Incoming Feed Items

This interview is also available on podcast platforms and Rumble.

In a world gripped by daily catastrophes, there is one that affects all but lacks the attention it deserves. The climate crisis — pervaded by ecological collapse, war, endless resource accumulation fueled by capitalism — is the issue of our time. The warning signs are there but as author Eiren Caffall tells host Chris Hedges, people are not able to handle the facts regarding the “fragility of our ecosystem, and [they] just don't really have a great way of managing the emotional impact of that.”

The proposed design of the $2.1 billion I-5 Rose Quarter Project includes two deadly hairpin freeway off-ramps.

Everyone focuses on the part of the Rose Quarter than involves covering over part of the I-5 freeway.  No one ever talks about the two deadly off-ramps ODOT will build as part of this project.

Traffic exiting I-5 South at the Rose Quarter will go through a high speed tunnel and then choose between two hairpin turns on to local streets.  

Similar ramps in Portland and Seattle are the source of frequent crashes and fatalities.

The plan to widen I-5 through the Rose Quarter, at the staggering cost of $2.1 billion, has a new added safety problem, a complicated new freeway offramp, of the kind that often leads to serious or fatal crashes.

By Sarah McKenzie
Acting Executive Director, Per Capita

Gender quotas in the Australian Labor Party have transformed not only the make-up of the party, but that of our entire Federal Parliament. Australia is now on the verge of opening its first gender-equal Parliament, driven in large part by Labor’s landslide victory at the 2025 Federal Election. Other major parties are taking note. Labor’s quotas have not only brought more women into Parliament; they’ve also helped them stay there. With clear evidence that quotas work, is it time to legislate for gender equality in political representation, consolidate this progress and ensure future governments continue to deliver for women?

It matters who sits in the houses of parliament. Women have changed our parliaments, our politics, and our country. In 2022 the Albanese Government delivered the first majority-women federal government, and with that came a government that has done more for women and girls than any in our nation’s history.

Since election day, conservative media have decided to begin a scare campaign around the government’s proposed changes to the tax concessions on superannuation. Currently, the earnings in superannuation funds are taxed at just 15%. This is a significant tax concession for most people and a very large one for the richest in Australia, who would be paying a 45% rate if super was taxed like income.

This means that the richest in Australia are getting a 30% tax break on their super, so it is little wonder that many of them are using super not to save for their retirement, but to avoid paying tax.

Superannuation tax breaks are being abused

The entire reason for the superannuation tax concessions is to encourage people to save for their retirement so they will not need to go on the age pension. This, in theory, reduces the burden on the government.

But the problem is that when you offer the richest people in Australia a 30% tax break, they will take advantage of it. The richest 10% – most of whom would never be eligible for the age pension receive $22bn in tax breaks by having money in super rather than having it taxed like income.

On this episode of Follow the Money, the Australia Institute’s Joshua Black and Jack Thrower join Glenn Connley to discuss the enormous cost of going to university, the absurdity of university vice-chancellors being paid more than the Treasurer, and why the practice of using international students as a political football must end.

This discussion was recorded on Tuesday 20 May 2025 and things may have changed.

Order After America: Australia and the new world order or become a foundation subscriber to our Vantage Point series and save 25% on the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Joshua Black, Postdoctoral Fellow, the Australia Institute // @joshuablackjb

Guest: Jack Thrower, Senior Economist, the Australia Institute // ‪@jack-thrower

Host: Glenn Connley, Senior Media Advisor, the Australia Institute // @glennconnley

Show notes:

Attending oral argument last week in the case touching on birthright citizenship pending before the Supreme Court, I observed a combination of confusion, omissions, and outright lies from some of the justices. As the lawyer for one of the amici, I witnessed the Court address the propriety of the nationwide, universal injunctions that have been issued by several district court judges blocking the execution of President Trump’s day-one executive order on birthright citizenship.

Let’s begin with the lies.

Early in the argument, Justice Sotomayor unequivocally stated that the Court had held 127 years ago that anyone born on U.S. soil is a citizen, and repeated that holding in three other cases since. That is false.

The Supreme Court has never held that the children born on U.S. soil to temporary visitors or illegal aliens are citizens. The Wong Kim Ark case to which she was referring explicitly dealt only with a child born to parents who were lawfully and permanently domiciled in the United States—and the word “domicile” or one of its derivatives was repeated nearly 30 times throughout that opinion. Any language in the opinion beyond that is not part of the holding, but is rather non-binding dicta. The same is true with the passing references in the three other cases she cited—they are pure dicta. So her claim that the Court has already issued holdings that are contrary to the president’s executive order is simply untrue.

The United States cannot reindustrialise until it definancialises

Trump’s mass tariffs announced on so-called ‘Liberation Day’ were an aggressive attempt to force global patterns of production to change. This approach was short lived however, as the sky-high tariffs against countries like Vietnam (46%) and Bangladesh (37%) were hastily delayed in favour of a flat 10% tariff. Whilst Trump initially doubled down on his tariffs against China, increasing them to a high of 145%, he has now retreated on these too. Chinese imports into the US will now be subject to a 30% tariff.

