), and access to jobs and finance was harder and took longer for Gen-X (and is even worse for Gen-Y), and so on.

Is all this the Baby Boomers' fault? No. It's just the way things went, out of over-arching necessities. Yet I think the ramification of all this, is that when Generation X will hold high public offices, it will result in a realignment of the old social compact. This includes things like gay marriage and addressing climate change as the challenge it really is. Generation X won't be progressive because they were born progressive; on the contrary they're likely even more apolitical than previous generations but for the fact that they will be forced to be political on a bunch of issues, and the viable answers are going to lean towards progressive ones because the conservative ones sure haven't helped.

This is why there is a gulf of difference in understanding by the likes of say, Eric Abetz, who is fighting a furious rearguard action, and the future progressive government which will manifest itself at some point eventually. It may well be a sea change of the kind we haven't seen since Whitlam came to power the back of the Baby Boomer vote.

The Awfulness Of Pokies

Mrs. Pleiades put me on to this one. This is an honest-to-goodness scary doco about how Pokies work and what they do to you. It goes through the history of their development, and the behavioural science of rewards, running the gamut from Pavlov, to BF Skinner to the latest MRI scans the brain and how they respond to pleasurable stimulus and how dopamine is released in the brain to stimulate the pleasure centre. Really, it's all about the dopamine and the pleasure centre and conditioned reflex.

It's one thing to be a gambling addict. I could be accused of being one, seeing how much time I do spend poring over the equities market and its gyrations. I hate it, but I like it and as my accountant said, "it's not like you can stop, now that you've started". It's a bit embarrassing but it's true. Even when I sell up the losing dogs at the end of the financial year, I'm still somehow in the market. I must be in it because I like it. It is pretty much gambling in the sense that I like the days where my shares go up.

Yet there is a crucial difference with Pokies in that the Pokies offer endless stimulus and reinforcement to keep you playing until you lose all your money. I've never liked pokies because I can't even begin to calculate what the odds are, just from looking at the machine. This is totally against the spirit of proper gambling to begin with. Then, I can't stand the endless music cues and sound effects because they're not truly musical if we're being specific about music - they're more like walls of sound to fill the air. I hate the nonsensical graphics that purport to tell a story when of course the only story going on is you sticking money into the machine and losing it chunk by chunk. I say, if you're going to a casino, play a real game with the real croupiers - but that's just me being a minority-report sort of guy. The majority of gamblers in Australia go to the local club and start inserting money into these terrifying things.

The doco tells you just exactly how much they tune these machines to fleece you of your money. They call it "gambling to extinction". They're fine tuned to get you hooked in, and suck you dry.

Peter Garrett makes an appearance to explain his little story about the gambling lobby and how powerful it has become and how it stopped the Gillard Government dead in its tracks from regulating the most vicious machines. We know the story, and how it went down with Andrew Wilkie wanting the regulations and pretty much holding the government hostage, only for everybody in government to back down in the face of intense lobbying from the gaming industry and clubs. With a hung Parliament, there simply wren't the numbers to do the right thing. It's a shame, but the real shame is that these horrible machines are still out there, chewing through the vulnerable wallets.

Just as a side observation, Peter Garrett makes a small mention of how the pokies came in and displaced bands in pubs. As one of the musicians that found pokies displacing bands in the late 80s, I can tell you Peter Garrett's nonchalant commentary was annoying as all hell. He got the good bit where pubs were venues, and his band got to play them. My generation got shafted and turfed out by Pokies. So, you know, tell me about it..

The Breaking Of The Middle

...And The Disintegrating Centre

I was at a party surrounded by many active thinkers and writers. You could say they were the best minds of this generation once upon time ago, who had gone on to do their respective important things in their lives. It's almost humiliating to be the guy who didn't do much except this blog here, but hey, that's life. Not everybody gets what they want in their life.

Most were academics and teachers, and those that weren't were owners of white-collar businesses and authors of note. What was interesting with this crowd is how they were once centre-left moderates on University of Sydney's campus a few decades ago, and until very recently had stayed moderate and centre-left, but had decidedly turned to the hard Left in the last 2 years. They're now telling me they were going to vote for the Greens at the next election. They're abandoning the ALP.

