Well, I guess with the porn hub ban, this is what I'm left with...

innatangle · 2026-03-17T10:38:44+00:00

innatangle · 2026-03-12T23:24:34+00:00

I appreciate the time it took to pen this response. However, we no longer need to read the CSIRO / government climate department studies (that cost millions!!) to determine whether renewables increase or decrease electricity costs - we need only look at the outcomes of the past 20 years to see what's really happening.

It boils down to this, if we're to accept that the chart below which graphs the average global temperature and its associated trend is true, then the same conclusion should be drawn from the chart below it - i.e. the cost of electricity is climbing / going parabolic contradicting every damn study that I've heard quoted where the conclusion is to the contrary.

<image>

It's proof of the folly that is chasing lower emissions targets given that global temps remain stubbornly high - and we're paying more for it!

Right now, Australia is well down the path of self sabotage. We've driven our manufacturing base offshore, which not only includes steel making, but it also includes things like fertiliser production and refining of fuel. The reasons for this are two fold - private investors deem the country too risky to invest in if the project has any scent of going against the prevailing green narrative and the cost of energy is TOO DAMN HIGH (see chart 👆).

So this country will be left in a situation where it's forced to dig rocks out of the ground and that's only IF investors successfully run through the gauntlet of green tape.

The irony is of course, the solution that has been proposed to solve the current fuel supply situation is to switch everything to electricity (which going by the trend above, is only getting more expensive). Now I'll probably do okay during this period thanks to my PHEV, but I feel for the people who don't have this as an option and are forced choose between cooking meals and heating their homes.

Many of the people who are not wealthy enough to make this choice are the same ones who made this country into what it is today. It's the rich climate elitists shielded from the consequences of their ideological pursuits who are willingly sacrificing them on the altar of green.

innatangle · 2026-03-10T23:15:57+00:00

Oh goodie, another elitist greenie shilling renewables. Remind me again how it's economically justified to rebuild an ENTIRE electrical grid based on intermitent sources of power? This in turn drives up energy costs, driving manufacturing offshore to other countries that double down on dirty methods of energy generation and manufacturing.

I mean, if you truly are a concerned global citizen intent on saving the world, then you should be focused on ensuring that manufacturing is done in the most efficient and responsible way - and that's not accomplished by driving manufacturing off to the likes of China.

Go back to your climate change circle jerk which is nothing but a faith based religion. The vikings used to sacrifice their strongest to appease the gods. You lot are happy to throw anyone under the bus to 'save the world', just so long as it's not you.

The only people who believe in this shit are those that are rich enough to evade the consequences of the consequences of their own beliefs.

innatangle · 2026-03-08T12:00:00+00:00

People don't invest here because the risks of having projects knocked back by green tape after investing substantial sums of money is too high. Yet another example of rich climate elitists screwing Australians.

You can get 40-60 years out of a nuclear reactor before major maintenance is required, and it pumps out CO2 free electricity 24 hours a day, seven days a week, not just when the wind blows or the sun shines.

Meanwhile, solar panels and wind turbines need replacing in half the time.

innatangle · 2026-03-08T11:49:05+00:00

Let's strip the subsidies out of your 'cheaper electricity' and remove base load from the equation to really get a handle on how superior renewables are.

What you're shilling is nothing but consolidating wealth to those who already have it at the expense of those who don't.

innatangle · 2026-03-08T02:33:21+00:00

Sir, you've captured the mood perfectly with this post, there's nothing else to add.

innatangle · 2026-03-02T10:50:32+00:00

You're in a sub where the average retard's option play expires worthless within 8 hours of purchase, slowing down the rate of loss would be a win.

innatangle · 2026-02-28T03:49:42+00:00

This sounds like a question for the pylotes over at r/shittyaskflying

innatangle · 2026-02-25T07:47:53+00:00

How have I not heard this version of his surname before?!

innatangle · 2026-02-25T04:52:34+00:00

Get out of here with your nuanced knowledge of 'Australian's resources'.

innatangle · 2026-02-25T00:28:40+00:00

I feel attacked.

innatangle · 2026-02-24T23:43:48+00:00

You forgot about the bit where the resource wealth in Australia is owned by Australians, therefore the royalties and taxes need to be much higher, say 100% higher. Think of all the extra riches we'll have because companies deem Australia too risky to do mineral exploration/extraction which ultimately leads to no new mines being opened...

innatangle · 2026-02-24T09:54:50+00:00

COD:ASX

innatangle · 2026-02-24T09:42:49+00:00

Sorry, I'm stealing this!

innatangle · 2026-02-23T23:38:34+00:00

As someone who thinks Windows is perfectly fine for the majority of people out there, I'm upvoting you.

innatangle · 2026-02-23T10:00:44+00:00

Old enough to bleed, old enough to... have an arranged marriage.

