Jumpingmanjim posted:

Can you imagine Twiggy on the dole, Complaining about his healthy welfare card?

gay picnic defence posted:

I'm sure his personal wealth outside of the company is sufficient that he'll be fine, however if the ore prices stay down though he might have to sell most off the company's assets to repay his creditors given he built the company almost entirely on debt.

Sulla-Marius 88 posted:

The true competition in sport lies in training regimens, political maneuvering and finance, steroids and dietary management. Given this, we should stop kidding ourselves and just build robots to replace the current inferior human substitutes. That way we can stop acting like sport has anything to do with the players or human competition and acknowledge its true roots in entertainment and corporatism. Tens of thousands of human lives will be spared from the sinister manipulations of greedy enterprise and with a proper focus on artificial intelligence and engineering maybe sports as an industry can actually serve some goddamn use for once instead of retaining all its medical research for the cutting edge of an unethical and inaccessible black market

Fruity Gordo posted:

Serco failing to deliver the autoclaving results that Jez, the stoned 19yo at Off Ya Tree who just pierced your tragus, has got on lock

Fruity Gordo posted:

Hmmm weird, looks like you managed to miss this post, friend:

bowmore posted:

climate scientists are cool dudes we already knew that

quote:

Are these two facts a mere coincidence or is there direct link between Baird’s blistering good looks and healthy poll numbers?

For the sake of accuracy I have studied Mr Baird frequently and methodically.

This intense analysis has led me to conclude that the NSW Premier fell out of the handsome tree and hit every branch on the way down.

He’s not like other politicians; he looks like he’s just stepped out of a Country Road catalogue, not a cabinet meeting.

Mr Baird’s chiselled features, twinkling eyes and fetching smile are enhanced further by a golden all year tan.

Add to this intoxicating mix the slim yet athletic build of a surfer who appears much younger than his 47 years and you have a formidable weapon of mass electoral seduction.

All in all Mr Baird is the perfect politician; astute, principled, as well as devilishly handsome.

It’s little wonder he was re-elected in spectacular fashion less than two weeks ago despite one of the most shameless, scaremongering campaigns seen in the last decade.

The victory was all the more impressive given the manner in which coalition state governments have fallen around the country.

Only a couple of months ago some political pundits were making the laughable assertion that if Prime Minister Tony Abbott wasn’t replaced it would cost Baird the NSW election.

They clearly hadn’t factored in the Baird factor.

The old saying goes that “politics is show business for ugly people” but if political parties were a little more savvy then surely they’d start preselecting prettier candidates.

The science is indisputable; all of us, without meaning to, treat attractive folk better than their plain or ugly brethren.

It’s not intentional and it appears not to be learned response; research indicates that children too young to be influenced by societal expectations of beauty are instinctively more trusting of adults who are deemed attractive.

Some say it’s a throwback to survival of the fittest where we impulsively gravitate to the best physical specimens of our species.

Researchers from Harvard University found that children as young as four were far more likely to believe what an attractive person had to say.

The study published in the British Journal of Developmental Psychology found that young girls in particular were more trusting of the beautiful.

“We see from the results that children and especially girls have more trust in attractive faces, even though there are no obvious reasons why people with more attractive faces would be more knowledgeable,” lead researcher Dr Igor Bascandziev said.

“The gender difference could relate to boys not paying as much attention to the initial presentation of the faces or other research has pointed to the fact that females have superior face perception.”

Men have long been accused of being shallow and obsessed with looks above all else but it appears women are just as superficial.

It turns out being really really ridiculously good looking is not associated with being thick or frivolous.

Indeed the opposite is true; attractive people are considered to be more intelligent, dependable and decent than plain or unattractive folk.

There may be good reason for the affirmative discrimination displayed towards the gorgeous given all the research shows that there is a positive correlation between beauty and brains.

The London School of Economics looked at child-development studies of more than 17,000 Britons and 35,000 Americans who were marked on their physical appearance from childhood to early adulthood as well as given tests for academic progress and intelligence.

The findings were startling; attractive men were found to have IQs that are 13.6 points above the average while attractive women scored 11.4 above the norm.

This led the researchers to conclude that: “Physical attractiveness is significantly positively associated with general intelligence, both with and without controls for social class, body size and health.”

In all facets of life being attractive is an advantage. Those deemed to be aesthetically pleasing are happier, earn larger salaries, achieve greater professional success and are more likely to be trusted and admired.

Prominent US economist Dr Daniel Hamermesh’s research showed that the beautiful earn on average an extra $250,000 in their working life and are more likely to be hired, promoted and hold senior positions in the workforce.

Of course breathtaking beauty does have its drawbacks, as Judge Judy so sagely puts it: “beauty fades, but dumb is forever.”

Those who become reliant on their looks and benefit from the kindness showered upon the dazzling few may find it difficult to cope when their looks fade and they are treated like the rest of the population.

The unfair advantage the ravishing have also won’t save them from gross incompetence or other inadequacies of character or aptitude.

