# Where in the hell is Australia heading?



## noco (6 July 2011)

I read Andrew Bolt's column in the Townsville Bulletin this morning and it really made me think as to where this once great country of ours is heading.

In my ageing life, I cannot remember such grotesque rot that we Australians are having to endure on a daily basis.

This inept Green/Labor government. The lies, the deception and spin.

The disruption to our normal daily lives.

The radical movements we are now observing in Australia.

The slow reduction in freedom of speech.

Media control.

The sqaushing of debate between Alarmist and Deniers of Global Warming, sorry Climate Change.

The disruption to cattle exports, mining, farming and manufacturing.

This is not what Australia used to be. Australia RIP.




http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ts/column_things_i_never_thought_id_see_here/


----------



## springhill (6 July 2011)

No need for words.

:flush:


----------



## noco (6 July 2011)

springhill said:


> No need for words.
> 
> :flush:





Mate, I know what I would like flush down the toilet and it's RED AND BROWN.


----------



## joea (6 July 2011)

noco

you have summed it up nicely.
Surely "sanity has to prevail shortly".
Or is this the "new look " Australia?
joea


----------



## Logique (6 July 2011)

Communism is a failed political and economic system.  But the last hold-outs are here in Australia, aren't we lucky. Remaking our own little antipodean iron curtain.  Tax and spend to oblivion.

What's the national debt now...rolled past $175Bill and on the way to $200Bill? At $100Mill borrowings a day?  The worst of it is, we are now so vulnerable to a GFC II. Sure we could react by easing monetary policy a little, but then what?


----------



## noco (6 July 2011)

joea said:


> noco
> 
> you have summed it up nicely.
> Surely "sanity has to prevail shortly".
> ...




Joe, 9 out of 10 people I talk to don't like what is going on ATM and all want something drastic to happen before we go down the gurgler.

The waste of tax payers money on hare brain schemes could have built how many new hospitals, how many new highways and how many new dams?


----------



## chode84 (6 July 2011)

You read Andrew Bolt's columns?


----------



## sails (6 July 2011)

chode84 said:


> You read Andrew Bolt's columns?





Seems that many do...



> Andrew writes for Melbourne's Herald Sun, Sydney's Daily Telegraph and Adelaide's Advertiser. He runs Australia's most-read political blog, is on MTR 1377 mornings. He’ll host Channel 10’s The Bolt Report each Sunday at 10am.




http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/andrewbolt/


----------



## Knobby22 (6 July 2011)

I'll add a line to his column.

I never thought I'd see a shock jock being treated so seriously.


----------



## Sdajii (6 July 2011)

springhill said:


> No need for words.
> 
> :flush:




Yep


----------



## moXJO (6 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> I'll add a line to his column.
> 
> I never thought I'd see a shock jock being treated so seriously.




You had a look around lately, plenty to shock about



> Cigs war won: Now cancer campaigners set their sights on beer




http://www.news.com.au/national/cigs-war-won-now-cancer-campaigners-set-their-sights-on-beer/story-e6frfkw9-1226088686962

How dare they:alcohol:


----------



## noco (6 July 2011)

With the damage Australia has inherited in the past twelve months, can anyone imagine what Australia will be like in another two years?


----------



## pixel (6 July 2011)

as a reply, read this proposal that's currently circulating as an email, said to have been composed by a young Australian Law Student:


> Dear Australian Laborites, leftists, social progressives, socialists, Marxists and Gillard, et al:
> 
> We have stuck together since the late 1950's for the sake of the kids, but the whole of this latest election process has made me realize that I want a divorce. I know we tolerated each other for many years for the sake of future generations, but sadly, this relationship has clearly run its course.
> 
> ...


----------



## derty (6 July 2011)

chode84 said:


> You read Andrew Bolt's columns?



He is the ASF Journo Du Jour. He is the final word on all, quoted far and wide in these here threads.  


pixel said:


> as a reply, read this proposal that's currently circulating as an email, said to have been composed by a young Australian Law Student:



No it wasn't - http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/i-want-a-divorce-too/question-1425657/. Just another nationalistic hacked up jingoistic piece designed to spread fear and loathing in those susceptible.


----------



## noco (6 July 2011)

noco said:


> With the damage Australia has inherited in the past twelve months, can anyone imagine what Australia will be like in another two years?




Maybe we will see the little green book with red pages written by none other than Mr.Brown or Ms Rhiannon.


----------



## Julia (6 July 2011)

pixel said:


> as a reply, read this proposal that's currently circulating as an email, said to have been composed by a young Australian Law Student:






derty said:


> He is the ASF Journo Du Jour. He is the final word on all, quoted far and wide in these here threads.
> 
> No it wasn't - http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/i-want-a-divorce-too/question-1425657/. Just another nationalistic hacked up jingoistic piece designed to spread fear and loathing in those susceptible.



Well, derty, wherever it came from, I found it funny in a sad kind of way.
I don't see it as designed to 'spread fear and loathing' but rather the expression of frustration many people are feeling.

I appreciate that you don't agree with the broad thrust it contains and respect your right to feel happy with what the government is doing.

But maybe you also could respect that many Australians are unhappy, angry and worried about the path being taken by this government with its obligation to fulfil the agenda of the Greens.


----------



## Logique (6 July 2011)

pixel said:


> as a reply, read this proposal that's currently circulating as an email, said to have been composed by a young Australian Law Student:



He he '..trickle up poverty..' what a great line pixel and very true. PM Gillard is copping the heat, but look who's whispering in her ear and escaping accountability. Realistically, the de facto national leadership team is Bob Brown PM and Jenny Macklin Deputy PM.


----------



## derty (6 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Well, derty, wherever it came from, I found it funny in a sad kind of way.
> I don't see it as designed to 'spread fear and loathing' but rather the expression of frustration many people are feeling.
> 
> I appreciate that you don't agree with the broad thrust it contains and respect your right to feel happy with what the government is doing.
> ...



Hi Julia, I'm not happy with this current govt and I am pretty sure I have never expressed that opinion anywhere. Inept is being kind to the current crop of clowns, though I am sure it could be extended to the entire Australian political landscape at the moment. Clowns to the left of me, Jokers to the right.  

You are right it is sad, sad that such a MacArthuristic piece originally written by some Republican fundamentalist wingnut can be slightly altered and find so much resonance in Australia.


----------



## wayneL (6 July 2011)

derty said:


> You are right it is sad, sad that such a MacArthuristic piece originally written by some Republican fundamentalist wingnut can be slightly altered and find so much resonance in Australia.



Do you mean McCarthyistic?

If so, you have little appreciation and even less understanding of what that was all about.

To invoke that, is rather alarmist... but no surprises there.


----------



## trainspotter (6 July 2011)

My plans to live O/S have been bought forward several years now due to the palava that passes as politics in this country. Kids will just have to finish scholastic requirements at an international level instead.

The Greens new Senators on their country retreat.


----------



## breaker (6 July 2011)

Spotter, where ya goin?


----------



## joea (6 July 2011)

noco said:


> With the damage Australia has inherited in the past twelve months, can anyone imagine what Australia will be like in another two years?




Yep!
We are all going to be riding pushbikes like in Holland.
However it will be Bob Browns policy to have a compulsory battery to be charged on the journey. The battery will be then used to put lights on when we get home.
I will have a bit of of a problem stocking up from Dan Murphys as it 68 klms away.
joea


----------



## trainspotter (6 July 2011)

breaker said:


> Spotter, where ya goin?




Batam, Indonesia. 1 hour ferry ride from Slingapore.


----------



## noco (6 July 2011)

joea said:


> Yep!
> We are all going to be riding pushbikes like in Holland.
> However it will be Bob Browns policy to have a compulsory battery to be charged on the journey. The battery will be then used to put lights on when we get home.
> I will have a bit of of a problem stocking up from Dan Murphys as it 68 klms away.
> joea




Jeez joe, better start making your own home brew. We can't have you polluting the air on the way to Dan Murphys, unless of course you ride your push bike or ride a horse.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (6 July 2011)

Very interesting thread.

I'm quite proud to say I like the Greens and am quite supportive of just about all of their policies, save for asylum seekers. That being said, the immigration policies perpetuated by the Liberals (and ALP) are many times worse, and have migrant workers from all over come to Australia, only to dump them on the taxpayers once the mining boom ends.

I dislike both of the main parties equally much, and in particular would attribute all of these problems to both of them:



noco said:


> The lies, the deception and spin.
> The slow reduction in freedom of speech.
> Media control.





I have to say that both ALP/Libs are equally worthless and without any integrity, corrupt and are unwilling to do anything to further Australia and people's lives. Both lack substance in terms of policy and reform, and both do whatever they can to get votes instead of thinking for the long-term.

The one exception to this is the NBN which is probably the best thing in my view (and I do come from a technical background) which has come out of the main parties in a long time, however it is not being managed very well at all. In reality the government is concerned more about making it appear good rather than making it good, and throws scary amounts of money at anyone who complains.


I think it really depends on left vs right wing leaning. I like aspects from both, but more so the left. Abbott for instance I think is a terrible leader, but if Turnbull took the leadership, I would probably vote libs and greens.

Overall at the moment I am concerned with the short-sightedness of our main parties, and the complacency of the average voters as to how many risks face Australia in the next 10-30 years and the lack of sustainability considerations in every legislative action made by our government. Ie. What happens with millions of migrant workers brought in by the mining boom goes bust? We cannot afford to fund welfare for all of them or any significant proportion of them, and preferably none of them. I have never heard _any_ party suggest how we are going to deal with this inevitable problem.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 July 2011)

It comes down to the normal cycle of self correction in the economy. 

The excesses have grown so massive that, sadly, the only real cure is one almighty recession complete with 2 million unemployed. After that, you won't see too much of this nonsense for quite a few years until once again it heads in the same direction.

It could be argued that Australia having not had a recession for close to two decades is what has allowed the current situation to arise. A great many voters today, have no memory of truly hard economic times. There wouldn't be many people voting at the last election who lived in a house where _everyone_ had lost their job, and a lot of younger people would have no concept of such a situation. Those who are a bit older will remember all too well what I'm talking about and yes, I do see an outcome like that as being the only thing that will end the current waste.

The great irony of all this is how central to it all the carbon tax has become. If we'd put the money that has been wasted into actually building a (publicly owned) clean energy system then we would not only have no need to worry about carbon, we'd have created a far bigger economic boost (the money would have been spent locally rather than on imports) and set the country up well for years to come given that such schemes cost little to operate once built.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (6 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> The great irony of all this is how central to it all the carbon tax has become. If we'd put the money that has been wasted into actually building a (publicly owned) clean energy system then we would not only have no need to worry about carbon, we'd have created a far bigger economic boost (the money would have been spent locally rather than on imports) and set the country up well for years to come given that such schemes cost little to operate once built.




I thoroughly agree with this, but the problem is that this is a "Big Government" type of thing which many people would opposite.

From what I gather of the replies to this thread, it seems to me that many people would consider such a project a waste of taxpayers money?


----------



## todster (6 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Batam, Indonesia. 1 hour ferry ride from Slingapore.




Not a bad escape plan,sing out if you need a cabana boy.


----------



## sails (6 July 2011)

todster said:


> Not a bad escape plan,sing out if you need a cabana boy.




LOL Todster - you want to escape?  I thought you liked this government...


----------



## Knobby22 (6 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I thoroughly agree with this, but the problem is that this is a "Big Government" type of thing which many people would opposite.
> 
> From what I gather of the replies to this thread, it seems to me that many people would consider such a project a waste of taxpayers money?




True, and I also agree.


----------



## Smurf1976 (6 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I thoroughly agree with this, but the problem is that this is a "Big Government" type of thing which many people would opposite.
> 
> From what I gather of the replies to this thread, it seems to me that many people would consider such a project a waste of taxpayers money?



In principle I agree with your comments, but:

The Snowy Hydro scheme, built in the 1950's - 1970's, is still of ongoing benefit to the nation. Those not yet born when it was completed gain benefits as will their children. It is an asset of ongoing use and value.

The "stimulus spending" on plasma TV's, dodgy insulation and unnecessary halls for schools that already had them is already over in terms of delivering any benefits. 50 years from now, nobody will even remember that it happened.

Whether or not it is worth spending my tax dollars to build a non-coal energy system, I think it would be hard to argue with the point that it would certainly be of more use in the long term than what has actually been done with that same money (ie thrown away).

The same could be said of roads, rail, ports, water and so on. Whether or not we ought to be spending on those things, it would at least be of _some_ benefit to be upgrading suburban rail in Sydney and Melbourne, interstate rail / roads, ports etc. In contrast, there's essentially zero lasting benefit from what was actually done with the money.

The money's been spent and we've got nothing to show for it. It's hard to imagine a worse possible outcome really.


----------



## todster (6 July 2011)

sails said:


> LOL Todster - you want to escape?  I thought you liked this government...




How could anyone like this current lot?
I hate the Libs more thats all.
Close your eyes Trainspotter can't you see me in a loincloth fashioned from a couple of old car chammys faning you as laybabout the pool producing endless cold Bintangs and some stodgy nasi on the side.


----------



## sptrawler (6 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> It comes down to the normal cycle of self correction in the economy.
> 
> The excesses have grown so massive that, sadly, the only real cure is one almighty recession complete with 2 million unemployed. After that, you won't see too much of this nonsense for quite a few years until once again it heads in the same direction.
> 
> ...




Have to agree with you smurf, it has the makings of the biggest fall we have seen for a long time.


----------



## tothemax6 (6 July 2011)

Ach, you could be living in the US, Europe, or UK.

F that, we are heading fine.


----------



## DB008 (7 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Very interesting thread.
> 
> I'm quite proud to say I like the Greens and am *quite supportive of just about all of their policies*, save for asylum seekers. That being said, the immigration policies perpetuated by the Liberals (and ALP) are *many times worse*, and have migrant workers from all over come to Australia, only to dump them on the taxpayers once the mining boom ends.




I'm sorry, l totally disagree with you.

1) Lets put business out of business.....Have you seen what the "Greens" are doing for Sydney's Marrickville Council?? 
The Greens-dominated Marrickville Council's policy of boycotting Israeli goods

2) If we had the Libs policy still going, we wouldn't have 'boat people' issues (or much less).


Can l ask you two questions?
1) Are you currently at university?
2) Are you under 35?


----------



## breaker (7 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Very interesting thread.
> 
> I'm quite proud to say I like the Greens and am quite supportive of just about all of their policies, save for asylum seekers. That being said, the immigration policies perpetuated by the Liberals (and ALP) are many times worse, and have migrant workers from all over come to Australia, only to dump them on the taxpayers once the mining boom ends.
> 
> ...




millons of migran tworkers? are you for real


----------



## Starcraftmazter (7 July 2011)

DB008 said:


> 1) Lets put business out of business.....Have you seen what the "Greens" are doing for Sydney's Marrickville Council??




Not to get into international issues, but I don't particularly care for that affair in the Marrickville Council. I think it is a bit strange they are approaching matters of foreign policy at the lowest level of government so to say, however I am more interested in their actions at the federal level.

In regards to putting business out of business, I look at it from the perspective that;
 - It's important to understand that some business is doing more harm than good for us and the world in the long-term from an environmental standpoint (and others for other reasons), and as such to people who care about long-term standing issues, it is responsible to shut down such businesses and even industries if need be.

 - Typically it is possible at least to some significant extent replace these businesses with "green" businesses and achieve near neutral employment outcome.


To me this is a matter of doing what is best in terms of the next 50 and 100 years. It is simply not possible to not make the significant changes we need to make in our society and economy (this goes for all countries), and still achieve reasonable environmental outcomes without putting quite a few businesses out of work. This is harsh sure, but it  is a necessary sacrifice.

One really good example of this (this doesn't apply to Australia unfortunately, but the concept is the same in any country) is replacing the uranium nuclear industry with thorium nuclear - which is much safer, cleaner and arguably all-around better. Unfortunately since the nuclear industry is a reasonably big industry with lots of money and employs many people, while doing a lot of lobbying (and god knows how much bribery), politicians in heavy nuclear-using countries aren't willing to do anything proactive to move forward with technology.

The same can be said about any mainstream party like ALP and Libs (Nats, etc). They seem entirely without substance when it comes to change and progress.


The free market has done us well, but it is only concerned with very short-term profits, it is completely unconcerned with the long-term survival and prosperity of the human race. This is where governments need to step in hard.



DB008 said:


> 2) If we had the Libs policy still going, we wouldn't have 'boat people' issues (or much less).




Sure that is good, but at the same time record number of migrants came in under the Howard Libs government and put enormous strain on our tiny infrastructure. I am not a supporter of this nor the "Big Australia" policy I'm afraid. Before any new immigrants come in, we need to build several new planned cities, connected to major ones by high-speed rail. I would love it that there was a requirement to build one for every one million people extra added to the population.



DB008 said:


> Can l ask you two questions?
> 1) Are you currently at university?
> 2) Are you under 35?




1. Graduated last year
2. Yes


I tend to find that younger people put significantly more emphasis on long-term environmental issues, since we are the ones who will have to deal with them long after the older generations have passed away or no longer care 




breaker said:


> millons of migran tworkers? are you for real




Yes. I don't mean just people who come in to work in mines, but the people who come in to service them - and the people who come in to service them, etc. Someone needs to build new infrastructure, someone needs to work in the shops to cater for a larger population, etc.

This is very unsustainable, especially when it all relies on the mining boom.


----------



## breaker (7 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Batam, Indonesia. 1 hour ferry ride from Slingapore.




never been there would be worried about drugs being planted on me 
must go and have a look ,ya reckon its really better,I would like to get lost up in the cape somewhere


----------



## breaker (7 July 2011)

Yes. I don't mean just people who come in to work in mines said:
			
		

> unfortunatly we dont have any workers most are at home with paid maternity leave or having paid babies or on the dole ,we here in our town import philipinos who dont worry about public holidays, overtime or any of the other BS designed to bring down small business,I wish we could get more,I have relatives in England whom Govt wont let in because of age,makes ya wonder .small business cant start to service mines because of the inductions ,pre qualifying ect ect as most members of parlament none have any idea of working for themselves silly as it may seem the rock star is probably the only one to know what goes on in the real world


----------



## wayneL (7 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I tend to find that younger people put significantly more emphasis on long-term environmental issues, since we are the ones who will have to deal with them long after the older generations have passed away or no longer care




I find that younger people tend to put significantly more emphasis on what they have been indoctrinated in, have expended considerable emotional and financial investment in these views.

Climate change for example: It is very difficult for them to realize that the planet does not need saving (from anthropogenic climate change at least) after they have devoted the first part of their lives to that belief. (Although it is interesting that most are content to preach about the evils of co2 and not actually do anything about it in their own lifestyles)

Older people tend to be more circumspect, willing to listen to pros and cons and come to an "on balance" view.

There are the short term profiteers who disregard the future, but in my experience these come from every age group.


----------



## sails (7 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> ...
> 1. Graduated last year
> 2. Yes
> 
> ...





Ahhh, but we do care.  Many of us have grandchildren for whom we care very much.  We want to leave an Australia for them to call home, a place where they can get work and enjoy life without the interruptions of dictatorial type governments.  It would be entirely selfish to not fight for their future.

And, don't you realise we were also young once but perhaps have become wiser with the years?  We have witnessed many of life's cycles including weather and politics to know that much of what the greens want is not going to be good for Australia.  It's a shame that young people are so brainwashed at schools and universities and then want to implement these seemingly warm and fuzzy policies without the life's experiences behind them.

Were you never taught to think for yourself, or have you just swallowed the greenie untested policies line hook, line and sinker?


----------



## derty (7 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> Do you mean McCarthyistic?
> 
> If so, you have little appreciation and even less understanding of what that was all about.
> 
> To invoke that, is rather alarmist... but no surprises there.



You're right waynel - mispelt and misused.

i should have left it at;  it is sad that such a divisive piece originally written by some Republican fundamentalist wingnut can be slightly altered and find so much resonance in Australia.


----------



## joea (7 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> I find that younger people tend to put significantly more emphasis on what they have been indoctrinated in, have expended consider emotional and financial investment in these views.
> 
> Climate change for example: It is very difficult for them to realize that the planet does not need saving (from anthropogenic climate change at least) after they have devoted the first part of their lives to that belief. (Although it is interesting that most are content to preach about the evils of co2 and not actually do anything about it in their own lifestyles)
> 
> ...




The younger people have the media and its technology to draw information from.
They can absorb and compile a point of view in a very short time.
The older generation remember how our nation was built, by politicans on both side.

You will find when the "s**t" hits the fan, the older generation will be soldiering on.
Many of the younger generation will be hiding behind the door until the splatter stops, to then re- emerge with a different point of view.

That's life I guess.
We have always understood in this country, that  the "the vocal minority" generally gets its way on a number of issues.
Thats not to say they younger generation  should not be heard.
The bottom line is, the voters must vote for "policy" and not "spin".

over and out. joea


----------



## breaker (7 July 2011)

sails who,d have thought 20 years no 10 years ago a poof and an atheist and de facto would be running the country, I hope we never become a republic


----------



## Bigukraine (7 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> I find that younger people tend to put significantly more emphasis on what they have been indoctrinated in, have expended considerable emotional and financial investment in these views.
> 
> Climate change for example: It is very difficult for them to realize that the planet does not need saving (from anthropogenic climate change at least) after they have devoted the first part of their lives to that belief. (Although it is interesting that most are content to preach about the evils of co2 and not actually do anything about it in their own lifestyles)
> 
> ...




you have hit the nail on the head...... small example in regional sa where i live the local dump has come to the end of its life.... it must be rehabilitated to how it was.... enter the recently graduated uni student's engineer and biologist putting into motion something that works in theory and on paper but doesn't work in the real world.new soil has to be dumped in an area but can't be driven on or graded to much because the compaction will stop the tree's growing and implications to contamination of the ground water....bit hard to do this as the area was a hill before and to not drive/compact the soil is an impossability.... as they admited this is the first time in australia there method was tried,but instead of trying in a small pocket first they layed the first three layers of gavel /dirt over the whole area and stopped work when they realised it won't work. so the ground water can still be contaminated and a lot of the grasses and tree's won't grow...cost so far to rate payer over$250,000 for using us as a test case and they still got payed as well....no come back to them and the ratepayer cop's their incompetence... this unfortunatley is the future of australian business.......


----------



## trainspotter (7 July 2011)

todster said:


> Close your eyes Trainspotter can't you see me in a loincloth fashioned from a couple of old car chammys faning you as laybabout the pool producing endless cold Bintangs and some stodgy nasi on the side.




Mmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm NOPE. I prefer Corona and Babi guling. Loincloth to be replaced with boardies and you are in.



> breaker - never been there would be worried about drugs being planted on me
> must go and have a look ,ya reckon its really better,I would like to get lost up in the cape somewhere




No problem over there as you land in Slingapore first - hire a mule to take the drugs to Batam for you on the high speed ferry 

Batam = Singapore efficiency with a Bali lifestyle. Huge amount of potential as the Singos have just about filled their island so they are expanding across the strait.


----------



## sails (7 July 2011)

breaker said:


> sails who,d have thought 20 years no 10 years ago a poof and an atheist and de facto would be running the country, I hope we never become a republic




Yes, I agree.  I have been out driving grandchildren to various places this morning (please note Starcraftmazter that we actually care about their future too) and I was thinking along a similar line, Breaker.  

My thoughts were that we have a spinster with no children and a poof (where I cannot find any reference to children from previous relationships) running our country at the moment.  How can they possibly understand what it's like to feel major concern for grandchildren's future?  

And I wish all you young ones who are giving votes to the greens good luck if you have families of your own one day and then wake up to what you have done to the country.

The younger ones would not remember the Whitlam debacles. Keating and Hawke were more moderate, but this Gillard/Brown combo will probably go down in the history books as the worst government ever in Australian history.  I certainly hope, for Australia's sake, that no other government gets to break their dubious record.


PS Breaker - any chance of getting your chicken to stay still? It's very distracting while trying to read your posts...


----------



## Julia (7 July 2011)

Starcraft...., maybe revisit this thread in about ten years when you've actually had some experience in the real world.
You might find you have some real experience from which to form relevant opinions instead of regurgitating the stuff with which you're indoctrinated in university.

I'm curious to know in what field you plan to have a career?


----------



## breaker (7 July 2011)

PS Breaker - any chance of getting your chicken to stay still? It's very distracting while trying to read your posts...:D[/QUOTE said:
			
		

> chicken is so happy live export is back on
> Starcraft,wait till they make homosexuality compulsary.


----------



## disarray (7 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> I find that younger people tend to put significantly more emphasis on what they have been indoctrinated in, have expended considerable emotional and financial investment in these views.....Older people tend to be more circumspect, willing to listen to pros and cons and come to an "on balance" view.




If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.


----------



## noco (7 July 2011)

sails said:


> Ahhh, but we do care.  Many of us have grandchildren for whom we care very much.  We want to leave an Australia for them to call home, a place where they can get work and enjoy life without the interruptions of dictatorial type governments.  It would be entirely selfish to not fight for their future.
> 
> And, don't you realise we were also young once but perhaps have become wiser with the years?  We have witnessed many of life's cycles including weather and politics to know that much of what the greens want is not going to be good for Australia.  It's a shame that young people are so brainwashed at schools and universities and then want to implement these seemingly warm and fuzzy policies without the life's experiences behind them.
> 
> Were you never taught to think for yourself, or have you just swallowed the greenie untested policies line hook, line and sinker?




Well written Sails and congratulations. The youth of today are well and truly being brainwashed.
No doubt these are some of the youths who will go out of their way to interupt free speech given by some who differ in opinion.


----------



## sails (7 July 2011)

disarray said:


> If you're not a liberal when you're 25, you have no heart. If you're not a conservative by the time you're 35, you have no brain.




Well said, Disarray...

And thanks Noco - I get quite frustrated with these young ones still wet behind the ears and are somewhat brainwashed into thinking they have life all sorted out when, in reality, they have seen very little of the cycles which life dishes up.

I think the voting age should be lifted to about 30...  By then, they might have families of their own and understand that life isn't about warm and fuzzy theories, but it's about working out budgets to keep the young family afloat - lots of sacrifices come into play when one has children and seems to change one's perspectives on life in general.


----------



## DB008 (7 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> I find that younger people tend to put significantly more emphasis on what they have been indoctrinated in, have expended considerable emotional and financial investment in these views.
> 
> Climate change for example: It is very difficult for them to realize that the planet does not need saving (from anthropogenic climate change at least) after they have devoted the first part of their lives to that belief. (Although it is interesting that most are content to preach about the evils of co2 and not actually do anything about it in their own lifestyles)
> 
> ...




Spot on wayneL!
The majority of people that l speak to who are in the 20-35 year bracket all support the 'Greens'. 

I then ask them, 'why'? 
80% reply with Global Warming. 

I then ask, 'Have you seen the movie, 'The Inconvenient Truth?'
Of the 80% that have answered yes above, 90% say 'Yes, they have seen the film.'

Sheep/herd mentality going on with that age bracket or at uni me thinks.

(I am in that age group)


----------



## overhang (7 July 2011)

breaker said:


> sails who,d have thought 20 years no 10 years ago a poof and an* atheist* and de facto would be running the country, I hope we never become a republic



You mean a realist? So you believe in unicorns and fairies and you end up in ward 9 but believe in a god and your fit to govern the country, with this logic Australia isn't doomed... the whole world is.



sails said:


> Yes, I agree.  I have been out driving grandchildren to various places this morning (please note Starcraftmazter that we actually care about their future too) and I was thinking along a similar line, Breaker.
> 
> My thoughts were that we have a spinster with no children and a poof (where I cannot find any reference to children from previous relationships) running our country at the moment.  How can they possibly understand what it's like to feel major concern for grandchildren's future?
> 
> ...




So wait now you need to be a parent to comprehend the future?  You don't think that it's parents that make these stupid irrational decisions with the sole reason to "save the children".  You don't see a problem that the political reasoning for a carbon tax, internet filter, plain label cigarette packaging, alcopop tax and so on is all to "save the children".  It's the parents turning us into an nanny state acting on their emotions rather than fundamental decisions, parents are the most manipulable voters out there.  There is a reason "working families" is used in almost every Gillard speech, because its dam effective.

All though I do think that there is a bigger proportion of generation Y that support a carbon tax than any other generation I don't believe it to be the majority by any means.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (8 July 2011)

breaker said:


> we here in our town import philipinos who dont worry about public holidays, overtime or any of the other BS designed to bring down small business




This "BS designed to bring down small business" is actually referred to work-life balance and compensation for sacrifices endured during rest time. It is unfortunate that it is allowed to bring in migrants who do not care about such things, as the inevitable result is that quality of life goes down for the workforce as a whole.

Quality of life is the number one priority above all else.



wayneL said:


> Climate change for example: It is very difficult for them to realize that the planet does not need saving (from anthropogenic climate change at least) after they have devoted the first part of their lives to that belief. (Although it is interesting that most are content to preach about the evils of co2 and not actually do anything about it in their own lifestyles)




Indoctrinated by who exactly? 

I certainly don't remember anyone indoctrinating me. Not my parents (and if the majority doesn't support significant action towards global warming then that can be said about most parents?), and I don't recall learning much about the climate in schools - not to say they don't mention global warming, I actually do not remember - but either way, I doubt it's significance.



wayneL said:


> Older people tend to be more circumspect, willing to listen to pros and cons and come to an "on balance" view.




Possibly. There are some situations that call for this, and some do not.


One argument which I liked (this was before GFC to put in context), is that the worst depression which could potentially be brought on by serious action on global warming is much better than the worst depression and to some extent the extermination of a vast proportion of species that would be brought on by global warming in the event of inadequate action.

Personally, as bad as it may make things (though I to a large extent question just how bad it would be), I do not fear the idea of creating a better world, even if it will be found to have been unnecessary for the explicit purpose of addressing global warming, nobody can argue that it is pointless to create a better world, nor that sacrifice isn't justifiable in doing so.



sails said:


> It's a shame that young people are so brainwashed at schools and universities and then want to implement these seemingly warm and fuzzy policies without the life's experiences behind them.
> 
> Were you never taught to think for yourself, or have you just swallowed the greenie untested policies line hook, line and sinker?




To the contrary, I make my own decisions, and I reject the notion of having "beliefs". The way I look at world is; either I know something as a certainly, or I am unsure about the subject matter.

To take global warming, I have gone through more than enough scientific evidence to prove to myself beyond reasonable doubt that it is quite real. On the flip side, I can say the same about a lot of things which are _not_ taught in schools, and which are _not_ popular notions. For someone to accuse me or my generation or people similar to me as not being able to think for ourselves is quite laughable by my reckoning. I am often one to critisise almost everyone else for not thinking about matters themselves, and blindly accepting what others tell them; be it the government, the privately owned news, the standard model of physics, or old Jones down the street.



Julia said:


> Starcraft...., maybe revisit this thread in about ten years when you've actually had some experience in the real world.
> You might find you have some real experience from which to form relevant opinions instead of regurgitating the stuff with which you're indoctrinated in university.
> 
> I'm curious to know in what field you plan to have a career?




I'm sorry to call you out on this, but you have actually made a really stupid and baseless series of assumptions.

I have taken no courses at university dealing with any issues of environment, climate, economics, politics, or anything discussed in this thread.

The only courses I have ever taken apart from Mathematics, Engineering and Science (relating to computers) are on modern history and reasoning & philosophy (neither of which relate to issues discussed in this thread). Further, I was never part of any student organisation (in particular any environmental or left-wing organisation).

So for you to make any claim of;



> regurgitating the stuff with which you're indoctrinated in university




Is quite ridiculous and blind-sighted, unless we are talking about deeply technical computing (or mathematical) matters. I await to see what you have to say to my reply, and whether you are willing to admit how wrong it was for you to jump to such conclusions as you have in regards to what I have learned at university. I find your assumptions to be common among far-right wing people, who like to spout nonsense along the lines of "herp derp liberals bull!@#$ learned from other liberals derp" - as to imply nobody except people of your political and economic beliefs are capable of independent research and critical thinking.

The field is Engineering, Software Engineering specifically.


I do hope I'm not coming off as too strong, but I do seek to match the level of arrogance that I am met with 

I am of course open to debate, but thus far all I hear is "bla bla bla you must have these 'beliefs' because somebody else taught you to think this way - because nobody intelligent can have an opinion different to mine".

This is rather disappointing. If you have a concern that younger people do not understand important matters on the same level as you do (which is not an invalid claim in itself), then I would imagine you would equally concern yourself with trying to objectively teach them what you know and the reasoning behind _your_ opinions, rather than simply dismissing them.


Unless of course you do not consider this worth your while, in which case I don't consider you have a right to complain about people with different opinions than your own, even though you may look down on them.


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

wow starcraft who helped you with that? Dad


----------



## Starcraftmazter (8 July 2011)

breaker said:


> wow starcraft who helped you with that? Dad




Are you for real?

PS. Found the image I wanted 







But of course, feel free to reply with "baaaah you don't know what you're talking about you're not old, you were indoctrinated at university somehow by studying completely irrelevant things baaaaah".


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

Stargazer ,very commendable, but we have all been young once and have fell into the traps you have. As you get older and run your own business you will find that the people in charge are not in touch with the real world ,we cant keep having long weekends for the first six months of the year with every one on full pay, our lifstyle is to extravagent to sustain. People from other countrys do not feel its their right to rob the boss.
And it is not us making this nanny nation its them stupid bastards you voted for.


----------



## Logique (8 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> ...Batam = Singapore efficiency with a Bali lifestyle. Huge amount of potential as the Singos have just about filled their island so they are expanding across the strait.



Joe, within the structure of ASF could you reassure us that Traino hasn't been pushed aside, with the consolation prize of an ambassadorship? Sure, he'd do a sound job of running the ASF Consulate in Batam, but will he be lost from day to day business? I mean is he really needed over there, are there any trains that need spotting?


----------



## Knobby22 (8 July 2011)

breaker said:


> Stargazer ,very commendable, but we have all been young once and have fell into the traps you have. As you get older and run your own business you will find that the people in charge are not in touch with the real world ,we cant keep having long weekends for the first six months of the year with every one on full pay, our lifstyle is to extravagent to sustain. People from other countrys do not feel its their right to rob the boss.
> And it is not us making this nanny nation its them stupid bastards you voted for.




What a load of tosh, a load of condescending twaddle, and I am talking to the others in this trhread also.

The problem is that some of you elderly people have become fixed in your views, unable to way issues and willing to be drip fed by the media organisations catering to your biases so your views don't get challenged. Give em hell Starcraftmazter, they have no great hold on wisdom. 