Trump’s tariff offensive shocked the world; however, it appeared inspired by an essay written by former financier and current Chair of the Council of Economic Advisors, Stephen Miran.

In the essay, Miran argues that global imbalances in trade have caused widespread economic issues within the US, namely the decimation of US manufacturing. In response, he outlines a plan to use tariffs as leverage to negotiate a depreciation in the US dollar by convincing trading partners to diversify their reserve holdings away from US dollar denominated assets. He dubs this the ‘Mar-a-Lago Accord’.

This article was originally published, in slightly different form, by Strong Towns Chairman Andrew Burleson on his Substack The Post-Suburban Future. It is shared here with permission. Image provided by the writer.

Nicola Cetorelli, Gonzalo Cisternas, and Asani Sarkar

And it doesn’t involve changes to capital gains tax or negative gearing, which would be more effective but, strangely, the government won’t touch.

It’s a lever which the government has pulled before – and it worked.

The government could direct the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority (APRA) to force lenders to limit the number of loans they offer to investors.

In 2014, with investors flooding the property market and prices out of control, APRA introduced a 10% limit on the increase in the number of investment loans which banks could offer. Then, in 2017, it put a 30% limit on the number of interest-only loans which could be offered.

By limiting the number of investment loans, a natural consequence was that interest rates for investors went up. Interest rates for owner-occupiers stayed the same.

For the first time since investors sent property prices soaring in the early 2000s, the market was tipped in favour of owner-occupiers over investors.

This article was originally published, in slightly different form, on Strong Towns member Michel Durand-Wood’s blog, Dear Winnipeg. It is shared here with permission. In-line images were provided by the author.

Thomas Klitgaard

The obvious answer to the question of why the United States runs a trade deficit is that its export sales have not kept up with its demand for imports. A less obvious answer is that the imbalance reflects a macroeconomic phenomenon. Using national accounting, one can show deficits are also due to a persistent shortfall in domestic saving that requires funds from abroad to finance domestic investment spending. Reducing the trade imbalance therefore requires both more exports relative to imports and a narrowing of the gap between saving and investment spending.

For 60 years, IBM was the heartbeat of our family. As a son, I (Andy) grew up in its orbit, my childhood punctuated by eight moves up and down the East Coast before eighth grade. Each new school, each cardboard box packed in haste, was a testament to IBM’s growing reach. We laughed that its initials stood for “I’ve Been Moved,” a lighthearted nod to a company we revered for how it respected the individual, its unmatched customer service, and its unrelenting pursuit of excellence.

As a father, I (Rich) dedicated 30 years to IBM, following my father-in-law’s path as a field executive. I led teams that launched groundbreaking technologies, and was proud to steward a legacy that didn’t just shape our family but redefined industries worldwide.

As shareholders, we grieve what IBM has become—a company where “I’ve Been Misled” now overshadows its once-proud ethos.

This is our urgent warning to Fortune 500 CEOs: embracing divisive political agendas like DEI courts material risk, derails your mission, and betrays the American values that drive success. DEI was never about diversity—it was about control, elevating race and sex over merit in a way that fractured many corporate cultures, IBM included.

Borrowers have endured two full years of pain, as rates shot up quickly but started coming down slowly.

People are still hurting, and there’s no need to keep inflicting unnecessary additional pain.

“The Australia Institute welcomes the news that the RBA has finally acted by reducing the cash rate by 25 basis points,” said Greg Jericho, Chief Economist at The Australia Institute.

“This cut goes some small way to redressing the failure to cut rates at its April meeting.

“Households have been smashed by the rate rises which began in May 2022. Almost half of the increase in cost-of-living pressure on employee households is attributable to interest rate rises.

“The pain of these rate rises continues. In the first three months of this year, spending on retail was flat as households continued to cut back on spending to pay mortgage bills.

“The Reserve Bank should not end here. Over the past year, unemployment has remained at around 4.1%, and yet in that time, inflation has fallen from 3.8% to 2.4%, and private-sector wage growth has fallen from 4.1% to 3.3%.

“There is no wage price spiral. There is no need for unemployment to rise. The Reserve Bank should focus on achieving full employment.”

The post Australians still hurting. RBA should keep cutting.  appeared first on The Australia Institute.

On the 50th episode of After America, Nick Bryant joins Dr Emma Shortis to reflect on the second Trump presidency, why division is the default in American political history, and what the United States might look like after Trump.

This discussion was recorded on Thursday 15 May 2025 and things may have changed since recording.

Order After America: Australia and the new world order or become a foundation subscriber to Vantage Point at australiainstitute.org.au/store.

