Peter Siminski

My article on why people don't trust economists, and how we could do better @UTSEngage @1petermartin @UTS_Economics theconversation.com/6-reasons-aust… via @ConversationEDU

On Iran and Anthropic: Robert Mugabe, Zimbabwe’s dictatorial president since 1987, won the big prize in the country’s lottery in 2000. Why did he go out of his way to concoct such a charade? A surface-level answer: Because he could. Once you destroy institutions constraining your power and behavior, you can act in largely unrestricted fashion, whether it is for personal enrichment, personal aggrandizement, or simply projecting even greater power. But there is a deeper, more problematic answer as well: What better way to further decimate institutional checks on your power than showing how much of a farce the existing system of rules is. It is not just a coincidence that such behavior can do damage to norms, institutions and security and stability of the country. It is part of the design. Mugabe’s lottery win echoes in two fateful decisions by the Trump administration, which will have long-lasting and troubling implications, are just. Trump and his allies are pursuing these actions because they can and because these actions are consistent with their agenda of upending all rules and constraints on their future behavior. The first problematic action is the US-Israeli attack on Iran and the killing of the country’s supreme leader Ayatollah Khamenei. Leave aside the loss of life and the immediate chaos, it should be obvious that such a move will trigger a long period of instability in the Middle East. There should be no doubt that the Iranian regime was repressive, murderous and bad news for its own people’s economic and social well-being. The supreme leader, leading Iranian elites and the country’s feared Revolutionary Guard had blood in their hands and the repression had intensified lately. But none of this justifies the United States and Israel initiating a war in the Middle East, without support from international allies or from the public in the United States (still considered a democracy where people’s views should in principle matter). But even worse, this act violates the sovereignty of another nation and risks plunging the entire region into carnage. And however awful Ayatollah Khamenei’s track record may be, he’s no Nicolas Maduro (who had only a few diehard supporters even in the Venezuelan military). By virtue of his religious role, Khamenei enjoyed respect and authority among the Shiites and even the broader Muslim mission community, and his killing risks turning him into a martyr, which is the last thing that Iran or the region needs. The second is the Department of Defense (it is still painful to call it the Department of War even if recent actions confirm that this change of name wasn’t just for optics) designating the AI company Anthropic a supply-chain risk. The official designation is typically used for companies from foreign adversaries, such as China’s Huawei. It bars federal contractors using the Anthropic’s models and heralds major restrictions on what the company can do in the future. The Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth announced “Effective immediately, no contractor, supplier, or partner that does business with the United States military may conduct any commercial activity with Anthropic.” The reason? Because Anthropic wanted safeguards against its models being used for mass surveillance of Americans and autonomous weapon systems. Neither of these two provisions would have put meaningful restrictions on the DoD in practice. Mass surveillance is illegal under US law and autonomous weapon systems are a not near-term possibility. Yet, it is the showdown that matters, just like Mugabe’s lottery winning. This action will also have major consequences, perhaps more far-reaching than the attack on Iran. Regardless of what one might think of current AI capabilities, there is little doubt that who controls AI will have momentous implications for democracy, business, communication and privacy. This designation can be interpreted by many in the industry that it will be the US government, not the private sector, that controls AI. Even more far-reaching are the broader implications of this action: this administration, and perhaps future administrations, can now bring hugely disproportionate penalties on any contractor they disagree with. Security of private property rights, which has been a mainstay of American state-business relations for centuries, is now looking much shakier. It also sends exactly the wrong signal to the world that Pentagon is intent on mass surveillance and the development of autonomous weapon systems (why else bother about these two ineffective provisions in the contract?). The absurdity of both actions is what harkens back to Mugabe’s lottery win. Trump came to power promising no foreign adventures, and now has spearheaded a potentially riskier one than the Iraq war, with even flimsier justification. There would have been no bite to the provisions that Anthropic wanted in the contract, since current AI systems are nowhere near reliable to be used in autonomous weapon systems and the US government has plenty of other tools that can be (and sometimes are) used for mass surveillance. The shock value and the norm breaking are part of the intent. Mugabe’s lessons continue.

