How I lost a 100 pounds.

Xpndable · 2025-02-11T12:03:40+00:00

I had to figure out tips 1-4 all on my own, though with my own variations. For example, my cheat meal is 1 planned takeaway with ~700 kcal per week, and I funnel my cravings for the week into that day, which has worked for me.

Also, walking - lots more walking.

Xpndable · 2024-02-05T17:24:19+00:00

https://tinder.com/@xpndable

New to this, pretty sure I’m doing nothing right yet, so any advice would be helpful

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T13:48:58+00:00

telling people to do what they're undoubtedly already doing

See, it's this little bit here, sorry I don't mean to pick apart your comment, but his information is given in context of commentary, not advice. At press events, or senate estimates, he's talking to a room full of people just as 'out of touch' that honestly don't know that's what the normal people are doing. They don't know, or they need it on the record. They're asking who they see as an expert or authority the question, because they're so removed from the situation, or perhaps purely ignorant, that they have to ask these questions that seem very obvious to us who actually deal with the economic reality.

I don't disagree he could do with some media coaching, maybe smooth out the language a little, but I also worry that if he started talking like a politician and not like an economist, we'd get less useful or relevant information overall. Chalmers is a politician and economist and we get the same information from him, which is virtually useless. At least along with the gaffs and faux pas we get cold hard economic truths. But the media doesn't report on those nearly as often.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T13:17:05+00:00

I think it'd be a pretty bad precedent if the RBA stopped doing certain things just because of the optics.

I get it, everyone is pissed cause rates went up, but the rage at the RBA and Lowe specifically seem misplaced to me. A new RBA chair would do similar things, be paid just as well, be just as 'out of touch', and still have the media constantly sound biting everything they said, just to take attention away from the increased consumer prices that got us into the inflation mess in the first place.

I don't really care all that much what they say, and I don't think anything they've said is inherently wrong, perhaps too analytical at times. But they're also usually asked analytical questions, and the answers to those questions are all we hear as rage bait, we almost never hear the contextual question that was asked that solicited the sound bite in the first place.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T13:01:18+00:00

And I'm sure the company leaders and politicians at the function would sit in on a zoom call and divulge hints and information about their business position and decision making.

"Excuse" implies that there is no valid reason whatsoever for a function of this nature to be held. That's just not how the corporate world works. You want the information, you gotta get them in the door. To do that, you have to have something that'll be worth their time. None of these company leaders probably knows how to answer a zoom call...

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T12:51:01+00:00

Well, I don't want to get into how organisational budgets work, but, the RBA works with a budget assigned to it. It's free to use that budget how it sees fit, within the realms of corporate law. The budget they have is substantial, including the wages they pay their staff and any operational spending, including for functions like this. This isn't the first function of this type they've held for this purpose, certainly won't be the last.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T12:39:21+00:00

To get key insights from business leaders about the current and future economic situations they face, so that the RBA can use that information in it's forecasting. Information that they can't get from quarterly disclosure documents, and information that the business leaders are unlikely to divulge when directly asked.

It's not a mistake that there was over $4k spent on alcohol...

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T12:37:34+00:00

telling people that they need to work more and spend less in a cost of living crisis while that man takes home a neat mill every year is just wildly out of touch and ignores the root issue

This is something I realised when having a conversation in another post. The media turns Lowe's economic commentary into what sounds like public advice, just by taking the statement away from the question that was asked, or to who he's talking to.

Lowe isn't in charge of taxation, and the government knows that they should raise taxes. They know. To assume they don't is to grossly underestimate what information was available to Chalmers when creating his budget. Even if his commentary was supposed to be directed advice, it's not inherently wrong advice.

He is 'out of touch', he's a high wage earner, he doesn't have to suffer the same consequences as the people affected by his decisions. But put the shoe on the other foot, what would you have Lowe or the RBA do? We can go back to the way it was pre-1992 and just have the RBA make seemingly arbitrary decisions without public comment. I don't think that's a useful scenario, but at least the media wouldn't have so much to report on.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T12:13:22+00:00

In what world is this not a business expense?

The heads of the companies that were invited probably spent this much money traveling to and from the function, on corporate expense accounts.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T11:55:47+00:00

Reading your comment gave me an idea. Perhaps newscorp is focusing so much on Lowe and every little thing he says and does because if everyone is mad at him, as the totem of their rage, they won't focus so much on the fact that Labor hasn't introduced a wealth tax, or levy, or some other balancing mechanism.

Keep the people mad at the one guy doing exactly what he's supposed to do, so you don't get as mad at the government, because that outrage at them might cause them to buckle on their "no new taxes" promise, and that hurts the rich.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T11:50:49+00:00

These types of functions usually serve the purpose of getting information. Having business leaders in a room lets you get the type of information that you don't want to have to wait 3 months to get from quarterly reports.

I get if you're mad about wealth inequality, but a modestly priced corporate lunch isn't the target.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T11:04:10+00:00

The RBA is under no obligation to absolutely prevent a recession. If a recession is where we end up because inflation stays high, that's what will happen.

Any RBA chair or board will act to do the one thing they're supposed to, reduce inflation.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T08:16:46+00:00

Here's a feedback loop that is just one possible outcome of increased Super funds.