I listened to what they had to say and it boiled down to a no confidence motion towards the entire ALP as it stands today. Bill Shorten wasn't cutting it as their leader. It's not surprising given the brain power of the people at this party - Bill Shorten isn't impressing them any one bit. Shorten's mumbled position of small-target-until-election-time isn't going to strike a cord with these intellectuals. The Gillard government essentially burned through their patience with the ALP already, so Shorten was essentially getting no leash from these people. The vision they had was for the Greens under Dr. DiNatale to step forward as the senior partner of a Broad Left alliance with the ALP reduced to a junior role. They said they couldn't wait for the ALP to reform while there were pressing issues. They needed a Leftist party with which they could throw their lot in.

They're not growing conservative with old age, this lot. They were strengthening in their conviction, as they decided to move to the left, abandoning the ALP. And these were the people who grabbed me back in my youth and took me to the Centre-left in the first place. They've now vacated that spot and decamped further away leaving me sort of holding the ALP bag. Basically it looks like the ALP lost the campus and intellectuals to the Greens.

What this means is that the centre is being vacated by the left, while the ALP itself is left stranded without its traditional base. The ALP might end up fading and disappearing.

Bob Ellis Thinks The Liberals Will Disintegrate

Bob Ellis thinks there won't even be a Liberal Party by 2020. What's interesting about his post is that he seems to think the centre is crumbling for the Liberal Party as well, as they too shift, but further to the political right. As the great brains trust was explaining to me at the party, if Christopher Pyne and George Brandis represent the moderates in the Liberal Party, then the right end of the Liberal Party are nutjob rightwing fascists. The stupidity of the fascist position is being played out daily with the incessant appeals to fear through beating the drum of the security issues. Quite simply, the Liberal Party has long vacated the middle and gone to the right, and that should be leaving the middle the the ALP. Yet the ALP has been so inept it is losing its base as it occupies the middle.

Demographically speaking, the Pre-Boomers who support the conservatives are dying out. That vision of Australia is vanishing daily with the elderly checking out of Life Hotel. In its stead are the Baby Boomers heading into retirement, but they haven't changed their politics a great deal. There's a large chunk of them who are still on the political left, and so the demographic certainty that the Coalition had during the Howard years where they could rely on the passive grey vote, is not likely to hold in the near future. This leaves the decidedly ideologically right fascists - and this explains the scary three ring circus that is the Coalition government today, where the motivated members of the political machine on the right are not conservative in the older sense but ideological fascists.

Naturally one wonder just how much fascism can appeal to wider Australian electoral sentiments. One Nation with its clocked Bogan moron-o-cratic ideas indicates that it can be dressed up in jingoism and sold to a portion of the population. Yet One Nation never really made inroads into the middle enough to last. Independent senator David Leyonhjelm is a 'Liberal Democrat' in name but is essentially running a radical libertarian line - and I don't think he's having any more of an impact than Brain Harradine did in his day. This leads one to suspect that if the Liberal Party does fade or disintegrate due to demographics, then we will be seeing a particular vision of and for Australia, passing into history.

All Of This Is Very France In The 1930s

I like to remind people of Jean-Paul Sartre's book 'Age of Reason' in such instances. In the context where fascism was rising in Spain, the main character Mathieu is approached to joining the left in the Spanish Civil War. Mathieu turns them down because he judges it to be not yet his own war. And until the war come to his doorstep, it is not for him to take up arms.

The hardening of the fascist position in Australia is only in its second phase at this point in time. There arena weapons and signs of armed conflict. Yet if this is enough to provoke the Centre-Left moderates to move to the Greens, then we're seeing a replay of that dynamic. What concerns me the most is that all of these people moving to the left know how student politics played out in the late 1970s and they are totally cognisant of the players involved in that event, now being in Parliament. They are not taking chances. So while we may not descend into a civil war, we may descend into utter chaos when the middle ground totally dries up and there is only the hard right and hard left.
And frankly, this is now possibly on the cards for Australian politics.