Gearside

@BenFerrum @TerAustralis @semicondurian @build_aus love this, will dig in

@TerAustralis @semicondurian, @build_aus, @gearside any ideas?

I want this soo bad

Underlying the budget debate is a debate about what sort of a country we want to be. Firstly do we want to be a country where most young Australians can afford to buy a house, or can afford to pay their rent. I think the answer from just about all of us is yes. State and Federal Governments have let young Australians down over the last 30 years; buying your own house has become an impossible aspiration for millions of (mainly younger) Australians. In that context budget changes to CGT and negative gearing as they relate to residential property should be welcomed. Truthfully they aren’t going to help as much as we would all like as the fundamental issue in Australia is lack of supply and, by the Government’s own admission, the budget does little to increase supply. The second question is whether we want to be a society that encourages and incentivises hard work and entrepreneurship AND at the same time helps Australians who are doing it tough. I think the answer to the 2nd question should also be an unambiguous yes. That is the fundamental problem with the budget. The rhetoric is all about Intergenerational fairness but the reality is that it takes from business builders in Australia and it doesn’t give something back to other Australians. The CGT changes will just discourage business building and job creation and the extra revenue will fall into a massive fiscal black hole. A budget that reduces incentive for Australians to build businesses and employ people is a bad budget. People can use whatever labels they like but if people think there is something wrong in advocating for wealth creation in this country then it just means they have a different vision for this country. My vision is the vision articulated by the Hawke Keating Government and then by the Howard Costello Government. That is the Australia I aspire for us to be. The CGT hike for business builders will do nothing to increase prosperity or fairness unless your definition of fairness is reducing incentive for Australians to build successful businesses. Yes, if you build a successful business you will generate wealth for you and your family but you will also share that with the country via job creation, increased tax revenue and better products and services for Australians. I am old enough to remember when we called that a win win.

@GreenGoblinAU @rationalaussie bro did you even read the article ?

@gearside @rationalaussie You’re being naive and at worst, weak by refusing to criticise the people and the party smashing aspiration. I like your YouTube and your Build Australia project but it’s now hard to take it seriously when you’re rolling out this Teal type rhetoric. Take it as polite feedback

this budget should be applauded for its bold changes to shake us out of housing complacency. hell, we've been crying out for this kind of vision. but without tweaks, it risks undermining the very foundations of the australian spirit. trying, failing and winning isn’t just the domain of our athletes. it is a serious story we tell ourselves. it is what our national psyche and shared prosperity are built on. it is australians with the ambition to have a go, from inventors and engineers to tradies, cafe owners, retailers and panel beaters. small business owners, some of whom grow into very large businesses and underwrite much of our future prosperity through job creation, tax revenue and wage growth. it’s kids saving for a home, putting their time and money into productive assets — shares, ETFs and employee share ownership plans — to grow the pie for all of us. as a nation, we need to be mature enough to believe that when some of us win, we all win. anyway, i wrote an op-ed:

@GreenGoblinAU @rationalaussie lmao

@gearside @rationalaussie You are starting to sound like the Teals. Disappointing.

@rationalaussie constant whinging at politicians reduces their future confidence to swing big

@gearside You don't applaud communists, you tell them to get fucked then you rightfully kick them out of office.

and worth flagging, eucalyptus, the company i co-founded, agreed to sell this year. so these changes don’t affect me. they do shift the equation for the next decade of australians who try.

link (not paywalled) capitalbrief.com/article/the-bu…

vibe shift bingo: dr karl relentlessly dropping factory tours on abc science

ready to build a brick wall and run through it

Well done to @gearside for putting the ABC’s Bluey blunder back on the agenda last week. The ABC now says it’s cost them at least $300m in lost revenue. I reckon it’s a lot more.

@MarkDiStef napkin math got me closer to 2 billy a year if you look at how BBC commercial revenue has moved in the last few years

3 out of 4 of @dwarkeshpodcast's latest guests have been Australians. AI = Australian Intelligence.

@john_macgowan time to end the era of AFR-reading, regulatory captured, culturally cringed corporate aus

If you've ever seen me rant about Regulatory Arbitrage on the stream, this is exactly what I'm talking about. It seems like this was the dumbest deal ever but this is actually how the nexus of Australian business and bureaucracy thinks - and that nexus cuts through not just stat corps like the ABC but the entire ASX. In a regulatory arbitrage, the delta doesn't measure price or volatility - it's about subsidy. Everyone chases a preferential regulatory environment to offset risk. That's how you end up with someone thinking a valuable IP is worth selling for a subsidy on production. To stop this from happening isn't an ABC level reform - it means rewiring the brains of every business in the country.

winning is a mindset and australia has lost its winner's mentality (and the cultural and economic confidence that comes with it)

I’ve seen some responses to this like “the ABC would have just spent the money on cuck shit anyway” which is a total loser mentality. @gearside isn’t just some guy who got lucky. He has built multiple startups that have been incredibly successful. If you hadn’t noticed, Australia doesn’t make that easy. Instead of moving to California or starting some current thing ™ charity to get himself invited to the right parties he is putting that effort and resources towards arresting our cultural and economic decline and maybe even turning it around. And he has hit on something really crucial, the importance of risk appetite and the economics of cultural products. For too long these have been controlled by bureaucrats that are incapable of creating good cultural products because the current thing ™ always takes precedent over enduring narratives and themes. But that’s why when Australia does something like Muster Dogs it’s hard for it to be about anything other than growth, the bond between man and dog, and to be authentically Australian and so it succeeds inspite of the ABC not because of it. If we can take back even just part of the culture, Australia is capable of great and enduring art and there is a demand just waiting for it. But we need to recapture some economic control of the means of cultural production. We either take it because from the bureaucrats in some way or we take some inspiration from @gearside and startup culture. Start small, take a risk, iterate, and grow.

@LeeRespecter that's it. australian culture can be an economic engine... just ask korea

@c28why love it

@gearside Yeah. This is my current concept for balancing both. Seed a cultural exports fund from the future fund.

While @gearside’s Bluey video is making rounds I’ll point this out: ‘Our ABC’ was frugal at the very moment it could have made billions because it was under political scrutiny about public funding. There’s little value in being economical. There’s great value in being ambitious.