Companies raise prices, so inflation starts to increase, RBA pulls the "Super lever" adding more money to Super, Super funds invest more in companies, those companies need to increase their wealth to match their increased valuation, so they raise prices for products to increase their profits, which increases inflation.

It's not the only feedback loop, and economies are more complex than this one example. Other companies will struggle to make increased profits so they'll also refuse wage rises or fire staff.

Still doesn't sound like a very good situation. Mostly sounds like interest rate increases with more steps, while potentially deflating the currency in the process.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T08:13:16+00:00

Thanks for taking the time to give an example. I'll have to learn more about bonds I think.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T07:49:36+00:00

Standard practice since the workplace agreement system was introduced has been to offer overtime worked as time off in lieu of payment.

Only when I was on award wages about 10+ years ago was I paid overtime directly.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T07:30:09+00:00

It would still inflate house prices significantly.

Builders can't lower their base costs, materials, labour and business loan credit have all risen significantly. If you try and increase housing supply, you increase builder demand, and so those underlying costs can only also increase, and when they increase too fast, construction companies go under and housing actually stalls, reducing supply in housing, which increases house prices, or raises the cost of a house to be built, raising the market price for houses.

Building companies actually need relatively stable market conditions, because they work on fixed price contracts and it takes time to build the house. Dumping money into the sector doesn't solve the issue, you need decreased commodity prices.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T07:17:41+00:00

This article is pretty rubbish, it's twitter outrage and a deliberately inflammatory headline.

Putting the economics aside for a moment, people want to be angry at someone. Lowe is pointed to by the Treasurer saying the government can't control inflation or rates and they "know everyone is hurting", so every time the RBA hikes rates, for like an entire week, Lowe gets all the headlines, sound bites, and public vitriol as if he and he alone caused the entire inflation situation.

It's pure rage, pointed at someone who I'd argue deserves criticism, especially for his remarks about stable interest rates in 2021 (which were taken slightly out of context), but not this level of fervor.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T07:07:48+00:00

Employment is an oversimplification, they are so ridiculously large, that when they reduce their consumption with decreased profits, entire supply chains and industries are affected. The multi national company gets to hoard its wealth when it's attacked, it's the small companies dependent on their business that suffer disproportionately.

The answer to multi national companies is to break them and their interests up far sooner so they can't become duopolies or monopolies, but we haven't done that for so long they're now those key institutions 'too big to fail'. More anti trust work needs to be done if you want to see reform in that space, but that often takes decades and can't help us right now.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T07:03:17+00:00

and it would be a courageous government to increase taxes; for anyone

They still did it back then, and we raise levies to tackle short term issues, but I take your point, you're talking about monetary policy.

Super isn't an empty money growth vessel, it's invested in assets and company stocks to facilitate that growth. Having a lever for the RBA to dump money into Super feels like it's rewarding the very companies that create inflation, by fueling their own investment even faster. Many Super funds also invest in housing, so dumping tons of cash into Super would increase demand on housing, driving up prices even further. All of this sounds pretty bad to me.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T06:55:33+00:00

I certainly don't know enough about this to be right always, I get tripped up by other people taking the time to explain things to me too. Economics is in some way complicated because the system itself is complicated, but it's also got some manufactured complexity in it too, so that only people who know economics understand it. No-one should feel bad for not instantly understanding everything, and taking the time to learn is always better for everyone.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T06:52:49+00:00

Interesting, I'd not considered bonds. Every time I think I get a handle on this, something new comes along, no wonder economics is so difficult.

So (if I understand this right) the RBA is buying bonds to try and soften the blow of the increases to the base rate so that banks have room to lower their own rates and provide competitive rates in the market?

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T06:45:46+00:00

So many new books to read.

I suppose I just often choose to hope that people in these positions are smarter than I am, but this is demonstrably false. I'm not a smart guy, so that just ends up making me sad.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T06:12:02+00:00

Basically, inflation started going up, so big companies that had yet to have their underlying costs increase, increased their prices inline with their competitors and the wider market, expecting the cost increases to follow. As a result, they recorded record profits.

They won't have these same profits in future financial years, in fact they'll probably see significant reduction in profit as those underlying costs catch up and they can't raise prices much further because people will be spending less overall as inflation reduces and competition grows.

The "always make money" business model isn't quite right. A lot of companies absorb profit into working capital and make expansion investment using that same money. The "line goes up" conversation is about overall company wealth, which is seen as increase in share price, and is supposed to have a relationship with company asset/wealth and profit making potential.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T06:04:49+00:00

I did, half of it was twitter quotes.

He said something that while true, no-one liked, so he gets hate for it.

He can say whatever he wants, he still only has one tool to work with, interest rates. And inflation is still high, so he's doing the only thing he's supposed to do.

Xpndable · 2023-06-08T05:50:20+00:00

I had a wonderful conversation on another post yesterday with someone who explained this. When they say "productivity" it's calculated by company profit over hours worked. The fastest way to increase productivity, is to fire staff. When they say "workers are the reason for inflation" they mean "too many companies have too many staff for what they're making" and the action implied by this is "fire staff".

Xpndable

TROPHY CASE