And for that stupid saying that people get wisdom by becoming right wing in their old age, I used to be right but now I have gone to the centre and as a gen Y so I suppose that means I am a complete retard.


----------



## springhill (8 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> What a load of tosh, a load of condescending twaddle, and I am talking to the others in this trhread also.
> 
> The problem is that some of you elderly people have become fixed in your views, unable to way issues and willing to be drip fed by the media organisations catering to your biases so your views don't get challenged. Give em hell Starcraftmazter, they have no great hold on wisdom.
> 
> And for that stupid saying that people get wisdom by becoming right wing in their old age, I used to be right but now I have gone to the centre and as a gen Y so I suppose that means I am a complete retard.




The problem is that some of you *young* people have become fixed in your views, unable to way issues and willing to be drip fed by the *government and* media organisations catering to your biases so your views don't get challenged. Give em hell *breaker*, they have no great hold on wisdom.

Amazing how, with a couple of word changes, your statement is still 100% applicable.


----------



## sails (8 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> ...I certainly don't remember anyone indoctrinating me. Not my parents (and if the majority doesn't support significant action towards global warming then that can be said about most parents?), and I don't recall learning much about the climate in schools - not to say they don't mention global warming, I actually do not remember - but either way, I doubt it's significance.




I think you will find the brainwashing is quite subtle but also quite thorough.  My grandaughter - grade 5 last year - had one full term where "global warming" was the main feature.  Spelling words, assignments and all sorts of other stuff.  And yet my granddaughter struggles with learning and there are apparently insufficient funds to help her.  It seems priorities are up the creek.

And, "global warming" was taught as if it was fact rather than scientific theories by some some scientists, most of whom are on government pay rolls.

This child was also taught from home not to believe everything, especially theories where scientists do NOT agree.


----------



## trainspotter (8 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Are you for real?
> 
> PS. Found the image I wanted
> 
> ...




Post #55 is legendary stuff. I dips me lid to ya.  Great :shoot:

Commendable you want to save the planet. *We ALL do*. But we cannot do it by ourselves. If the other larger "polluters" (USA & CHINA) will not pull their emissions back because they do not want it to collapse their existing economy then why should we? 

We as a nation have already embraced solar, wind, hydro, gas and just about every other way to generate electricity. We have changed out light bulbs to the ones that barely work and are really expensive (but they save the planet). Hybrid cars are all the rage don't you know !! But we need to charge them up with ....... wait for it ......... wait for it .......... ELECTRICITY. 

Ummmmmmm why not charge the "polluters" a carbon tax and the money raised goes straight back into developing ........ wait for it ....... wait for it ......... wait for it ......... RENEWABLE ENERGY (fancy name for electricity) rather than compensating everyone ?? HUH ??? 

There is a difference to cleaning the rubbish from our waterways and saving the planet compared to imposing an umbrella tax on everything we consume in the name of reducing CO2. We already have a GST ....... did this stop the consumerism? 

This is what is happening in reality my learned adversary.




P.S. your cartoon has "clean water, air" as one of it's goals. Point of difference to a CO2 tax


----------



## trainspotter (8 July 2011)

Before this turns into a "YOUNG vs OLD" thread can the OLD component remember back to when they were YOUNG and idealisitic in their approach to life. And the YOUNG can go to parties and vote Green and save the planet. 

We accumulate our opinions at an age when our understanding is at its weakest - Georg C. Lichtenberg

You cannot put an old head on young shoulders - anonymous


----------



## overhang (8 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Post #55 is legendary stuff. I dips me lid to ya.  Great :shoot:
> 
> Commendable you want to save the planet. *We ALL do*. But we cannot do it by ourselves. If the other larger "polluters" (USA & CHINA) will not pull their emissions back because they do not want it to collapse their existing economy then why should we?
> 
> ...




That's a bearish looking chart TS,  I think I'll be going short. Yes your exactly right the low income earners, pensioners and working families will all be compensated which again leaves the Aussie battlers to foot the bill.


----------



## sails (8 July 2011)

What do greenie supporters think of this? Hypocrisy, right?  Why doesn't she ride a bike instead of adding polution to earth - let alone her car costs to the tax payer?...

From news.com.au by Gemma Jones: Gas-guzzling Australian Greens still using Comcars



> *Senator Hanson-Young, who accrued $17,260 in Comcar expenses, gave no response when asked if she thought the Greens should give up their cars in light of Senator Milne's comments.*


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> And for that stupid saying that people get wisdom by becoming right wing in their old age, I used to be right but now I have gone to the centre and as a gen Y so I suppose that means I am a complete retard.




Yep!


----------



## Knobby22 (8 July 2011)

breaker said:


> Yep!




From someone who quotes Andrew Bolt.


----------



## overhang (8 July 2011)

breaker said:


> Yep!




Oh the irony,  somehow you continue to stuff your quotes up but yet he is the retard.  Pot calling the kettle black.


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

Yeah Ts,its not a young and old thing would you beleive I was a conscientious objector, hated America had long hair and smoked pot all cops were pigs and puppets of a totalitarian regime,Che Guevara was the man,moon walk was a day of school and not a plot,
I was thrown out off school at 15 and travelled till I found I could,nt keep living on the dole I now run a 5k turnover business and find its just harder and harder by rules made by people who dont have a clue whats going on civvy street
Nobody wants a *&#@ed world 
We also run a sustainable cattle enterprize and have been governed by greenies who want to charge us for water in our dams, cattle farting and tree clearing some thing we have been doing for generations I dont want some pimply faced kid college kid telling me what I,m doing wrong because it looks good on paper
Have a look at the big names behind climate change we have listened to Al Gore but Lord Monckton turns up and nobody whant,s to know, banned from Broncos Club thats great for democracy.
When there,s nothing left it will be to late to late to say sorry[oh yeah why did I have to say sorry for something i did'nt do] but it won't be to late to say i told ya so


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> From someone who quotes Andrew Bolt.




Who


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

overhang said:


> Oh the irony,  somehow you continue to stuff your quotes up but yet he is the retard.  Pot calling the kettle black.




please explain


----------



## overhang (8 July 2011)

breaker said:


> please explain




Quoting a broken quote whilst insinuating someone is a retard is probably something you'd want to proofread.


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

overhang said:


> Quoting a broken quote whilst insinuating someone is a retard is probably something you'd want to proofread.




Sorry mate I did'nt realize one had to quote the whole quote, please excuse my netiquette


----------



## overhang (8 July 2011)

Breaker are you Bob Katter?, you seem to share his ideology's.


----------



## drsmith (8 July 2011)

sails said:


> What do greenie supporters think of this? Hypocrisy, right?  Why doesn't she ride a bike instead of adding polution to earth - let alone her car costs to the tax payer?...
> 
> From news.com.au by Gemma Jones: Gas-guzzling Australian Greens still using Comcars



She is wearing a green top.

Riding bikes is for the peasants, not their rulers.


----------



## wayneL (8 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> What a load of tosh, a load of condescending twaddle, and I am talking to the others in this trhread also.
> 
> The problem is that some of you elderly people have become fixed in your views, unable to way issues and willing to be drip fed by the media organisations catering to your biases so your views don't get challenged.




Well if we are talking the tendencies of ages, that is fair comment. I have to admit that some older people (and as I think this, I am thinking specifically of my outlaws ) do become irritatingly fixed in their views in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

But that is only some!

It is all about emotional investment in a view. We humans are not as logical as we think.

We of middle age however are a different story, Old enough to cast off indoctrination and young enough not to be ludicrously and illogically fixed. 



> Give em hell Starcraftmazter, they have no great hold on wisdom.




Who is "they"? The wise or the unwise? Is lack of wisdom that with which you cannot agree? Can the unwise recognize wisdom?

Pffffft

What SCM gives us is a pause to think, to reflect back on our own youth; but it certainly is not "hell" 




> And for that stupid saying that people get wisdom by becoming right wing in their old age, I used to be right but now I have gone to the centre and as a gen Y so I suppose that means I am a complete retard.




As a gen Y, you must still be quite young.

There is time for you yet!


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

overhang said:


> Breaker are you Bob Katter?, you seem to share his ideology's.




LOL who says young fells have no humour,no overhang but... yes I do share his ideology's, he lives near and is a family freind we go shooting together.
Is overhang from to much beer  ?


----------



## wayneL (8 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> This BS...  blah blah blah




I commend you for the zeal of your reply, but not the logic.

Of course you are not indoctrinated and are an independent thinker....


:


----------



## Julia (8 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> This "BS designed to bring down small business" is actually referred to work-life balance and compensation for sacrifices endured during rest time.



Compensation for sacrifices endured during rest time????  What does this mean?



> Quality of life is the number one priority above all else.



True enough, but what represents 'quality of life' to you may not to someone else.



> One argument which I liked (this was before GFC to put in context), is that the worst depression which could potentially be brought on by serious action on global warming is much better than the worst depression and to some extent the extermination of a vast proportion of species that would be brought on by global warming in the event of inadequate action.



Do you think it's just possible that people who have actually been through a great depression (as opposed to the piddly little recessions seen in recent years) may have some valid views about this?
I had no understanding of what it was like until my father took exception one day to my dismissive attitude and explained in very clear terms the horror of that time.



> Personally, as bad as it may make things (though I to a large extent question just how bad it would be), I do not fear the idea of creating a better world, even if it will be found to have been unnecessary for the explicit purpose of addressing global warming, nobody can argue that it is pointless to create a better world, nor that sacrifice isn't justifiable in doing so.



Ah, but this is where you are wrong.  People can indeed argue against such a proposition, from the basis of costs/benefits.
You are entitled to your view, but others are also entitled to theirs.  So far, at least, though the future is looking like being another story.



> To the contrary, I make my own decisions, and I reject the notion of having "beliefs". The way I look at world is; either I know something as a certainly, or I am unsure about the subject matter.



Must be very empowering to be so certain.  One of the quotes from some quite old person (sorry, forget who it was) remarked that the older he became the more he realised how little he knew.
(Probably some nutty old bugger, though, so don't let it disturb your certainty.)



> I'm sorry to call you out on this, but you have actually made a really stupid and baseless series of assumptions.
> 
> I have taken no courses at university dealing with any issues of environment, climate, economics, politics, or anything discussed in this thread.
> 
> The only courses I have ever taken apart from Mathematics, Engineering and Science (relating to computers) are on modern history and reasoning & philosophy (neither of which relate to issues discussed in this thread). Further, I was never part of any student organisation (in particular any environmental or left-wing organisation).



Thank  you for telling us about what you have studied.  Do you have a job?
I don't think I actually suggested that you'd necessarily have studied Environmental stuff.  My comment was rather based on the inevitability of absorbing the general ethos which prevails in most universities, i.e. a Left political bias.



> Is quite ridiculous and blind-sighted, unless we are talking about deeply technical computing (or mathematical) matters. I await to see what you have to say to my reply, and whether you are willing to admit how wrong it was for you to jump to such conclusions as you have in regards to what I have learned at university.



Hopefully I've explained this above.



> I find your assumptions to be common among far-right wing people, who like to spout nonsense along the lines of "herp derp liberals bull!@#$ learned from other liberals derp" - as to imply nobody except people of your political and economic beliefs are capable of independent research and critical thinking.



I did not imply that.  If you inferred that, that's up to you.

I simply suggested you should revisit the whole notion when you have had some genuine experience in a world outside the cloistered atmosphere of university.

If you think that's not a valid and realistic suggestion, you are effectively declaring that you do not believe you will learn anything in the next ten, twenty, fifty years.

Some of what you may learn, if you are prepared to be open minded, is that governments are - if not actually corrupt - self serving politically, and quite prepared to compromise what genuine beliefs they may have for political survival.

viz. Ms Gillard totally reversing  her stand on a carbon tax *because she needed to do the bidding of the Greens to retain power.*  But perhaps you believe rather that she had a sudden conversion to the imperative for a carbon tax, despite recently having persuaded Mr Rudd (leading to his downfall) to wipe his plan for an ETS.




> The field is Engineering, Software Engineering specifically.



Sounds like a good choice.  I wish you all the best in your chosen field.



> I do hope I'm not coming off as too strong, but I do seek to match the level of arrogance that I am met with



No, you're fine.  There's something refreshing about the zeal of youth with all its idealism.   Not much point in anyone over the age of 30 being critical.  We all have to live and derive experience in due course.



Knobby22 said:


> I used to be right but now I have gone to the centre and as a gen Y so I suppose that means I am a complete retard.



 Goodness, Knobby, that's interesting.  I've always thought of you as Gen X or even older.  Must be that air of maturity.


----------



## Knobby22 (8 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Goodness, Knobby, that's interesting.  I've always thought of you as Gen X or even older.  Must be that air of maturity.




I am Gen X, made an error, but as a male I have that whiff of immaturity most guys share also


----------



## noco (8 July 2011)

During the 50's and 60's, communism infiltrated the unions with super charged power. A majority of workers had to have a paid union ticket to be employed. They would wield the stick over the wharfs, rail, construction sites, abattoirs and any manufacturing establishment where they could cause disruption with strikes and disruption to our way of life. The sole purpose of their strategy was to break down the economies of countries like Australia resulting in high unemployment, high interst rates and higher cost of living and people discontent with the ruling government of the day. Communism would then become the alternative with promises of a better way of life. Communism also attempted to break down the morals of our youth with the intrduction of pornography.

We were probably saved by the mere fact that communism failed and many unions became redundant when most workers defected on the grounds of non compulsory membership. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is now something like 15% of workers belong to a union and most of these are public servants in police, nursing and other government utilities. Unions now do not have the power they once had.

As an alternative, we now have "GET UP" who have set out to do exactly what communism once did and that is to disrupt and boycott any organisation who go against government policies such as the carbon dioxide tax and live meat exports and who is a foundation member of this corrupt organisation?

NONE OTHER THAN OUR ASSITANT TREASURE AND SON-IN-LAW OF THE GOVERNOR GENERAL. MR. BILL SHORTEN.
WOW!!!!!!!!!!! Are the alarm bells ringing.   


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ermail/comments/the_new_warming_mccarthyists/


----------



## Knobby22 (8 July 2011)

McCarthyists noco??  

Don't think Wayne will like it.


----------



## disarray (8 July 2011)

various people said:
			
		

> accusations of brainwashing / defence of critical thinking faculties / generational conflict etc. etc.




and so on ....


----------



## moXJO (8 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> What a load of tosh, a load of condescending twaddle, and I am talking to the others in this trhread also.
> 
> The problem is that some of you elderly people have become fixed in your views, unable to way issues and willing to be drip fed by the media organisations catering to your biases so your views don't get challenged. Give em hell Starcraftmazter, they have no great hold on wisdom.
> 
> And for that stupid saying that people get wisdom by becoming right wing in their old age, I used to be right but now I have gone to the centre and as a gen Y so I suppose that means I am a complete retard.





Sorry but advice from a guy out of uni is just bad advice. Hey wasn't that what Rudd tried


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

noco said:


> of life. Communism also attempted to break down the morals of our youth with the intrduction of pornography.
> 
> /[/url]




Well the commies done something right


----------



## bandicoot76 (8 July 2011)

noco said:


> During the 50's and 60's, communism infiltrated the unions with super charged power. A majority of workers had to have a paid union ticket to be employed. They would wield the stick over the wharfs, rail, construction sites, abattoirs and any manufacturing establishment where they could cause disruption with strikes and disruption to our way of life. The sole purpose of their strategy was to break down the economies of countries like Australia resulting in high unemployment, high interst rates and higher cost of living and people discontent with the ruling government of the day. Communism would then become the alternative with promises of a better way of life. Communism also attempted to break down the morals of our youth with the intrduction of pornography.
> 
> We were probably saved by the mere fact that communism failed and many unions became redundant when most workers defected on the grounds of non compulsory membership. Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe there is now something like 15% of workers belong to a union and most of these are public servants in police, nursing and other government utilities. Unions now do not have the power they once had.
> 
> ...




having previously been both a union member & site delegate in the construction industry i feel i can comment on this post with a measure of authority.

a majority of people support the original concept of trade/workers unions. that idea was strenght to stand up to unscrupulous employers through solidarity, a noble idea and one that lead to better work conditions, better workplace safety, a 'fair days work for a fair days pay' employee/employer relationship. this worked fine whilever the union leadership were workers who came up through the ranks to positions of power.

as noco has stated this changed in the 60s/70s when the union leadership, which was formerly made up of real workers, was replaced by the 'professional leadership' of university educated lawyers/activists/pseudo-intellectuals, who were really just a front for the corruption of the union movement by infiltration of their fabian socialist ideals.  

it was due to this new fanatical leadership, that was driven by political dogma rather than concern for workers issues combined with their use of thuggery to destroy the original concept of the democratic/representitive nature of the union movement, that lead to workers becoming dis-illusioned with unions and leaving them in droves. 

if the unions returned to their proper charter of looking after their members instead of pushing political positions (CFMEU PUSHING CARBON TAX FOR CHRISTS SAKE!!! do they really think coal miners support that position!) then membership would blossom again. during my time as union delegate i was disgusted at the corruption & dishonest behavior of both the big construction companies & the union leadership. neither looked after trhe best interests of the employee's IMO!

however nocos porno quote is drawing a pretty long bow i'm afraid! 

"get-up" is a front organisation pushing the agenda of billionare parasite george soros (who funds all kinds of nasty insidious organisations) and who former canadian govenor general John Ralston Saul had this to say: "in times past george soros would have been hung as a pirate".

we are definately heading into uncertain times with the lunatics having taken over the asylum! those 2 turncoat independants have ALOT to answer for and i think they had better steer clear of their constituents for awhile! theres alot of anger in new-england thats for sure!


----------



## trainspotter (8 July 2011)

I am going to start selling paddles as we are right up there.






> Asked about the impact on Tasmania's Nyrstar zinc plant, Mr Wilkie said: "I am satisfied the settings that are relevant to the zinc smelter are fair to the zinc smelter ... and there is no reason in the world that (it) would suffer any undue difficulty."




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ws/story-e6frfku9-1226090753040#ixzz1Pzs6gLtg

In other words to get Wilkie to sign the carbon tax deal means the concessions he has gained for his state (Tasmania) will far outweigh the common good of the people of OZ.


----------



## todster (8 July 2011)

breaker said:


> Yeah Ts,its not a young and old thing would you beleive I was a conscientious objector, hated America had long hair and smoked pot all cops were pigs and puppets of a totalitarian regime,Che Guevara was the man,moon walk was a day of school and not a plot,
> I was thrown out off school at 15 and travelled till I found I could,nt keep living on the dole I now run a 5k turnover business and find its just harder and harder by rules made by people who dont have a clue whats going on civvy street
> Nobody wants a *&#@ed world
> We also run a sustainable cattle enterprize and have been governed by greenies who want to charge us for water in our dams, cattle farting and tree clearing some thing we have been doing for generations I dont want some pimply faced kid college kid telling me what I,m doing wrong because it looks good on paper
> ...




5k turn over you mght be better off back on the dole foghorn


----------



## Smurf1976 (8 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...ws/story-e6frfku9-1226090753040#ixzz1Pzs6gLtg
> 
> In other words to get Wilkie to sign the carbon tax deal means the concessions he has gained for his state (Tasmania) will far outweigh the common good of the people of OZ.



The only reason Tas does not have a 100% renewable electricity supply is due to decisions forced on the state by Labor in order to buy green votes in Sydney and Melbourne.

So far as I'm concerned, the other states should pay Tasmania's share of the carbon tax (to the extent it relates to electricity) for this reason - they wanted us to use coal and gas, Tasmanians weren't keen on the idea. For that matter, the other states should probably be paying the entire cost of the coal as well as the tax in order to be fair.

All that said, I'm still against the carbon tax and Andrew Wilkie ought not be supporting it.


----------



## tothemax6 (8 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> I am going to start selling paddles as we are right up there.
> View attachment 43580



Will you be floating stock? I'm sure many of us would be willing to invest


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> having previously been both a union member & site delegate in the construction industry i feel i can comment on this post with a measure of authority.
> 
> a majority of people support the original concept of trade/workers unions. that idea was strenght to stand up to unscrupulous employers through solidarity, a noble idea and one that lead to better work conditions, better workplace safety, a 'fair days work for a fair days pay' employee/employer relationship. this worked fine whilever the union leadership were workers who came up through the ranks to positions of power.
> 
> ...




mate that is the whole gist of it could not have put it better myself


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

todster said:


> 5k turn over you mght be better off back on the dole foghorn




I stand corrected...... 5mil


----------



## Starcraftmazter (8 July 2011)

breaker said:


> As you get older and run your own business you will find that the people in charge are not in touch with the real world ,we cant keep having long weekends for the first six months of the year with every one on full pay, our lifstyle is to extravagent to sustain. People from other countrys do not feel its their right to rob the boss.
> And it is not us making this nanny nation its them stupid bastards you voted for.




The nanny state is perpetuated by both major parties, there is no real choice. In fact this same claim can be made about most issues. Allow me to list some;

 - Middle class welfare
 - Toxic housing policy
 - Public sector waste
 - Playing to people's emotions rather than rolling out reforms and actual policy
 - Looking out more for foreign interests (USA) than our own (for instance, the USA-Australia FTA is significantly imbalanced in USA's favour).

None of these things are restricted to either the Lib/Nat coalition or ALP. However I do not attribute any of them to the Greens for instance.


As for long weekends, I agree...the people in charge (ie. in charge of companies) are completely out of touch with the real world. I disagree that we should move in the direction of worse countries which treat their population like slave labor, but rather we should be moving in the direction of better ones.




sails said:


> I think you will find the brainwashing is quite subtle but also quite thorough.




I would rather find you answering my question of whom exactly indoctrinated me.



sails said:


> And, "global warming" was taught as if it was fact rather than scientific theories by some some scientists, most of whom are on government pay rolls.




This is a very interesting point. Are you talking about the government that subsidises fossil fuel industries with billions? The government that gets massive donations from big oil and big coal? The government that will suck up to USA in every one of it's oil-oriented invasions of Middle Eastern and African countries? The government that will do everything in it's power to give as little funding to renewable projects and research  as they can get away with?

Is this the government you refer to?




trainspotter said:


> Commendable you want to save the planet. *We ALL do*. But we cannot do it by ourselves. If the other larger "polluters" (USA & CHINA) will not pull their emissions back because they do not want it to collapse their existing economy then why should we?




This is a very valid point, perhaps the most valid point I have come across. I do not yet know how to address it in a way where I am satisfied there can be no logical argument against it.

However from a purely ethical perspective, I would not be able to tell future generations that I considered it was okey to do nothing because some others did nothing.




trainspotter said:


> This is what is happening in reality my learned adversary.
> 
> View attachment 43568
> 
> ...




And here is one of the last 2000 years, I believe it providers greater perspective:

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c1/2000_Year_Temperature_Comparison.png

I am not happy with the carbon "tax" by any means, but I would be more unhappy if nothing was done. I fear this may be a case of us having to crawl before we can walk.


I do want to emphasise that two graphs don't make an argument though, the point is that there are many equally valid graphs which support opposing views.




sails said:


> What do greenie supporters think of this? Hypocrisy, right?  Why doesn't she ride a bike instead of adding polution to earth - let alone her car costs to the tax payer?...




I'll bite.

1. Probably not as bad as ALP and Libs
http://www.news.com.au/money/mps-top-lodgers-of-dodgy-tax-claims/story-e6frfmci-1226023025342
In fact I remember an article earlier this year about prominent politicians from both the aforementioned parties fraudulently writing off *entire car purchases* as tax deductible.

2. The article claims; "Senator Christine Milne, who accrued $7527 in Comcar expenses in the past 12 months" - however it makes no effort to compare this dollar figure to any other politician from any other party, nor any sort of an average.

3. The article claims; "Only a few cars in the taxpayer-funded fleet are hybrid Toyota models, with most gas-guzzling family-sized sedans." - however do the greens have any choice in this?

4. You ask why she does not ride a bike, however do you know the circumstances around which the greens senator needs to use a car? What if she needs to get between two geographical points in an amount of time not achievable by bicycle? How much would it cost taxpayers if she would be forced to hold up government meetings if she did ride a bike? What if she has health issues which prevent her from doing significant physical activity?




Julia said:


> Compensation for sacrifices endured during rest time????  What does this mean?




Are you familiar with the concept of "8 hours labour, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest"? If someone works overtime they will have to give up one of recreation or rest. Rest is often scarified by Australian workers at a great cost to their health, and by extension the taxpayer in terms of medical costs funded by the government and lost productivity as a result of poorer health than is achievable under ideal circumstances.

Not to mention it diminishes people's quality of life.



Julia said:


> True enough, but what represents 'quality of life' to you may not to someone else.




There is a reason why there are laws for matters such as overtime. It is because most consider overtime as something which hurts quality of life.




Julia said:


> Do you think it's just possible that people who have actually been through a great depression (as opposed to the piddly little recessions seen in recent years) may have some valid views about this?
> I had no understanding of what it was like until my father took exception one day to my dismissive attitude and explained in very clear terms the horror of that time.




Sure, but in my view a significant proportion of the human population will die, as well as a significant amount of species living on our planet. The world economy will collapse forever as we know it, and we would be very lucky to maintain any semblance of law and order. I do not believe any depression of a purely economic nature can compete with this scenario.




Julia said:


> Ah, but this is where you are wrong.  People can indeed argue against such a proposition, from the basis of costs/benefits.
> You are entitled to your view, but others are also entitled to theirs.




It would be good if everyone held that view, but then some people believe that people with other views were indoctrinated by parents, schools, universities and everything else 




Julia said:


> Thank  you for telling us about what you have studied.  Do you have a job?




Yes.



Julia said:


> I don't think I actually suggested that you'd necessarily have studied Environmental stuff.  My comment was rather based on the inevitability of absorbing the general ethos which prevails in most universities, i.e. a Left political bias.




Can you please elaborate as to how I absorbed such general ethos? Please, do go into as much detail as you can, as I am very curious as to what basis you have for this most ridiculous notion. I will also repeat if you forgot, that I was not part of any student organisation or group dealing with politics, world affairs, environment, or anything related. I will also mention that all of my views I have held prior to university, I have only built on them through gaining more knowledge by independent research. While at university, almost all of my time was dedicated to study, both during class time and free time. None of the things I studied relate to anything we are discussing now. I  never attended any sort of events related to the issues we are discussing now.




Julia said:


> If you think that's not a valid and realistic suggestion, you are effectively declaring that you do not believe you will learn anything in the next ten, twenty, fifty years.




It's a fair suggestion, but it also implies necessarily that I'm incorrect in my current views. Not claiming to be infallible, but I do not like your implication nevertheless.




Julia said:


> Some of what you may learn, if you are prepared to be open minded, is that governments are - if not actually corrupt - self serving politically, and quite prepared to compromise what genuine beliefs they may have for political survival.




This is not new to me. This is one of the main reasons why I support the Greens. Using your own argument which I just quoted, I do not understand how you (or anyone who thinks the same) can possibly support any major party. Perhaps you would care to explain, especially how ALP and LIB are any different in regards to this, and why either deserve yours (or my) support given the obvious truths of what you have said.

And I will claim that governments are far beyond corrupt. It is often not obvious to me whether ours are as far down the rabbit hole  as in the USA or many European countries, but I have no doubts they are deep in there.


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

Mate ,why arn't you out on the piss tryin to get laid


----------



## Starcraftmazter (8 July 2011)

breaker said:


> Mate ,why arn't you out on the piss tryin to get laid




I don't drink.


----------



## breaker (8 July 2011)

dont *&%@ either


----------



## Julia (8 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I am not happy with the carbon "tax" by any means, but I would be more unhappy if nothing was done. I fear this may be a case of us having to crawl before we can walk.



This is the stuff being perpetuated by the alarmists on the basis that it can do no harm to introduce a tax which is not replicated in our trading competitors.
It is a totally nonsensical suggestion, naive at best.



> 2. The article claims; "Senator Christine Milne, who accrued $7527 in Comcar expenses in the past 12 months" - however it makes no effort to compare this dollar figure to any other politician from any other party, nor any sort of an average.



Comparisons with other politicians are beside the point which is that they who decree we must live without modern stuff like petrol powered cars should be demonstrating the point if they are to have any credibility.



> concept of "8 hours labour, 8 hours recreation, 8 hours rest"? If someone works overtime they will have to give up one of recreation or rest. Rest is often scarified by Australian workers at a great cost to their health, and by extension the taxpayer in terms of medical costs funded by the government and lost productivity as a result of poorer health than is achievable under ideal circumstances.



Oh god, one day you might understand that to get ahead in competitive work environments you might actually have to work a few hours of overtime.  It's called 'having a career and having a commitment to the job" as opposed to being a little worker bee toiling as little as possible 



> There is a reason why there are laws for matters such as overtime. It is because most consider overtime as something which hurts quality of life.



This from someone with next to no experience in the workforce.  There is no rational way of debating with this sort of ingrained attitude.



> Can you please elaborate as to how I absorbed such general ethos? Please, do go into as much detail as you can, as I am very curious as to what basis you have for this most ridiculous notion.



No, SCM (try to choose a simpler nic next time, huh), I will not elaborate or explain to you something which you have already decided to reject.
It may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, but people on forums are actually not obliged to meet your demands.  They will make their responses only insofar as they feel inclined.



> It's a fair suggestion, but it also implies necessarily that I'm incorrect in my current views. Not claiming to be infallible, but I do not like your implication nevertheless.



  Love it.



Starcraftmazter said:


> I don't drink.



Pity.  A good party would probably do you the world of good.


----------



## trainspotter (8 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> This is a very valid point, perhaps the most valid point I have come across. I do not yet know how to address it in a way where I am satisfied there can be no logical argument against it.
> 
> However from a purely ethical perspective, I would not be able to tell future generations that I considered it was okey to do nothing because some others did nothing.
> 
> ...




Too true that "evil prospers whilst good men do nothing" BUT as we are 1.3% of global CO2 (which includes our coal exports) we are a miniscule component in a much larger machination. It is not about "saving the planet" at all. It is about changing the tax pardigm from a percentage of income/profit, then it went to a GST/consumer base and now it is about an ETS or carbon tax if you will. It has nothing to do with cleaner air or fresher water for the future. It is about propping up the failing systems with a new income stream derived from the populace/consumer/"polluter" (read CO2 emitter)

Look at this rationally and sensibly. The top 500 companies will be taxed for CO2. They pass the increase onto the proletariat. The Guvmint uses the "tax" to subsidise the cost of living increase! How does this reduce emissions if everyone is compensated? I will not be changing my usage if it means that I will be getting money from the Feds to cover up my CO2 cost impost. How does this change the output? It does not. Open your eyes and ears to what is actually going on. It WILL cause inflation as everything is going to be more expensive.  No wait ...... 9 out of 10 people will be compensated which means the "rich" people will have to cut back on their consumerism. Pfffffffffffft !!!

Ethics are for the people who inhabit Ward 4 at any mental institute. There is no such thing when it comes to a government hell bent on making "nation building changes" and clinging to power by having the Greens dictate what they can and can't sell to the populace. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" - Julia Gillard said. "There will be a carbon tax" - Bob Brown. You decide the ethics on this one. 

Your graph stops at 2004 (The El Niño was in full effect) mine stops in 2009 when the earth was cooling again. Oh well. Split definitives all you like as I can post just as many credible websites contradicting your websites.

Trainspotters Law states _"For every website agreeing with you, I have an equal and opposite website disagreeing with you"_

Once again I reiterate:- If this government was actually wanting to do something about global warming and CO2 is the culprit then place a "carbon tax" on the naughty big emitters of CO2. Use this money to actually invest in solar/wind/hydro/gas/thermal generation companies and let the people decide. Or would this risk them losing power (pun intended) at the next election?


----------



## noco (8 July 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> having previously been both a union member & site delegate in the construction industry i feel i can comment on this post with a measure of authority.
> 
> however nocos porno quote is drawing a pretty long bow i'm afraid!




Bandicoot, trade unions were excellant in the late 1800's up to ww11 and I agree it was an essential protection for workers. Then in the 50's and 60's it was definely exploted by communist infiltration. Coming to the end ot the twentieth century, union membership went into rapid decline to where it is are today.

My call on communism breaking down the morals of our youth came from a small book my father gave me many years ago and it was mentioned. I am sure I still have it packed away some where. It's not lost,I  just can't find it ATM. If I locate it I will scan and post it.


----------



## Slipperz (8 July 2011)

opcorn:


----------



## wayneL (9 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I would rather find you answering my question of whom exactly indoctrinated me.




If you have an open mind (which is not apparent right now), you will stumble across the answer one day.

But to quote Winston Churchill - Men occasionally stumble over the truth, but most of them pick themselves up and hurry off as if nothing had happened.



> I don't drink.




FYA

"never trust a man who doesn't drink because he's probably a self-righteous sort, a man who thinks he knows right from wrong all the time. Some of them are good men, but in the name of goodness, they cause most of the suffering in the world. They're the judges, the meddlers. And, son, never trust a man who drinks but refuses to get drunk. They're usually afraid of something deep down inside, either that they're a coward or a fool or mean and violent. You can't trust a man who's afraid of himself. But sometimes, son, you can trust a man who occasionally kneels before a toilet. The chances are that he is learning something about humility and his natural human foolishness, about how how to survive himself. It's damned hard for a man to take himself too seriously when he's heaving his guts into a dirty toilet bowl."


----------



## moXJO (9 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> The nanny state is perpetuated by both major parties, there is no real choice. In fact this same claim can be made about most issues. Allow me to list some;
> 
> - Middle class welfare
> - Toxic housing policy
> ...




LOL you are kidding right, I mean either you are blind, or one of the new media spinsters the Greens are using to change public opinion. The Greens have set about a social media blitz across the boards and apparently comments and forum boards are the new battleground. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment.



> As for long weekends, I agree...the people in charge (ie. in charge of companies) are completely out of touch with the real world. I disagree that we should move in the direction of worse countries which treat their population like slave labor, but rather we should be moving in the direction of better ones.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




What you spout is communism throughout your post like it is some kind of saving grace. Sorry to be harsh but your post makes me sick in sections. You have the greens method of sounds kind of right but with no thought of consequences. The only thing the greens offer is a great way to ruin our standard of living, no real benefit to the environment, ruin business and productivity, and ensure self righteous bastards like you don't get a decent education despite that the greens think they are pro learning. The greens are the sneakiest of the bunch with total disregard to what the Australian public actually wants. Hiding behind cover policies of feel good nature to make the more damaging ones more unnoticed
Like I said you sound like the new greens advertising department.


