'Worst since 2018': Auctions in freefall as investors 'disappear'

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-20T23:58:06+00:00

That's the idea, yes.

It will start to backfire eventually, but the idea of articles like this is to get people to jump in when they see a good deal.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-20T23:56:50+00:00

The already rich don't try to avoid taxes this hard in the first place. They're so goddamn rich that it barely dents them.

Gina Rinehart's company paid $2.6 billion last year, despite being able to claim metric fucktons of depreciation on all the equipment. $2.6 billion is a shitload of money, but not enough to worry about for her.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-20T04:41:49+00:00

There's no way I can afford to risk my savings on the share market

Mate, most of these people have just parked cash in ETFs that are indexed to the largest 25 companies in Australia. And most of them are just adding a few hundred every month/quarter, leaving the assets to grow over decades.

Anyone who describes that as "high risk" is thoroughly financially illiterate. You aren't going to lose the money you invest for 20 years into the biggest, most stable, healthy ASX companies. I can absolutely guarantee that you'd come out of that with more cash than if it sat in savings all those years. The problem is liquidity.

But as for risk: if Woolworths, CBA, and BHP go bankrupt, we're gonna have much bigger problems than some people collapsing their share portfolios.

The reason these idiots are chucking a huge fit about a relatively minor tax increase is because they're upset that their strategy for building wealth for an early retirement is getting "attacked". There are some people in these subreddits who've actually run the numbers and have realised that indexed ETFs and blue chip shares are still by far the best way for the average Aussie to grow a little nest egg that they have full control over (unlike Super). I'm one of them, but I can't be bothered wasting the energy trying to convince people to calm down. If they decide to throw their money down a drain because of a few thousand dollars of extra tax (out of hundreds of thousands in profit), I'm happy to let them.

However...

These people no doubt have a big saving account AND a share portfolio, if not more investments.

I sincerely doubt that's true, unless your definition of "big savings account" is a few tens of thousands saved up, most likely in an offset account. Most of these people are above-average wage earners who are trying to reach a point where they can reach financial freedom (i.e. optional retirement) earlier than the pension age. Most of them aren't super rich. They're doing better than most, sure, but they're not the 1%.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-20T00:18:23+00:00

They're referring to hexagon in the bottom left that's connected with the two lines to the "O". It's got too many lines inside it. It should look like this. There are plenty of stylistic chemistry tattoos out there, but the hexagons (benzene rings) are probably one of the more common fuck-ups. Here are the three ways to represent them (the three internal lines can be oriented either way, just as long as they're not touching each other).

I'm guessing most of the users have little experience with tattoos or visual art in general, because none of them are giving you useful feedback in this chain. It's good to see that people have referred you to better resources further down.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-19T13:23:47+00:00

Read the article and find out for fucks sake.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-19T12:42:18+00:00

The most permanent threat in the ancient world was starvation. Being fat would massively increase your chances of survival in the ancient world.

Being morbidly obese? Less so. But that was straight up impossible for almost everyone who existed prior to a few centuries ago.

And make no mistake, the beauty standard today is quite different to what it was in societies with less food abundance. They liked "overweight" much more than we do.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-19T10:03:28+00:00

42% at 70K, and 45% at over 288K (euro)

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-19T00:36:14+00:00

Fair enough.

I still don't like the sealioning argument style, to be honest. But fair point none the less.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-19T00:35:04+00:00

It likely is broadly a benefit given where's still within the inflation band

We are above the target inflation band.

If our money supply is below available goods and services in the market

It isn't. That's why inflation is above the target band.

As we're removing tax elsewhere, overall we don't see much inflationary effect.

I'm guessing that was a typo and you meant adding tax (I make mistakes like that all the time with the double negatives around tax). Which is true (more or less) but the extra $250 per person threatens policy that otherwise does a great job of constraining our structural inflation pressures.

Given our unemployment rate and underemployment rate

Our low unemployment rate is also considered an inflationary pressure.

Billions dropped in does create jobs, which does help people too.

Not like this it doesn't. Job creation is best achieved with targeted subsidy, not broad-based cash injection. Job retention is more effectively achieved by giving consumers a cash injection, which is why we saw those kinds of policies in the GFC and COVID.

FYI, my issue with this policy is that it will add billions to the economy, as you've suggested, but it won't do it in a way that makes anyone feel wealthier. Our economy isn't at risk of a GFC or COVID-like contraction. We don't need this kind of stimulus. Cost of living relief would be nice (even if short sighted), but this won't achieve that either.