So political parties won’t just be able to preselect a bunch of Kens and Barbies and expect to hoodwink the electorate.

However if they can uncover talent like Mr Baird whose hot dad stylings are mixed with impeccable economic credentials, warmth and charisma then they have hit the balloting jackpot.

bowmore posted:

climate scientists are cool dudes we already knew that

quote:

Rupert Murdoch's US empire siphons $4.5b from Australian business virtually tax-free

Rupert Murdoch's media empire in the US has siphoned off $4.5 billion of cash and shares from his Australian media businesses in the past two years, virtually tax free.

According to calculations by University of NSW accounting academic, Jeffrey Knapp, over the past 10 years, Mr Murdoch's companies here have paid income tax equivalent to a rate of 4.8 per cent on $6.8 billion in operating cash flows, or just 10 per cent of operating profits.

News Corp Australia chief executive Julian Clarke is scheduled to appear before the Senate Inquiry into Corporate Tax Avoidance this week along with executives from Google, Apple, Glencore, Rio Tinto, BHP and Fortescue. The inquiry has been called to address rising community concerns that multinational companies are not paying their fair share of tax in Australia.

Two pages of detailed questions were put to News about its accounting practices. The response from a spokesperson for the company was: "Our financial reports comply with Australian Accounting Standards and the Corporations Act 2001, have received an unqualified audit opinion and are filed with the regulator, ASIC. Beyond this we have nothing further to add."

Normally a company will return cash to its offshore parent by way of dividends from shares or interest from loans. These however attract withholding tax. News has justified its practice of "repatriating" cash - $1.3 billion only last year - by making a "return of capital" to its New York parent.

In order for this capital to be returned, it had to be created in the first place. This was done via a transaction in late 2004 whereby News interposed a $2 company at the top of its web of Australian companies. This company, News Australia Holdings, then issued 77 billion shares to News Corporation in New York, the seat of Murdoch's global media empire. Those shares were issued to acquire the shares of the previous Australian holding company.

In other words, Company A (News Australia Holdings) acquired Company B (the previous holding company) by issuing 77 billion shares to News Corporation.

News Corp owned the shares in Company B. They created the new holding company, Company A. It issued 77 billion shares to News Corp and then News Corp transferred the shares it held in Company B to Company A.

As part of the accounting for this transaction, there is a $7 billion increase in intangibles and consequently in the share capital in News Australia Holdings as well. Although the intangibles were reversed the next year, the inflated share capital remained the same and News has used this share capital to return billions in cash years later.

The result of this "magic pudding", said Mr Knapp, is that "share capital ballooned by $7 billion for a temporary adjustment to intangible assets that has the character of internally generated goodwill".

"As a result of doing nothing more than putting a new $2 company at the top of the Australian group they later returned that capital in cash and shares with little tax consequence."

Fairfax also sought the views of University of Sydney Professor Emeritus Bob Walker and forensic accountant John Shanahan, author of Shanahan & Shanahan's Guide to Accounting Standards. Both expressed concerns about aspects of the News Australia accounting practices.

News Corp ceased producing "general purpose" financial reports in 2006.

Asked whether News should be producing general purpose accounts, Professor Walker said: "It's plainly anomalous that local subsidiaries of major multinational corporations can themselves decide they are not 'reporting entities' – and hence that they don't have to comply with all Australian accounting standards.

"The test is whether there are any users who might rely on published financial statements to make, or to evaluate, economic decisions. If directors say that some large proprietary companies are not 'reporting entities', they are ignoring the legitimate interests of employees, employees' representatives, creditors, and the Australian Tax Office.

The Corporations Act should address this shortcoming."

Breaking down the $4.5 billion in cash and shares transferred offshore, $1.3 billion in cash was transferred in 2014 and subsidiaries holding $1.9 billion in cash were transferred in 2013. The rest was shares.

Besides the questionable level of disclosure, there are a number of accounting irregularities in the News Australia Holdings accounts, including the strange claim that various subsidiaries of the company do not have to file financial statements because they are entitled to class order relief from the Australian Securities & Investments Commission.

This is not the case, according to Mr Shanahan.

"To gain this relief, all the companies covered [by the class order] must be wholly-owned by News Australia Holdings and covered by a cross-guarantee of indebtedness," he said.

News Australia Holdings does not own any shares in 20 subsidiaries. The New York parent News Corp and other offshore entities are the shareholders. They are not party to the deed of cross guarantee. Therefore News Corporation presents in the accounts of News Australia Holdings as being, at the same time, non-controlling and controlling shareholder.

BlitzkriegOfColour posted:

Who will likely profit when the housing market crashes, and by what mechanism?

BlitzkriegOfColour posted:

Who will likely profit when the housing market crashes, and by what mechanism?

BlitzkriegOfColour posted:

Who will likely profit when the housing market crashes, and by what mechanism?

Sulla-Marius 88 posted:

Another great thing about housing market crashes is that it overwhelmingly benefits the already-wealthy who have huge stocks of existing capital with which they can weather the storm and snap up shitloads of prime real estate at rock bottom prices and ensure their grandchildren will live like gods among slugs

BlitzkriegOfColour posted:

What kind of companies, which industries, you slugs!