----------



## sails (9 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter, here is some information on how our school kids are being brainwashed to the point of fear.  And Garrett refuses to take it out of the cirriculum.  What does he know about education?

From News.com.au by Bruce McDougall and Jenny Dillon:

*Australian children are being terrified by climate change lesson*s



> PRIMARY school children are being terrified by lessons claiming climate change will bring "death, injury and destruction" to the world unless they take action.



and despite calls by Psychologist Michael Carr-Gregg for educators to be "more circumspect and present both sides (of the climate-change debate)", it seems like they don't want to know.



> Federal Schools Minister Peter Garrett said the government would not stop the teaching of climate science, despite moves in Britain for the subject to be withdrawn



.


----------



## Logique (9 July 2011)

noco said:


> During the 50's and 60's, communism infiltrated the unions with super charged power.....The sole purpose of their strategy was to break down the economies of countries like Australia resulting in high unemployment, high interst rates and higher cost of living and people discontent with the ruling government of the day. Communism would then become the alternative with promises of a better way of life..
> ..We were probably saved by the mere fact that communism failed...As an alternative, we now have "GET UP"...
> http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...ermail/comments/the_new_warming_mccarthyists/



Well said Noco, and right on the money. The figure I've heard for union membership, with low confidence, is ~12%. I don't blame the Gen X'ers and Y's and Next's for not understanding the historical socio-politics, they weren't around to witness how insidious and how destructive it was to Australian life and the economy. 

Talk to some Eastern European migrants from this era. They thought they'd escaped, now it's chasing them across the globe. Gee I guess I'm an alarmist now.

Also what sort of place is Canberra, I read yesterday that 1 in 5 people are members of GetUp. The loftiest of Ivory Towers.


----------



## sails (9 July 2011)

Logique said:


> ...Also what sort of place is Canberra, I read yesterday that 1 in 5 people are members of GetUp. The loftiest of Ivory Towers.




Perhaps most of GetUp's 18,000 financial members all come from Canberra...

Bolt claims there are only about 18,000 financial members and the remaining 400,000 are most likely names on petitions.  

Someone at ASF put up a petition against carbon tax on the GetUp site and I felt very uncomfortable about giving them my details, so didn't vote there. But there were other votes already there.  So, it is possible there are many people being included in the get up "membership" that may not support their ideals in any way.

http://blogs.news.com.au/heraldsun/...raldsun/comments/the_new_warming_mccarthyists


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 July 2011)

Julia said:


> This is the stuff being perpetuated by the alarmists on the basis that it can do no harm to introduce a tax which is not replicated in our trading competitors.




This is an economic argument rather than an environmental one. Also it's a pretty big generalisation, ie. _some_ of our trading partners do have carbon trading systems in place. In this sense, we are actually late with ours.



Julia said:


> Comparisons with other politicians are beside the point which is that they who decree we must live without modern stuff like petrol powered cars should be demonstrating the point if they are to have any credibility.




Are you kidding me? It's entirely relevant. Why put forth an arbitrary figure without anything to compare it to? This is the worst sort of reporting, and nothing less than I would expect from News Ltd.

Patrol powered cars are hardly "modern stuff", they have been around for a very very long time. I would consider "modern stuff" to be more along the lines of electric cars.




Julia said:


> Oh god, one day you might understand that to get ahead in competitive work environments you might actually have to work a few hours of overtime.




Or you could work better than your competition in the amount of time allocated in the day to do work. Your notion of getting ahead is amazingly simplistic and basically relies on the brute force waste of time to do so. I prefer to do it through superior skills and knowledge.



Julia said:


> This from someone with next to no experience in the workforce.  There is no rational way of debating with this sort of ingrained attitude.




How is experience relevant to the reason why workplace laws are in place?



Julia said:


> No, SCM (try to choose a simpler nic next time, huh), I will not elaborate or explain to you something which you have already decided to reject.
> It may come as somewhat of a surprise to you, but people on forums are actually not obliged to meet your demands.  They will make their responses only insofar as they feel inclined.




This is what people say when they have backed themselves into a corner. You in fact can not explain your claims, because they are simply false. I did not "demand" you do anything either, I am merely giving your the opportunity to vindicate yourself from making false claims.



Julia said:


> Pity.  A good party would probably do you the world of good.




Parties are boring. No intellectual stimulation...



trainspotter said:


> Look at this rationally and sensibly. The top 500 companies will be taxed for CO2. They pass the increase onto the proletariat. The Guvmint uses the "tax" to subsidise the cost of living increase! How does this reduce emissions if everyone is compensated? I will not be changing my usage if it means that I will be getting money from the Feds to cover up my CO2 cost impost. How does this change the output? It does not. Open your eyes and ears to what is actually going on. It WILL cause inflation as everything is going to be more expensive.  No wait ...... 9 out of 10 people will be compensated which means the "rich" people will have to cut back on their consumerism. Pfffffffffffft !!!




I understand your point; this is my biggest problem with the carbon tax, the fact that there is any compensation at all. It amounts to pressing the acceleration and break at the same time...it makes no sense.

But in regards to that, if the Greens had their way there would be no compensation (except for low income earners perhaps), this is something brought on by ALP.

I don't see how top income earners need any compensation, especially considering how little impact a price of $23/t will have.




trainspotter said:


> Ethics are for the people who inhabit Ward 4 at any mental institute. There is no such thing when it comes to a government hell bent on making "nation building changes" and clinging to power by having the Greens dictate what they can and can't sell to the populace. "No carbon tax under the government I lead" - Julia Gillard said. "There will be a carbon tax" - Bob Brown. You decide the ethics on this one.





Our system of government allows this sort of thing to happen, there is not much to say or do. Sometimes you may be supportive of policy backflips, sometimes you might hate them.




trainspotter said:


> Once again I reiterate:- If this government was actually wanting to do something about global warming and CO2 is the culprit then place a "carbon tax" on the naughty big emitters of CO2. Use this money to actually invest in solar/wind/hydro/gas/thermal generation companies and let the people decide. Or would this risk them losing power (pun intended) at the next election?




Once again I agree 



wayneL said:


> If you have an open mind (which is not apparent right now), you will stumble across the answer one day.




I assert my mind is more open than yours.



wayneL said:


> never trust a man who doesn't drink




I am once again amazed at some of the crap that is posted here 

What next, you're going to hate on people who don't like ice-cream? You sure have a good way to make stupid assumptions and illogical choices. I prefer to stick to logic and reason though, so I won't trust or distrust someone because they do or do not consume as certain type of food or drink.




moXJO said:


> LOL you are kidding right, I mean either you are blind, or one of the new media spinsters the Greens are using to change public opinion. The Greens have set about a social media blitz across the boards and apparently comments and forum boards are the new battleground. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt for the moment.




What's a media spinster and how do they change public opinion? I don't recall the last time I watched or heard any kind of an address from the greens.



moXJO said:


> What you spout is communism throughout your post like it is some kind of saving grace. Sorry to be harsh but your post makes me sick in sections.




So instead of debate you choose to slap a label? Whatever suits you best I guess.



moXJO said:


> Hiding behind cover policies of feel good nature to make the more damaging ones




You mean policies like...the baby bonus? FHOG? FHOB? Those sorts of policies? Yes, the greens are such a terrible party, oh wait...




sails said:


> Starcraftmazter, here is some information on how our school kids are being brainwashed to the point of fear.  And Garrett refuses to take it out of the cirriculum.  What does he know about education?.




I have a number of problems with the linked article, which is again nothing less than I would expect from News Limited.

It uses a lot of emotional language and goes for "expert opinions", however no real examples of *any* of the material are provided, nor does it present any viewpoints of any supporters of this new material. Overall, there is no way you can claim that article is remotely unbiased.

I think it would be far better if they simply showed the material and allowed people to make up their own minds about whether it's too "extreme" or not.

Personally, I cannot judge something like this without actually seeing it first hand, so forgive me if I don't buy poorly written, subjective articles by biased news corporations.


----------



## bandicoot76 (9 July 2011)

noco said:


> Bandicoot, trade unions were excellant in the late 1800's up to ww11 and I agree it was an essential protection for workers. Then in the 50's and 60's it was definely exploted by communist infiltration. Coming to the end ot the twentieth century, union membership went into rapid decline to where it is are today.
> 
> My call on communism breaking down the morals of our youth came from a small book my father gave me many years ago and it was mentioned. I am sure I still have it packed away some where. It's not lost,I  just can't find it ATM. If I locate it I will scan and post it.




with regard to the union issue i agree 100% noco! i thought the gist of my previous post would have re-inforced the fact i agreed with you. i just dont see how reading a people/picture/playboy etc mag constitutes a moral decay.. 

perhaps your right and that moral decay by pr0n was the aim of the communist movement, but if thats the case then i feel that it was a major failure of their doctrine, as i believe cencorship and prohibition (the alternative) to be a bigger evil to freedom than looking at a big pair of silicon titties on a centrefold model!


----------



## trainspotter (9 July 2011)

noco said:


> My call on communism breaking down the morals of our youth came from a small book my father gave me many years ago and it was mentioned. I am sure I still have it packed away some where. It's not lost,I  just can't find it ATM. If I locate it I will scan and post it.




Found it ! Little Red Book - Mao Tse-Tung :


----------



## Glen48 (9 July 2011)

T S 
Open it up might have some juicy contact's?

Mayo could have been a pedo, Gambler???? we can expose him here for all to see.

 He did do one good thing...........die


----------



## wayneL (9 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I assert my mind is more open than yours.




I thought you might. I believe you... promise... honestly 

I suppose you believe you can urinate further than me as well? 



> I am once again amazed at some of the crap that is posted here
> 
> What next, you're going to hate on people who don't like ice-cream? You sure have a good way to make stupid assumptions and illogical choices. I prefer to stick to logic and reason though, so I won't trust or distrust someone because they do or do not consume as certain type of food or drink.




This is another hypothesis of mine that you have conveniently added some observational data to, viz those watermelons of the extreme left have a deficiency rendering them unable to recognize tongue in cheek comment.

Thank you for adding to my studies, it is most appreciated. 



Starcraftmazter said:


> Patrol powered cars...




BTW, I have never heard of these. Sounds exciting, what are they?


----------



## Aussiejeff (9 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> > Patrol powered cars..
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I read somewhere that a brace of hot coppers under da hood provide more than ample impetus...


----------



## disarray (9 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Found it ! Little Red Book - Mao Tse-Tung :




i would argue strong national ideologies are far better at shaping and maintaing the morals of youth than the "do what you want you unique and precious flower" liberal attitude that is common now.



> We stand for active ideological struggle because it is the weapon for ensuring unity ... But liberalism rejects ideological struggle and stands for unprincipled peace, thus giving rise to a decadent, philistine attitude and bringing about political degeneration in certain units and individuals in the Party and the revolutionary organisations


----------



## trainspotter (9 July 2011)

disarray said:


> i would argue strong national ideologies are far better at shaping and maintaing the morals of youth than the "do what you want you unique and precious flower" liberal attitude that is common now.




_"Communism is not love. Communism is a hammer which we use to crush the enemy." _- Mao Tse-Tung 

I would advocate that somewhere in the middle would suffice when it comes to shaping and maintaining the morals of the national youth. 



> Along with land reform, during which significant numbers of landlords were *beaten to death at mass meetings organized by the Communist Party* as land was taken from them and given to poorer peasants,[28] there was also the Campaign to Suppress Counterrevolutionaries,[29] which involved public executions targeting mainly former Kuomintang officials, businessmen accused of "disturbing" the market, former employees of Western companies and intellectuals whose loyalty was suspect.
> 
> Mao himself claimed that a total of 700,000 people were executed during the years 1949–53. However, because there was a policy to select "at least one landlord, and usually several, in virtually every village for public execution", the number of deaths range between 2 million and 5 million. In addition, at least 1.5 million people, perhaps as many as 4 to 6 million, were sent to "reform through labour" camps where many perished. *Mao played a personal role in organizing the mass repressions and established a system of execution quotas,which were often exceeded. * Nevertheless he defended these killings as necessary for the securing of power.




http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mao_Zedong

Yeah .... great guy. So was Idi Amin


----------



## Smurf1976 (9 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> This is an economic argument rather than an environmental one. Also it's a pretty big generalisation, ie. _some_ of our trading partners do have carbon trading systems in place. In this sense, we are actually late with ours.



What is the rate of carbon tax in those countries with which we directly compete (as distinct from trade with)?

South Africa? Qatar? Brazil? Saudi Arabia? Canada? Indonesia? USA?

They and others are the relevant countries. The EU in this context is irrelevant and to a large extent so is Japan.


----------



## IFocus (9 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> The nanny state is perpetuated by both major parties, there is no real choice. In fact this same claim can be made about most issues. Allow me to list some;
> 
> - Middle class welfare
> - Toxic housing policy
> ...




Oh man you are questioning religion doctrine from these guys here, good post from the other side.


----------



## IFocus (9 July 2011)

Logique said:


> Well said Noco, and right on the money. The figure I've heard for union membership, with low confidence, is ~12%. I don't blame the Gen X'ers and Y's and Next's for not understanding the historical socio-politics, they weren't around to witness how insidious and how destructive it was to Australian life and the economy.




Rubbish unions moved work safety standards from projects budgeting for deaths to no deaths being acceptable on the job.

That came from hard fought campaigns in the 70's, 80's,90's and is ongoing now.

If you feel that work place deaths are acceptable then disband unions tomorrow.

The comments about unions here is half truths at best.


----------



## trainspotter (9 July 2011)

Heeeeeeeeeeeyyyyyyyyy IFocus ...... where ya been buddy? Go and read the rest of the thread, catch up to speed and come back with more of your scintilating rapier wit.


----------



## trainspotter (9 July 2011)

As of 12 o'clock tomorrow this will be where we are at and there is no turning back.


----------



## breaker (9 July 2011)

Just had a great day at golf came in 3 under par, nice btl of blass shiraz flat out scratchn meself ..... Thank you i knew youse would be amused.
P.S hit every GREEN


----------



## DB008 (10 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Or you could work better than your competition in the amount of time allocated in the day to do work. Your notion of getting ahead is amazingly simplistic and basically relies on the brute force waste of time to do so. I prefer to do it through superior skills and knowledge.




Wait until you get into the real world champ before making claims like this....

(I can see it now...'Mum, l had to do x amount of OT and they won't pay me for it'....cry baby, cry!)


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

DB008 said:


> Wait until you get into the real world champ before making claims like this....
> 
> (I can see it now...'Mum, l had to do x amount of OT and they won't pay me for it'....cry baby, cry!)




C c c c  careful there Danyyboy80 ....... he is straight out of university with a maths degree and a GREEN supporter. Be afraid ....... very afraid.


----------



## RandR (10 July 2011)

The best posts on this thread are by smurf.

For me, I hope Australia is heading down a path that will lead it to becoming a leading nation in what is the dawning of a new age for man and the world. The population is  about to hit 7 billion ... and we are running out of  ... well ... everything, be it oil, food, water, land, forest. Big changes are a must, for everyone. Will the political moves being undertaken today and currently in Australia help us to face these challenges, im not sure and I think it remains to be seen.


----------



## moXJO (10 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> This is an economic argument rather than an environmental one. Also it's a pretty big generalisation, ie. _some_ of our trading partners do have carbon trading systems in place. In this sense, we are actually late with ours.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Which nations? What exactly are you comparing it too? 
You accuse others of being light on detail and then commit the same act. And as for electric cars they are currently not much better than petrol pollution wise. And without coal fueled power stations I'd like to see whole suburbs recharge their cars at night.




> Or you could work better than your competition in the amount of time allocated in the day to do work. Your notion of getting ahead is amazingly simplistic and basically relies on the brute force waste of time to do so. I prefer to do it through superior skills and knowledge.
> 
> How is experience relevant to the reason why workplace laws are in place?




Tell me are you going to be an employee or run your own business?
If it is employee, how exactly should you be paid for your super fast and efficient work? Because I can see the unions jumping up and down now on any cut in hours without an increase in wages. Business is already copping wage increase without productivity increase. It also opens a whole can of worms on other issues. You are looking at it from the point of an 'ideal world' scenario without factoring in the opposing forces in which make up the workplace.







> This is what people say when they have backed themselves into a corner. You in fact can not explain your claims, because they are simply false. I did not "demand" you do anything either, I am merely giving your the opportunity to vindicate yourself from making false claims.




Yeah champ you are kind of speaking out your ass as well.




> Parties are boring. No intellectual stimulation...




Don't know how to talk to chicks huh: 
Just get in there, you have the rest of your life to be a boring twat. Enjoy your youth.



> I understand your point; this is my biggest problem with the carbon tax, the fact that there is any compensation at all. It amounts to pressing the acceleration and break at the same time...it makes no sense.
> 
> But in regards to that, if the Greens had their way there would be no compensation (except for low income earners perhaps), this is something brought on by ALP.
> 
> I don't see how top income earners need any compensation, especially considering how little impact a price of $23/t will have.




*Shudder*

So you want a tax that does very little to avert climate change. Destroy the economy so we can't tackle climate change from a better financial position? Yes let’s also punish people for breathing out










> I assert my mind is more open than yours.




No it's not really. However maybe you are not the propaganda machine I thought you were and genuinely want to be challenged. Drop the hug the planet bs and come over to the dark and productive side. At least things get done when you can make your own money and  you are allowed to decide where you want to spend it.







> You mean policies like...the baby bonus? FHOG? FHOB? Those sorts of policies? Yes, the greens are such a terrible party, oh wait...




That's your argument oh the lib/lab do it as well. Last time I checked they didn't throw us back to the Stone Age either.

Obviously you are an intelligent person and your thinking will change through experience imo.


----------



## moXJO (10 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> Rubbish unions moved work safety standards from projects budgeting for deaths to no deaths being acceptable on the job.
> 
> That came from hard fought campaigns in the 70's, 80's,90's and is ongoing now.
> 
> ...




Oh you missed a whole lot of history there Ifocus and it had little to do with worker safety and a whole lot about being a parasitic toss force imposed on the workplace. But some employers do need their heads kicked once in a while. So yes while they $hit me to tears I do believe they are still needed. But their needs to be a solid balance of power between unions and employers. Once the pendulum swings to far either direction there are always problems


----------



## wayneL (10 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> Oh you missed a whole lot of history there Ifocus and it had little to do with worker safety and a whole lot about being a parasitic toss force imposed on the workplace. But some employers do need their heads kicked once in a while. So yes while they $hit me to tears I do believe they are still needed. But their needs to be a solid balance of power between unions and employers. Once the pendulum swings to far either direction there are always problems




Yep agree. There is absolutely nothing wrong with both industry and workers organizing to promote fair recompense for risk/effort.

Both are exchanging something of value for money and that should be as fair as possible for everyone. The only way that happens is if there is a reasonable balance of power. What that balance should be is of course a matter of debate.


----------



## basilio (10 July 2011)

> Quote Originally Posted by Starcraftmazter View Post
> Or you could work better than your competition in the amount of time allocated in the day to do work. Your notion of getting ahead is amazingly simplistic and basically relies on the brute force waste of time to do so. I prefer to do it through superior skills and knowledge.
> Wait until you get into the real world champ before making claims like this....






> (I can see it now...'Mum, l had to do x amount of OT and they won't pay me for it'....cry baby, cry!  Danny boy)




Coming from a forum of stock exchange investors and traders that's very rich !! After  all most of the reason we are here is because we are looking for a smart investment or trade that will make us a killing without having to invest more than intellectual skills and some smarts.  I think that is largely  what  Star. is saying.

I noticed that Star is a new member to ASF and I think if we want to have a healthy, growing and diverse online community we could offer some civility to him (as well as everyone else) :


----------



## moXJO (10 July 2011)

basilio said:


> (I can see it now...'Mum, l had to do x amount of OT and they won't pay me for it'....cry baby, cry! Moxjo)





Was my name in that quote?


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> But some employers do need their heads kicked once in a while. So yes while they $hit me to tears I do believe they are still needed. But their needs to be a solid balance of power between unions and employers. Once the pendulum swings to far either direction there are always problems



Agreed.

I know of one situation at the moment where the employer wants to spend $1000 extra per employee, for no reason other than to deny employees a specific benefit they presently have. Employees clearly lose, and the employer readily acknowledges that it is going to cost them more than at present for no gain to either party.

Once you realise that madness like that actually does exist, then you realise that unions do have a valid role despite being far from perfect themselves.


----------



## basilio (10 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> Was my name in that quote?




Oops!! Apologies. Had a brain fade while writing. Text is corrected.


----------



## moXJO (10 July 2011)

basilio said:


> Had a brain fade while writing.




Don't you steal my writing method ™


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> I thought you might. I believe you... promise... honestly
> 
> I suppose you believe you can urinate further than me as well?




Maybe, maybe not. But at least my mind is open enough to accept that some people might...just might...have different drinking preferences.



wayneL said:


> This is another hypothesis of mine that you have conveniently added some observational data to, viz those watermelons of the extreme left have a deficiency rendering them unable to recognize tongue in cheek comment.




Way to get out of making a stupid comment.



wayneL said:


> BTW, I have never heard of these. Sounds exciting, what are they?




Basically cars which run on patrol. Not half as exciting as it sounds considering we're probably past peak oil.



Smurf1976 said:


> What is the rate of carbon tax in those countries with which we directly compete (as distinct from trade with)?




Now you're changing it from "trading partners" to "countries we directly compete with".



Smurf1976 said:


> South Africa? Qatar? Brazil? Saudi Arabia? Canada? Indonesia? USA?




I would claim irrelevant. The carbon "tax" (which is not an actual tax by the way...), is not going to shut down or significantly effect any industry. Perhaps if the carbon price was set at several hundred $ per tonne it might have, but not at $23/t. 



moXJO said:


> Which nations? What exactly are you comparing it too?
> You accuse others of being light on detail and then commit the same act.




This is pretty easy to find however...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emissions_trading#Trading_systems




moXJO said:


> And as for electric cars they are currently not much better than petrol pollution wise. And without coal fueled power stations I'd like to see whole suburbs recharge their cars at night.




Given they don't actually burn any oil or any other fossil fuels, I would claim they are a lot better. Where electricity comes from is another and separate matter.

You could easily install solar panels on the roof of a house which store the energy they collect during daytime and recharge the car at nighttime. This is particularly effective as the people living in suburbs in houses rather than apartments are the ones that rely on cars for transport more than those people living in denser parts of cities where more public transportation options are available.



moXJO said:


> Tell me are you going to be an employee or run your own business?
> If it is employee, how exactly should you be paid for your super fast and efficient work? Because I can see the unions jumping up and down now on any cut in hours without an increase in wages. Business is already copping wage increase without productivity increase. It also opens a whole can of worms on other issues. You are looking at it from the point of an 'ideal world' scenario without factoring in the opposing forces in which make up the workplace.




Employee. I simply believe that people should not have to work more than 8 hours a day (if you want to that's your choice - but at the same time, it should not be impossible to get paid more simply because you do not want to do overtime), and people should be paid based on the quality and quantity of the work they complete in these 8 hours - on average.

Additionally wages need to track inflation which is the reason for their growth...




moXJO said:


> Just get in there, you have the rest of your life to be a boring twat. Enjoy your youth.




People enjoy things differently.




moXJO said:


> So you want a tax that does very little to avert climate change. Destroy the economy so we can't tackle climate change from a better financial position? Yes let’s also punish people for breathing out




We've had a better financial position for the last decade, and not a damn thing was done. No, I do not want what you said; however the choice is not that. The choice is between doing nothing and starting a carbon trading scheme. This is how it has to start (that is, in our present political climate), it may not be overly effective, but it is very much supposed to lead to something better.




moXJO said:


> No it's not really. However maybe you are not the propaganda machine I thought you were and genuinely want to be challenged. Drop the hug the planet bs and come over to the dark and productive side. At least things get done when you can make your own money and  you are allowed to decide where you want to spend it.




I already make my own money and decide how to spend it...this is why I am here - because I do not subscribe to consumerist behaviour, but would rather see my capital be put into productive investments which further our economy.

Productivity and environmental responsibility as well as sustainability however do not need to be mutually exclusive.




moXJO said:


> That's your argument oh the lib/lab do it as well. Last time I checked they didn't throw us back to the Stone Age either.




We are not in any stone age; I do not take kindly to mindless exaggerations.




moXJO said:


> Obviously you are an intelligent person and your thinking will change through experience imo.




Of course, it always does; but to take this thread as an example, so far nobody has presented any sort of a coherent argument, just a lot of "well, you're young, indoctrinated, and I run a business and want more money so maybe you should work like a Chinese slave labourer, <insert something from News Ltd here>" rubbish.


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

basilio said:


> I noticed that Star is a new member to ASF and I think if we want to have a healthy, growing and diverse online community we could offer some civility to him (as well as everyone else) :




I concur with this prophecy. If "we" (as in the political animals) continue to denigrate the opinions from the other side we will not have anyone to play with in here. Unless we end up having a mutual gratification committee whereby we all agree with each other. Boring circle jerk IMO.

Open discussion on any subject matter is healthy as long we stick to the facts. Opinions are fine but do not necessarily mean they are right. I reject your sense of reality and replace it with my own.

_Youth is wasted on the young_. *George Bernard Shaw*

Anyhooooooooo ....... The merry go round of carbon tax will be excellent cannon fodder for all of us to diseminate openly in here. Irrespective of age and political leanings. Some of the figures being sprouted seem a bit rubbery to me but will post my findings with pie charts and cross continuum spreadsheets at a later date. 

_A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul. _ *George Bernard Shaw* ..... again.


----------



## Wysiwyg (10 July 2011)

> And as for electric cars they are currently not much better than petrol pollution wise. And without coal fueled power stations I'd like to see whole suburbs recharge their cars at night.





Starcraftmazter said:


> Given they don't actually burn any oil or any other fossil fuels, I would claim they are a lot better.



Where t.f. do you think the materials come from and are processed to make these cars. You don't know ****.


> The choice is between doing nothing and starting a carbon trading scheme. This is how it has to start (that is, in our present political climate), it may not be overly effective, but it is very much supposed to lead to something better.



 Wrong again! This is not an Australian carbon dioxide issue. The problem is large countries creating ever increasing pollution and regardless what our tiny amount of reduction is at the expense of whole towns and jobs gone overseas, they will still produce more. 


> I already make my own money and decide how to spend it...this is why I am here - because I do not subscribe to consumerist behaviour, but would rather see my capital be put into productive investments which further our economy.



 Do you push paper in a government role? A position shuffling paper in the new climate change ministry? 


> Productivity and environmental responsibility as well as sustainability however do not need to be mutually exclusive.



 Well written.


----------



## moXJO (10 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> M
> 
> We are not in any stone age; I do not take kindly to mindless exaggerations.
> 
> ...




With comments like the above you wonder why no one is bothering Honestly we have some of the best working conditions here.
You ignore a lot of consequences on the economy. You have no idea how business works, or that you can already work how you please provided you are in fact productive to the business. You will find that many companies are willing to look after you. 
It is not as simplistic as saying "these policies won't affect the economy" when clearly slight alterations can produce extremes. And knee jerk reactions can destroy people’s lives. There are a lot of factors you have to wade through.
  Economy is important it effects every decision Australia is able to make. You want a third world existence then destroy business confidence and have them running offshore. 
I'm talking Stone Age business wise and I'm not exaggerating. You want to lose innovation and investment then follow that line of thinking. And yes experience has a lot to do with it; your youth does shine through in all your posts. You wanting to be an employee is no surprise though, who the hell wants to be boss when you have this mentality.
You also want to be babied by government then Good for you. There are a whole lot of government departments who will decide on how you spend those hard earned dollars from your you beaut career. That way the only decision you have to make is which latte you want for the day


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Where t.f. do you think the materials come from and are processed to make these cars. You don't know ****.




Unless you suggest that the manufacture of electric cars produces more carbon emissions than the manufacture of oil-fueled cars *plus* the entire emissions from the operation of those oil-fueled cars, then I fail to see your point.



Wysiwyg said:


> Wrong again! This is not an Australian carbon dioxide issue. The problem is large countries creating ever increasing pollution and regardless what our tiny amount of reduction is at the expense of whole towns and jobs gone overseas, they will still produce more.




Well, the "carbon tax" will be implemented in Australia now, I await to hear what towns (and jobs) have gone overseas from it.



moXJO said:


> I'm talking Stone Age business wise and I'm not exaggerating. You want to lose innovation and investment then follow that line of thinking.




Australia doesn't have much innovation nor investment in regards to anything other than mining. This is very very sad. Good work conditions do not equate to no innovation - in fact, I would argue they produce better innovation.



moXJO said:


> You wanting to be an employee is no surprise though




I never said I want to be an employee (or did not want), the question asked was _whether I was_ an employee.

I don't much care about my position, I like building things and figuring out how to do things better, and that is what I would like to do.



moXJO said:


> You also want to be babied by government then Good for you.




Not entirely sure how you came to this conclusion, nor what exactly you mean.


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

I read somewhere that the energy output (pollutants) required to make an electric car outweighs the total emissions the car would produce in it's lifetime. Of course it is better than a fossil fuel based car (but suprisingly not that much) Has something to do with the batteries/electric motors/development etc. Just take the diesel bus instead.

Not wanting to be picky about the solar panels on the roof thingy but unless they are linked to a battery storage system they will have no electricity generation capacity at night. Most of the power during the day will go into running the house and excess goes into the grid. At night it is a whole different regime. Just thought I would point that out.


----------



## wayneL (10 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Way to get out of making a stupid comment.




Well if you consider the cultural lexicon of Anglo-Saxon countries as stupid, well fair enough, but that is likely to alienate you from those whom you seek to influence.

As you may have started to notice, you are preaching to:

a/ the converted

b/ those whom you haven't a hope in Hades of ever influencing to look at your point of view.

While many of us old farts marvel at the youthful enthusiasm with which you present your_ faux_ (and indoctrinated) logic, I for one relish the thought of how experience will eventually temper this and how often I have observed the same. 

But back onto the drinking passage; I note that you fail to participate in reasoned debate on why you think it is wrong, but instead revert to the kindergarten style "it's stupid" type approach, without any intellectual validation.

I will look forward to something other than puerile taunts and convoluted waffle with no point from you, unless of course your primary goal is alienation of all those with non-watermelon ideology.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> I read somewhere that the energy output (pollutants) required to make an electric car outweighs the total emissions the car would produce in it's lifetime. Of course it is better than a fossil fuel based car (but suprisingly not that much) Has something to do with the batteries/electric motors/development etc. Just take the diesel bus instead.




Sounds interesting, but unless you can find the source I have an extremely hard time believing this.



trainspotter said:


> Not wanting to be picky about the solar panels on the roof thingy but unless they are linked to a battery storage system they will have no electricity generation capacity at night. Most of the power during the day will go into running the house and excess goes into the grid. At night it is a whole different regime. Just thought I would point that out.




If you read my posts, this is precisely what I said, ie. linked to a battery which stores the energy during daytime and recharges the car at night. This is not complicated or uncommon (the battery setup that is), and it is certainly not impossible.



wayneL said:


> but that is likely to alienate you from those whom you seek to influence.




I do not seek to influence anyone.



wayneL said:


> But back onto the drinking passage; I note that you fail to participate in reasoned debate on why you think it is wrong, but instead revert to the kindergarten style "it's stupid" type approach, without any intellectual validation.




I actually did not read it from the first few words, as it is obvious that it makes a wide range of assumptions and implications. For instance, someone could be allergic to alcohol - and how is this a reason to mistrust them? Perhaps they could have had one of their kidneys fail, and the other is very weak. Again...not a legitimate reason to not trust them. Clearly the passage is nothing short of stupidity.



wayneL said:


> I will look forward to something other than puerile taunts and convoluted waffle with no point from you




That's funny, I was just thinking the same about you...


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Sounds interesting, but unless you can find the source I have an extremely hard time believing this.
> 
> If you read my posts, this is precisely what I said, ie. linked to a battery which stores the energy during daytime and recharges the car at night. This is not complicated or uncommon (the battery setup that is), and it is certainly not impossible.




I will try and find the book I was reading a couple of months ago. Pretty sure I loaned it to someone of similar mindset as yourself to try and get a balance. Maybe even perform a Google rummage that will direct me to some subversive pro CO2 site ! 

Ummmmmm not wanting to be picky AGAIN but your post did not mention anything at all about being linked to batteries young bean. 

You wrote this_ "*You could easily install solar panels on the roof of a house which store the energy they collect during daytime and recharge the car at nighttime. *This is particularly effective as the people living in suburbs in houses rather than apartments are the ones that rely on cars for transport more than those people living in denser parts of cities where more public transportation options are available."_

Solar panels do not store electricity. They generate it. Batteries will or molten salts/parrafin wax storage systems will store heat to generate electricity and are insanely expensive. Please consider that the cost of manufacutring as well as mining the zinc/lead/copper/lithium PLUS research and development required as well the plastics (oil byproduct) etc etc. when accounting for saving the planet.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (10 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> I will try and find the book I was reading a couple of months ago. Pretty sure I loaned it to someone of similar mindset as yourself to try and get a balance. Maybe even perform a Google rummage that will direct me to some subversive pro CO2 site !




There is one other very important thing I forgot to mention;

Even if electric cars do use anywhere near as much _energy_ as their oil-fueled cousins, it's important to understand the difference between energy and oil energy specifically. If we can mitigate oil use through electric cars, they would still be far better, because energy in general can come from clean sources, or at least from fossil fuels which have not peaked.

So there are two arguments for electric cars (probably among others);
1. Less polluting in terms of greenhouse gasses
2. Remove dependency on oil

The second one is very important, because one of the ceilings the world economy is hitting now is the supply of oil.




trainspotter said:


> Ummmmmm not wanting to be picky AGAIN but your post did not mention anything at all about being linked to batteries young bean.





Well, I said the following.



> *You could easily install solar panels on the roof of a house which store the energy they collect during daytime and recharge the car at nighttime.*




Unless you can think of another good way to store energy (rather than batteries), it should be clear that I implied it would be stored in batteries 




trainspotter said:


> Solar panels do not store electricity. They generate it.




I feel that this is more of an argument of the language used. Surely what I meant was easily enough understandable?



trainspotter said:


> Please consider that the cost of manufacutring as well as mining the zinc/lead/copper/lithium PLUS research and development required as well the plastics (oil byproduct) etc etc. when accounting for saving the planet.