Guest: Nick Bryant, author of The Forever War: America’s unending conflict with itself // ‪@nickbryantoz

Host: Emma Shortis, Director, International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute // @emmashortis

Show notes:

The Forever War: America’s unending conflict with itself by Nick Bryant (2024)

When America Stopped Being Great: a history of the present by Nick Bryant (2020)

On the 7^th May 2025, the European Parliament adapted a report suspending Turkey’s European Union (EU) accession talks referring to Turkey’s non-alignment to the EU’s common foreign and security policy and democratic backsliding, following a crackdown of mass protests after the arrest of İstanbul Mayor Ekrem İmamoğlu, a potential challenger in the forthcoming presidential elections. The Report conceives of Turkey as a strategic ally and proposes to deepen cooperation on issues of mutual interest. This is not new. In the EU’s official reports and strategic position papers published in the last decade, the EU has conceived of Turkey as a strategic partner to deepen cooperation on particular issues such as migration management, approaching the relations in a ‘transactional’ manner rather than membership per se.

College acceptance season is here—and with it the reminder that the college admissions process is broken.

Application essays, formerly written by highly paid tutors for those who could afford it, are now being composed by artificial intelligence. At the same time, the Ivory Tower’s embrace of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI), which elevates race and sex above all other considerations, has made a mockery of merit.

In the midst of this systemic failure, the University of Austin (UATX) recently implemented a never-before-attempted policy that removes the subjectivity of AI-infused essays and DEI-infected applications: admissions based almost solely on standardized test scores.

If an applicant receives a 1460 or above on the SAT, a 33 or above on the ACT, or a 105 or above on the Classic Learning Test (CLT), that student is automatically accepted. (Full disclosure: I am the president of the CLT.) Any student with lower scores can still be admitted with the added consideration of Advanced Placement or International Baccalaureate scores, as well as one-sentence descriptions of up to three significant achievements such as outstanding athletic accomplishments or examples of personal fortitude.

UATX does not accept essays, insincerely elongated lists of extracurricular activities, proclamations of intersectional victimhood, or any other non-merit-based materials.

Energy Australia has admitted that its Go Neutral scheme, which falsely told customers they could offset their gas and electricity usage, did nothing to stop climate change.

This is a landmark moment in the fight against greenwashing by companies pumping millions of tonnes of emissions into the atmosphere.

Energy Australia owns and operates some of the highest polluting industrial sites in Australia.

Now it admits that carbon offsets cannot undo the damage it causes by burning vast volumes of fossil fuels.

The admission only came after the Parents for Climate group took Energy Australia to the Federal Court over its Go Neutral claims.

ENERGY AUSTRALIA STATEMENT

“Today, Energy Australia acknowledges that carbon offsetting is not the most effective way to assist customers to reduce their emissions and apologises to any customer who felt that the way it marketed its Go Neutral products was unclear.

Energy Australia has now shifted its focus to direct emissions reductions.

Energy Australia acknowledges the importance of consumers understanding the climate impact of products and services offered to them and that offsets are not the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gas emissions.”

The false carbon neutrality claim of the Go Neutral scheme was certified by the Australian government through its Climate Active program.

On this episode, Allan Behm joins Paul Barclay to discuss Australia’s diplomatic strategy of ‘pre-emptive capitulation’, America’s international bullying and how Australia should use its unrecognised national power.

This discussion was recorded on Monday 24 February 2025 and things may have changed since the recording.

Order What’s the Big Idea? 32 Big Ideas for a Better Australia now, via the Australia Institute website.

Guest: Allan Behm, Special Advisor in International & Security Affairs, the Australia Institute

Host: Paul Barclay, Walkley Award winning journalist and broadcaster // @PaulBarclay

Show notes:  

AUSFTA: A bad deal then. Even worse now. by Jack Thrower, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

With friends like these, After America (February 2025)

Polling – President Trump, security and the US–Australian alliance, the Australia Institute (March 2025)

The Wrap with Amy Remeikis

Well it didn’t take long for it to be business as usual, did it?

Not even two weeks out from a humiliating loss, the Coalition is still pretending it remains just as relevant as ever, with shadow finance minister Jane Hume issuing orders to the government on its planned modest super changes.

In case you need a refresher, Labor plans on lowering the tax break from 30% to 15% on earnings on super balances over $3 million.

So it’s not even the total. It is a tiny change that means people with superannuation balances over $3 million will get a slightly lower tax break on the earnings (like the interest) above $3 million.  Everything under $3 million is untouched.  You may have heard this could end retirement in Australia. It’s such a massive change that it is going to impact a whopping 80,000 people, or 0.5% of the population. Even taking into account inflation, we are talking about a giant 550,000 people from the working population of 14.5 million people.

So please, bring out your violins for the (at most) 3.5% of people this is going to impact, who will be receiving a slightly smaller tax break on their multi-million dollar super earnings, and are already (if you speak to accountants) working to restructure their assets as businesses, so they can maintain a higher tax break.

What City Observatory Did This Week