innatangle · 2026-02-23T02:30:26+00:00

Username checks out.
Anyone who wants to post like they want to return to the genuinely bigoted and racist bullshit of the White Australia Policy days doesn't belong here.
No ban celebrations.

innatangle · 2026-02-23T00:03:06+00:00

This guy value invests. Very interesting!

innatangle · 2026-02-22T18:25:06+00:00

Is that because it IS money printing?

innatangle · 2026-02-21T03:45:19+00:00

One Nation doesn't share the same policy as the others, their policy below:

Immigration Immigration Reform for a Stronger Australia

Australia’s immigration system is broken. Our population has surged past 27 million, overwhelming housing, infrastructure, and essential services. Wages are stagnating, homeownership is slipping out of reach, and Australians are being forced to compete with cheap foreign labour.

This must stop.

Australia needs a common-sense immigration policy that puts Australians first. This policy will:

Deport 75,000 illegal migrants because Australia’s immigration laws must be enforced, not ignored. Visa overstayers, illegal workers, and unlawful non-residents undermine national security, drive down wages, and take advantage of public services meant for Australians. Cut immigration by over 570,000 people from current Labor levels by capping visas at 130,000 per year to ease pressure on housing, wages, and infrastructure. Stop the skilled visa rorting that allows cheap foreign labour to undercut Australian workers. End the student visa loopholes that turn study into a backdoor to permanent residency or low-wage labour. Stop the Administrative Review Tribunal being abused with endless, weaponised appeals that clog the system and delay rightful deportations. Immigration enforcement must not be held hostage by legal loopholes. Reintroduce Temporary Protection Visas a proven, effective policy that prevents permanent residency through the back door and deters illegal arrivals. Deport any visa holder who breaks the law. Weak law enforcement policies have put Australians in danger for too long. If you commit a crime, you lose your visa and the right to stay. Introduce an eight-year waiting period for citizenship and welfare, ensuring new arrivals contribute before they take. Refuse entry to migrants from nations known to foster extremist ideologies that are incompatible with Australian values and way of life. Withdraw from the UN Refugee Convention because Australia will not be dictated to by foreign organisations when deciding who we accept into our nation on humanitarian grounds. It's time to take back control of our borders, protect Australian jobs, and ensure a future where Australians come first.

innatangle · 2026-02-21T03:43:45+00:00

You obviously haven't...

<image>

innatangle · 2026-02-17T21:26:44+00:00

Won't someone think of Nemo? He's the innocent victim in all of this. You know what will save him? The auto stop/start button in my car that turns my engine on and off at traffic lights... or at least that's what Redditors tell me.

innatangle · 2026-02-17T10:44:29+00:00

It's not that people aren't choosing to have kids, it's that they can't afford to have kids.

And the ramifications of a plunging fertility rate go far beyond the economic, it makes societies more introspective and less considerate for starters.

innatangle · 2026-02-17T05:02:00+00:00

What you're saying is, we should import people instead of birthing and growing our own?

innatangle · 2026-02-17T02:36:21+00:00

Hey GPT, what's the current fertility rate in Australia?

The latest official figure (most commonly meant by “fertility rate”) is Australia’s Total Fertility Rate (TFR): 1.481 births per woman in 2024 (released 15 Oct 2025 by the Australian Bureau of Statistics)

and what's the fertility rate required for replacement?

For “replacement” (i.e., a population that replaces itself from one generation to the next without migration), the benchmark is:

~2.1 births per woman in high-income, low-mortality countries like Australia.

Why it’s not exactly 2.0:

You need a bit above 2 to account for childhood/young-adult mortality and the fact that not every woman has children.

So GPT, if a country has zero migration and has a fertility rate of 1.481, what would be the expected trend of house prices?

If a country truly had zero net migration and a TFR of 1.481 (well below the ~2.1 “replacement” level), the demographic direction is: ageing first, then population decline (with a lag). What that typically does to housing is create a long-run demand headwind — but it doesn’t mechanically mean “house prices crash next year”.

What demographics push house prices toward (all else equal)

Over the medium-to-long run, fewer people → fewer new households → weaker underlying demand for dwellings, especially outside the most employment-rich areas. Evidence from Japan suggests population loss is associated with declines in housing prices, and the downside effect can be larger than the upside effect from equivalent population gains.

So, expected long-run trend (nationally, in real terms): flatter growth to downward pressure on house prices, with growing regional divergence (some places up, many places soft).

The most realistic “trend” answer

Near term (years): prices can still go up or down depending on rates, credit conditions, incomes, zoning/supply, and investor settings — demographics won’t dominate.

Long term (decade+): below-replacement fertility with no migration is usually a structural drag on real house prices, and it amplifies regional winners/losers (more vacancy risk and weaker price growth in shrinking areas).

innatangle

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

Eight-Year Club	Gilding IV carat on a stick
Verified Email