This is of course a concern (and I often wonder if there is enough lithium on our planet to replace all oil-fueled motor-vehicles with electric ones), but unless you know  of another way to power cars, then I don't see any real alternative?

One thing which is also true, is that battery-related research is presently moving at a very fast pace, so it will probably be possible to get more efficient batteries using more abundant resources overall in the future. This is no certainty, but it is a strong possibility in my view.


----------



## basilio (10 July 2011)

> Solar panels do not store electricity. They generate it. Batteries will or molten salts/parrafin wax storage systems will store heat to generate electricity and are insanely expensive. Please consider that the cost of manufacutring as well as mining the zinc/lead/copper/lithium PLUS research and development required as well the plastics (oil byproduct) etc etc. when accounting for saving the planet   Trainspotter




There are models around that are attempting to integrate electric cars,  their in car batteries and distributed solar power into the energy grid and balancing the overall power supply.  In fact a lot of the work on smart grids is looking at these situations.

Your quite right in saying that it's not appropriate to set up expensive home battery systems.   But the idea of using molten salt as an energy store for thermal solar power stations does make sense and will offer an alternative to coal fired power stations.

With regard to the impact of electric versus vs petrol powered cars on resource use. I do remember the report which tried to say that Hummers had less environmental impact that Hybrids. I don't know how honest that assessment was and the parameters they were using. I (strongly) suspect it was another  crack at people attempting to offer an alternative to petrol powered vehicles.

The big deal was the expensive battery systems. I think these should become cheaper and more environmentally cost effective. In fact they *must * if electric cars are going to be successful. On the bigger picture we need to see cars as more robust but simple *long life * products that aren't replaced every few years. In that sense a decent upfront investment is  useful for a far longer time than currently envisaged.

By the way there is plenty of off peak power available with current coal fired power stations to charge electric cars. In fact it would be good thing because  coal fired stations can't be turned off and at night the electrical system is often running at 250 volts plus because of the low demand.  Turning some of this into stored energy in electric cars  for short distance travel makes good sense.

Finally there are some interesting options for retrofitting current cars with  electric power to create electric hybrid cars. The simplest model is a battery pack and a couple of electric motors to the rear wheels. Check out http://www.poulsenhybrid.com/index.php


----------



## wayneL (10 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I do not seek to influence anyone.




That leaves only one other conclusion. 



> I actually did not read it from the first few words, as it is obvious that it makes a wide range of assumptions and implications. For instance, someone could be allergic to alcohol - and how is this a reason to mistrust them? Perhaps they could have had one of their kidneys fail, and the other is very weak. Again...not a legitimate reason to not trust them. Clearly the passage is nothing short of stupidity.




You must be a real barrel of laughs in person. 

Thanks once again to your contributions to my thesis as detailed elsewhere on this forum. This is really grade A material. 



> That's funny, I was just thinking the same about you...




There is a difference between my nonsense and yours - mine is intentional.


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> There is one other very important thing I forgot to mention;
> 
> Even if electric cars do use anywhere near as much _energy_ as their oil-fueled cousins, it's important to understand the difference between energy and oil energy specifically. If we can mitigate oil use through electric cars, they would still be far better, because energy in general can come from clean sources, or at least from fossil fuels which have not peaked.
> 
> ...




Has not peaked but hitting on the ceiling? Which one is it? Irrespective ... to mine the minerals to manufacture these efficient/non eficcient cars will require fossil fuels to dig the damn stuff out of the ground. Maybe you sould be looking at the HEATING component of the Northern Hemisphere which is heavily dependent on oil to burn to keep warm. 



> Well, I said the following.
> 
> Unless you can think of another good way to store energy (rather than batteries), it should be clear that I implied it would be stored in batteries
> 
> I feel that this is more of an argument of the language used. Surely what I meant was easily enough understandable?




What ..... I am a mind reader now? You claimed these words _"If you read my posts, this is *precisely* what I said,"_ So no Sir, this is not what you precisely claimed at all. Semantics I know but you cannot have it both ways Jimny Cricket.



> This is of course a concern (and I often wonder if there is enough lithium on our planet to replace all oil-fueled motor-vehicles with electric ones), but unless you know  of another way to power cars, then I don't see any real alternative?




I am sure there will be more oil available than lithium to mine  Hydrogen is the way of the future for the motor vehicle industry. NASA has been using it for years for their rockets.



> One thing which is also true, is that battery-related research is presently moving at a very fast pace, so it will probably be possible to get more efficient batteries using more abundant resources overall in the future. This is no certainty, but it is a strong possibility in my view.




Agreed but at what cost to the environment due to the mining operations to obtain the minerals to manufacture the batteries !!


----------



## moXJO (10 July 2011)

The problem with electric cars to date is the carbon cost of manufacture, the limited life of batteries and the amount of pollution they present when they wear out. Also mining the materials needed (as TS pointed out). Not to mention the actual cost of the bloody things.
Maybe smurf can comment on everyone charging the cars up using clean energy


----------



## So_Cynical (10 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> The problem with electric cars to date is the carbon cost of manufacture, the limited life of batteries and the amount of pollution they present when they wear out. Also mining the materials needed (as TS pointed out). Not to mention the actual cost of the bloody things.
> Maybe smurf can comment on everyone charging the cars up using clean energy




Your kidding right?

100% electric cars are cheap as chips to make and are far more recyclable than conventionally powered cars...the Carbon cost to manufacture is no more than a conventional car and battery life issues can be minimised with the appropriate infrastructure roll out.

Simple NG/electric hybrids are a better alternative to 100% electric cars as most of the battery life issues are greatly minimised (talking cheap deep cycle, lead acid battery's)

All this is well known anyway...has been for 3 decades or more.


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

Oh oh ! The manufacture of the batteries is the killer for the environment.



> The Toyota Prius is among the greenest cars to operate. But manufacturing the famous gasoline-electric hybrid can be a dirty business.
> 
> Toyota studied the car's total environmental impact from factory to junkyard.
> 
> ...




Read more: http://www.autonews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20101018/OEM01/310189979#ixzz1QApQ9b94

Now we gotta charge the damn things up with that pesky thing called ELECTRICITY.



> According to environmental researchers, that's not the case. Jim Kliesch, author of the "Green Book: The Environmental Guide to Cars and Trucks" told HybridCars.com, "There are many types of batteries. Some are far more toxic than others. *While batteries like lead acid or nickel cadmium are incredibly bad for the environment,* the toxicity levels and environmental impact of nickel metal hydride batteries—the type currently used in hybrids—are much lower."




http://www.hybridcars.com/battery-toxicity.html


----------



## So_Cynical (10 July 2011)

Ill just C & P from the Wiki.

The General Motors EV1 was an electric car produced and leased by the General Motors Corporation from 1996 to 1999

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/General_Motors_EV1

The Gen I EV1 models, released in 1996,* used lead-acid batteries*, and weighed in at 3,086 pounds (1,400 kg). The first batch of batteries were provided by GM's Delphi branch; these were rated at 53 amp-hours at 312 volts (16.5 kWh), and initially provided a range of 60 miles per charge. Gen II cars, released in 1999,* used a new batch of lead-acid* batteries provided by Panasonic; some Gen I cars were retrofitted with this battery pack. The Japanese batteries were rated at 60 amp-hours (18.7 kWh) at 312 volts, and increased the EV1's range to 100 miles.

------------

The Prius is a socially palatable green car, not a true green vehicle by any stretch of the imagination.

In general the green movement is as anti lead as it is anti Nuke...both stances not making alot of sense considering the cold hard facts.


----------



## disarray (10 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> You must be a real barrel of laughs in person.




...


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> In general the green movement is as anti lead as it is anti Nuke...both stances not making alot of sense considering the cold hard facts.




This would be an incongruity of terminology by the Green movement then So_Cynical?


----------



## tothemax6 (10 July 2011)

Electric cars are ideal - without even taking into account the environment.

In terms of power, there is arguably more room to increase power-to-weight ratios of electric cars than petrol cars _vs price_. Increasing the power of petrol cars requires complicated engine designs, additional weight, better quality fuels, larger air-intakes etc etc.
With electric cars it is merely a matter of scaling - increasing battery capacity, increasing conductivity of the electric elements (supply wires, motors etc), and improving the converter. There are less moving parts, the motors are simpler, the energy supply system is simpler and more efficient, and power is only a function of conductivity and cooling.

Additionally, you have the benefit of 'recharge it how you like'. You do not have to be restricted to sourcing a non-manufactureable liquid fuel. There is no exhaust system, the cost and size of the motors means you can eliminate drive-trains to the rear or even between wheels, there is no distributed pollution (so anti-pollution systems can be focused at the generator), regenerative braking can be used, and repairs and services would be simpler. 
Of course there will be disadvantages. It will likely raise the radio noise-floor substantially, so EM shielding will be important. 

------------

NB: I haven't covered 'carbon footprint', mainly because I don't give a sh_t, and it would be irrelevant in any kind of healthy and rational society.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Now you're changing it from "trading partners" to "countries we directly compete with".
> 
> I would claim irrelevant. The carbon "tax" (which is not an actual tax by the way...), is not going to shut down or significantly effect any industry. Perhaps if the carbon price was set at several hundred $ per tonne it might have, but not at $23/t.



Economics 101 - of course it's competitors that matter rather than simply who we are currently selling to. If we're not competitive then our customers will go elsewhere. Economics 101 there...

As for $23 per tonne, I take it you do realise this constitutes a 15% increase in total input costs to some industries? 

Given that selling prices are out of their hands and controlled by global markets they can't simply raise selling prices. So how do they remain in business given that a 15% increase in costs, with no increase in revenue, is a pretty big blow in terms of business viability.

Cut emissions? Minor improvements could be made, but physics precludes a major reduction in energy use for a typical electrolytic process.


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

Says it all really.



> *MILES PROSSER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, AUSTRALIAN ALUMINUM COUNCIL*
> 
> "This imposes a carbon cost on Australian aluminum producers of at least $60 per tonne of aluminum compared to only $8 per tonne in China.
> 
> ...




http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/07/10/us-australia-carbon-analystview-idUSTRE7690HM20110710

Lone Ranger - "What do we do now Tonto?"

Tonto - "What do you mean *we* white man?"


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> So there are two arguments for electric cars (probably among others);
> 2. Remove dependency on oil
> 
> The second one is very important, because one of the ceilings the world economy is hitting now is the supply of oil.



On the topic of oil I totally agree. We already have a problem, and that is precisely the reason I am so opposed to using natural gas to generate electricity as a means of cutting CO2 emissions.

If we use all the gas to keep the lights on, then we're going to be forced into battery transport rather quickly. It may well be viable for cars in the suburbs but it is completely useless for hauling freight and running aircraft etc and probably always will be due to issues of energy density. 

We have numerous means of generating electricity (coal, uranium, thorium, hydro, solar, wind, geothermal, wave...) but we have very little in terms of high density, portable fuels for combustion (oil and gas are pretty much it as far as those available in large quantities are concerned). That being so, it seems almost criminal to be even considering using the limited reserves of oil and gas to generate electricity and that is one of my two main objections to the whole CO2 thing (the other one being that any measure needs to be global to be effective).

It's a sobering reality that Bass Strait oil is 95% gone and we've burned through somewhere around half the gas as well. Go to the Cooper Basin, the main gas supply source for SA and NSW, and it's far worse than that. Sure, we've still got plenty in WA and in Qld coal seams, but it's certainly not an unlimited resource. What, exactly, are we going to use to power trucks, farm machinery, aircraft etc without oil or gas? Those things are not at all suited to electric power (though we could swap long distance trucking for electric trains, but there's still a need for trucks at each end of the journey).

Electric cars aren't at all hard to build. But electric trucks and planes just aren't even being seriously contemplated and there are fundamental reasons for that.

As for issues of charging vehicles, it comes down to when they are charged. If it can be done overnight then that works reasonably well and can integrate quite nicely with increasing use of (non-solar PV) renewable energy. Charging them in the middle of the day, thus adding to peak loads, is another matter entirely and implies the use of fossil fuels to generate the electricity as well as an awful lot of expense to upgrade distribution infrastructure which already struggles to cope.


----------



## Smurf1976 (10 July 2011)

Labor is shutting down coal (I understand that specific power station closure plans are buried somewhere amongst all the details of the carbon tax - I'm guessing the plants in question are Playford B (SA) and Hazelwood (Vic) but that's just my guess). If that's not offset by massive investment in alternatives then the lights go out - but is anyone actually going to invest given all the uncertainty? I doubt it.

The lights could end up actually going out under this scenario...


----------



## tayser (10 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Labor is shutting down coal (I understand that specific power station closure plans are buried somewhere amongst all the details of the carbon tax - I'm guessing the plants in question are Playford B (SA) and Hazelwood (Vic) but that's just my guess). If that's not offset by massive investment in alternatives then the lights go out - but is anyone actually going to invest given all the uncertainty? I doubt it.
> 
> The lights could end up actually going out under this scenario...




Mortlake has a Gas 500MW station U/C right now - and with the incentive to now invest more in this type of generation, more will come along allowing a phased shut down of Hazelwood (1600MW) to occur in the medium term.


----------



## trainspotter (10 July 2011)

tayser said:


> Mortlake has a Gas 500MW station U/C right now - and with the incentive to now invest more in this type of generation, more will come along allowing a phased shut down of Hazelwood (1600MW) to occur in the medium term.




We can but hope tayser ..... we can but hope.:aus:


----------



## Aussiejeff (11 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Says it all really.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Ah, Kimosabe! You just jolted me back to 1957 - the year my parents bought our first B&W TV - and as a 6 yr old I sat mesmerised by the great masked man, his "Hi-ho Silverrrr, awaaaaay!" & his trusty sidekick Tonto (with Scout the pinto).

Ahhhh. Hours of viewing pleasure.

Thankyou!


----------



## springhill (11 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Says it all really.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




*BOB BROWN, GREENS LEADER
"This today is a world-leading outcome. It is going to lead to better outcomes at Durban and for the next international conference on climate change."*

This sums it up perfectly, these people are megalomaniacs, full of their own self-importance.

Do they honestly think because little old Oz has a carbon tax, the rest of the world will follow? Our importance in the Australasia region has seriously gone to our heads.

We will be laughed at for being the country with every advantage in the world, and threw them all away for a false ideology. The rest of the world will prey upon our competitive disadvantage.

A sad, sorry turn of events.


----------



## moXJO (11 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Your kidding right?
> 
> 100% electric cars are cheap as chips to make and are far more recyclable than conventionally powered cars...the Carbon cost to manufacture is no more than a conventional car and battery life issues can be minimised with the appropriate infrastructure roll out.
> 
> ...




Nah I'm not so_cyn
Lead acid is too heavy



> The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.
> 
> Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.




Wasn't the article I read before but pressed for time.


----------



## Julia (11 July 2011)

springhill said:


> *BOB BROWN, GREENS LEADER
> "This today is a world-leading outcome. It is going to lead to better outcomes at Durban and for the next international conference on climate change."*
> 
> This sums it up perfectly, these people are megalomaniacs, full of their own self-importance.
> ...




Yes, the power has made the Greens quite delusional.  It will encourage them to push for more and more of their wacky wishes and the government, having set this precedent, will dutifully fall into line to save their skins.
Just so depressing.


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2011)

The fall out from this with regard to descretionary spending will be interesting. I certainly wouldn't like to be a landlord, commercial or residential, for the next two to three years.
IMO the fall out will be dramatic and have a huge negative effect on standard of living for all Australians.


----------



## trainspotter (11 July 2011)

Here is a curly one for you to chow down on. 

From an energy point of view:- Would I be better off buying plastic plates and disposing of them in landfill or am I better off eating off china plates and running through the dishwasher?

The answer: Plastic plates of course. They are made in China that doesn't have a carbon tax silly.


----------



## Knobby22 (11 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Here is a curly one for you to chow down on.
> 
> From an energy point of view:- Would I be better off buying plastic plates and disposing of them in landfill or am I better off eating off china plates and running through the dishwasher?
> 
> The answer: Plastic plates of course. They are made in China that doesn't have a carbon tax silly.




China plates come from China!


----------



## trainspotter (11 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> China plates come from China!




LOL ..... I should have written "ceramic". LOL again.


----------



## Julia (11 July 2011)

One of the more irritating mutterings from economists et al is the assertion that the tax will change behaviour.  They seem blissfully unaware that many Australian  households are already struggling to meet energy bills so have already cut back as much as they can.
This sort of elitist assurance from people who will be in a position to easily cope with additional charges is very off.


----------



## sptrawler (11 July 2011)

Julia said:


> One of the more irritating mutterings from economists et al is the assertion that the tax will change behaviour.  They seem blissfully unaware that many Australian  households are already struggling to meet energy bills so have already cut back as much as they can.
> This sort of elitist assurance from people who will be in a position to easily cope with additional charges is very off.




The underlying problem I see Julia, is this has the potential to substantially reduce our living standards. 
If we are the only country in the SE Asia to impose these extra costs on our manufacturing industries, what is the incentive to stay in business.
The resulting loss in jobs will force downward pressure on wages yet the tax will force upward pressure on costs. It is an absolute recipe for disaster.
The only way it will work is if the rest of the region adopts the tax, which is highly unlikely as they will have another competitive edge.
It appears to me we are going the socialist way of everyone goes down to the lowest common denominator. That is unless you are a politician then your pension is indexed to the cost of living. Lets have another chorus of that great Labor song "The working class can kiss my (how does it go)"
The real laugh is, they think the lower income earners won't see through the the old  give with one hand and take back with the other.
Also increasing the tax free threshold to $18,000 is a classic, there will be so many people on piecemeal part time jobs to make ends meet, it would cost the tax dept more to proccess them than just let them go. They are picking up the tax anyway, just through a different vehicle.
My rant for the day LOL


----------



## moXJO (11 July 2011)

I don't like the idea that we are going to buy carbon credits from overseas to tell you the truth. When this sinks in we will basically be throwing money to other countries to save us carbon on something that will do nothing to affect the actual carbon in the air. Yup get rid of jobs then give our money away. And what happened to this carbon tax being revenue neutral, it's about $4billion in the hole.


----------



## bandicoot76 (11 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> I don't like the idea that we are going to buy carbon credits from overseas to tell you the truth. When this sinks in we will basically be throwing money to other countries to save us carbon on something that will do nothing to affect the actual carbon in the air.




lol... thats exactly why the carbon scare campaign was pushed so hard in the first place mate! the very ppl causing the panic (gore etc) are the ones who will make a killing when the carbon trading bullsh*t is implemented via there carbon trading schemes.....

blind freddy can see through this, its like 'chicken little' meets 'the emperor's new clothes'   what a massive bloody fraud!


----------



## trainspotter (11 July 2011)

Who does Al Gore buy his carbon credits from? Why the carbon credit company he founded himself of course.

General Investment Management LLP.  http://www.generationim.com/about/



> Generation is an independent, private, owner-managed partnership with offices in London, New York and Sydney. The firm was co-founded in 2004 by *Al Gore* and David Blood.




Anyone want to suck the lollipop of truth?


----------



## Julia (11 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Also increasing the tax free threshold to $18,000 is a classic, there will be so many people on piecemeal part time jobs to make ends meet, it would cost the tax dept more to proccess them than just let them go.



This is another great con.  With the low income tax offset the effective tax free threshold was around $16,000 anyway.  So there's little difference, plus I understand the % payment rates are being raised, so no actual benefit at all.  What ***** smoke and mirrors.

I think they're very foolish to indulge in this sort of attempt at pulling the wool over the electorate's eyes.  People are not as silly as they seem to think, and the realisation that the government is again attempting to dupe us will only increase the disgust.


----------



## sails (11 July 2011)

Julia said:


> ...I think they're very foolish to indulge in this sort of attempt at pulling the wool over the electorate's eyes.  People are not as silly as they seem to think, and the realisation that the government is again attempting to dupe us will only increase the disgust.




Agree, Julia, and I think it is the reason Gillard slows her voice down when talking down to her constituents as if they are in kindergarten.

Maybe an election when the people vent their disgust will bring her to her senses...


----------



## Smurf1976 (11 July 2011)

tayser said:


> Mortlake has a Gas 500MW station U/C right now - and with the incentive to now invest more in this type of generation, more will come along allowing a phased shut down of Hazelwood (1600MW) to occur in the medium term.



And then we need to build a gas pipe from Qld coal seams to Vic to keep the gas-fired power stations running once Bass Strait reserves are depleted (which will happen rather rapidly if we start relying on it for electricity).

Then Victorians realise that all of a sudden, their gas bills have risen in addition to rising electricity costs.

Then realise that Mortlake is being built to cater for rising consumption. If it's used to replace Hazelwood instead, then we need to build another one.

Then the gas companies point out how valuable the stuff is once the Gladstone LNG plant is built. Just like what happened in WA - hence that's state's fairly recent investment in new coal-fired generation.

Due to all of this, the first environmental opposition to electricity generation in Victoria (back in the 1970's) was in fact to the construction of Newport D gas-fired station. And the primary reason for opposition was simply that it runs on gas - if you take out CO2 then coal makes a lot more sense in terms of resource use which even environmentalists understand. Unions had similar concerns at the time, something they have repeated more recently - gas is not a long term sensible option for large scale baseload generation.

Hazelwood's ongoing operating cost is somewhere around $3.50 per megawatt hour by most estimates (the exact figures are confidential). Even the lowest estimates for new gas-fired generation are 11 times that amount. And that's assuming current low gas prices can be maintained in the face of greatly increased demand.


----------



## trainspotter (11 July 2011)

Why can't we let the status qou operate? Keep coal fire power staions BUT BUT BUT plant more trees to offset our carbon footprint?


----------



## white_crane (11 July 2011)

Here's an idea.

A cat always lands on its feet.  Buttered toast always lands buttered side down.  Now strap a piece of toast, buttered side up, to the back of a cat.  The toast will constantly try to land buttered side down and the cat will try to land on it's feet, thus creating a perpetual motion machine.

No emissions and lots of energy. Problem solved.


----------



## addison (12 July 2011)

Julia said:


> One of the more irritating mutterings from economists et al is the assertion that the tax will change behaviour.  They seem blissfully unaware that many Australian  households are already struggling to meet energy bills so have already cut back as much as they can.
> This sort of elitist assurance from people who will be in a position to easily cope with additional charges is very off.




yes, cate blanchett immediately springs to mind


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

white_crane said:


> Here's an idea.
> 
> A cat always lands on its feet.  Buttered toast always lands buttered side down.  Now strap a piece of toast, buttered side up, to the back of a cat.  The toast will constantly try to land buttered side down and the cat will try to land on it's feet, thus creating a perpetual motion machine.
> 
> No emissions and lots of energy. Problem solved.




A slinky on an escalator is my preferred option. They go forever. 

On a serious note why cannot each wheel of a car be turned into a magneto/generator? Either by having magnets inside the rim of the tyre (magneto) or by having a generator attached or even wired into the axles of the car instead of the motor running the electrical charging components? Sort of like a dynamo on a bike to run the light but on a much larger scale except for UNLIKE a dynamo there is no friction as the turning parts do not touch.

As soon as the car moves (by battery of course) the actual MOTION of the vehicle is creating an electrical current thusly charging the battery. (perpetual motion) 

It is so simple I do not know why this has not been done before? Now especially with geared reduction electrical engines it would be highly plausible to do so?

*TS sneaks off to shed to start inventing his perpetual motion car*


----------



## Glen48 (12 July 2011)

Will the tax help this man?


----------



## derty (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> On a serious note why cannot each wheel of a car be turned into a magneto/generator? Either by having magnets inside the rim of the tyre (magneto) or by having a generator attached or even wired into the axles of the car instead of the motor running the electrical charging components? Sort of like a dynamo on a bike to run the light but on a much larger scale except for UNLIKE a dynamo there is no friction as the turning parts do not touch.
> 
> As soon as the car moves (by battery of course) the actual MOTION of the vehicle is creating an electrical current thusly charging the battery. (perpetual motion)
> 
> ...



Sounds great, however there there is no such thing as a free lunch ts. 

When you run a wire through a magnetic field it induces a current - ala the dynamo. The generated current also produces a magnetic field that opposes the field of the magnet that the wire passes though and creates resistance. It would work well in conjunction with braking but will use more energy than it creates if engaging it while accelerating or cruising. Back to the drawing board


----------



## village idiot (12 July 2011)

In the spirit of saving the world here is another wacky idea;

there are thousands of power poles connected by wires around the place right. What about if we manufactured lots of little windmill generators that clamped on top of each existing power pole (no need for additional ugly and carbon producing poles/structures), and fed the power they generate into the wire that is conveniently going right past it, thus reducing the power input reqd at the supply end when the wind is blowing?


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

derty said:


> Sounds great, however there there is no such thing as a free lunch ts.
> 
> When you run a wire through a magnetic field it induces a current - ala the dynamo. The generated current also produces a magnetic field that opposes the field of the magnet that the wire passes though and creates resistance. It would work well in conjunction with braking but will use more energy than it creates if engaging it while accelerating or cruising. Back to the drawing board




So why do they run the alternator in a car from the engine rather than an existing moving part _*ie*_ the wheel? The existing generator charges the battery. Why cannot the wheels run a magneto setup that charges "other batteries" that can be used to drive the car? The faster it turns the more electricity it would create so according to my theory it will produce more during cruising and acceleration then it would braking.

If the problem is the resistance then it could be setup with a centifugal clutch the engages/disengages during acceleration/braking.

*hooks up centrifugal clutch to the generating axle*


----------



## derty (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> So why do they run the alternator in a car from the engine rather than an existing moving part _*ie*_ the wheel?



So the alternator can charge the battery and run the electrics while the car is stationary. 



trainspotter said:


> The existing generator charges the battery. Why cannot the wheels run a magneto setup that charges "other batteries" that can be used to drive the car? The faster it turns the more electricity it would create so according to my theory it will produce more during cruising and acceleration then it would braking.



 Sure the faster it goes the more electricity you produce. However, the more electrical energy you generate the stronger the associated magnetic field and therefore the greater the resistance. It would be like trying to drive with the brakes always on. You couldn't just cruise, the engine would have to behave as if it were accelerating just to maintain a constant velocity. You would use more energy than you generate.

When you brake you are slowing the car by changing the kinetic energy of motion into heat energy (and some sound energy) that is lost. What you want to do is instead of just wasting that energy as heat, capture it as electricity. 



trainspotter said:


> If the problem is the resistance then it could be setup with a centifugal clutch the engages/disengages during acceleration/braking.
> 
> *hooks up centrifugal clutch to the generating axle*



That will work - there are some designs that use a heavy flywheel that spins up during breaking and then assists the engine during acceleration. To produce electricity you could either use a clutch to physically engage magnets or you could turn on an electromagnet to generate the magnetic field (a bit of a chicken and the egg but once the generator begins to create power you would then use it to power it's own electromagnet during the breaking cycle).


As a bit of an aside, in some of the big haulpacks in the open pits the diesel engine is just a small electricity power station that drives electric motors situated on each wheel.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

derty said:


> So the alternator can charge the battery and run the electrics while the car is stationary.
> 
> Sure the faster it goes the more electricity you produce. However, the more electrical energy you generate the stronger the associated magnetic field and therefore the greater the resistance. It would be like trying to drive with the brakes always on. You couldn't just cruise, the engine would have to behave as if it were accelerating just to maintain a constant velocity. You would use more energy than you generate.
> 
> ...




So according to the magnetic field generated by the faster you go it would feel like the brakes would be on?

I remember when I was a kid and I had a ten speed bicycle. It had a set of lights attached to it and hooked up to a dynamo on the front wheel. The faster I pedalled the brighter the globes got and the dynamo seemed to spin easier to me? Did not feel like it was increasing load?

Transferring heat into electricity inside a motor vehicle is way too complex. It can be done but I am thinking in very simplistic terms here.

My point is we have all these moving/spinning parts that are not actually doing anything in the way of generating forward motion/electrical generation on a motor vehicle.

Axles, tail shafts, rotor discs, wheels, crown gears etc etc. Surely it can't be that hard to hook up a geared reduction motor to assist the forward motion either by generating electicity or to power assist in some way?

*goes back to shed with a brand new plan of attack*


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

tayser said:


> Mortlake has a Gas 500MW station U/C right now - and with the incentive to now invest more in this type of generation, more will come along allowing a phased shut down of Hazelwood (1600MW) to occur in the medium term.




It would appear Canberra does not have a clue nor a plan.



> PRIME Minister Julia Gillard says the lights will stay on when the nation's dirtiest power stations close, though she won't say if Hazelwood in Victoria is earmarked to be replaced with cleaner gas production.
> 
> Hazelwood, Australia's dirtiest power station, is expected to close under the federal government's carbon tax plan which provides funding to retire 2000 megawatts of the country's dirtiest power generators.
> 
> The Victorian government says the Latrobe Valley station, which produces about 25 per cent of the state's power supply, is "in the gun" *with no plan from Canberra about how to replace Hazelwood's power.*




Read more: http://www.news.com.au/breaking-new...se/story-e6frfku9-1226093221538#ixzz0tS7MKeCr


----------



## derty (12 July 2011)

Getting a fair way off topic here 


trainspotter said:


> So according to the magnetic field generated by the faster you go it would feel like the brakes would be on?
> 
> I remember when I was a kid and I had a ten speed bicycle. It had a set of lights attached to it and hooked up to a dynamo on the front wheel. The faster I pedalled the brighter the globes got and the dynamo seemed to spin easier to me? Did not feel like it was increasing load?



Yeah I had one too on my three speed dragster complete with sissy bar. When you start pedalling the kinetic energy of the bike is low and the resistance of the dynamo is relatively significant. As you get quicker the kinetic energy of the bike (or inertia) is such that the dynamo now only constitutes as small fraction of the energy.  As the dynamo on bikes are small, the relative increase in resistance with increased electricity generation is not proportional to the increase in kinetic energy the bike gains with speed so it feels easier. On my bike I could switch the light on and off while leaving the dynamo engaged on the rim and while the light was off pedalling was easy and as soon as I turned on the light you could feel the resistance of the dynamo generating power.



trainspotter said:


> Transferring heat into electricity inside a motor vehicle is way too complex. It can be done but I am thinking in very simplistic terms here.



The heat created in braking is just how the energy required to slow the car is dissipated. No need to use that heat to generate electricity, you just need to use the kinetic energy of the vehicle to spin something to generate electricity and then the resistance that that creates slows the vehicle. 



trainspotter said:


> My point is we have all these moving/spinning parts that are not actually doing anything in the way of generating forward motion/electrical generation on a motor vehicle.
> 
> Axles, tail shafts, rotor discs, wheels, crown gears etc etc. Surely it can't be that hard to hook up a geared reduction motor to assist the forward motion either by generating electicity or to power assist in some way?
> 
> *goes back to shed with a brand new plan of attack*



Anything that is in the drive train, while not generating energy, is part of the system that transfers energy from the engine to the wheels. If you hook something up to these spinning bits to create power you will reduce the amount of energy that makes it too the wheels. Your best bet is to capture the energy that is wasted as heat and sound i.e. the braking process.  

As another aside . The Snowy Mountain scheme uses a similar principle to the energy off braking method. They use off-peak power (surplus and cheap) to pump water back up to the dam essentially storing energy for later power generation. I think their main reason is that they can pump it up with cheap energy and sell it later as more expensive peak electricity .i.e. make money. Though this may be a way around the solar PV issue of no power at night. Down the track when PV is cheap and printable and can cover a much greater percentage of surfaces there will be a large surplus of electricity during the day. This can be used to fill hydro dams or other energy stores to assist base load and night time energy requirements (sounds good - I'm sure it's not that simple).


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

derty said:


> Getting a fair way off topic here Yeah I had one too on my three speed dragster complete with sissy bar. When you start pedalling the kinetic energy of the bike is low and the resistance of the dynamo is relatively significant. As you get quicker the kinetic energy of the bike (or inertia) is such that the dynamo now only constitutes as small fraction of the energy.  As the dynamo on bikes are small, the relative increase in resistance with increased electricity generation is not proportional to the increase in kinetic energy the bike gains with speed so it feels easier. On my bike I could switch the light on and off while leaving the dynamo engaged on the rim and while the light was off pedalling was easy and as soon as I turned on the light you could feel the resistance of the dynamo generating power.




Was it the Chopper like this one? I soooooooo wanted one of these.





Anyhooooooooo ...... not wanting to be picky about the dynamo thingy derty cause you are very smart on such matters BUT ...... the dynamo would still create electricity even if the light was off. The current would not go through the globe is all.

The moment the dynamo starts spinning it will create electricity whether or not it is powering a globe. Unless you had one of those real fandango ones which had an isolation switch that stopped the armature/rotor from spinning. I did not. It was either on or off and sometimes using ones foot to enagage the dynamo ones toes would get caught in the spokes causing all sorts of profanities that my mother could hear from about 8kms away.


----------



## derty (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Was it the Chopper like this one? I soooooooo wanted one of these.
> 
> View attachment 43624
> 
> ...



Well it was red. Much more like this one though with a banana seat. Complete with a three speed on the cross bar to mangle your nuts on. I have never worked out why boys with nuts have bikes with bars to smash them on and girls who do not have nuts do not have the same bar.
	

		
			
		

		
	




When the dynamo is doing work it is harder to turn. Like when you switch the kettle on out camping with a generator. The dynamo needs a closed circuit to generate electricity so when the light is off there is no circuit so no electricity or load. 

My dynamo was the same. Push it on with your hand or foot (dangerous with no shoes  ) but I had a switch on the front light I could turn on and off.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> So why do they run the alternator in a car from the engine rather than an existing moving part _*ie*_ the wheel? The existing generator charges the battery. Why cannot the wheels run a magneto setup that charges "other batteries" that can be used to drive the car? The faster it turns the more electricity it would create so according to my theory it will produce more during cruising and acceleration then it would braking.



If you extract energy from the wheels then that energy has to come from somewhere (ie the engine thus using more fuel).

The effect if an alternator ("generator" in common language) is that of a brake. Regardless of whether the source of motion is a steam tubine, hydro, gas turbine etc the effect is the same. The alternator is the load on that source of motion and it takes in mechanical power, in order to put out electrical power.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

derty said:


> Well it was red. Much more like this one though with a banana seat. Complete with a three speed on the cross bar to mangle your nuts on. I have never worked out why boys with nuts have bikes with bars to smash them on and girls who do not have nuts do not have the same bar.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




I am so jealous. I had a gold one of these with gorilla handlebars. Mine wasn't the three speed model though. I "chopperised" it with extendable forks and a dinky wheel. I thought I was cool.