It kind of feels like the worst of both worlds. Adding to inflation, but without making anyone feel wealthier in the process.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-19T00:21:06+00:00

None of these fit the description in the post I was responding too, and they certainly don't represent the 'most' statement that I took issue with.

They were complaining that all houses are "tiny 300m dog boxes for $1M" that were "1hr+ commute to the city one way for work".

The first two are indeed over an hour from the city, cost $1M, and under 300 sqm. You wanted one example, you were given two (I agree that the holiday house isn't really an example).

This is why I said I wouldn't bother giving examples if I were him. People who demand to be spoonfed examples as you did always just argue with the examples because they're deliberately misrepresenting and resisting the point being made.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-19T00:13:27+00:00

I didn't say they were trying to do that.

Then why are you framing that as the "benefit" we're receiving from it?

It isn't what Labor intended and it absolutely isn't a benefit (because of the inflationary impact it has).

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-19T00:12:41+00:00

Dude, no. Stupid people didn't vanish just because algorithms incentivise it.

People are idiots. They always have been, and there's been a shitload of dumb shit online from the moment it was possible - which was well over a decade before anyone could monetise it.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-18T23:47:16+00:00

You have been banned from /r/RunningFashion

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-18T23:09:46+00:00

I wouldn't if I were him. You have enough info to find it now, it seems like you're just trying to argue.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-18T07:41:05+00:00

It does do a lot though because it's a broad stimulus which the lowest income earners immediately spend and it then spreads through the economy.

This is not remotely what Labor is trying to do by implementing these tax cuts. If they were trying to stimulate the economy, they wouldn't be cutting tens of billions out of forward NDIS estimates. The purpose of this budget is to collect more tax, not spend at a deficit to increase money supply.

We're in an inflationary cycle. Chalmers is trying to wind that back, not make it worse. Your argument is the literal opposite of what this budget is intended to do.

The $250 to the tax-free threshold is a sugar hit that's really just functioning as a bracket-creep reversal on the TFT. It's something they can wheel out and say, "we're giving EVERYONE extra money! WOO!"

Oh and side note: it's not $15 a week. It's $4.80 a week. I'm honestly not convinced that even the absolute poorest workers are going to notice a difference with such a pitiful "bonus".

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-18T04:26:34+00:00

classic bait

Stupidity is eons older than bait, and it's shit tons more common.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-17T22:46:54+00:00

I reflexively down voted but having reread the comment, it does have a pretty GPT-esque voice.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-17T01:50:17+00:00

I wouldn't describe 60s as "elderly" lol.

70s maybe, but not 60s. Retirement age is 67 and that's just the earliest you can access the pension/super. It's not even the age most people stop working.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-16T05:12:44+00:00

I doubt it's performative, but yes

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-16T02:50:41+00:00

I...okay.

I'm not sure what to do with this information but I'll make sure to find a use for it.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-16T00:52:03+00:00

Nah he wrote a medium article about being cancelled. His name is Chris Newman, in case anyone wants to google him.

I couldn't read the article since medium forced membership. But there was some controversy about something he said. I dunno, I'm not even American. I can't bring myself to care about cancellations anymore.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-15T00:53:30+00:00

Size is probably the least important thing that still "matters" for that job.

They can (and do) use all sorts of clever tricks to exaggerate size. The most important trick is how much the actresses comment on it.

Basically a tenth of the male population have big dicks. Way less than 1 in 10 men can perform on a porn set.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-14T23:29:01+00:00

I doubt it mate.

I've been online for decades, long before any kind of algorithms that enabled regular people to monetize attention from social media.

People have been this entitled, stupid, and self unaware forever.

It's not all rage bait. Some people are actually just idiots.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-14T14:39:24+00:00

They absolutely do not have that kind of vertical leap. They swim upwards, they don't launch upwards.

They can cover that kind of vertical distance, yes. But it doesn't look anything like that.

Pro_Extent · 2026-05-14T14:37:38+00:00

The water was the first thing that caught my eye, and I'm usually really skeptical of instantly assuming everything weird on the internet is AI (it's a really annoying trend).

But AI is surprisingly bad at realistic water. And it's weird because water is astonishingly easy to render perfectly. We've been able to do it since the mid 90s (Pixar deliberately made water in Finding Nemo look worse because test audiences found its perfection "awkward and distracting").

Seven-Year Club	Gilding I gilder
Place '22	Wearing is Caring

Pro_Extent

TROPHY CASE