@ZjubNZ @BenPhillips_ANU @RogerWilkins_au Dramatically

@BenPhillips_ANU It is an empirical question as i) OO property maybe more equally distributed than other wealth ii) although the revenue is untaxed the expenses are not deductible. @SiminskiPeter and @RogerWilkins_au do find tax treatment reduces progressivity: melbourneinstitute.unimelb.edu.au/publications/w…

Owner occupier housing wealth and super ~75% of all household wealth. Very low tax paid. Property Investors do pay much higher rate of tax (income, cap gains, land tax, rates). The bigger driver of wealth inequality likely the former.

@peter_tulip Of course that's not what I mean. Some (conservative) approximation by the ATO should be easy. e.g. CoreLogic already has data for credible real time estimates for every dwelling. Would you prefer full grandfathering? If so why?

@SiminskiPeter By "any" approximation, you mean the taxpayer can say that the entire capital gain occurred before 2026. That defeats the purpose and encourages dishonesty.

Retrospectively taxing capital gains that have already occurred is a more controversial measure than the ALP dared to take to the 2016 and 2019 elections. They judged then that the community would regard this as unfair and bad in principle.

@peter_tulip 'Straightforward' was an overstatement. But I think some (any) approximation to a current valuation would be better than either fully grandfathering or fully applying the tax change to already accrued capital gains

@SiminskiPeter A real estate valuation from a licenced valuer costs several hundred dollars. I assume you would require every landlord to obtain one in 2026? For 4 million rental properties. And what are you proposing for partnerships and unlisted companies?

@J_Meanwell @arc_gov_au @USydneyEcon @Sydney_Uni Congratulations James!

Over the moon to be awarded an @arc_gov_au Disovery Early Career Researcher Award! I'll be working on "The Long-Run Macroeconomics of Housing Affordability and Homeownership". Thanks to co-authors, colleagues, @USydneyEcon, and @Sydney_Uni for making this possible.

Postdoc hiring at Economics Department for the ARC DP grant by @NathanKettlewe1: recruitment.uts.edu.au/OA_HTML/OA.jsp…..

@J_Meanwell Makes a lot of sense to me!

Would probably just live at Wildflower Brewery, tbh.

Colleagues in our department were awarded 3 DPs and 1 DECRA last year, 1 Linkage recently, and 2 more DPs this round. Moreover, all 6 are large grants with postdoc funding. Way to go EDG!

imo this is an excellent piece by @NickJGarvin from @E61Institute

One of the most important think tanks in Australia is hiring

A post-doc opportunity at UTS: econjobmarket.org/positions?show… "We seek candidates ... with a focus on inequality and intergenerational mobility ... demonstrated experience in applied econometrics, working with administrative data, and survey research methods"

NBL25 CHAMPIONS 🏆🦅 #WeRiseTogether

I'm not a big socials user, but FWIW I'm moving to BlueSky, with the same handle. For any other late-adopters - the Sky Follower Bridge extension is very smooth for finding the same accounts you follow here

It has been weirdly quiet on social media ever since the I4R dropped 2 of 15 reports about the questionable research practices of Asad Islam-GDRI and scores of his collaborators. Here is my take on what we know and need to know. @AaronCharlton a-ortmann.medium.com/the-asad-islam…

Sending my best wishes to all New Zealanders this Waitangi Day. Australia and New Zealand are family - and we join in commemorating community and culture.

An unscheduled but necessary intervention in @FinancialReview. afr.com/policy/economy…

Great conference at QUT. Very honoured to have been invited to deliver a keynote speech. @page_eco @UTS_Economics

Dr Nathan Kettlewell, ARC DP 2025 recipient, will be: Comparing public and private provision of healthcare You can learn more about Nathan’s prior work in the healthcare space here: uts.edu.au/about/uts-busi…

@dprbyrne @SHamiltonian @UTS_Economics Thanks David 😊

@SiminskiPeter @SHamiltonian @UTS_Economics Let’s go @SiminskiPeter !

Prof Peter Siminski (ARC DP 2025) will be exploring: Inequality and intergenerational mobility: measuring what matters and why You can learn more about Peter’s impactful research here: youtube.com/watch?v=phFUFM…