Yeppers .... dynamo logic is kicking in now. I knew I could count on you for the science.

I still have the scars on my left foot when I went a bit too far with engaging the dynamo ... over the handlebars in a gracious arc and SPLAT on the bitumen. *ouch*


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> There is a difference between my nonsense and yours - mine is *irrational*.




Fixed that for you.



trainspotter said:


> Has not peaked but hitting on the ceiling? Which one is it?




The ceiling was made in regards to energy resources, and I said it would be good if during the transition we could at least use ones which have not peaked yet.



trainspotter said:


> Irrespective ... to mine the minerals to manufacture these efficient/non eficcient cars will require fossil fuels to dig the damn stuff out of the ground.




This is the argument with all cars; I don't really see your point.



trainspotter said:


> Semantics I know but you cannot have it both ways Jimny Cricket.




What else could one mean when they say storing energy generated, but to do it with a battery? 




trainspotter said:


> I am sure there will be more oil available than lithium to mine  Hydrogen is the way of the future for the motor vehicle industry. NASA has been using it for years for their rockets.




Not really, there is not only very little oil left which is coming up at decreasing pressures, but to get the last remaining oil will take immense energy.

Furthermore hydrogen is not a fuel and it is not any sort of a solution, it is merely a glorified battery. Until we figure out a way to charge this battery in an energy efficient and renewable way, it is pretty pointless.



trainspotter said:


> Agreed but at what cost to the environment due to the mining operations to obtain the minerals to manufacture the batteries !!




This is the case for all products. Maybe it would be more prudent to give up ipads, iphones and ipods instead.



moXJO said:


> The problem with electric cars to date is the carbon cost of manufacture, the limited life of batteries and the amount of pollution they present when they wear out. Also mining the materials needed (as TS pointed out). Not to mention the actual cost of the bloody things.
> Maybe smurf can comment on everyone charging the cars up using clean energy




Sources please that they cost any more than regular cars + oil use.
How do they present pollution when they wear out?
Mining materials are required for all cars!!! All products!! How is this even an argument.

And they are not expensive, in the next 1 years there will be electric cars on the market at all price ranges, even a few grand! You could have a car for the same cost of a reasonably powerful computer.



trainspotter said:


> Oh oh ! The manufacture of the batteries is the killer for the environment.
> 
> Now we gotta charge the damn things up with that pesky thing called ELECTRICITY.




Please provide at least a half reputable site; not someone's back yard blog. It didn't even compare the emissions of cars throughout their life, not to mentioned it concentrated on one specific car, and didn't mention how unique or broad these generalisations (if they are even true are), not did it provide any evidence nor sources, apart from a silly 8 year old report (battery technology has changed quite a bit since then).

And I'm personally completely uninterested in hybrids in general, I cannot imagine why anyone would want one when there are such fantastic electric cars that are coming on the market so very soon.

Electricity luckily can be produced in many clean and sustainable ways. Oil can not.




Smurf1976 said:


> As for $23 per tonne, I take it you do realise this constitutes a 15% increase in total input costs to some industries?




More importantly, how does it affect their profit margins? A lot of mining related industries make obscene profits which shouldn't even be legal.


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 July 2011)

derty said:


> As another aside . The Snowy Mountain scheme uses a similar principle to the energy off braking method. They use off-peak power (surplus and cheap) to pump water back up to the dam essentially storing energy for later power generation. I think their main reason is that they can pump it up with cheap energy and sell it later as more expensive peak electricity .i.e. make money. Though this may be a way around the solar PV issue of no power at night. Down the track when PV is cheap and printable and can cover a much greater percentage of surfaces there will be a large surplus of electricity during the day. This can be used to fill hydro dams or other energy stores to assist base load and night time energy requirements (sounds good - I'm sure it's not that simple).



The Snowy scheme uses both diversion pumping and pumped storage. Snowy has 7 power stations, all but one of which are of reasonable size. However, Tumut 3 is the only pumped storage scheme as such - other pumping is simply a one-way diversion of water flow.

Other pumped storage schemes in Australia are Shoalhaven (NSW) and Wivenhoe (Qld).

The Tasmanian hydro-electric system has no pumped storage since it was built for baseload generation rather than as a peak load system. It does however have a number of diversion pump stations, some of which operate without upstream storage (ie they run at any time of the day, not just in the middle of the night). Some of these diversion pumps feed directly into canals leading straight to power stations, whilst others feed into storage. 

As for the practicality of using pumped storage hydro as a means of storing solar etc energy, it is in practice by far the cheapest and most workable means we have for storing electricity. If it was decided to do this then there are numerous identified sites in NSW where pumped storage schemes could be built, as well as possibilities in other states.

One thing about pumped storage, is that it becomes practical to have a far larger peak capacity than you would have with a baseload hydro system using the same reservoir since the natural inflows comprises only a minor part of the energy output from a pumped storage scheme (the rest being from energy from the grid stored via pumping). 

As for other means of storing electricity, quite a bit as been done with wind/diesel/solar/bateries on King Island. OK, it's not a huge system, but it's the only power supply there and it's actually being done for real, not just in a lab. http://www.hydro.com.au/system/files/documents/King_Island_Renewable_Energy_PK_2008.pdf


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> More importantly, how does it affect their profit margins? A lot of mining related industries make obscene profits which shouldn't even be legal.



That comment is socialist in nature rather than environmental and I think many will see this as relevant.

However, to answer it I don't have a precise figure but I'd say that the key point really is that % return on investment in these sort of things isn't outstanding as it is. It's certainly been nowhere near the big profits made by things like real estate or even Coca Cola in recent years.

The main effect of the tax in that context is to bring about a situation comparable to what happened with timber in Tasmania due to the same reasons (lack of cheap energy, environmental constraints). That is, abandon local processing as it becomes unviable and then offset that via a major expansion of raw material extraction. In Tas that meant large scale logging whilst total employment fell. For things like the aluminium industry (nationally) it means closing the smelters (where most of the general economic benefit arises) and then ramping up mining at Weipa etc. In short, we abandon downstream processing in favour of a greater focus on "dig it up or chop it down". That's the lesson so far and it is the likely outcome if processing becomes unviable in Australia (noting that the energy cost was already too high in WA, SA and NT for smelting).


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> That comment is socialist in nature rather than environmental and I think many will see this as relevant.




Not really. Miners do not generate massive profits because of any unique skills or innovations. Miners are getting rich because they are selling something which belongs to every single Australian. Every single Australian should as such benefit from this to a significant extent, because what is being sold are non-renewable, very valuable resources - the export of which devalues the wealth of our entire country permanently more and more.

What's more shocking is that all of these resources will forever be necessary for all humans, yet this "boom" will only benefit a small proportion of Australians for a very short time period.

To say miners pay enough tax is ridiculous, and the fact that they have gotten away paying so little for so long is scary in regards to the vast amount of wealth we have already permanently lost


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> More importantly, how does it affect their profit margins? A lot of mining related industries make obscene profits which shouldn't even be legal.




So profit is a dirty word? It is called free enterprise my little card carrying communist. These mining related industries employ a LOT of people. Some of them may even need your mathmatical brilliance one day or even your IT knowledge. Would you ask them to lower their profits so your integrity allows you to work for them? I think not. Get in  the real world.

I bet they pay a LOT of tax as well.  So much in fact the government wants more with the MRRT.

Miners do not have unique skills nor innovators??? WOW ..... you are going out on a limb here big guy.

P.S. The problem with socialism is that you soon run out of other peoples money. - Margaret Thatcher


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> So profit is a dirty word?




Not at all, but it does mean on _how_ the profit is made (see my earlier post).



trainspotter said:


> I bet they pay a LOT of tax as well.




Not enough in my view. Again, they are shipping what belongs to all Australians, what will be valuable forever, which is completely non renewable.

Just consider that for a moment, our greatest national resources are being depleted, at very little *long-term* benefit to our nation.

This is just not something I can reconcile with; I consider this the greatest theft of our generation.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Not at all, but it does mean on _how_ the profit is made (see my earlier post).
> 
> Not enough in my view. Again, they are shipping what belongs to all Australians, what will be valuable forever, which is completely non renewable.
> 
> ...




You might want to look at the government that is allowing this to happen instead of shooting the messenger.

Belongs to all Australians? Are you out of your mind? Have you got land rights on what they are doing legally? I did not see you spending billions of dollars on creating mine sites and oil exploration? And somehow it belongs to you? 

No long term benefit? HUH? Ohhhhhh you mean the billions of dollars they already pay in "royalties" to the states that provide infrastructure or do you mean the billions paid by the workers of said mining companies in taxes to the Federal Guvmint or do you mean the billions paid in company tax as well as the billions paid in the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT) ??? No long term benefit HUH? 

And you think this is theft? OMFG you are not quite up to speed as to what actually goes on are you?


----------



## Wysiwyg (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> To say miners pay enough tax is ridiculous, and the fact that they have gotten away paying so little for so long is scary in regards to the vast amount of wealth we have already permanently lost



No, the minerals belong to no one so anyone has the opportunity to extract them by fronting up the capital if they have that inclination so don't whinge that miners earn too much or don't pay enough tax in the supply/ demand trade. No one "owns" anything. They have pieces of paper as a form of agreement to use it over a given (life) time.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (12 July 2011)

Australia has a great future still.

Look at NSW, comprehensively rooted by Labor for years, and they survived, and are recovering.

Once Tony gets in, this country will kick on again.

gg


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> You might want to look at the government that is allowing this to happen instead of shooting the messenger.




I am in no way happy with the government. Just another reason to vote Greens - they would tax miners more.



trainspotter said:


> Belongs to all Australians? Are you out of your mind? Have you got land rights on what they are doing legally? I did not see you spending billions of dollars on creating mine sites and oil exploration? And somehow it belongs to you?




It belongs to everyone, yes. All natural resources belong to the Australian people; miners merely have the legal authority to dig them out and export them. Miners do not own any resources.



trainspotter said:


> No long term benefit? HUH? Ohhhhhh you mean the billions of dollars they already pay in "royalties" to the states that provide infrastructure




What happens when this infrastructure needs to be replaced because it is too old of age, and there is no more resources to monetise in order to do so, nor any resources with which to do so?



trainspotter said:


> or do you mean the billions paid by the workers of said mining companies in taxes to the Federal Guvmint or do you mean the billions paid in company tax as well as the billions paid in the petroleum resource rent tax (PRRT) ??? No long term benefit HUH?




Correct, no long-term benefit. Only for the duration of the mining operations. These will not last very long compared to how long humanity will need said resources (ie. forever until we die as a species).




Wysiwyg said:


> No one "owns" anything. They have pieces of paper as a form of agreement to use it over a given (life) time.




These two things are obviously contradictory, so it should be obvious to you that you are incorrect.


----------



## trainspotter (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I am in no way happy with the government. Just another reason to vote Greens - they would tax miners more.




And send the miners to Brazil our major competitor for iron ore thus cutting off your nose to spite you face? Brilliant plan my small Green offshoot. I can't wait til they get into power.



> It belongs to everyone, yes. All natural resources belong to the Australian people; miners merely have the legal authority to dig them out and export them. Miners do not own any resources.




You had better go look at your text books young gun. You are wrong. It does not belong to us. In relation to minerals situated within State boundaries, prima facie, the power to legislate for minerals remains with the States. However, despite the fact that the Constitution of Australia does not list minerals as an area over which the Federal Parliament has jurisdiction, a number of the Commonwealth Parliament’s powers encompass matters relevant to mining operations and any legislation of the Commonwealth based upon these powers will override any inconsistent State legislation. 



> What happens when this infrastructure needs to be replaced because it is too old of age, and there is no more resources to monetise in order to do so, nor any resources with which to do so?




You are not quite with it this evening are you? Do  you think a mining company would let their infrastructure fall into a state of disrepair because of it's life expectancy? They would have packed up and high tailed it out of there long before this has happened. LOL



> Correct, no long-term benefit. Only for the duration of the mining operations. These will not last very long compared to how long humanity will need said resources (ie. forever until we die as a species).




Are you David Attenborough now? The death of a species? JEEEEEEZUZ CHRIST for a smart educated fellow you are not very globally aware of the big picture stuff are you?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> And send the miners to Brazil our major competitor for iron ore thus cutting off your nose to spite you face? Brilliant plan my small Green offshoot. I can't wait til they get into power.




Brazil is not magic, it does not have adequate resources to fuel the economy of our planet forever and ever; it would only benefit for a short period of time. At the present pace, our boom will end eventually, soon - and possibly in a destructive way. I would support any policy which winded it down gradually and with minimal pain.




trainspotter said:


> You had better go look at your text books young gun.





I am of course talking from an ethical point of view. Which government has what rights is not relevant; all governments represent the people of Australia.



trainspotter said:


> You are not quite with it this evening are you? Do  you think a mining company would let their infrastructure fall into a state of disrepair because of it's life expectancy? They would have packed up and high tailed it out of there long before this has happened. LOL




I don't even understand what you are saying. You mentioned their taxes fund state infrastructure - such examples are roads, highways, rail - ie. things used by the population of the state.

So my question again, once the resources are used up, where will the money and the resources needed to replace aging infrastructure come from?

I don't see what mining companies leaving has anything to do with this.




trainspotter said:


> Are you David Attenborough now? The death of a species? JEEEEEEZUZ CHRIST for a smart educated fellow you are not very globally aware of the big picture stuff are you?




?


----------



## Smurf1976 (12 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Not really. Miners do not generate massive profits because of any unique skills or innovations. Miners are getting rich because they are selling something which belongs to every single Australian. Every single Australian should as such benefit from this to a significant extent, because what is being sold are non-renewable, very valuable resources - the export of which devalues the wealth of our entire country permanently more and more.



I do understand the point you are making. 

Consider the following however. We can export some bauxite for $50. Or we could turn it into alumina and export it for $250. Or we could turn it into aluminium metal and export it for $1000.

$50 or $1000? Which one is providing the best return on that ore in the ground for Australia? I'd argue it's certainly the $1000 given that much of that value created is spent locally (other materials, labour, energy etc) and that at least some of the profits will remain in Australia as well. Not perfect perhaps, but it beats selling it for $50.

And the carbon tax? Well there's $250 worth of electricity (at wholesale rates) in that $1000 of aluminium. Add a carbon tax and now we're looking at $400 for the electricity. Once you add in all the other costs (eg labour, building the plant in the first place, reasonable profit etc) then the tax starts to squeeze things rather a bit, especially considering that similar operations overseas won't be paying any such tax. And of course if the tax goes up, or an ETS pushes the cost up, then it starts to look even worse.

Yes, I know there's compensation for these industries. But that reduces over the years whilst the cost of emitting carbon will rise. And it's not at all clear that if someone builds a brand new factory tomorrow then do they qualify for compensation? If not then they'll be building overseas.

Cheap energy and the ability to add major value to our minerals is a key asset for Australia. I just don't see the point of shutting down processing and selling for $50 what could otherwise be sold for $1000. I'd rather keep the jobs and wealth here in Australia.


----------



## basilio (12 July 2011)

The question of how a country gains value from it's natural resources is always worth discussing. By definition Starcraftmatzer is totally right. Mineral resources are used once and are then gone. If a country can't get the best "value" from these resources the first time there won't be a second chance.

Historically mining companies just don't give a sxxx about the fate of the place/country that holds the wealth they want to exploit. Simple examples are everywhere. Mines that destroy the environment with pollution, destruction of water tables, huge dumps of poisoned tailings.( I could fill the page with recent and older references but I hope that is not necessary. .?)

And around the world we can see plenty of examples of countries where mining companies focus their entire attention on getting the best return from their work and ensuring a minimum cost in terms of tax and perhaps some well placed bribes to government officials.  Consider Nigeria and Shell as a particular example here.

So what Starcraftmattzer is saying is  " how does Australia ensure that we balance our wider and long term interests in exploiting our once only natural resources versus the robust self interest of mining magnates who only compete in  $ billions ?" It is a good question and given the record level of mining profits worth consideration.


----------



## sptrawler (12 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> I do understand the point you are making.
> 
> Consider the following however. We can export some bauxite for $50. Or we could turn it into alumina and export it for $250. Or we could turn it into aluminium metal and export it for $1000.
> 
> ...




To add to your thread smurf. What starcraftmazter also seems to be missing is if the world requires 10million tonnes of aluminium per year, someone has to make it and the resultant carbon will be produced. 
It is just we, going alone, are forcing ourselves to take the $50 instead of getting the $1000.
It would make a lot more sense adopting a universal scheme that all aluminium producing countries agree to.
But if Julia and Bob went down that track there wouldn't be the grandstanding would there.
Megalomania and narcissism appears rife in this government, it's sickening

I thought Obama was going down the right track imposing targets on industries i.e carmakers have to attain an average fuel economy of 22km/litre for their model range by 2020. Sounds a lot more sensible than hitting them with a tax which they pass on to the consumer.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (12 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Consider the following however. We can export some bauxite for $50. Or we could turn it into alumina and export it for $250. Or we could turn it into aluminium metal and export it for $1000.




I agree completely. This is actually an argument I am familiar with, as this is precisely the point some Russian economists are driving as they also export a lot of resources to China (very similar to us), and yet it is apparent that more wealth is to be gained by processing these resources in their entirety and selling the end product.


There are two key arguments I've so far identified which do not allow for this (not that I am in any way saying that it is somehow bad, I think we should produce as many finished products as we can)

1. The vast gap in labour cost in developed vs developing countries
2. The significant environmental impacts from processing raw metals and other minerals, and in the manufacture of goods.

The second point is actually pretty important. Many parts of India and China are suffering staggering environmental damage which will cause endless and very serious and terrible health problems for large populations which live in those countries, within vicinity to certain industries, factories, processing plants, etc.

To some degree, India and China (and probably other smaller countries) are polluting themselves significantly (and I'm not talking about greenhouse emissions) at our cost, justifiably at a high price.



To yes, in principle I agree with you, it is rather sad what happens. This is in my view a good argument for limiting our natural resource exports as well, as it is possible that in the future better and cleaner technologies will allow much healthier and safer refinement and production chains from raw material to finished goods, which are equally economical.




sptrawler said:


> To add to your thread smurf. What starcraftmazter also seems to be missing is if the world requires 10million tonnes of aluminium per year, someone has to make it and the resultant carbon will be produced.




My arguments do not relate (much?) to the carbon tax, I am more concerned with the depletion of the world's resources before we acquire the means to survive without them.

Further, it is rather disappointing as we hold (very soon used to) vast quantities of high quality resources.

Further still, I am concerned that our vast mineral wealth will be used up too quickly, leaving future generations with very little national wealth to tap.

Ideally, these resources should be rationed in such a way as to account for the energy required to extract them against future surplus energy, and our progress towards replacing these raw resources, and more likely our progress towards getting these resources from other planets - as we will inevitably have to, if we are to survive in a world which has even a fraction of our present quality of living.



In regards to the carbon side of things; if we did choose to export less, prices will go up, and suddenly you will find that the world will need less because at higher prices projects otherwise requiring these resources would prove uneconomical.


----------



## Logique (13 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Not really. Miners do not generate massive profits because of any unique skills or innovations. Miners are getting rich because they are selling something which belongs to every single Australian. Every single Australian should as such benefit from this to a significant extent, because what is being sold are non-renewable, very valuable resources - the export of which devalues the wealth of our entire country permanently more and more.
> 
> What's more shocking is that all of these resources will forever be necessary for all humans, yet this "boom" will only benefit a small proportion of Australians for a very short time period.
> 
> To say miners pay enough tax is ridiculous, and the fact that they have gotten away paying so little for so long is scary in regards to the vast amount of wealth we have already permanently lost



The politics of envy is a poor substitute for economic and fiscal analysis, of which this post contains little or none. Miners are the backbone of the national economy, with their sleeves rolled up, taking on project risk and making a contribution. They don't deserve to be sneered at in this way, not even the Todster (just kidding T).


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 July 2011)

Logique said:


> The politics of envy is a poor substitute for economic and fiscal analysis, of which this post contains little or none.




You mistake my concerns about the future for envy.



Logique said:


> Miners are the backbone of the national economy, with their sleeves rolled up, taking on project risk and making a contribution. They don't deserve to be sneered at in this way, not even the Todster (just kidding T).




I would argue they are destroying the backbone of our economy. If miners are a backbone, surely you have to be worried about what happens once the boom ends...how will Australia survive without our backbone?


----------



## wayneL (13 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Miners do not generate massive profits because of any unique skills or innovations.



These "massive" profits are not really massive when viewed in the context of the scale of their operations. They are only really in line with any large industry experiencing temporary increase in demand.

There are relevant and specialized skills in exploring for and extracting minerals, same as any industry. There is nothing unique or specialized about the skill set of say someone like KPMG, yet they have capitalized on it in a big way.



> Miners are getting rich because they are selling something which belongs to every single Australian.




Miners are getting rich: 

1/ As a reward for risk. It should be pointed out that not all miners are successful, many fail spectacularly. Without such potential rewards, why would anyone take such huge risks.
2/ The land (and therefore the minerals contained therein) belongs to "the crown" as distinct from the populace of Australia. Every single Australian is not The Crown. You'd better brush up on these concepts before indulging in purportedly erudite assertions.



> Every single Australian should as such benefit from this to a significant extent,



Only in some non-existent and sociologically impossible communist "utopia". In any case, why should those not meritous of benefit to so off the back of the sweat of others.

Also, in case you haven't noticed, there is a significant trickle down effect. Many Australians have indeed benefited to a greater or lesser extent.



> because what is being sold are non-renewable, very valuable resources - the export of which devalues the wealth of our entire country permanently more and more.




Not necessarily. It depends what is done with the proceeds.



> What's more shocking is that all of these resources will forever be necessary for all humans, yet this "boom" will only benefit a small proportion of Australians for a very short time period.




Again, not necessarily. It again depends on what is done with the proceeds.



> To say miners pay enough tax is ridiculous, and the fact that they have gotten away paying so little for so long is scary in regards to the vast amount of wealth we have already permanently lost




Can you please justify why you think miners don't pay enough tax, facts and figures will do rather than ideological and unsubstantiated assertions.



> Fixed that for you.




Apart from your tacit admission that your voluminous and Fabianesque ramblings are in fact nonsense, the fact remains that mine was intentional; sadly, you must come to your own realization regarding your views with bitter experience.


----------



## moXJO (13 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> F
> 
> 
> T
> ...





From post 160


> The study was commissioned by the Low Carbon Vehicle Partnership, which is jointly funded by the British government and the car industry. It found that a mid-size electric car would produce 23.1 tonnes of CO2 over its lifetime, compared with 24 tonnes for a similar petrol car. Emissions from manufacturing electric cars are at least 50 per cent higher because batteries are made from materials such as lithium, copper and refined silicon, which require much energy to be processed.
> 
> Many electric cars are expected to need a replacement battery after a few years. Once the emissions from producing the second battery are added in, the total CO2 from producing an electric car rises to 12.6 tonnes, compared with 5.6 tonnes for a petrol car. Disposal also produces double the emissions because of the energy consumed in recovering and recycling metals in the battery. The study also took into account carbon emitted to generate the grid electricity consumed.




Was it that friken hard to scroll down from the post


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> There are two key arguments I've so far identified which do not allow for this (not that I am in any way saying that it is somehow bad, I think we should produce as many finished products as we can)
> 
> 1. The vast gap in labour cost in developed vs developing countries
> 2. The significant environmental impacts from processing raw metals and other minerals, and in the manufacture of goods.



The main point I would make is that we _are_ competitive with aluminium in particular (and others including zinc) and it is cheap electricity that gives us that edge.

As for the environmental impact, it's not zero but I live not far from the world's third largest electrolytic zinc smelter and I've had a few visits to an aluminium smeter at various times. Historically there were certainly pollution problems, but I wouldn't be too concerned about what they're doing now as it's pretty clean. Minimal discharge to atmosphere, the water is almost good enough to drink (not quite, but it's almost there) and the solid waste issues can be dealt with pretty easily if it's done properly. The days of ocean dumping are (thankfully) long gone... The main impact? Well the zinc smelter uses 131,000 kilowatts running 24/7/365 and aluminium smelters use a lot more than that...


----------



## trainspotter (13 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> Apart from your tacit admission that your voluminous and Fabianesque ramblings are in fact nonsense, the fact remains that mine was intentional; sadly, you must come to your own realization regarding your views with bitter experience.




BRAVO ! 
	

		
			
		

		
	





Could not have said it better myself.


----------



## todster (13 July 2011)

Logique said:


> The politics of envy is a poor substitute for economic and fiscal analysis, of which this post contains little or none. Miners are the backbone of the national economy, with their sleeves rolled up, taking on project risk and making a contribution. They don't deserve to be sneered at in this way, not even the Todster (just kidding T).




LOL  sneer away


----------



## basilio (14 July 2011)

> Quote Originally Posted by wayneL View Post
> Apart from your tacit admission that your voluminous and Fabianesque ramblings are in fact nonsense, the fact remains that mine was intentional; sadly, you must come to your own realization regarding your views with bitter experience.





trainspotter said:


> BRAVO !
> 
> 
> 
> ...




And when you run out of logical  or factual arguments just pull out the Fabian/Socialist/Communist/just too stupid line.

Doesn't seem to fail on this forum does it ?


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2011)

basilio said:


> And when you run out of logical  or factual arguments just pull out the Fabian/Socialist/Communist/just too stupid line.
> 
> Doesn't seem to fail on this forum does it ?




Apart from running your flag up for all to see, you have neglected to include the rest of my post which was both factual and logical. 

Strike one.

The reason most sneer (rightfully) at Fabian regurgitations on this forum is because the vast majority here are lovers of liberty. Scratch the surface of the Fabians benign sounding subterfuge is an illiberal and totally offensive agenda.

So no it doesn't fail here because mistrust of Fabianism is based on fact and logic.

Strike two.

Batter up.


----------



## derty (14 July 2011)

basilio said:


> And when you run out of logical  or factual arguments just pull out the Fabian/Socialist/Communist/just too stupid line.
> 
> Doesn't seem to fail on this forum does it ?



_Reductio ad Fabianum_ is not uncommon here.


----------



## IFocus (14 July 2011)

> wayneL;645687]Apart from running your flag up for all to see, you have neglected to include the rest of my post which was both factual and logical.
> 
> Strike one.




Your modesty is breath taking.



> The reason most sneer (rightfully) at Fabian regurgitations on this forum is because the vast majority here are lovers of liberty. Scratch the surface of the Fabians benign sounding subterfuge is an illiberal and totally offensive agenda.
> 
> So no it doesn't fail here because mistrust of Fabianism is based on fact and logic.
> 
> Strike two.




Your construct here is seriously unfortunate by any measure.


----------



## wayneL (14 July 2011)

IFocus said:


> Your construct here is seriously unfortunate by any measure.




A baseball analogy is unfortunate.


----------



## basilio (14 July 2011)

Wayne et al . Why not simply focus on discussing the logic and validity of peoples contributions instead of just dismissing them with a label ?


----------



## trainspotter (14 July 2011)

Happy to converse with the logical. It is the tolerance thing I need to work on.


----------



## chrisalex (15 July 2011)

To get back to Nocos' original question "Where is Australia heading."
Just step back and look. 
We now have a ragtag bunch of irrisponsible fools who wish to experiment with our country. The Greens consist of every type of ........ism, including the most illogical and dangerous which idealism, nicely wrapped up in their personal Gay and Lesbian club.
The world must think we are a joke.
Can someone tell me what a 60 year old can do to fast track the removal of this vile experiment.
              chrisalex


----------



## wayneL (15 July 2011)

basilio said:


> Wayne et al . Why not simply focus on discussing the logic and validity of peoples contributions instead of just dismissing them with a label ?




_"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."_ Does the term "denier" ring any bells?

You too are not reading posts. Your entire focus is one one sentence and are ignoring the rest of the points presented. Happy to discuss logic if you are prepared to venture there.


----------



## basilio (15 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> _"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."_ Does the term "denier" ring any bells?
> 
> You too are not reading posts. Your entire focus is one one sentence and are ignoring the rest of the points presented. Happy to discuss logic if you are prepared to venture there.




Simple enough Wayne. I didn't criticize or comment on the rest of that particular post because , as you said , it was directed at the issues raised.

But at the end you chose to throw in the Fabian line in a sense to dismiss anything  Starcraftmatzer said as just dangerous Fabian nonsense.

Trainspotter as the next poster picked up on this throwaway line and requoted it. Essentially this was all he needed to dismiss Starcraftmatzer's coments. And if we go through many other posts we'll find a similar rush to label people or organizations with "Fabian" " "communistic" "socialist" and not actually discuss the  questions.

It turns what could be an interesting discussion into a simplistic slanging match.


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2011)

basilio said:


> Trainspotter as the next poster picked up on this throwaway line and requoted it. Essentially this was all he needed to dismiss Starcraftmatzer's coments. And if we go through many other posts we'll find a similar rush to label people or organizations with "Fabian" " "communistic" "socialist" and not actually discuss the  questions.
> 
> It turns what could be an interesting discussion into a simplistic slanging match.




I resemble that remark. The discussion was going along nicely until this happened for me.



> Ideally, these resources should be rationed in such a way as to account for the energy required to extract them against future surplus energy, and our progress towards replacing these raw resources, and *more likely our progress towards getting these resources from other planets* - as we will inevitably have to, if we are to survive in a world which has even a fraction of our present quality of living.




Let's get a grip here peoples. We have a looooooong way to go before we are flying the space truck up to Mars and digging up some invaluable metal to meet our future needs.

Let's use the resources we have here on our own planet *IN CONJUNTION* with a willing government that will *SPEND THE MONEY* raised from a CO2/MRRT/PRRT tax to invest in renewable energy rather than buying votes with compensation and licking the Uranus (we are talking about planets afterall) of the Greens. How much pollution will go into the atmosphere if we are launching rockets every second day to go and mine other planets/asteroid belts.

And you want to talk logic? Fantasy Island logic more like it.

Did Al Gore invest his money into renewable energy? NO he did not .... he started up a carbon credit company instead. Yeah man that is saving the planet.


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2011)

chrisalex said:


> To get back to Nocos' original question "Where is Australia heading."
> Just step back and look.
> We now have a ragtag bunch of irrisponsible fools who wish to experiment with our country. The Greens consist of every type of ........ism, including the most illogical and dangerous which idealism, nicely wrapped up in their personal Gay and Lesbian club.
> The world must think we are a joke.
> ...




Unfortunatley I cannot chrisalex. I am having enough problems dealing with it myself. Maybe we could create a rumour that the Labor/Green party is somehow related to John F. Kennedy. We all know what happened to him. 

It would appear the natives are getting very restless and are asking for similar scenarios.



> One audience member drew parallels with the American revolutionary war, echoing the slogan of "no taxation without representation".
> 
> *"What is the Coalition going to do to try and stop the people of Australia taking up arms against their government the way the Americans took arms up against their government 200 years ago?" he said.*
> 
> Mr Hockey said he understood the man's anger but said Australians were a peace-loving nation who fought with words.




Read more: http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/env...arbon-rally-20110711-1h9uy.html#ixzz1S7rpVBwj


----------



## Logique (15 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> _"Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."_ Does the term "denier" ring any bells?



We saw former PM Keating on Lateline last night, opining that someone should 'judo chop' Tony Abbott. The luvvies can get away with that sort of language, along with saying that 'deniers' should be tattooed and gassed.


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2011)

Guess who the Guest Speaker is for the Fabian Society of Australia at the Vic annual dinner?

Victorian Annual Dinner - Ross Garnaut Friday, 2 September

http://www.fabian.org.au/1.asp

Oh look over here ..... Wayne Swan has written an essay for the same organisation.

http://www.fabian.org.au/1140.asp

But wait there is more on the Who's Who of Conference Speakers.

*Anthony Albanese MP*, Shadow Minister for Environment & Heritage, Shadow Minister for Water 
David Bassanese, Journalist, Australian Financial Review 
Caroline Bayliss, Acting Executive Director, Global Sustainability, RMIT University 
Eric Beecher, CEO, Private Media Partners 
Julian Burnside QC 
The Hon Kim Carr, Shadow Minister for Housing; Urban Development; Local Government 
Tricia Caswell, CEO, Victorian Association of Forest Industries 
Barry Cohen, former Federal Minister for Arts, Heritage and Environment 
*Greg Combet,* Secretary, ACTU 
*Simon Crean MP*, Shadow Minister for Regional Development 
Professor Glyn Davis, Vice-Chancellor, The University of Melbourne 
Julian Disney, Professor and Director of Social Justice Project, Department of Law, University of NSW 
Stephen Duckett, Dean, Faculty of Health Sciences, La Trobe University 
*Senator John Faulkner*, former Labor Senate Leader 
Professor John Freebairn, Director of the Melbourne Institute of Applied Economic and Social Research at the University of Melbourne 
Dr Joshua Funder, GBS Venture Partners Limited 
Dennis Glover, Associate Fellow, School of Social Sciences, La Trobe University 
Mike Georgeff, Australia s leading expert on artificial intelligence and successful Silicon Valley entrepreneur 
Nicholas Gruen, CEO, Lateral Economics 
Julie Hansen, former President of the VLGA 
Tony Harris, former Auditor of NSW 
Ryan Heath, speechwriter and events coordinater for Britain's most senior public servant, Gus O'Donnell, the Cabinet Secretary 
Ashley Hogan, Historian, Senator John Faulkner’s Office 
Brian Howe, Professorial Associate, Centre for Public Policy, The University of Melbourne 
Jim Jupp, Centre for Immigration and Multicultural Studies, Research School of Social Sciences, Australian National University 
*Bill Kelty*, Former ACTU Secretary and Reserve Bank board member 
John Langmore, Professorial Fellow, Political Science Department, The University of Melbourne 
Jenny Lewis, Senior Research Fellow, Political Science, The University of Melbourne 
Ian Lowe AO, President, Australian Conservation Foundation 
Jenny Macklin MP, Deputy Leader of the Opposition 
Robert Manne, Professor of Politics, La Trobe University 
Ian Marsh, Professor of Public Management, Australia & New Zealand School of Government, University of Sydney 
Dr Race Mathews, National Chairman, Australian Fabian Society 
Stephen Mayne, Business Editor, Crikey 
John McInerney, Councillor, Sydney City Council 
David McKnight, Sydney academic and author of 'Beyond Left and Right: New Politics and the Culture Wars’ 
Alison McClelland, Associate Professor & Head of School of Social Work and Social Policy, La Trobe University 
Geoff Mulgan, Director, UK Institute for Community Studies 
Barbara Norman, Deputy Chair, Australian Fabian Society & Program Director, Environment & Planning, RMIT University 
Michael O’Connor, National Assistant Secretary, Forestry Division, Construction Forestry, Energy & Mining Union 
Scott Rankin, Writer and Director 
Heather Ridout, CEO, Australian Industry Group 
Guy Rundle, Co-editor, Arena Magazine 
*Bill Shorten,* National Secretary, AWU 
Mark Spiller, Director, Planning Institute of Australia 
*Wayne Swan MP,* Shadow Treasurer 
Evan Thornley, National Secretary, Australian Fabian Society and LookSmart Co-founder 
Beth Wilson, Health Services Commissioner of Victoria 
*Penny Wong MP,* Shadow Minister for Employment & Workforce Participation 
Tony Wood, Origin Energy 
Professor David Yencken

Small bit of bias in the Guest Speaker category perhaps?


