4 ms·

The Australia Institute is a thinktank, funded by the Greens. The conclusion is already foregone, they work backwards from there, it's like asking ASPI about d

The Australia Institute is a thinktank, funded by the Greens. The conclusion is already foregone, they work backwards from there, it's like asking ASPI about defense spending.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago
> Australia Institute is a thinktank, funded by the Greens Source? If true, this doesn’t belong on HN.
- thundergolfer 4y ago
  Ok, but most of the economic content posted here is funded by groups and individuals far worse than The Greens. What kind of analysis would you find independent enough to pass muster?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
- gruez 4y ago
  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australia_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australia_Institute >The Australia Institute is a left-wing[2] public policy think tank based in Canberra, Australia [...] >The Australia Institute claims to not accept donations or commissioned work from political parties.[51]
  - Grimburger 4y ago
    They don't publish who funds them, at least ASPI is open about their money coming from overseas weapons manufacturers.
    - trog 4y ago
      So how do you know they are funded by the Greens?
- Khaine 4y ago
  This doesn't belong on HN, because its garbage analysis. From their 'analysis': "Record profits on petroleum and mining activities (reinforced by a spike in global oil and gas prices following the invasion of Ukraine) led this surge, but the overall corporate sector experienced the most rapid growth in profits of any comparable period in 35 years." So because of global shortages, commodity prices reached record highs, and companies <b>which are price takers<b> benefited from that, is now suddenly corporate greed? BHP doesn't set the price for Iron Ore, the market does. BP doesn't set the price for Oil or Natural Gas, the market does. When you cut off Russia who are a key supplier of those goods, that creates shortages and causes prices to spike. This means companies which extract those goods will make more money as long as costs remain the same.
  - thomjrob 4y ago
    "There are shortages, but if everything remains the same, they make more money" ??? That's a whack thing to say with a straight face.
    - gruez 4y ago
      Presumably you think this is "whack" because you feel it's unfair that companies are making more in revenue without a corresponding increase in expenses. What about the reverse situation? ie. there is an oversupply/demand collapse, prices go down, but their input expenses stay the same so they make less money. We're seeing this in the semiconductor industry. Should we stand with them in solidarity by continuing to pay pre-collapse prices, and have internet commentators point out how it's "whack" for them to rake in less money even though their expenses hasn't dropped?
    - makomk 4y ago
      It really isn't, publications like the Guardian have just misled people about how the economy works and why corporations make profits in situations like this. It's basically a direct consequence of two things: people cannot buy stuff unless it's actually available to buy, and money does not disappear when it's spent. This means that when there's not enough stuff available to buy, everyone bids up prices until demand meets supply again, with the money ending up as profits at whatever parts of the supply chain are most constrained. This is a perfectly reasonable place for it to end up: those companies are actively helping make the problem less bad by existing and investing in production at the level they did, it incentivises more such investment, and - most importantly - limiting corporate profits and price increases cannot prevent people from becoming worse off in real terms because the amount they buy is still limited to what's actually being produced.

The Australia Institute is a thinktank, funded by the Greens. The conclusion is already foregone, they work backwards from there, it's like asking ASPI about defense spending.

JumpCrisscross 4y ago

> Australia Institute is a thinktank, funded by the Greens Source? If true, this doesn’t belong on HN.

thundergolfer 4y ago
Ok, but most of the economic content posted here is funded by groups and individuals far worse than The Greens. What kind of analysis would you find independent enough to pass muster?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
gruez 4y ago
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australia_Institute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Australia_Institute >The Australia Institute is a left-wing[2] public policy think tank based in Canberra, Australia [...] >The Australia Institute claims to not accept donations or commissioned work from political parties.[51]
- Grimburger 4y ago
  They don't publish who funds them, at least ASPI is open about their money coming from overseas weapons manufacturers.
  - trog 4y ago
    So how do you know they are funded by the Greens?
Khaine 4y ago
This doesn't belong on HN, because its garbage analysis. From their 'analysis': "Record profits on petroleum and mining activities (reinforced by a spike in global oil and gas prices following the invasion of Ukraine) led this surge, but the overall corporate sector experienced the most rapid growth in profits of any comparable period in 35 years." So because of global shortages, commodity prices reached record highs, and companies <b>which are price takers<b> benefited from that, is now suddenly corporate greed? BHP doesn't set the price for Iron Ore, the market does. BP doesn't set the price for Oil or Natural Gas, the market does. When you cut off Russia who are a key supplier of those goods, that creates shortages and causes prices to spike. This means companies which extract those goods will make more money as long as costs remain the same.
- thomjrob 4y ago
  "There are shortages, but if everything remains the same, they make more money" ??? That's a whack thing to say with a straight face.
  - gruez 4y ago
    Presumably you think this is "whack" because you feel it's unfair that companies are making more in revenue without a corresponding increase in expenses. What about the reverse situation? ie. there is an oversupply/demand collapse, prices go down, but their input expenses stay the same so they make less money. We're seeing this in the semiconductor industry. Should we stand with them in solidarity by continuing to pay pre-collapse prices, and have internet commentators point out how it's "whack" for them to rake in less money even though their expenses hasn't dropped?
  - makomk 4y ago
    It really isn't, publications like the Guardian have just misled people about how the economy works and why corporations make profits in situations like this. It's basically a direct consequence of two things: people cannot buy stuff unless it's actually available to buy, and money does not disappear when it's spent. This means that when there's not enough stuff available to buy, everyone bids up prices until demand meets supply again, with the money ending up as profits at whatever parts of the supply chain are most constrained. This is a perfectly reasonable place for it to end up: those companies are actively helping make the problem less bad by existing and investing in production at the level they did, it incentivises more such investment, and - most importantly - limiting corporate profits and price increases cannot prevent people from becoming worse off in real terms because the amount they buy is still limited to what's actually being produced.