I'm trying to save my super from ruin

Drugs posted:

Oil, guns and water are what you will need when we go Mad Max

teacup posted:

Just landed in brisbane for a work thing for the next week. Hot and humid, and the taxi guy tried to rip me off by not turning the metre on. gently caress this city

Murodese posted:

quote:

The ad itself makes no sense whatsoever.

It's a picture of, I guess, an employer holding her hands in front of her face. I'm assuming she's shielding her face from the cameras, in much the same way as those who are leaving courts shield their faces from the camera.

Clearly, she's left her hoodie at home. And then, on the palms of her hands, she's written, "I'm" on one hand and "sorry" on the other. Well, sister, if you've done the crime, you do the time.

The ad itself makes no sense whatsoever.

It's a picture of, I guess, an employer holding her hands in front of her face. I'm assuming she's shielding her face from the cameras, in much the same way as those who are leaving courts shield their faces from the camera.

Clearly, she's left her hoodie at home. And then, on the palms of her hands, she's written, "I'm" on one hand and "sorry" on the other. Well, sister, if you've done the crime, you do the time.

Advertisement

But actually, the only crime here is the serious misjudgement of the Australian mood. Turns out it's part of a campaign by the Australian Chamber of Commerce and Industry to get ordinary people to complain to the federal government about penalty rates.

The ad says: "This Easter long weekend, we're sorry that we will be closed. We'd like to be open to serve you. We'd like to give local people jobs. But the penalty rates are too high. Tell Canberra something has to change."

That's what passes for sophisticated advocacy these days.

Fortunately, the ads didn't last long. People all over Australia told their local shopkeepers and café owners that if their businesses displayed the posters, customers would take their custom elsewhere.

Kate Carnell, the chief executive officer of the ACCI, said on Monday some small business owners had been intimidated. Some, she said, were called names. And on top of all that, the unions ran a social media campaign.

"Free speech is OK but not to claim you are going to boycott," she said.

Intimidating? That's a word which gets bandied about a lot – and frequently by bullies themselves – but in this case, you'd have to imagine it's useful to tell a shopkeeper you plan to take your custom elsewhere. It's like giving people notice when you plan to move out.

Censoring free speech? Yes, you can say what you like and display what you like, but Australians have the right to shop where they like. Money is the language of power in this consumer relationship.

So I went walking in my local neighbourhood over Easter. Some shops and cafes were closed but most were open and packed. Waiters get a loading of 250 per cent on public holidays (look in the PayCheckPlus section of the Fair Work Ombudsman's website). That's fair enough – you give up your precious free time to wrangle queues for coffee and food – why not get a share of the extra income?

My suburb too anecdotal for you?

The Mudgee Guardian wrote a story about its local chamber of commerce joining the anti-penalty rates campaign and then posted it on its Facebook page. The comments went wild and editor Robyn Murray says she was surprised: "I thought [readers] would side with the business people."

Instead the posts were overwhelmingly supportive of people being paid extra to work on weekends and holidays. I wondered whether she recognised the names of those who were posting, or whether it was a Unions Australia stunt.

"No, I know them by sight or by name," said Murray, who's been editor for five years. So how did Mudgee businesses fare over the Easter break? Murray says one of her reporters came back to work after lunch on Monday, complaining because all his favourite cafes were packed.

Last week, Ged Kearney, president of the ACTU, was at her desk in Melbourne when the phone rang. It was ACCI's Carnell, complaining about the reaction to the anti-penalty rates campaign. She accused Kearney of intimidating her members, who were only expressing opinions by putting up those posters.

"She blamed the unions for that. What did she expect us to do? Throw up our hands?

"This is the amazing thing – does she not understand how attacked our members feel about their relentless campaigning against their pay and standards of living?" Kearney asked.

Turns out that Kearney's sole contribution to the backlash was a colleague's well-advised posts on the Australian Unions Facebook page and a judicious use of Twitter.

That campaigning is part of their work: "Members feel attacked and undervalued and we are going to fight against that."

But beyond this particular campaign, the battle to take away penalty rates is real – and it's more than just a series of poorly-conceived posters. The ACCI's submission to the Fair Work Commission makes that very clear.

As I've argued before, business owners and lobbyists always make the case about shopping and eating, relying on our baser selves and our greed. But it's their greed which needs addressing here. Do you imagine that any savings would be passed on to you, the consumer?

The real target is always the biggest sector which pays penalty rates. The nurses. The social workers. Yes, those most likely to be paid penalty rates work in social assistance and health care. And one-third of them rely on that income to pay household expenses.

Yes, not cappuccino. Not take away chicken wraps. But rent, electricity, water. And most of those people lived in households with a total income of less than $30,000.

And thanks John Carney for this tip. Employers and governments might better understand why penalty rates matter if we use their terms.

That's not a penalty rate. That's a price signal.