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

Yes, Trainspotter - they are trying to take over our country by stealth under the guise of saving the planet.  This carbon tax clearly has little, if anything to do with co2 reduction.  Trading carbon credits to ease our conscience while not actually reducing anything in the atmosphere?  I think even kindergarten kids would realise the stupidity of that one.

Can only hope that any remaining fence sitting Aussies will wake up to what's really going on...sigh..


----------



## mexican (15 July 2011)

"Sheep go to the slaughter much easier when they are comforted and showered with sweet nothings!"


----------



## Logique (15 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Guess who the Guest Speaker is for the Fabian Society of Australia at the Vic annual dinner?
> Victorian Annual Dinner - Ross Garnaut Friday, 2 September.
> But wait there is more on the Who's Who of Conference Speakers...Greg Combet, Secretary, ACTU...Heather Ridout, CEO, Australian Industry Group...



Yes it's a Luvvies Picnic Day alright. That would be full name: Gregory *Ivan* Combet. And gee, Heather Ridout, who'd have thought


----------



## wayneL (15 July 2011)

basilio said:


> But at the end you chose to throw in the Fabian line in a sense to dismiss anything  Starcraftmatzer said as just dangerous Fabian nonsense.
> 
> Trainspotter as the next poster picked up on this throwaway line and requoted it. Essentially this was all he needed to dismiss Starcraftmatzer's coments. And if we go through many other posts we'll find a similar rush to label people or organizations with "Fabian" " "communistic" "socialist" and not actually discuss the  questions.
> 
> It turns what could be an interesting discussion into a simplistic slanging match.




Once again leftist Fabian ideologues reveal their total lack of objectivity as per my current thesis. Quick to criticize my quip because you incorrectly perceive me to be a right wing (insert favourite pejorative), you fail to consider the comment in the context of the discussion as it evolved. You just lept to defense of your 'comrade' while conveniently ignoring your own monumental hypocrisy as mentioned.

The comment was in particular reference to Star's foolishness as quoted and nothing at all to do with the points above, something you have totally missed.


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2011)

Logique said:


> And gee, Heather Ridout, who'd have thought




She's the lefties favorite capitalist.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Guess who the Guest Speaker is for the Fabian Society of Australia at the Vic annual dinner?
> 
> Victorian Annual Dinner - Ross Garnaut Friday, 2 September
> 
> ...



Heavens, that's a pretty scary lot of public policy makers.


----------



## Happy (15 July 2011)

sails said:


> ....  This carbon tax clearly has little, if anything to do with co2 reduction.  Trading carbon credits to ease our conscience while not actually reducing anything in the atmosphere? ....





I would prefer if Government threw money at not yet viable alternatives compared to fossil fuels as: wave, wind, solar, geothermal in a form of incentives rather than tax some, give some tax equivalent to do nothing so they are not worse off.

What they do now is further tilt the LEVEL PLAYING FIELD toward Third World Countries.

Hope this can be reveses come 2013 elections.

But with Green vote ever increasing it is possible that Green / Labor coalition with few so called independents will always form majority from now on.

Let's not forget that close to million new Australians a year will also become voters in not so distant future and their sympathy will be toward party that accepted them.


----------



## Calliope (15 July 2011)

Happy said:


> But with Green vote ever increasing it is possible that Green / Labor coalition with few so called independents will always form majority from now on.




Yes the Green vote is bound to increase boosted by indoctrinated school leavers and oldies with dementia...the brainwashed and the brain-dead.


----------



## medicowallet (15 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Yes the Green vote is bound to increase boosted by indoctrinated school leavers and oldies with dementia...the brainwashed and the brain-dead.




I teach some medical students, and indoctrinated is a very appropriate word. Even these so-called independent thinkers are brainwashed by the system, and that has probably only been around since their secondary education.

What hope do my grandchildren have?


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

medicowallet said:


> I teach some medical students, and indoctrinated is a very appropriate word. Even these so-called independent thinkers are brainwashed by the system, and that has probably only been around since their secondary education.
> 
> What hope do my grandchildren have?





They are starting AGW lessons in primary school now.  An article last week confirmed it is part of the curriculum, and even though it is scaring some young impressionable primary school kids, Garrett is refusing to remove it.

And I posted about it last year helping my then grade five granddaughter with her homework.  A whole term was spent on the nonsense and it was taught as fact.  Spelling words, assignments, stage performances were all included.  

It's been pretty cold here in Qld and she and I both agreed a little global warming would be very welcome...  She has been taught from home that the science is not settled and to question things rather than take everything as gospel she learns from school.


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 July 2011)

Happy said:


> I would prefer if Government threw money at not yet viable alternatives compared to fossil fuels as: wave, wind, solar, geothermal in a form of incentives rather than tax some, give some tax equivalent to do nothing so they are not worse off.
> 
> What they do now is further tilt the LEVEL PLAYING FIELD toward Third World Countries.



Indeed. If we're going to throw money around then it may as well be at something which is of at least some benefit to Australia and which may have more potential in the longer term, rather than doing something (carbon tax) that's guaranteed to harm us.


----------



## medicowallet (15 July 2011)

sails said:


> They are starting AGW lessons in primary school now.  An article last week confirmed it is part of the curriculum, and even though it is scaring some young impressionable primary school kids, Garrett is refusing to remove it.
> 
> And I posted about it last year helping my then grade five granddaughter with her homework.  A whole term was spent on the nonsense and it was taught as fact.  Spelling words, assignments, stage performances were all included.
> 
> It's been pretty cold here in Qld and she and I both agreed a little global warming would be very welcome...  She has been taught from home that the science is not settled and to question things rather than take everything as gospel she learns from school.




Heaven help us when the indoctrinated children have their own children...


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 July 2011)

Gee I didn't know the AGW assumption had become fact. On the brighter side, directing our collective thinking toward constructive, cleaner practices can only be good.


----------



## breaker (15 July 2011)

Well who'd have thought Fabian's ....never heard of them in CQ .... but jesuuuus now I'm scared after reserching them.... hey where's Stargazer?


----------



## trainspotter (15 July 2011)

breaker said:


> Well who'd have thought Fabian's ....never heard of them in CQ .... but jesuuuus now I'm scared after reserching them.... hey where's Stargazer?




Mining minerals from Mars.


----------



## Julia (15 July 2011)

Happy said:


> I would prefer if Government threw money at not yet viable alternatives compared to fossil fuels as: wave, wind, solar, geothermal in a form of incentives rather than tax some, give some tax equivalent to do nothing so they are not worse off.



Agree.



> But with Green vote ever increasing it is possible that Green / Labor coalition with few so called independents will always form majority from now on.



I don't think it's actually increasing is it?  I'd thought it was pretty static.



medicowallet said:


> I teach some medical students, and indoctrinated is a very appropriate word. Even these so-called independent thinkers are brainwashed by the system, and that has probably only been around since their secondary education.



That's interesting, Medicowallet.  Even though these are specifically medical students, they're still spouting AGW mantras?  How do they do this in the context of their learning from you?
Do you think they are being specifically taught this stuff, or rather are they just absorbing it from the overall Left bias of universities?


----------



## sails (15 July 2011)

Australia seems to be heading further and further away from Labor.  Latest Roy Morgan poll out since Carbon Sunday:

"...July 13/14, 2011 shows the L-NP 60.5% with a record winning lead over the ALP 39.5% - the worst Two-Party preferred voting result for Labor since the first Roy Morgan Gallup Poll conducted in May 1942.

The L-NP primary vote is 52.5%, nearly double the ALP 27.5%. Support for the minor parties shows the Greens 10.5% and Others/ Independents 9.5%."​
The last poll by Morgan was a week ago just prior to Carbon Sunday and showed 2pp L-NP (56%) leading the ALP (44%).  Greens don't seem to be gaining from what I can see.

More details and graph here: http://www.roymorgan.com/


----------



## basilio (16 July 2011)

> That's interesting, Medicowallet. Even though these are specifically medical students, they're still spouting AGW mantras? How do they do this in the context of their learning from you?
> Do you think they are being specifically taught this stuff, or rather are they just absorbing it from the overall Left bias of universities?    Julia




Well could be because they are highly intelligent people for a start.  Being medical students they recognise the value of the scientific approach to problems and overall the general validity of the scientists who lead understanding of medical progress.

In that context they are very unlikely to accept that the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists( essentially similar to medical scientists but working in another field )  are somehow corrupt or completely wrong about such a critical issue.


----------



## todster (16 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Happy to converse with the logical. It is the tolerance thing I need to work on.
> 
> View attachment 43648




Wow your Mrs is hot


----------



## Logique (16 July 2011)

Happy said:


> I would prefer if Government threw money at not yet viable alternatives compared to fossil fuels as: wave, wind, solar, geothermal in a form of incentives rather than tax some, give some tax equivalent to do nothing so they are not worse off.
> What they do now is further tilt the LEVEL PLAYING FIELD toward Third World Countries.
> Hope this can be reveses come 2013 elections.
> But with Green vote ever increasing it is possible that Green / Labor coalition with few so called independents will always form majority from now on.
> Let's not forget that close to million new Australians a year will also become voters in not so distant future and their sympathy will be toward party that accepted them.



Broadly agree Happy.  With the Green vote, it seems steady at around 12%. What will change at the next election is that, Victorian style, the majors will place the Greens last on their how-to-vote cards, which will make a difference.

Number one, putting Australia back on an even keel will be a two election process. A normal election followed by a double dissolution to rid the Senate of the Fabians and watermelons. The Coalition needs to bring this to the notice of the electorate. 

Number two is to put the cleaners through the ABC and reinstate some balance. Number three is to put the cleaners through the child indoctrination system now loosely termed 'education'.  Number four is to review the funding of politically partisan   organizations working (in my view) against the interests of the nation. Starting with the Aust Conserv Foundation and especially GetUp.  A pretty poor return on the taxpayers'  investments in them.

In the Illawarra a few of years ago, there was a lot of publicity about a wave energy machine being developed. In one of the initial trial runs it broke free of the moorings and sank to the bottom, never to be seen again. But for all of that, I hope wave energy isn't 'thrown out with the bathwater'.


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 July 2011)

basilio said:


> In that context they are very unlikely to accept that the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists( essentially similar to medical scientists but working in another field )  are somehow corrupt or completely wrong about such a critical issue.



Medicine suffers the same fundamental problem as climate and many other fields. If serious diseases were easily cured then that will send the major "treatment" (as distinct from "cure") drug   companies broke real fast as well as putting many doctors out of work. Just as climate scientists are out of a job if they don't demonstrate that there is something worth researching.

I have a lot of respect for individual doctors, but I'm well aware of the realities of the drug companies and the management of private (and increasingly public) health care providers. Profit comes first, second and third. That being so, it's probable that medical students are not taught to challenge the system in the same way that virtually nobody is taught Austrian economics as part of a formal education.

It's the same with most things. You won't find politicians (many of whom are ex lawyers) simplifying the law into plain english anytime soon. If it was simple and easy to understand then that would put a lot of lawyers out of work...

And yes, I'll say it, the trades do the same thing. Plenty of rules, regulations and product designs done for no reason other than to make it difficult for anyone outside the trade to do the work. Australia is an extreme example of this one, with even relatively simple tasks officially off-limits to the home handyman with serious penalties if caught.

We live in a world where most industries at least attempt to protect their interests and secure future work. I find it hard to believe that this thinking wouldn't also apply to climate science and medicine - if it doesn't then they would seem to be the only exceptions which is unlikely.


----------



## Calliope (16 July 2011)

Where is Australia heading?  GFC2 with bells on. Where is the stimulus money going to come from this time? The coffers have been drained.

If the sh*t hits the fan in the USA and they cut back on Chinese imports. China cuts back production. China cuts back on imports of coal and iron ore. We become another Greece.

And Gillard is worrying about pricing Carbon.


----------



## drsmith (16 July 2011)

sails said:


> Australia seems to be heading further and further away from Labor.  Latest Roy Morgan poll out since Carbon Sunday:
> 
> "...July 13/14, 2011 shows the L-NP 60.5% with a record winning lead over the ALP 39.5% - the worst Two-Party preferred voting result for Labor since the first Roy Morgan Gallup Poll conducted in May 1942.
> 
> ...



How long now before panic within the ALP ranks ?

The trend is not their friend.


----------



## noco (16 July 2011)

As I have mentioned in previous posts, the idiology of this Green/Labor coalition left wing socialist government is to gain control of the media to avoid criticism.

Both Gillard and her pseudo Prime Minister Brown are attempting to have an enquiry into modus operandi of the Australian media, exploting the problems that currently exists in England. 

If they do succeed in having an enquiry, you can bet your boots they will try to vet every news item and forum  to suit themselves and only their own propaganda will be allowed. This smells of communism all the way down the line.

They are a sneaky lot. Be afraid. Be very afraid.


http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/Gillard-and-Brown-are-shootin-the-messenger/


----------



## Julia (16 July 2011)

sails said:


> Australia seems to be heading further and further away from Labor.  Latest Roy Morgan poll out since Carbon Sunday:



Thanks for that, sails.  Must be sending panic through Labor ranks.
An anomaly is the slight rise in consumer confidence.



basilio said:


> Well could be because they are highly intelligent people for a start.  Being medical students they recognise the value of the scientific approach to problems and overall the general validity of the scientists who lead understanding of medical progress.
> 
> In that context they are very unlikely to accept that the overwhelmingly majority of climate scientists( essentially similar to medical scientists but working in another field )  are somehow corrupt or completely wrong about such a critical issue.



Smurf has very appropriately addressed this.



noco said:


> As I have mentioned in previous posts, the idiology of this Green/Labor coalition left wing socialist government is to gain control of the media to avoid criticism.
> 
> Both Gillard and her pseudo Prime Minister Brown are attempting to have an enquiry into modus operandi of the Australian media, exploting the problems that currently exists in England.
> 
> If they do succeed in having an enquiry, you can bet your boots they will try to vet every news item and forum  to suit themselves and only their own propaganda will be allowed. This smells of communism all the way down the line.



Agree that this is really concerning.   However, I think the strength and determination of most of the media will revolt in no uncertain terms if this goes too far.   They are still privately owned organisations and can write whatever they like in an editorial sense.

The sickening hypocrisy from Mr Brown means he would have zero intention of altering the bias of the ABC!


----------



## todster (16 July 2011)

noco said:


> As I have mentioned in previous posts, the idiology of this Green/Labor coalition left wing socialist government is to gain control of the media to avoid criticism.
> 
> Both Gillard and her pseudo Prime Minister Brown are attempting to have an enquiry into modus operandi of the Australian media, exploting the problems that currently exists in England.
> 
> ...




I would think controling the media with the NBN would be even more difficult sunshine.


----------



## sptrawler (16 July 2011)

todster said:


> I would think controling the media with the NBN would be even more difficult sunshine.




Why do you say that todster? When it all goes through the Governments internet filter.


----------



## todster (16 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Why do you say that todster? When it all goes through the Governments internet filter.




Get a 10year old to hack it


----------



## noco (16 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Thanks for that, sails.  Must be sending panic through Labor ranks.
> An anomaly is the slight rise in consumer confidence.
> 
> 
> ...




Julia, now that the Greens have the power in both houses, they could try to bring in legislation to heavily fine or imprison any media who break their rules.
Don't underestimate the power of Brown ATM.


----------



## noco (16 July 2011)

Are we heading for another financial crisis? The link from West Pac indicates we are  deteriorating faster than ever.

Perhaps we are heading for the Keating 'BANANA REPUBLIC' status.

How in the hell is this inept Green/Labor socialist left wing government going to cope when the barrell of money is now empty?

Perhaps, this is what they want.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-economy-falters/story-e6freon6-1226095715961


----------



## joea (16 July 2011)

Hi!
I would like to think that behind the scene, something is starting to happen that every Australian will not have to endure this pain and agony any more.!!!
I do not know what is happening, but I must have faith that it is.

Surely we do not have to endure this to the next nominated election.

joea


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2011)

joea said:


> Hi!
> I would like to think that behind the scene, something is starting to happen that every Australian will not have to endure this pain and agony any more.!!!
> I do not know what is happening, but I must have faith that it is.
> 
> ...




Not sure what you mean joea? The 44th government will not be elected until 27th September 2013 at the latest. It is doubtful a double dissolution will occur as this will only make the Gillard government's precarious House position worse as they would be giving up seats (and more than likely government)  I can't see why the Gillard government would work at creating double dissolution triggers, let alone even considering asking the Governor General to call a double dissolution. Afterall she is Bill Shortens mother in law. 

The LNP do not have the numbers to cause blockage at Senate level and the Independents have already sworn an oath of alliegance to Gillard & Co. Under the provisions of the Constitution, the last possible date for a double dissolution in the current term is 27 March 2013, which probably means the Coalition would need to take government by around the middle of 2012 to give itself time to arrange a double dissolution trigger. (if Gillard does call a DD)

Whatever happens in the House or to the Prime Ministership, the Senators taking their places on *1 July 2011 will be there until 30 June 2017*, and the Senators who took their seats on 1 July 2008 will be there until 30 June 2014. The only Senators that an early House election could change would be the four Territory Senators, whose terms are tied to the term of each House of Representatives.

Here is a link tht provides a list of these Seantors who have terms of service commencing 1st July 2011 ... http://www.aph.gov.au/senate/senators/senators_elect.htm

Even a good old fashioned assssination will not work as this will only cause Wayne Swan into the box seat and more than likely either Albanese or Shorten catapulted into Deputy PM. 

So in it's current form we are well and truly copulated in the sphincter muscle for quite some time to come. 

*The next federal election*
http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/pol/HungParliaments.htm#_Toc282588848



> In its agreements with the Australian Greens and with Tony Windsor and Robert Oakeshott the Government has agreed that the 43rd Parliament *‘should serve its full term’.* [19] The agreement with Windsor and Oakeshott further specifies that ‘the next election will be held on a date to be *agreed in September or October 2013’.*




*massive sigh*


----------



## Julia (16 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> The LNP do not have the numbers to cause blockage at Senate level and the Independents have already sworn an oath of alliegance to Gillard & Co. Under the provisions of the Constitution, the last possible date for a double dissolution in the current term is 27 March 2013, which probably means the Coalition would need to take government by around the middle of 2012 to give itself time to arrange a double dissolution trigger. (if Gillard does call a DD)



All true.  No way will Gillard call for an election, ordinary or DD, because to do so would be to ensure her own immediate demise.



> Whatever happens in the House or to the Prime Ministership, the Senators taking their places on *1 July 2011 will be there until 30 June 2017*, and the Senators who took their seats on 1 July 2008 will be there until 30 June 2014.



But if Tony Abbott wins the next election, having gone to this election on rescinding the carbon tax, he can then propose to legislate this, and if the legislation is rejected twice (I think it's twice?) then he can call a double dissolution election.
If we were to come to this stage, it's going to be very, very likely that some of those new Greens senators would be thrown out and the Greens would in the new parliament no longer have the balance of power.

I simply can't see an early election happening this term, but do think there's hope for the above scenario if the Libs win the next election.  They will have to be extremely clear about going to the election with the rescinding of the carbon tax being their main platform.  Unless a lot changes between now and then, it's hard to see them not winning in a landslide.


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2011)

Julia said:


> But if Tony Abbott wins the next election, having gone to this election on rescinding the carbon tax, he can then propose to legislate this, and if the legislation is rejected twice (I think it's twice?) then he can call a double dissolution election.
> If we were to come to this stage, it's going to be very, very likely that some of those new Greens senators would be thrown out and the Greens would in the new parliament no longer have the balance of power.




This would take the dissolution of both houses. Politically possible but I cannot see this happening. The deal that the Inds and Greens did with Julia is enforcable til Sept - Oct 2013. So not likely for an election prior to this date. Let's say Libs do win in a landslide and a DD is called (this would take about 9 months for the blockage of legislation before a DD can be called BTW) then the time it would take to go back to the polls would be June 2014 at the earliest.

Many, many constitutional challenges will be required to get the GG to allow such a thing to happen. It would be unprecedented in Australias political history as well. Their best hope is to go to the 2013 election with a landslide and wait for the half Senate election for Senators sitting placements ending 1 July 2014. If the anger amongst the voting people remains the same then it is possible that the majority rule of Labor/Green would be broken.

On repealing the Carbon Tax thingy my biggest concern would how much compensation will be sought from the polluters who had bought permits for future years in the expectation that permit prices would rise would have to be compensated for their suddenly worthless permits. There would also be firms would have a property right vested in their tradeable permits, which the government would then have to acquire on just terms. The list goes on and on.

Hmmmmmmmmmm ........ the politics of it all.


----------



## noco (16 July 2011)

Julia said:


> All true.  No way will Gillard call for an election, ordinary or DD, because to do so would be to ensure her own immediate demise.
> 
> 
> But if Tony Abbott wins the next election, having gone to this election on rescinding the carbon tax, he can then propose to legislate this, and if the legislation is rejected twice (I think it's twice?) then he can call a double dissolution election.
> ...




Julia, one of the hopes we have left is a by-election in a Labor held seat. I believe there is one Labor member who is seriously ill; I don't know who. If he should resign through illness there would have to be a by-election and no doubt Labor would lose that seat and parliament would become unworkable.
If that were so, then parliament would have to be disolved and a general election would have to take place and Labor would lose.
If Abbott were to become Prime Minister and as you say legislation was blocked in the senate by the Greens on two or three occassions, then Abbott could hold the gun at Brown's head with the threat of a double dissolution of both houses. If that were to occur, I am sure Brown would well and truly be tamed.


----------



## Julia (16 July 2011)

TS, Tony Abbott has already said he would call a DD election if his legislation to rescind the carbon tax was resisted by Labor and the Greens.   
I don't see why it wouldn't be fairly straightforward after he has put the legislation up twice, three months apart.

This, after all, is what was being called for when K. Rudd was leader on the basis that if he really believed climate change (or whatever it was being called then) was the greatest moral challenge of our time, then he would go to a DD election on this.

That's what he should have done.  Instead he just backed down.
Tony Abbott would not back down on this.


----------



## trainspotter (16 July 2011)

Julia said:


> TS, Tony Abbott has already said he would call a DD election if his legislation to rescind the carbon tax was resisted by Labor and the Greens.
> I don't see why it wouldn't be fairly straightforward after he has put the legislation up twice, three months apart.
> 
> This, after all, is what was being called for when K. Rudd was leader on the basis that if he really believed climate change (or whatever it was being called then) was the greatest moral challenge of our time, then he would go to a DD election on this.
> ...




Political suicide IMO. Runs the risk of Inds and Greens backlash vote and may end up MORE in the Senate. Possible as well. People of Australia may not want to go back to the polls so soon as well. More possible voter backlash. 

Antony Green blog has the info I am looking for.

http://blogs.abc.net.au/antonygreen...uble-dissolution-in-the-next-three-years.html


----------



## Logique (17 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Political suicide IMO.... People of Australia may not want to go back to the polls so soon as well. More possible voter backlash...



But perhaps not if he runs on it, declaring it well in advance.


----------



## RandR (17 July 2011)

http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2796404.html

The above is a transcript of a speech from Malcolm Fraser.

"We might think our actions have no consequences beyond our shores. That is dangerous self deception.

Many examples can be given.* Opponents of climate change legislation say Australia produces so little that it does not matter what we do. Many others, indeed most others, look at emissions per capita and then we come out if not worst, second worst.*

These are but two quite different examples of the way in which actions that too many believe are purely domestic in their consequences resonate unfavourably for Australia around the world."

 .... The fact is the Liberal party went to the 2007 election with the promise of bringing in an emissions trading scheme, why do people think voting in a liberal government would lead to the abandonment of such a scheme entirely ?

What, because Tony Abott says so ? The man has proven just as capable of backflipping on this issue as Julia Gillard. (it wasnt long ago he stated that he thought a tax on carbon was the most efficient method of producing results)

IMO, the best hope we have in Australia in terms of our future direction, is if one of Turnbull or Hockey wrest the liberal leadership from Abbot. I would vote for either of the two, but i cant bring myself to vote for someone like Abbot.


----------



## Logique (17 July 2011)

RandR said:


> http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/2796404.html
> The above is a transcript of a speech from Malcolm Fraser.
> ....The fact is the Liberal party went to the 2007 election with the promise of bringing in an emissions trading scheme...



But not in advance of the rest of the world, which John Howard has recently confirmed, and which Malcolm Fraser seems not to have mentioned. John Howard doesn't and never did support a carbon tax of the type now proposed by Labor/Greens.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 July 2011)

The length of this industrial age from a long term perspective depends on a multiplying population (more births than deaths due to technology) and the depth of minerals on the planet to keep it going. 400 to 500 years maybe?


----------



## Julia (17 July 2011)

RandR said:


> Many examples can be given.* Opponents of climate change legislation say Australia produces so little that it does not matter what we do. Many others, indeed most others, look at emissions per capita and then we come out if not worst, second worst.*



Are you aware that this emissions per capita includes all our exports?  And bushfires etc?



> .... The fact is the Liberal party went to the 2007 election with the promise of bringing in an emissions trading scheme, why do people think voting in a liberal government would lead to the abandonment of such a scheme entirely ?



The world was in a different frame of mind then.  It was expected that Copenhagen would enshrine global co-operation of ETS schemes.  It totally failed in this respect, and since then overall acceptance of "the science" has diminished.

Then the GFC has had severe effects in much of the world (even if we are just beginning to feel it here), and the appetite for any form of pricing carbon no longer exists in the major nations of China, US, Canada, Japan et al.

So for Australia to voluntarily put itself in a position of economic disadvantage re our competitors makes no sense.


----------



## sails (17 July 2011)

Here is Costello's say on Gillard's carbon tax from Bolt's show this morning.


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2011)

sails said:


> Here is Costello's say on Gillard's carbon tax from Bolt's show this morning.





Who was that obnoxiously servile reporter in the Canberra press gallery asking Gillard for advice on what to write?:bowdown: Thank God for The Australian


----------



## springhill (17 July 2011)

How about this tossbag on Meet The Press? Daaaangerous climate change oooooooo, scary stuff, these guys are in complete denial - ignoring that they are as popular as a flaming bag of dog **** on a door step.



Putting this anywhere near Peter Costello is a crime really.


----------



## So_Cynical (17 July 2011)

Logique said:


> But not in advance of the rest of the world, which John Howard has recently confirmed, and which Malcolm Fraser seems not to have mentioned. John Howard doesn't and never did support a carbon tax of the type now proposed by Labor/Greens.




Just to follow this type of thinking thru...if all country's simply waited for others to lead then how would anything happen? funny how this appeals to so many coalition voters...the do nothing approach to government.


----------



## RandR (17 July 2011)

> Are you aware that this emissions per capita includes all our exports?  And bushfires etc?




I'm not, would you care to provide some evidence to this claim ? 

Excluding any potential exclusion for exports/natural events etc, would you not agree that Australia would still have if not the highest, but be within the top 5 producers of emmisions per capita or per person ? 



> The world was in a different frame of mind then.  It was expected that Copenhagen would enshrine global co-operation of ETS schemes.  It totally failed in this respect, and since then *overall acceptance of "the science" has diminished*.




Acceptance of the science by whom ? By you ?


----------



## springhill (17 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Just to follow this type of thinking thru...if all country's simply waited for others to lead then how would anything happen? funny how this appeals to so many coalition voters...the do nothing approach to government.




SC you are ignoring the fact we produce 1.3% of world's carbon emissions, and our target reduction by 2020 is 5%. That is 5% of 1.3%. We will piss away hundreds of billions to bring our emissions to 1.235% of world emissions.
The biggest polluters, if logic prevails, should introduce the best and most cost effective form of carbon reduction rather than an inefficient ineffective one as it's in their interests, financially. Let's follow the big boys.

Gillard thinks the rest of the world is watching us with admiration? The tertiary manufacturers will ignore us when we try to pass costs on, hey there are plenty of minerals coming onstream from Africa alone. Our direct competitors are wetting their pants laughing at us. The UN is rubbing it's filthy hands with glee at our idiocy.


----------



## sails (17 July 2011)

springhill said:


> ...Gillard thinks the rest of the world is watching us with admiration? The tertiary manufacturers will ignore us when we try to pass costs on, hey there are plenty of minerals coming onstream from Africa alone. Our direct competitors are wetting their pants laughing at us. The UN is rubbing it's filthy hands with glee at our idiocy.




And I think the rest of the world is looking on in bemusement at our stupidity.  Here is a snippet from Costello's comments of his travels:

"I can confidently say that when I was in Europe I did not read of any other country being so moved by our government’s new tax on carbon dioxide as to embrace measures to harm their own industries. 

At the meetings I had with investment managers in the US no one seemed to think there was any chance the US would adopt a cap-and-trade or emissions trading scheme.

 I caught up separately with Condoleezza Rice and Sandy Berger (National Security Advisors in opposing administrations). *Neither thought there was any chance of their party going down a path like that!"*​
From the Herald Sun Bolt's Blog: *No, the world isn’t watching our futile sacrifice*


----------



## So_Cynical (17 July 2011)

springhill said:


> SC you are ignoring the fact we produce 1.3% of world's carbon emissions, and our target reduction by 2020 is 5%. That is 5% of 1.3%. We will piss away hundreds of billions to bring our emissions to 1.235% of world emissions.
> The biggest polluters, if logic prevails, should introduce the best and most cost effective form of carbon reduction rather than an inefficient ineffective one as it's in their interests, financially. Let's follow the big boys.
> 
> Gillard thinks the rest of the world is watching us with admiration? The tertiary manufacturers will ignore us when we try to pass costs on, hey there are plenty of minerals coming onstream from Africa alone. Our direct competitors are wetting their pants laughing at us. The UN is rubbing it's filthy hands with glee at our idiocy.




We are the biggest per capita carbon burners, 5% of 1.3% certainly sounds like an almost insignificant number and it is actually pretty much insignificant...so what's the big deal. :dunno:

The reduction target is small, the cost is small, the impacts on all levels small...and yet the lunatic right thinks the world is coming to an end...our competitors in Africa wetting there pants laughing at us, i think not, the Congolese Govt doesn't have the capacity to enforce basic road rules etc...their hardly laughing at anyone and there population would change places with us in an instant if offered the opportunity to live under a carbon tax.


----------



## startrader (17 July 2011)

RandR said:


> I'm not, would you care to provide some evidence to this claim ?




This is quite true - you should do some research.  It's a shame more people don't know this.


----------



## joea (17 July 2011)

Hi.
Julia Gillard made a statement that big companies pollute for free.
This is incorrect.
All companies that have a chimney and burn a product, or utilise water in some way pay a licence fee to "pollute".
The licence may not cover CO2, but it cover a number of emission listed by the EPA.

I will admit the fee may only be small, (15 years ago) $10,000 - $15000 per year for a small sugar mill, but there is a fee.
So her statement is incorrect.

Also any new boilers had to adhere to a reduction in the above licence by a factor of 8.
(So if your particulate emission was 800 milligrams/cubic metre, new boilers had to be below 100mlgms./cubic metre.
Stack test are regulary completed by a specilist to ensure boiler emissions are controlled.

joea p.s. glad I cleared that up.


----------



## Ruby (17 July 2011)

RandR said:


> I'm not, would you care to provide some evidence to this claim ?
> 
> 
> Excluding any potential exclusion for exports/natural events etc, would you not agree that Australia would still have if not the highest, but be within the top 5 producers of emmisions per capita or per person ?




RandR - do some reading.  There are numerous references to this on the other threads - the Climate Hysteria one and the Carbon Tax Lie one.   It was *admitted by the Labour government* that the 'per capita emission' figures included our exports - which of course makes a complete nonsense of the figures.



RandR said:


> Acceptance of the science by whom ? By you ?




See above.   I gave a reference on one of the other sites to 900 peer reviewed reports written by climate change sceptics.  Also look at the Joanna Nova site.  For goodness sake, inform yourself of the facts before you form your opinions!!


----------



## springhill (17 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> We are the biggest per capita carbon burners, 5% of 1.3% certainly sounds like an almost insignificant number and it is actually pretty much insignificant...so what's the big deal. :dunno:
> 
> The reduction target is small, the cost is small, the impacts on all levels small...and yet the lunatic right thinks the world is coming to an end...our competitors in Africa wetting there pants laughing at us, i think not, the Congolese Govt doesn't have the capacity to enforce basic road rules etc...their hardly laughing at anyone and there population would change places with us in an instant if offered the opportunity to live under a carbon tax.




We are a country the size of a continent, sheer logistics mean we will pollute on a higher per capita basis. We are not the size of Japan, Italy or NZ even. Our population isn't going to double in the next 100 years and with the industrialisation of Africa, China, India to name a few, i am betting others per capita pollution will rise and ours will stay stagnant.

The reduction target is small, the costs are huge and as i have stated before we will be purchasing tens of billions of dollars per annum overseas for the right to use our own resources, it's insanity. Not to mention the UN tax grab.

Don't worry SC once the Chinese start buying iron ore from the Congo, they will be wetting their pants laughing. That is the benefit of an emerging nation over one that is full of it's self importance. Meanwhile, i am sure that the Congo will be a recipient of our 10% carbon tax donation to the UN, to 'help' third world nations manage their carbon emissions. Geeeee i can't see any money going astray in the African nations, they are all so anti-corruption.

Humans contribute 3.8% of global carbon in the atmosphere, of that 3.8% we contribute 1.3% and of that 1.3% we want to reduce it by 5%. Do the maths and see how much that will change global atmosphere. It's absurd.

The US sure as hell aren't going to buy it.
http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=d5c3c93f-802a-23ad-4f29-fe59494b48a6

I am not saying the world will end, but Australia will sure as hell have a sore foot from shooting itself.


----------



## Smurf1976 (17 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> We are the biggest per capita carbon burners



How did you calculate that?

Quite a bit of our emissions, specifically that which relates to mining, smelting and LNG are largely the responsibility of others. The EU, China and others have effectively outsourced their emissions to countries such as Australia due to economic, natural resource and political factors.

Much is said about emissions from Hazelwood power station in Victoria. The fact is we export far more than its' entire output via aluminium smelting alone. Then there's all the other minerals we process prior to export...


----------



## trainspotter (17 July 2011)

and here is the link http://sites.google.com/site/yarrav...l-is-king”-australia-co2-pollution-fact-sheet

Why not just actually check some facts here peoples

http://www.google.com/publicdata?ds...rdim=country&idim=country:QAT:AUS&hl=en&dl=en

So what you do is click on AUSTRALIA and a nice little line appears. Click the box with China, Qatar, USA, Kuwait etc and the nice little line is above us.

Neato. 

*GOSH* does anyone realise PER CAPITA that Qatar if waaaaaaaay ahead of us ?


----------



## Glen48 (17 July 2011)

The crumbling U.S. economy has pushed millions of ordinary Americans to the brink of utter desperation.  When it comes time to choose between being able to survive or breaking the law, many people are choosing to break the law.  These days it seems like Americans will do just about anything for money.  All over the country, there are areas where just about anything that is not bolted down is being stolen.  A lot of people have resorted to making money however they can - selling drugs, selling their bodies, shoplifting, invading homes, taking bribes, running credit card scams and even stealing from their own family members.  You will have a hard time believing some of the things that you are about to read below.  When people have their backs pushed up against the wall, often they find that they are willing to do things that they never imagined that they would do.  Things are getting crazy out there on the streets of America, and as the economy continues to decline things are going to get a lot crazier.

The following are 15 examples that show many Americans have become so desperate that they will do just about anything for money....

#1 In Utah, one unemployed 28 year old man is offering to be "human prey" for hunters for the bargain price of $10,000.  For an additional $2,000, he will let people hunt him down while he is running around naked.

#2 The Huffington Post is reporting that there has been an epidemic of air conditioning thefts all over the United States....

Across the country, in states like Illinois, Texas, Arizona, Georgia and Florida, there have been reports of thieves stealing unsecured air conditioning units weighing as much as 125 pounds.
#3 In Corpus Christi, Texas thieves have actually been breaking into funeral homes in order to steal the embalming fluid.

#4 Even police officers are committing desperate acts these days.  Just check out what one police officer in Chicago is charged with doing....

A Chicago Police officer stole $50,000 from his ailing elderly father to pay off his bills and gambling debts and unsuccessfully attempted to swipe his dad’s retirement savings by impersonating him
#5 Nothing is off limits to thieves these days.  Criminals recently broke into a southwest Atlanta beauty supply store and took off with $30,000 in hair extensions.

#6 In another area of Atlanta, thieves have been breaking down walls and busting bathroom fixtures with sledgehammers in order to get their hands on copper, brass and steel....

Kids in two Atlanta communities won’t have their neighborhood pools to help beat the summer heat, at least for now. Thieves used what is believed to be sledge hammers to bust walls and break fixtures in bathrooms at Adams and South Bend parks to steal copper, brass and steel.
#7 One grandmother in Florida has been accused of trying to sell her newborn grandson for $75,000.

#8 In Antioch, California a total of approximately 300 power poles were recently knocked down by thieves and stripped of their copper wiring.

#9 In Minnesota recently, a mob of teen girls brutally pummeled a mother and her two daughters until they were black and blue.  Apparently the mob of teen girls was enraged over a pair of missing sunglasses.

#10 In Asheville, North Carolina thieves recently took off with 4 metal tables and 16 metal chairs that were sitting outside a pizzeria.

#11 In Florida, thieves have actually been stealing storm drain covers.

#12 In Oregon, thieves recently broke into a Salvation Army community center and stole 3 large air conditioning units.  Now all the people that come to that facility for help and for community programs this summer will be absolutely sweltering.

#13 In the Cleveland area, two young boys that had set up a lemonade stand were robbed in broad daylight.  The crooks got away with approximately 12 dollars.

#14 In Oklahoma, thieves recently broke into a church and stole "arts and crafts supplies meant to help teach bible stories to children".

#15 A 59 year old man from North Carolina named Richard James Verone was so desperate for money that he actually robbed a bank and got caught on purpose so that he could be put in prison and be given free health care.

One day Verone walked into an RBC Bank in North Carolina, handed a clerk a note demanding exactly one dollar and sat down and waited for the police to arrive and arrest him.

Verone has a growth on his chest and two ruptured disks but he does not have any health insurance.  He is hoping that in prison he will get the medical treatment that he needs.

As society continues to unravel, prison is going to look like an appealing option for more and more people.

At least in prison you get fed, you have a roof over your head and they will take care of your medical needs.

For a whole lot of Americans, that would be a major step up.

Have you noticed that the thin veneer of civilization that we all take for granted is starting to disappear?

America is becoming a cold, cruel place and lawlessness is everywhere.

For many more signs that our society is starting to crumble, please see these two articles....

*"18 Signs The Collapse Of Society Is Accelerating"

*"12 More Signs That Society Is Collapsing"

For ages, Americans have looked down on the crime and the depravity that goes on in other areas of the world.

Well, now America has all of the crime and depravity it can handle and it is going to get a lot worse as millions of formerly middle class Americans descend into poverty.

A regular commenter on my website who identifies himself as "El Pollo de Oro" recently described the kind of chaos that he believes is coming to the streets of America....

I live in Philadelphia, a city that used to have a ton of blue-collar manufacturing jobs as well as a great deal of white-collar employment, but the blue-collar manufacturing jobs have disappeared–and on the white-collar side, a college degree isn’t necessarily the ticket to prosperity it once was. Philly has its share of nasty, dangerous ghetto areas as well as ritzy, upscale areas like Rittenhouse Square. But then, there are parts of Mexico City that look like Beverly Hills except that the signs are en espaÃ±ol. A minority of Chilangos are filthy rich, which is what you expect in a Third World country: an uber-rich minority and a poor majority. And when The Banana Republic of America (formerly the USA) signed on for globalism and ignored Ross Perot’s warning, it opted to become a Third World country””which means that you can kiss the American middle class goodbye.

But there will be some growth industries in The Banana Republic of America: kidnapping, drug smuggling, murder for hire, carjacking, armed robbery. And if you want a taste of what life will be like in American cities in the future, just spend a few weeks in Guatemala City, Johannesburg or Caracas””all of which have the type of horrible crime rates that BRA cities can look forward to in the future. Desperate people do desperate things, and hardcore desperation will be in the norm in the BRA. It won’t be fun (unless, of course, being robbed at gunpoint in broad daylight is one’s idea of a good time).

Welcome to life in a rotting, decaying Third World hellhole. Welcome to the collapse of the Roman Empire. Welcome to life in The Banana Republic of America, formerly the USA.
America is changing.  The safe, secure environment that we all used to take for granted is dying.  The number of truly desperate people rises by the day, and many of those desperate people are willing to do just about anything for money.

The United States used to have a thriving middle class, but our economic system has been so manipulated over the decades that now almost all of the economic rewards go to the very top of the food chain.

25 years ago, the wealthiest 12 percent of all Americans controlled 33 percent of all the wealth.  Today, the wealthiest 1 percent of all Americans control 40 percent of all the wealth.

In the United States today, we are actually witnessing the death of the middle class.  Our jobs have been shipped overseas, the banks have enslaved us to debt, the government keeps finding more ways to tax us and the Federal Reserve keeps debasing our currency.

Everywhere you go, despair is in the air.  According to a brand new Reuters/Ipsos poll, 63 percent of Americans believe that the nation is on the wrong track.

Fortunately, many Americans are responding to these signs of trouble by preparing.

One local Oklahoma newspaper recently did an article that profiled a few of the growing number of Americans that are preparing for hard times....

Rod and Lauretta Smith estimate they could survive a year without going to the grocery store.

A large garden on their 5-acre property in south Tulsa produces hundreds of quarts of canned and frozen beans, tomatoes and other vegetables. Chickens provide eggs.

The Smiths are among a small but growing number of people stocking up on food to become more self-reliant in a time marked by natural disasters and economic uncertainty.
The truth is that all of us should try to become less dependent on the system.  The Democrats, the Republicans, the Federal Reserve and the big corporations are not there to help you.  They are not going to come riding to the rescue if you lose your job and your home.

We all need to do what we can to become more independent and to prepare ourselves and our families for the incredibly difficult economic times that are inevitably coming.  Those that have faith that their jobs will always be there or that the government will always take care of them will be deeply disappointed.

The system is dying and society is coming apart.

The only rational thing to do is to prepare for what is coming


----------



## So_Cynical (17 July 2011)

springhill said:


> We are a country the size of a continent, sheer logistics mean we will pollute on a higher per capita basis. We are not the size of Japan, Italy or NZ even. Our population isn't going to double in the next 100 years and with the industrialisation of Africa, China, India to name a few, i am betting others per capita pollution will rise and ours will stay stagnant.




Agreed...also the fact that we have enormous coal reserves means we simply burn more coal than others.



springhill said:


> The reduction target is small, the costs are huge and as i have stated before we will be purchasing tens of billions of dollars per annum overseas for the right to use our own resources, it's insanity. Not to mention the UN tax grab.




As i have posted before...this is a 2 way street, it is widely accepted that forestry offsets are easy and cheap offsets and so therefore will be the first taken up en mass...Australia is the best placed country to take advantage of that...i would think that within 10 or 15 years Australia will be exporting more offsets than it buys.



springhill said:


> Don't worry SC once the Chinese start buying iron ore from the Congo, they will be wetting their pants laughing. That is the benefit of an emerging nation over one that is full of it's self importance. Meanwhile, i am sure that the Congo will be a recipient of our 10% carbon tax donation to the UN, to 'help' third world nations manage their carbon emissions. Geeeee i can't see any money going astray in the African nations, they are all so anti-corruption.




You mite want to have a look at this map of mining developments in the DRC
http://www.equamineral.com/i/cominco-equamineral-map-congo.jpg
Some of those deposits are a 1000 clicks from the coast and notice how there's not actually any rail lines to get ore to the coast...yep the Chinese must be really looking forward to spending billions on rail lines and power, port infrastructure so they can get there hands on that cheap carbon tax free iron ore.



springhill said:


> Humans contribute 3.8% of global carbon in the atmosphere, of that 3.8% we contribute 1.3% and of that 1.3% we want to reduce it by 5%. Do the maths and see how much that will change global atmosphere. It's absurd.




I cant argue against inevitability.



springhill said:


> The US sure as hell aren't going to buy it.
> http://epw.senate.gov/public/index....ecord_id=d5c3c93f-802a-23ad-4f29-fe59494b48a6




Change comes slowly to America..they only just adopted a half decent national health plan, 20 > 30 years after the rest of the world did...they still don't have seat belt and helmet laws in many states..and don't have any realistic federal fuel taxes (The United States federal excise tax on gasoline, as of February 2011, is 4.86  ¢/L)..all this will change, inevitable.



springhill said:


> I am not saying the world will end, but Australia will sure as hell have a sore foot from shooting itself.




The world is changing.


----------



## sails (17 July 2011)

And this from Wiki: List of countries by carbon dioxide emissions

 Australia is at number 15 with a tiny 1.3% andand the highest emitters are China and the US emitting just of 40% of global co2.  I understand the US is not going to price carbon and China is still burning coal and building new coal power stations.  

To reduce our emissions by 5% is like spitting in the wind, and yet Gillard is willing to put people out of jobs (eg talks of closure of one power station already), risk our current reliable power source for renewables that are generally more costly and reliability is questionable, risk the Aussie economy for a spit in the wind and that?

The cure seems many times worse than the disease even IF it does exist.





Figures in the screen shot above was were captured when Wiki had some 2011 figures so you will see some minor differences between the picture below and what's currently on the Wiki page.


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (17 July 2011)

We will all be rooned.

gg


----------



## Julia (17 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> Who was that obnoxiously servile reporter in the Canberra press gallery asking Gillard for advice on what to write?:bowdown: Thank God for The Australian



It was Mark Riley of channel 7, the infamous idiot who challenged Tony Abbott a few months ago about his "**** happens" remark in Afghanistan or Iraq.  Mr Riley was subsequently widely criticised and even the government agreed Mr Abbott's comments had been totally misrepresented by Mark Riley.
In other words, a grub.



RandR said:


> I'm not, would you care to provide some evidence to this claim ?




No, I would not.  It has been thoroughly detailed in various threads on this forum and many other websites.  I can't believe you are unaware of this fundamental fact.
Time to do some investigation and reading perhaps. 



> Acceptance of the science by whom ? By you ?



I can only assume you are being provocative here, rather than simply ignorant in the shift of support for AGW.



Ruby said:


> RandR - do some reading.  There are numerous references to this on the other threads - the Climate Hysteria one and the Carbon Tax Lie one.   It was *admitted by the Labour government* that the 'per capita emission' figures included our exports - which of course makes a complete nonsense of the figures.
> 
> See above.   I gave a reference on one of the other sites to 900 peer reviewed reports written by climate change sceptics.  Also look at the Joanna Nova site.  For goodness sake, inform yourself of the facts before you form your opinions!!



Thank you Ruby.   OK now, Rand?  Hopefully next time you'll have a look at a few facts before making a post.


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2011)

sails said:


> To reduce our emissions by 5% is like spitting in the wind, and yet Gillard is willing to put people out of jobs (eg talks of closure of one power station already), risk our current reliable power source for renewables that are generally more costly and reliability is questionable, risk the Aussie economy for a spit in the wind and that?
> 
> The cure seems many times worse than the disease even IF it does exist.




So we come back to the quuestion...why the hell is she doing this?  Why would she want to destroy our competitive edge in fossil fuels. There can be only one answer. To keep the Greens on side.


----------



## Calliope (17 July 2011)

Julia said:


> It was Mark Riley of channel 7, the infamous idiot who challenged Tony Abbott a few months ago about his "**** happens" remark in Afghanistan or Iraq.  Mr Riley was subsequently widely criticised and even the government agreed Mr Abbott's comments had been totally misrepresented by Mark Riley.
> In other words, a grub.




Thanks Julia. I thought I recognised him.  What a servile clown he is.


----------



## Wysiwyg (17 July 2011)

Calliope said:


> So we come back to the quuestion...why the hell is she doing this?  Why would she want to destroy our competitive edge in fossil fuels. There can be only one answer. To keep the Greens on side.



Isn't it to raise funds for alternative energy research and development?


----------



## noco (17 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> Just to follow this type of thinking thru...if all country's simply waited for others to lead then how would anything happen? funny how this appeals to so many coalition voters...the do nothing approach to government.




Excuse me, wasn't that the purpose of Kyoto, Copenhagen and Cancun desgned  to rope all nations into this crazy deal.

It did not work then and never will now. Do you really want Australia to be left up the creek without a paddle?


----------



## noco (17 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Isn't it to raise funds for alternative energy research and development?




No way mate. They have reached the bottom of the barrell and need more doh,rae me to balance the bugdet. 

How they will do it no one knows. This carbon tax thingy will create a black hole of $4 billion in the first year!!!!!!!!!


----------



## sails (18 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Isn't it to raise funds for alternative energy research and development?




That's what Gillard is telling people.  But when you look at the list below, I don't  know what will be left.  A bit of commsense suggests it will be very little for alternative energy, which imo, should be developed, tried and tested AND affordable BEFORE economists decide to make our current power so expensive that  green energy will seem cheap in comparison.  Here is where some of the carbon tax pie is to be used, as I understand it:


compensation (big chunk of the C/T pie and going to people who are unlikely to change their habits)
 the new government departments needed to admister C/T
 the new fat cat high salaries for each new department
10% for the UN
abatements going off shore to other countries (around $3-4 billion?) for the co2 we don't reduce to the target.

I am not sure if abatements are part of the tax or an extra cost (of course paid by "polluters" and passed on to the taxpayer).  Shouldn't that money be kept here in Australia for development in renewables? But when economists design a solution for a complex climate science issue, it's going to be all about the money and little to do with the climate.

How much do you really think will be left?  And just look at the track record of this government to manage finances, let alone a major tax change like this one.

If this goes through, it will be the mother of all Gillard debacles, imo.  The mismanagement and further debt is inevitable, also imo.

I believe Gillard is only telling half truths out there and is taking us for fools.  Good on the lady who spoke to Gillard in the shopping centre who told Gillard bluntly, "I'm not stupid".


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2011)

I wonder how long it will be before "Stimulus Package #2" is required to invigorate the economy in Australia?

Afterall since the announcement of the carbon tax, Obama debt crisis, Greece bailout, Euro jitters, interest rates forecast to drop and China inflation figures, our piddly little economy has gone from a 2 speed drag car to a 1 speed unicycle.


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2011)

Just some of the Government Departments setup to handle this mess. There will be hundreds more yet to come. 

Australian National Registry of Emissions Units registry-contact@climatechange.gov.au 
Carbon Farming Initiative General enquiries: CFI@climatechange.gov.au
Domestic Offsets Integrity Committee: DOIC@climatechange.gov.au 
Emissions Intensive Trade exposed Industry Assistance EITE@climatechange.gov.au 
Freedom of information co-ordinator (FOI) FOI_contact_officer@climatechange.gov.au 
General Enquiries enquiries@climatechange.gov.au 
Greenhouse and Energy Reporting reporting@climatechange.gov.au 
Greenhouse and Energy Audit audit@climatechange.gov.au 
Government Greenhouse and Energy Reporting (GGER) gger.help@environment.gov.au 
Home Insulation EEHousehold@climatechange.gov.au 
Media Unit media@climatechange.gov.au 
Low Carbon Communities    lowcarboncommunities@climatechange.gov.au 
National Authority for the Clean Development 
Mechanism and Joint Implementation DNA: DNA@climatechange.gov.au
DFP: DFP@climatechange.gov.au 
OSCAR Technical Support oscar@climatechange.gov.au 
Recruitment   recruitment@climatechange.gov.au 
Tax deductions for carbon sink forests carbonsinkforest@climatechange.gov.au 
Tenders dcctenders@climatechange.gov.au

http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about/contact-us.aspx



> While families are bracing themselves for further increases in prices and interest rates, the government is showing no signs of making any similar effort to cut back. Quite the opposite – since 2007 the government has expanded the public service by, on average, 6,000 a year, (that would be 24,000 more public servants)  including *200 in Julia Gillard’s own department *over the next financial year.
> 
> According to the latest annual report, there are *1027 public servants working for the Department of Climate Change alone*. You need a significant workforce when you impose a failed pink batts scheme on Australian households and then have to try and clean it up.  You also need a big workforce when you are preparing to tax Australians even more through a carbon tax.  And how could I forget the *government’s $13.7 million carbon tax ad campaign that is sure to keep all of those people busy.*




http://laborwaste.com.au/committee-...n-program-an-extra-24000-public-service-jobs/

Whne Julia was in Opposition she was dead against using Guvmint (taxpayers) money to advertise to brainwash the populace. It would appear that this is different because that was the old Julia that was in Opposition and not the new Julia that is leading by deception. "There will be no carbon tax under the government I lead", to answer that truthfully means that Julia Gillard is not the leader of the goverment now is she? Bob Brown has the steering wheel and is leading us straight onto the rocks of financial oblivion.


----------



## sails (18 July 2011)

It is truly sickening.  And these deluded people think we are leaving a better world for our grandchildren?

If Gillard takes us down this track, she will ruin Australia in the process, imo.  And for what?  Just so that Gillard gets her compulsive obsessive tax for her own achievement? This tax clearly has little, if anything,  to do with the environment.

No thank you.  I want to leave an Australia that is economically sound for my grand children.  If co2 were such an imminent threat, the US and China would both be doing something about it and Gillard wouldn't be flitting around everywere in a dedicated jet for her purpose.

Abbott might not be perfect, but at least the libs know how to manage the economy.


----------



## Ferret (18 July 2011)

sails said:


> Abbott might not be perfect, but at least the libs know how to manage the economy.




They did in the past, but now?

A "direct action" plan that may even be even worse than the carbon tax.
Ridiculous and unaffordable lengths of paid maternity leave.
Joe Hockey at the helm of the economy.

As the title of the thread says, where the hell are we heading, even when we change government?


----------



## sails (18 July 2011)

Ferret said:


> They did in the past, but now?
> 
> A "direct action" plan that may even be even worse than the carbon tax.
> Ridiculous and unaffordable lengths of paid maternity leave.
> ...





Yes, I agree Ferret. I don't like everything the coalition has on offer.  I think they are divided over co2 and it was interesting listening to Costello yesterday on the Bolt Report on TV.  As he pointed out there was much more public support for carbon pricing a few years ago, but that is falling off now.  So, perhaps the coalition are slowly coming to their senses over Australia's futility of co2.

And the public is waking up too.  With some dire predictions of no rain, etc which haven't wasn't correct, it's no wonder that people are not so sure anymore.

The paid maternity leave seems a lot to be desired.  However, perhaps they will eventually shelve action on co2 until major countries such as US and China all work together.  But I'm not so sure that we actually have a dire problem anyway.

But, even with their imperfections, the coalition would have to be a better choice than the one woman agenda and the tax payer funds she is throwing at her agenda is unbelievable, imo.


----------



## Calliope (18 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Isn't it to raise funds for alternative energy research and development?




The Green's plans for renewable energy are pie in the sky. Germany is the Greenest country in the world and they are the worlds leading players in solar energy. They have expended 90 billion on it. And guess what? Solar delivers 0.50% of their energy needs. 

Instead of wasting money on wind and solar we would do better to invest in Research and Development of efficient renewable energy alternatives.


----------



## springhill (18 July 2011)

Ferret said:


> They did in the past, but now?
> 
> A "direct action" plan that may even be even worse than the carbon tax.
> Ridiculous and unaffordable lengths of paid maternity leave.
> ...




At least the money would stay in Australia, i'd rather they pissed it up against the wall like that than give it to the UN.


----------



## bandicoot76 (18 July 2011)

springhill said:


> At least the money would stay in Australia, i'd rather they pissed it up against the wall like that than give it to the UN.




+1!!!!


----------



## Wysiwyg (18 July 2011)

sails said:


> Here is where some of the carbon tax pie is to be used, as I understand it:
> 
> 
> compensation (big chunk of the C/T pie and going to people who are unlikely to change their habits)
> ...



I agree this scheme is full of holes. No tax and take a different approach like reducing acceptable pollution limits for the so called big polluters. Give the companies reasonable time to implement changes to meet these targets and impose stiff fines if they don't comply.


----------



## Knobby22 (18 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> I agree this scheme is full of holes. No tax and take a different approach like reducing acceptable pollution limits for the so called big polluters. Give them reasonable time to implement changes to meet these targets and fine the living daylights out of them if they don't comply.




I am for action but the carbon tax proposal is obviously committee designed, it tries to please everyone but pleases no one. It will be pretty ineffective while causing damage to the economy. It tries to pick winners and will therfore waste money.

Its pretty bad. Abbotts alternative is also pretty bad being based on using our taxes to buy rights off other countries and also trying to pick winners, quite socialist esp. for a Liberal government. 

Come on Australian politicians, in the past we have been brave and thoughful and able to create innotative ideas that have led the world, how did we end up like this?

(A camel is a horse designed by a committee.)


----------



## sptrawler (18 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> I agree this scheme is full of holes. No tax and take a different approach like reducing acceptable pollution limits for the so called big polluters. Give the companies reasonable time to implement changes to meet these targets and impose stiff fines if they don't comply.




That would be too sensible, also the problem with that idea is the government doesn't get the money to waste on stupid ideas or to pay off past stupid ideas.
With a tax the government gets the proceeds and decides what it will spend the money on.
Like when the petrol tax went on in the late 70's it was supposedly to suport and encourage oil exploration. That idea was soon dropped and it just became another tax.
Lets not forget not only is the carbon tax going to have the flow on to higher cost of living and increase unemployment, there is also an increase in marginal tax rates. 
Fortunately the Australian public has seen through it.
I don't think Bob Brown will be smiling as much after the next election it has been a scary excercise for voters giving the Greens the balance of power.
Small parties and independents will be hammered next election, which only leaves LNP and Labor. The problem will be the LNP will win with such a huge majority it may give them too much confidence and cause the pendalum to swing too far right.
However after the backlash over work choices I think they will tread carefully.
So it is just a matter of patience, the die is already set and there is no way that the government can recover from the debacle of their terms in office.


----------



## sails (18 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> ...Come on Australian politicians, in the past we have been brave and thoughful and able to create innotative ideas that have led the world, how did we end up like this?
> 
> (A camel is a horse designed by a committee.)




Agree Knobby, surely Australia can do better than this. 

I'm not convinced that co2 is an issue, but respect the fact that others are still concerned.  Although, I think John Howard was right yesterday when he said people are moving away from it.

 Maybe we should be looking for scientists to give recommendations rather than economists.  If people are serious about reducing co2, what on earth do economists know about it?  

Government economists would mainly think on the lines of a tax, however, we do have some very clever Aussie scientists that could possibly produce innovations such as improving filters for our power stations.  Why do we have to shut the power stations down and risk our electricity to windmills and solar that apparently haven't been overly successful and come at a high cost?  Some people depend on power just to survive.  What about hospitals?  They need reliable power.

I think Australia is too far advanced to go backwards with power supply.  It would be better surely if something could be done to prevent our power stations putting out co2 to keep those happy who think it is a problem.

And let the government be more careful with the revenue they have than trying to get more just because they seem to be wasteful spenders.


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2011)

I know this has been posted before but I thought I would find out some more information.



> HOMEOWNERS will have to have audits to give their home a "green rating" before it is sold or rented.
> 
> A Federal Government initiative to give each home a star rating - similar to those found on washers and fridges - was to be introduced later this year.
> 
> ...




http://www.adelaidenow.com.au/home-audit-slug-for-green-rating/story-e6frea6u-1226095951403

So I sent the relevant Department an email in regards to this matter.



> Good morning (insert real name here).
> 
> Unfortunately, I am unable to assist you with this enquiry.  Our audit area operates under the National Greenhouse & Energy Reporting legislation.  This does not involve the Green audit.
> 
> ...




So the relevant AUDIT department is now claiming they are not the right Govt department at all and guess what ?????????

They did not attach the link as per email. 

I have tried just about EVERY friggin governemnt GREEN department and they keep flicking me off to some other shclonkfester. SHEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESHHHH !!!


----------



## noco (18 July 2011)

After reading this post from Cory Bernadi, just where is Australia heading?

Just imagine if the USA stops buying from China and China stops building cities, rail lines and roads. Will they need all that coal and iron ore.Mmmmmmmm!!!!


http://www.corybernardi.com/2011/07...m_campaign=Feed:+CoryBernardi+(Cory+Bernardi)


----------



## RandR (18 July 2011)

Julia said:


> No, I would not.  It has been thoroughly detailed in various threads on this forum and many other websites.  I can't believe you are unaware of this fundamental fact.
> Time to do some investigation and reading perhaps.




I can assure you of this fact I was unaware, i havnt read any of the  other threads, you made the statement and i asked the question, that is all.




Julia said:


> I can only assume you are being provocative here, rather than simply ignorant in the shift of support for AGW.




I asked you whose opinion on AGW has changed ? How is that provocative ? Once again ...  you stated the "opinion on the science" for AGW has changed ... i ask who you are referring to ?



Julia said:


> Thank you Ruby.   OK now, Rand?  Hopefully next time you'll have a look at a few facts before making a post.




*FACT:* AGW is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing  http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf

*FACT :* Joanne Nova majored in molecular biology, and has an honours for DNA research for muscular dystrophy. I ask what credible experience does she have in relation to AGW ? Other then an ability to talk about it ? Would you ask a neurologist why your having heart problems ?

*FACT: *China is planning a carbon scheme ... http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/china-plans-carbon-trading-pilot-scheme-20110718-1hl9z.html

*FACT:* http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf

In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate
change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that *three-quarters of
the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that
human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years*, and *none rejected it.*There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that
seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC. They appear motivated in
their arguments by opposition to the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change and
the Kyoto Protocol, which seek urgent action to tackle climate change through a reduction in
greenhouse gas emissions.

*FACT:* Personally im undecided as to whether the method put forward by Julia Gillard is the right one, my feeling is I think there could be a much better system. But I do believe that we need to TRY to do something about our c02 emmissions and pollution in general. I think we need to TRY to rid ourselves of our dependency upon fossil fuels.  If Australia can head in that direction, id be happy.


----------



## hatemondays (18 July 2011)

Fwooooar read to page 9 of this thread and then thought........... I have a question.

Does anyone older than 40 remember how good tomatoes used to taste when we were youngsters. Always reckoned woolies and coles were ripping us off with tasteless produce. Tried buying them at the Vic. Market. Same ****!!!!!!. Then I tried to grow them myself.......but not any old bunnings variety, no no no! I got heirlooms online and got them into my garden. watered and nurtured and finally harvested them. First taste teleported my taste buds straight back to my youth in the 70's. Ahh the 70's when the board of works was fining anyone who had a rainwater tank in their backyard "because they were stealing Water". Oddly enough, went to a farmers market in the recent autumn months and lo and behold managed to snag some heirloom tomatoes. again tasting as exquisite as the ones I grew and reminding me of the days when the green grocers used to sell us just such quality produce.
Now I like to think that I'm moderate in my views so here goes nothing.
I believe the Greens will ultimately come to rule Australia within the next 5 terms of Government.  Why???? Because the dickheads that currently occupy the seat and the coalition have their heads so far up their behinds that its impossible for them to actually serve ( Thats right folks they are elected by us to SERVE us not tell us what they think is good for us). Why is it when any particularly divisive piece of legislation is proposed, the ruling party fails to put it to the people via a referendum, yet theyre all about fining you the voter if you fail to vote at any election.
We in Victoria are the proud owners of a desalination plant that is about to cost us some 34 billion dollars without drawing a single drop of water from it. At a time when our dams are sitting at approx 60% rising and the fine governments of QLD and NSW both announce 2.4 billion dollar solar farm projects to power upwards of 15000 homes each. The above figures are recalled from various newspaper and online articles that I'm frankly too lazy to source. There are enough fact hunters on these forums, I do actually comend you, that will no doubt set me straight if I'm wrong.
Now .....the greens getting real ruling power is gonna hurt......you think kneeling before a dunny bowl is learning humility????? Wait till bob brown is lubing up a cactus to colonically irrigate you with while you kneel there. You wont be growing any of your own vegetables because that stupid  F*&&^%r will convince the population that composting is going to accelerate Global Warming....and furthermore we need to rehabilitate suburbia back to old growth forest.
I want my little girls to have little kids of their own  and not walk around with sperm suits (white coveralls with hoods) on and hiding under umbrellas sheilding from the uv's that would burn them to a crisp. I want the glaciers to survive for at least another 50 yrs.....so I might be able to finally afford to visit and marvel at their wonder.
Socialism/ communism is a hugely idealistic world ......if only it truly worked. I would happily live in a modest 3 bedroom home that the community helped build if the prime minister lived in the same conditions... you know a collective where the individual is but a reflection of the whole. But be buggered if I'm gonna eat lips and assholes while those pigs are eating strawberries.
I do everything I can to mitigate my "footprint". I'm genuinely concerned about societies dependance on fossil fuels and scratch my head in bemusement that we, humanity, can put a man on the moon (no conspiracist rebuttals please its semantics) but we cant make solar, wind, hydro more economically sustainable. For those that are interested, look up Bloombox on youtube and observe keenly over the next few decades how successive governments through fossil fuel energy companies intense lobbying, manage to shelve such folly and keep their constituents not only maintaining their high energy consumption bills but in fact raise those costs.
I come to the aussie stock forum to learn about the next big thing in stocks hopefully learn from far smarter investors  than myself. I promise if through the forum , no if I generally score a stock of the ilk of FMG, I will buy and dissappear to a hundred hectares by the coast, live out the rest of my days in my solar wind powered humpy, eating strawberries and surfing pr0n on the interweb.
Till then I will tend my suburban vegie patch, work my 50 hours plus a week to service my 500k mortgage and wait for the Victorian government to come knocking, wanting to charge me a levy for having installed rainwater tanks, because our dams are now full and they would prefer I use and pay for "their" water to save reinforcing the dam walls that are bursting under the constituents water wise habits

Stepping off soap box now


----------



## So_Cynical (18 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> Just some of the Government Departments setup to handle this mess. There will be hundreds more yet to come.
> 
> Australian National Registry of Emissions Units registry-contact@climatechange.gov.au
> Carbon Farming Initiative General enquiries: CFI@climatechange.gov.au
> ...






			
				http://www.climatechange.gov.au/about.aspx said:
			
		

> About us
> 
> The Department of Climate Change was *established on 3 December 2007* as part of the Prime Minister and Cabinet Portfolio. On 8 March, as a result of Machinery of Government changes, a new Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency was established.




So not exactly set up to "handle this mess" more set up to honour our commitments under Kyoto and the original CPRS.

Kyoto stipulates that there must be a Govt body to run the GHG reduction show and oversee Kyoto compliance etc.



			
				http://www.climatechange.gov.au/nationalauthority.aspx said:
			
		

> What is Australia’s National Authority for the CDM and JI?
> 
> *The internationally agreed rules for the CDM and JI establish that Parties participating in the CDM and JI must establish a Designated National Authority (DNA) and Designated Focal Point (DFP) to approve private entities’ participation in CDM and JI projects respectively*.
> 
> ...




But of course you already knew that because its been common knowledge for 15 years...since Kyoto.


----------



## RandR (18 July 2011)

hatemondays said:


> Stepping off soap box now




Its too big to qoute in entirety ... but awesome post


----------



## bandicoot76 (18 July 2011)

RandR said:


> I can assure you of this fact I was unaware, i havnt read any of the  other threads, you made the statement and i asked the question, that is all.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




yawn!..... been covered before... suggest you take julia's (not juliars) advice and read some of the posts on these threads to get up to speed


----------



## trainspotter (18 July 2011)

*STRETCH* ...... have covered this before *YAWN*  DYOR........ *ROLLOVER* ...... game on.

No worries So_Cynical .. will respond once I wake up.


----------



## Happy (19 July 2011)

RandR said:


> ... Personally im undecided as to whether the method put forward by Julia Gillard is the right one, my feeling is I think there could be a much better system. But I do believe that we need to TRY to do something about our c02 emmissions and pollution in general. I think we need to TRY to rid ourselves of our dependency upon fossil fuels.  If Australia can head in that direction, id be happy.




I know that everything in essence has impact on what happens on our planet.

Rock – can absorb heat, can disintegrate and as dust can obscure light and Sunrays too
Most living organisms produce CO2 even O2 producing trees at night use oxygen.

Coal, Crude Oil are of finite quantities and longer we make it to last the better for future generations.
Should we be able to replace them with other sources of energy the better.

Problem is that for some stupid reason, we are fixated with growth (it is Ponzy thinking), sooner we replace Growth with “Sustainable Existence” the better.

If our planet can comfortably support 10 or 20 billion of people or whatever, OK we can grow to get there before we have to change our ways if it is only 1, 2 or 5 billion we have to assign specific numbers to every country and get there sooner or later.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2011)

RandR said:


> I can assure you of this fact I was unaware, i havnt read any of the  other threads, you made the statement and i asked the question, that is all.
> 
> I asked you whose opinion on AGW has changed ? How is that provocative ? Once again ...  you stated the "opinion on the science" for AGW has changed ... i ask who you are referring to ?
> 
> *FACT:* AGW is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing  http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf




*FACT *1974 the very same scientists were saying we were heading to an Ice Age http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html



> *FACT :* Joanne Nova majored in molecular biology, and has an honours for DNA research for muscular dystrophy. I ask what credible experience does she have in relation to AGW ? Other then an ability to talk about it ? Would you ask a neurologist why your having heart problems ?




*FACT* Did not seem to stop Al Gore from spreading the "science" of it all whilst his carbon trading company made billions.



> *FACT: *China is planning a carbon scheme ... http://www.brisbanetimes.com.au/environment/climate-change/china-plans-carbon-trading-pilot-scheme-20110718-1hl9z.html




*FACT:* The Chinese are introducing a "pilot scheme" for a few cities only. The report *gave no timetable or other specifics *on how the system would work.




> http://royalsociety.org/uploadedFiles/Royal_Society_Content/News_and_Issues/Science_Issues/Climate_change/climate_facts_and_fictions.pdf
> 
> In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate
> change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that *three-quarters of
> ...






> Last week I reported on "Glaciergate", the scandal which has forced the IPCC's top officials, led by Dr Pachauri, to disown a claim originating from an Indian glaciologist, Dr Syed Husnain, that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035. What has made this reckless claim in the IPCC's 2007 report even more embarrassing was the fact that Dr Husnain, as we revealed, was then employed by Dr Pachauri's own Delhi-based Energy and Resources Institute (Teri). His baseless scaremongering about the Himalayas helped to win Teri a share in two lucrative research contracts, one funded by the EU.




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ngate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html

You mean the IPCC that has been discredited as when they claimed that 2,500 "climate scientists" all agreed that the earth was warming and it turned out that it was actually 12 people in total and that one of them was a British "green activist" who occasionally writes as a freelance for The Guardian and The Independent. 



> *FACT:* Personally im undecided as to whether the method put forward by Julia Gillard is the right one, my feeling is I think there could be a much better system. But I do believe that we need to TRY to do something about our c02 emmissions and pollution in general. I think we need to TRY to rid ourselves of our dependency upon fossil fuels.  If Australia can head in that direction, id be happy.




*FACT:* I agree with you on this matter. Australia is using more wind and solar than ever before. We are heading in this direction already. DYOR


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2011)

So_Cynical said:


> So not exactly set up to "handle this mess" more set up to honour our commitments under Kyoto and the original CPRS.
> 
> Kyoto stipulates that there must be a Govt body to run the GHG reduction show and oversee Kyoto compliance etc.
> 
> But of course you already knew that because its been common knowledge for 15 years...since Kyoto.




My apologies So_Cynical for my poor choice of words. I should have been aiming at more of the abundance of the quango departments set up to coordinate this mess rather than have my intentions misread into that I was implying that the departments had been recently setup to handle this salmagundi we are going to find ourselves in once we get a carbon tax thrust upon us (which by according to the polls that 67% of people do not want)

Hope that has cleared it up for you and me both.


----------



## bassmanpete (19 July 2011)

trainspotter said:


> *FACT *1974 the very same scientists were saying we were heading to an Ice Age http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html




A few scientists (definitely not the same scientists) forecast global cooling based on a slight cooling from the mid 40s to late 60s but most dismissed this view and were still forecasting global warming. I'm old enough to remember the cooling hypothesis being pooh poohed back then.

This argument (they were forecasting another ice age in the '70s) crops up time & time again these days but it was never taken seriously by the majority of climate scientists even back then.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2011)

bassmanpete said:


> A few scientists (definitely not the same scientists) forecast global cooling based on a slight cooling from the mid 40s to late 60s but most dismissed this view and were still forecasting global warming. I'm old enough to remember the cooling hypothesis being pooh poohed back then.
> 
> This argument (they were forecasting another ice age in the '70s) crops up time & time again these days but it was never taken seriously by the majority of climate scientists even back then.




That's not how I remember it. There was a real scare about us all freezing out @sses off!


----------



## sails (19 July 2011)

According to this article, trading carbon credits is not going to make any difference to co2 in the atmosphere.  I have asked Derty to comment on one of the other threads.

This article is discussing "carbon offsets" (aka "carbon credits", "abatements" - as I understand it but still learning).  This paragraph is found near the end of the article by Ben Eltham:

"What we do know is that many Australian banks are already gearing up to arbitrage and speculate on carbon markets, including the Macquarie Group. We also know that Australia’s own emissions will actually increase. As economist Frank Jotzo pointed out this week, A*ustralian domestic emissions will rise by 12 per cent to 2020 on 2000 levels, with all of our greenhouse gas "reductions" coming from the purchase of international credits*. "​
http://newmatilda.com/2011/07/14/black-hole-labors-carbon-tax

I have heard figures of around $3-4 BILLION per annum could be the cost of abatements and yet it appears it does not alter atmospheric co2.  If this is so, surely this sort of money should be kept in Australia to research alternative power sources instead of HOPING alternative power will magically appear out of nowhere and be fully reliable, affordable and readily available.

IMO, no power stations should be shut down until alternative energy is proven.  But that's not how this government works.

They seem to shoot from the hip, look around to see if there's any damage and, if so, shoot again.


----------



## bassmanpete (19 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> That's not how I remember it. There was a real scare about us all freezing out @sses off!




Well that's the popular press for you, isn't it? They employ 'science reporters' who know sweet fa about science but can whip up scary headlines that sell newspapers.


----------



## wayneL (19 July 2011)

bassmanpete said:


> Well that's the popular press for you, isn't it? They employ 'science reporters' who know sweet fa about science but can whip up scary headlines that sell newspapers.




Yes.


----------



## Ruby (19 July 2011)

RandR said:


> *FACT:* AGW is not disputed by any scientific body of national or international standing  http://nationalacademies.org/onpi/06072005.pdf




Oh really?  You clearly haven't followed any of the myriad links in the threads I referred you to.



RandR said:


> *FACT :* Joanne Nova majored in molecular biology, and has an honours for DNA research for muscular dystrophy. I ask what credible experience does she have in relation to AGW ? Other then an ability to talk about it ? Would you ask a neurologist why your having heart problems ?




Have you bothered to go to her site?



RandR said:


> In the journal Science in 2004, Oreskes published the results of a survey of 928 papers on climate
> change published in peer-reviewed journals between 1993 and 2003. She found that *three-quarters of
> the papers either explicitly or implicitly accepted the view expressed in the IPCC 2001 report that
> human activities have had a major impact on climate change in the last 50 years*, and *none rejected it.*There are some individuals and organisations, some of which are funded by the US oil industry, that
> seek to undermine the science of climate change and the work of the IPCC.




2004????  That is hardly current.  That was the era of Al Gore!!  Predictions made then have since be proven to be wrong by* empirical observation* .   Oh, and perhaps you don't know........... the IPCC as been discredited.

As I said before......... do some reading.   Get up to date.


----------



## bassmanpete (19 July 2011)

Ruby said:


> 2004????  That is hardly current.  That was the era of Al Gore!!  Predictions made then have since be proven to be wrong by* empirical observation* .   Oh, and perhaps you don't know........... the IPCC as been discredited.




But it's ok for multiple others to go back to the 1974 forecasts of global cooling? Just to make it clear, 'multiple others' refers to the internet in general and not this particular forum.

By whom is the IPCC discredited? Besides those who want to see it discredited.


----------



## trainspotter (19 July 2011)

bassmanpete said:


> But it's ok for multiple others to go back to the 1974 forecasts of global cooling? Just to make it clear, 'multiple others' refers to the internet in general and not this particular forum.
> 
> By whom is the IPCC discredited? Besides those who want to see it discredited.




Ermmmmmmm the IPCC discredited themsleves old chap. They claimed by the year 2035 that all the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt. It was found out their "science" was blamed on a propagandist pamphlet from the WWF.

I shall repeat myself here just for comedy purposes only:-



> Last week I reported on "Glaciergate", the scandal which has forced the IPCC's top officials, led by Dr Pachauri, to disown a claim originating from an Indian glaciologist, Dr Syed Husnain, that the Himalayan glaciers could vanish by 2035. What has made this reckless claim in the IPCC's 2007 report even more embarrassing was the fact that Dr Husnain, as we revealed, was then employed by Dr Pachauri's own Delhi-based Energy and Resources Institute (Teri). His baseless scaremongering about the Himalayas *helped to win Teri a share in two lucrative research contracts, one funded by the EU.*
> The source the IPCC cited as its "scientific" authority for this claim, however (as Dr North first reported on his EU Referendum blog),* was a propagandist pamphlet published in 2005 by the WWF, the environmentalist pressure group, citing a magazine interview with Dr Husnain six years earlier.*




http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/...ngate-new-evidence-of-the-IPCCs-failures.html

It is a well known fact old bean. We have covered this previoulsy in this thread. 

And just because I can I will repeat myself once more:-



> Since the 1940s the mean global temperature has *dropped about 2.7 ° F.* Although that figure is at best an estimate, it is supported by other convincing data. When Climatologist George J. Kukla of Columbia University's Lamont-Doherty Geological Observatory and his wife Helena analyzed satellite weather data for the Northern Hemisphere, they found that the area of the ice and snow cover had suddenly increased by 12% in 1971 and the increase has persisted ever since.




Read more: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,944914,00.html#ixzz1SYAgkrOU

So you see that a Climatologist has proven it was cooling from 1940 til the middle 1970s.

An incovenient truth perhaps?  The data is there for all to see.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (19 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> These "massive" profits are not really massive when viewed in the context of the scale of their operations. They are only really in line with any large industry experiencing temporary increase in demand.




How about we view them in the context of how much profit they make? Take BHP, 12.7Bn profit last year apparently - and this is after paying people ridiculous salaries for driving trucks.

I'll say again, these sorts of profits come at the cost of our national wealth. It boggles the mind that they are taxed so loosely.



wayneL said:


> 1/ As a reward for risk. It should be pointed out that not all miners are successful, many fail spectacularly. Without such potential rewards, why would anyone take such huge risks.




If they don't want to take them, then don't take them - as if we should care. Once the rest of the world will run out of resources they will be paying us gold on par with iron and coal.



wayneL said:


> 2/ The land (and therefore the minerals contained therein) belongs to "the crown" as distinct from the populace of Australia. Every single Australian is not The Crown. You'd better brush up on these concepts before indulging in purportedly erudite assertions.




I don't really care about any "crown" - as far as I'm concerned, they belong to every Australian citizen.




wayneL said:


> why should those not meritous of benefit to so off the back of the sweat of others.




These mysterious "others" you refer to....would they happen to be the same ones who's compatriots in other countries get paid orders of magnitude less for the same job?



wayneL said:


> Also, in case you haven't noticed, there is a significant trickle down effect. Many Australians have indeed benefited to a greater or lesser extent.




Rubbish. 



wayneL said:


> Not necessarily. It depends what is done with the proceeds.




Too bad the large majority of them goes overseas.



wayneL said:


> Can you please justify why you think miners don't pay enough tax, facts and figures will do rather than ideological and unsubstantiated assertions.




Ideology accounts for everything. If you want figures, just take a look at their profits. Again - what do these profits come from? The exploitation of our national wealth. You may as well be putting your money into an envelope and shipping it away to some other country.




moXJO said:


> From post 160
> 
> 
> Was it that friken hard to scroll down from the post




So the study is basically one huge fallacy of ridiculously stupid assumptions that renewable energy will explicitly not be used in any part of the process nor for the electricity used to refuel the battery? Haha, good luck with that nonsense 




Smurf1976 said:


> As for the environmental impact, it's not zero but I live not far from the world's third largest electrolytic zinc smelter and I've had a few visits to an aluminium smeter at various times. Historically there were certainly pollution problems, but I wouldn't be too concerned about what they're doing now as it's pretty clean. Minimal discharge to atmosphere, the water is almost good enough to drink (not quite, but it's almost there) and the solid waste issues can be dealt with pretty easily if it's done properly. The days of ocean dumping are (thankfully) long gone... The main impact? Well the zinc smelter uses 131,000 kilowatts running 24/7/365 and aluminium smelters use a lot more than that...




This is the other thing though; do you think these environmental measures taken to ensure the plant runs relatively clean cost nothing or that they were done willingly?

The fact is, you do not need to deal with these sorts of environmental hassles in countries like China and India (at least for now...), and so it will always be somehow more expensive here.

Although I'm not saying other things can't make up for it to some extent like increased productivity initiatives, but then again these could be implemented elsewhere just as well?


Now, since people have linked to nuts talking about the carbon tax, I will link to someone who actually has some intelligence:
http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-07-15/paul-keating-attacks-abbott/2795514



I will additionally ask; Those who complain that 5% of our emissions are irrelevant - do you then support 100% of our emissions cut by 2020 and a total ban on coal exports to prevent others from burning coal? And before anyone points out they could get it from elsewhere in theory, it should be apparent this would cause significant supply disruptions for a prolonged period until production elsewhere in the world catches up, and even then it will be far more expensive persuading big polluters to look elsewhere for energy.


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 July 2011)

My turn. 



Starcraftmazter said:


> How about we view them in the context of how much profit they make? Take BHP, 12.7Bn profit last year apparently - and this is after paying people ridiculous salaries for driving trucks.



Instead of being envious of people earning higher wages, why not get a job driving one of those big trucks? 


> If they don't want to take them, then don't take them - as if we should care. Once the rest of the world will run out of resources they will be paying us gold on par with iron and coal.



Paying gold to whom? The people living in caves and tents? Where does most of Australia source payment for work in the meantime, I.T. professional jobs? :


> I don't really care about any "crown" - as far as I'm concerned, they belong to every Australian citizen.



Out with the pick and shovel then. Buy a lease and start digging. 


> Rubbish.



Don't forget to sort out the recyclables.  


> Too bad the large majority of them goes overseas.



That job driving one of them haul trucks must be getting inviting hey?


> Ideology accounts for everything. If you want figures, just take a look at their profits. Again - what do these profits come from? The exploitation of our national wealth. You may as well be putting your money into an envelope and shipping it away to some other country.



It's where the demand is now. If there was no demand for your profession would you be in a job?  


> The fact is, you do not need to deal with these sorts of environmental hassles in countries like China and India (at least for now...), and so it will always be somehow more expensive here.



And hence the silliness of taxing our in comparison negligible output.


----------



## Sdajii (20 July 2011)

Julia's followers?


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> .....




After that reply, sorry I just can't take you seriously anymore.

PM me your postal address and I'll send you one of these, free of charge.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 July 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Instead of being envious of people earning higher wages, why not get a job driving one of those big trucks?




Many reasons. I don't find it fun, I don't find it intellectually stimulating, I think it's a complete waste of productive effort (ie. you're not really adding anything to the economy in the long-term).

I also think it's a bad decision to work for any mining company, since when the mining boom busts, all mining related jobs will be at very high risk, and a lot are likely to be lost.



Wysiwyg said:


> Paying gold to whom? The people living in caves and tents? Where does most of Australia source payment for work in the meantime, I.T. professional jobs? :




Sure? Call me crazy, but we should be more like Germany and Japan, and export something real to the world (be they goods or services), instead of stuff out of holes. We should export something which we can always produce, something which does not rely so much on natural resources. Industries which will be just as strong if not stronger generations into the future.



Wysiwyg said:


> It's where the demand is now. If there was no demand for your profession would you be in a job?




What is your point?



Wysiwyg said:


> And hence the silliness of taxing our in comparison negligible output.




Too narrow of a view.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (20 July 2011)

Hi Starcraftmazter,

Welcome to the forum! It's great to see younger people around the boards.

I wanted to ask you a couple of things and have a chat if you don't mind. I'm a busy guy and unfortunately don't get to these boards as much as I would like, but I read some of your comments in the early part of this thread and felt that your discussion was not well addressed. There were a few people who seemed to try and attack the person rather than discuss the points that you were making.

Unfortunately I can't promise that I will be a regular responder in this thread, so if you are amenable I'm quite happy to take this into a different thread so we don't have to troll though various responses to find each other's discussion.

A little bit about me...I work in the Finance industry and have done so for much of my adult life. I have a bit of knowledge about things that therefore may be outside of your sphere of experience, which I think you might benefit from. (I hope that didn't sound condescending). I too worry about the future that we will leave to our children and grandchildren, so I suppose you could say that I have green leanings. IMO what the Green party lacks is economic credentials. (Not that any political party is a shining example of how to run an economy because of political expediency and point scoring). 

There were a number of topics that I wanted to chat about, but lets start with this quote you made below, which I don't think was answered well by other responders. 



Starcraftmazter said:


> One argument which I liked (this was before GFC to put in context), is that the worst depression which could potentially be brought on by serious action on global warming is much better than the worst depression and to some extent the extermination of a vast proportion of species that would be brought on by global warming in the event of inadequate action.
> 
> Personally, as bad as it may make things *(though I to a large extent question just how bad it would be)*, I do not fear the idea of creating a better world, even if it will be found to have been unnecessary for the explicit purpose of addressing global warming, nobody can argue that it is pointless to create a better world, nor that sacrifice isn't justifiable in doing so.




Obviously you've considered the effect of a carbon price and made the determination that it's introduction, balanced against the possible outcome of doing nothing, is something that is desireable.  Is this correct?  I don't want to paraphrase and put words in your mouth.

I think the critical point I'd like to raise is the bit I've bolded and wondered how much consideration or analysis you'd given this?

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 July 2011)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Welcome to the forum! It's great to see younger people around the boards.




You sound pretty reasonable, hello.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Obviously you've considered the effect of a carbon price and made the determination that it's introduction, balanced against the possible outcome of doing nothing, is something that is desireable.  Is this correct?  I don't want to paraphrase and put words in your mouth.
> 
> I think the critical point I'd like to raise is the bit I've bolded and wondered how much consideration or analysis you'd given this?




Not the ETS (carbon "tax") specifically, but action in general. And in general, you could make some sort of a scale like this:


Significant Action / Significant Economic Impact <===================> Little Action / Little Economic Impact

And I would place Gillard's plan somewhere on the further right side of such a scale. Although I am quite happy with it (it turned out far better than I imagined it would be), and the reality for me at least is that it will have more or less zero economic impact.

If you go much further towards significant action, it could have a big impact on economy, but I would imagine the economic impacts would not be significant if we put our minds to it. There is no reason that we cannot create as many green jobs as the dirty jobs we would lose for instance. We could educate tens of thousands of scientists to research thorium, various fusion, geothermal, and other forms of energy. Then sell it to the world to solve energy problems.

We could research how to take co2 out of the atmosphere in massive quantities (which is pretty much necessary at this stage if we want to prevent a partial mass extinction event), we could research how to take all the plastic and other crap out of the world's oceans. We could build massive ships to clean the oceans perhaps and have other countries pay us billions to do it.

We could create massive floating cities on the oceans in order to relocate people in low-lying regions of the world which are going under the sea level.

The potential for green technologies is damn well near infinite, yet there is has been no money being put into this until now (and we can thank the Greens for the 10Bn fund), and instead of looking forward to the future we have been digging **** out of holes and exporting it.

There is infinite potential here, we simply need to readjust our economy from houses and holes to scientific research and productive endeavors. Fortunately this is very easy to do - simply tax miners progressively more until most of them stop business, and gradually build up the green economy with the tax revenue. Then when commodity demand collapses, we will be no worse off (if we move quickly enough).


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> You sound pretty reasonable, hello.
> 
> Not the ETS (carbon "tax") specifically, but action in general. And in general, you could make some sort of a scale like this:
> 
> ...




Sorry to snip your post to just the above...don't get me wrong, those are topics worthy of discussion, but I think we need to take smaller steps.

Two things...

You've said that your assessment of the carbon tax is that it will be on the far right of that scale? As in little economic effect? Ok I can accept that this might be your viewpoint, although I disagree with your assessment. Below is a chart showing our Australia's current GDP or Gross Domestic Product. Note that the technical defination of a recession is two consecutive periods of negative GDP. So *technically* we are not in a recession...yet. This is before the introduction of the carbon tax, which will have negative impacts that will impact on all area's of our economy. The government is claiming that they anticipate that the budget will be back to surplus in 2013. In light of the below graph and the as yet unquantifiable impact of the ETS (or any other green initiative that will have economic impacts) can you please give me your opinion as to why *now* is the appropriate time in which to introduce such a scheme?




Second thing is that you said the reality for *me* at least. Just checking what you mean by this. Do you mean that you as an individual are unlikley to be impacted by economic rationalisation due to your current personal circumstances? Are you familiar with the phrase "let them eat cake?"

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Knobby22 (20 July 2011)

There is the argument Sir O, that the decrease in spending (and corresponding increase in savings) is caused by the scaremongering that is being out out regarding the carbon tax combined with the poor international problems increasing the gloom.

The negative GDP therfore is caused by people not spending, not loss of jobs etc. that normally portend a recession.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 July 2011)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> In light of the below graph and the as yet unquantifiable impact of the ETS (or any other green initiative that will have economic impacts) can you please give me your opinion as to why *now* is the appropriate time in which to introduce such a scheme?




In my opinion the appropriate time was decades ago. But having failed for so long, I guess we will have to settle with now.

Global warming does not care about our economy nor will it wait. The longer we put off action, the worse the economic effects of global warming themselves will be. You think one quarter of slightly negative GDP growth is bad, what will our GDP be like when hundreds of million of refuges flog to our country? When our farming produce dives? And the commodities boom will be long over by then...

I don't think our economy is going to get any better in the coming years, so I don't really see why we should delay any environmental action.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Second thing is that you said the reality for *me* at least. Just checking what you mean by this. Do you mean that you as an individual are unlikley to be impacted by economic rationalisation due to your current personal circumstances? Are you familiar with the phrase "let them eat cake?"




I meant that I do not see it having any notable impact.




Knobby22 said:


> There is the argument Sir O, that the decrease in spending (and corresponding increase in savings) is caused by the scaremongering that is being out out regarding the carbon tax combined with the poor international problems increasing the gloom..




Or maybe the process of deleveraging, brought on by a ridiculous private debt to gdp ratio and now falling house prices?


----------



## sptrawler (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> You sound pretty reasonable, hello.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




We could build massive ships and clean the oceans and have other countries pay us billions to do it.
What are you on, we don't have shipbuilding facilities and if we did we would be taxing them because they would be polluters. We couldn't compete with China, Korea and Japan building ships before the tax so why would we after. 
So to build your ship to clean the oceans we dig $#!* out of holes in the ground and send it to Asia so they can build it, then we can pay them unlike your senario, where they pay us.
Also your water world floating metropolis. Where is all the $#!* going to come from to build that floating monster, again from our holes in the ground. Also if you think we will be building it your dreaming, the furnaces to make the steel for the floating metropolis won't be built here. So again we will have to pay to get a seat on your floating island.
Getting to your educating tens of thousands of scientists who is going to pay for it when you have decimated your taxpayer base.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> What are you on, we don't have shipbuilding facilities and if we did we would be taxing them because they would be polluters. We couldn't compete with China, Korea and Japan building ships before the tax so why would we after.




I don't really like your attitude, there should be no limits to what we can achieve if there is political will to do it. Indeed, the only thing which we lack is political will.



sptrawler said:


> Also your water world floating metropolis. Where is all the $#!* going to come from to build that floating monster, again from our holes in the ground.




Precisely correct - which is why we shouldn't be shipping it off to other countries, but hogging it for ourselves.




sptrawler said:


> Getting to your educating tens of thousands of scientists who is going to pay for it when you have decimated your taxpayer base.




It will be done with the tax revenues of mining.


----------



## wayneL (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> It will be done with the tax revenues of mining.




There won't be any mining.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (20 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> There is the argument Sir O, that the decrease in spending (and corresponding increase in savings) is caused by the scaremongering that is being out out regarding the carbon tax combined with the poor international problems increasing the gloom.
> 
> The negative GDP therfore is caused by people not spending, not loss of jobs etc. that normally portend a recession.




Knobby,

A few things...

1) GDP is an aggregate measure which is determined in three ways.. Production approach, Expenditure Approach and Income Approach.  The three methodologies should all theoretically return the same or similar value and the figure produced by the ABS is a combination of all three approaches. Simply a lack of expediture internal to our economy would not account for the result we are seeing in the GDP figures.

2) What does a lack of spending (and consumption) lead to?  If no one is buying my products I would have to undertake activities designed to reduce my fixed expenses, such as *laying off staff*, because to hold too much money in my stock piles will hurt the viability of my business. People not spending = loss of jobs.  

3) I don't mean to be rude but I am trying to understand what Starcraftmazter determines is important in his decsion making...not you.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## Starcraftmazter (20 July 2011)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> 3) I don't mean to be rude but I am trying to understand what Starcraftmazter determines is important in his decsion making...not you.




The very very long term. And then when you think of this, think _longer_


----------



## pixel (20 July 2011)

*A simple  lesson*

I  recently asked my neighbours little girl what she wanted to be when she grows  up. She said  she wanted to be Prime Minister some day.

Both of her  parents, Labor supporters, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were  Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do? '

She replied,  'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed  with pride.

'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have  to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house  and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll  take you over to the grocery store where some homeless guys hang out, and you  can give them the $50 to use toward food and a new house. '

She thought  that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked,  'Why don't the homeless guys come over and do the work, and you can just pay  them the $50?' 
I  said, 'Welcome to the Liberal Party.'

Her  parents still aren't speaking to me.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> In my opinion the appropriate time was decades ago. But having failed for so long, I guess we will have to settle with now.




So, sooner the better in your opinion? I can respect that although it's a very black and white view and doesn't take into consideration some subtle shades of grey that exist. I'll explain what I mean in more detail below.



> Global warming does not care about our economy nor will it wait.




I don't disagree but does that mean that we shouldn't care about the short-term impacts of our economic decisions? The government certainly cares about that sort of stuff. It's in the charter of the Reserve Bank..here's a quote...

_*‘It is the duty of the Reserve Bank Board, within the limits of its powers, to ensure that the monetary and banking policy of the Bank is directed to the greatest advantage of the people of Australia and that the powers of the Bank ... are exercised in such a manner as, in the opinion of the Reserve Bank Board, will best contribute to: 

a.the stability of the currency of Australia; 
b.the maintenance of full employment in Australia; and 
c.the economic prosperity and welfare of the people of Australia.’ 
*_

Why do you think this is written into the charter of the RBA?  I know this is somewhat of a leading question, but I want to try and figure out how you came to your viewpoint.



> The longer we put off action, the worse the economic effects of global warming themselves will be.



 We as in Australia, or we as in the world? Unfortunately we don't seem to have the power to force other countries to do the same as us.







> I don't think our economy is going to get any better in the coming years, so I don't really see why we should delay any environmental action.




See I find this comment interesting. (Well apart from the scaremongering tactics that is.... which is why I removed them...we're just talking here, I'm not trying to convert or brainwash you...please treat me with the same respect.) What is the cause for your pessimistic attitude towards the future? You seem to be saying that we are destined for decades of economic depression, rather than the fairly normal reaction after a major corrective cycle in our economy. If you had a choice between acting on an environmental initiative now and causing significant damage to our economy, or waiting a few years to make the same environmental initiative and not cause the damage...which would you do?

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## sptrawler (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I don't really like your attitude, there should be no limits to what we can achieve if there is political will to do it. Indeed, the only thing which we lack is political will.
> It doesn't matter if there is political will, if it is cheaper to make something overseas because power is cheaper, labour is cheaper, taxing is less and the market place is bigger. Then it will be made overseas, where do you think our solar panels or our geothermal generators will be made, you guessed it overseas. Even the steel which we produce here will be relocated overseas because it will be cheaper.
> In the 60's and 70's we manufactured stoves, fridges, t.v's actually just about everything here, but it was all shut down because it was cheaper to build overseas. The only things we really have left is what is left of the steel industry, aluminium smelting industry  and a small car manufacturing industry. These will incurr more costs through power and tax increases and will ultimatelly shut them down.
> Why do you think if we come up with a new technology, it will be produced here why not produce it overseas where it will be cheaper then send it back to Australia. Makes more sense.
> ...




Your last statement indicated you wanted to leave the minerals in the ground or at least reduce the recovery of them. So your tax revenue will look a bit dismal along with your unemployed workers.
Like I said you are obviously taking the p#$$$.


----------



## DB008 (20 July 2011)

'Pixel', that is a classic!


----------



## Ruby (20 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> We should export something which we can always produce, something which does not rely so much on natural resources.




What cave have you been living in?   *ALL *manufactured products rely at some point on natural resources.


----------



## IFocus (20 July 2011)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Hi Starcraftmazter,
> 
> Welcome to the forum! It's great to see younger people around the boards.
> 
> ...




Sir O you stand out for discussion on the tread rather than dishing out person affronts nice to see an adult around for a change.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> There is the argument Sir O, that the decrease in spending (and corresponding increase in savings) is caused by the scaremongering that is being out out regarding the carbon tax combined with the poor international problems increasing the gloom.
> 
> The negative GDP therfore is caused by people not spending, not loss of jobs etc. that normally portend a recession.



From what I'm seeing and talking to people in the training industry, employers etc it seems that anyone who is in a trade and who isn't a "permanent" employee would be well advised to keep their eyes open for a new job. Apprentices with group training companies especially are being put off at a shocking rate at the moment due to employers simply having no work.


----------



## Happy (20 July 2011)

I noticed this from the customer point of view.

Not long ago I had to wait 3 weeks to 3 months to have job done.

Now it is like: can we come this week?


----------



## bandicoot76 (20 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> From what I'm seeing and talking to people in the training industry, employers etc it seems that anyone who is in a trade and who isn't a "permanent" employee would be well advised to keep their eyes open for a new job. Apprentices with group training companies especially are being put off at a shocking rate at the moment due to employers simply having no work.




i agree totally, as a small business owner in the engineering/manufacturing industry i have seen the effect of both the 'mining tax' and 'carbon tax' on a personal level. AND IT HAS BEEN ALL NEGATIVE ON MY BUSINESS!!!! 

it started with alot of my mine based contracts being delayed/mothballed/cancelled when the 'mining super profits' tax was being floated... that hurt but was manageable

now since the carbon tax has been forced on us i have also had alot of my agriculture (& mining again) based clients cancel/delay/mothball contracts on me! the chickenfeed bits-n-sh*ts work i get from the general public that i am left with barely pays the basic business costs. 

THOSE BULLSH*T ARTISTS WHO SAY THESE TAXES WONT HAVE A FLOW ON EFFECT ARE LIVING IN DREAMLAND! (OR HAVE A CUSHY GOVERNMENT/CORPORATE JOB) TO THEM I SAY A BIG "F*CK OFF!"


----------



## Wysiwyg (20 July 2011)

> 'Why don't the homeless guys come over and do the work, and you can just pay them the $50?'



 That is irrational, imaginative, wishful, delusional and well worded nonsense. :

p.s. I thought the story was a good laugh too.


----------



## Julia (20 July 2011)

pixel said:


> .......................... You can come over to my house  and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll  take you over to the grocery store where some homeless guys hang out, and you  can give them the $50 to use toward food and a new house. '
> 
> She thought  that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked,  'Why don't the homeless guys come over and do the work, and you can just pay  them the $50?' [/FONT][/COLOR][/COLOR][/SIZE][/FONT]
> I  said, 'Welcome to the Liberal Party.'
> ...



Gorgeous, Pixel.


----------



## Smurf1976 (20 July 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> i agree totally, as a small business owner in the engineering/manufacturing industry i have seen the effect of both the 'mining tax' and 'carbon tax' on a personal level. AND IT HAS BEEN ALL NEGATIVE ON MY BUSINESS!!!!



That's what the Greens forget about. They've always been quick to proclaim that big company x only employs y number of workers at a mine or factory. But they completely forget about all the flow-on effects to businesses such as yours.

There wouldn't be many people in the trades or engineering contracting businesses who haven't, either directly or indirectly, done work for a major mining or manufacturing company at some time. The flow-on effects are truly massive and greatly underestimated by the general public and especially the Greens.

In recent times I've received junk mail advertising the services of two builders and an electrician. A year or two ago you couldn't get anyone no matter how hard you tried but now it is clearly a different situation.


----------



## Julia (20 July 2011)

bandicoot76 said:


> i agree totally, as a small business owner in the engineering/manufacturing industry i have seen the effect of both the 'mining tax' and 'carbon tax' on a personal level. AND IT HAS BEEN ALL NEGATIVE ON MY BUSINESS!!!!
> 
> it started with alot of my mine based contracts being delayed/mothballed/cancelled when the 'mining super profits' tax was being floated... that hurt but was manageable
> 
> ...



 Bandicoot, as I understand it, you won't - as a small business owner - be up for any compensation for the carbon tax either, will you?
Just another example of their utter lack of understanding about how business works, not surprising I suppose, given the background of most of them.


----------



## bandicoot76 (20 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Bandicoot, as I understand it, you won't - as a small business owner - be up for any compensation for the carbon tax either, will you?
> Just another example of their utter lack of understanding about how business works, not surprising I suppose, given the background of most of them.




no, no compensation for us, its gone from being a decent profitable business to barely making ends meet in the past 122months... then when you add the actual tax costs to this situation it wont be viable to continue (unless things pick up big time!)

i am at the point where i am already considering shutting up shop and going back to work as an employee... way less stress and similar $$$ just for driving a haulpack in 'the mines'!


----------



## artist (20 July 2011)

*Lessons of life*

I recently asked my *friends' *little girl what she wanted to be when she grows up. She said she wanted to be *President  *some day.

Both of her parents, *liberal Democrats*, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were *President *what would be the first thing you would do? '

She replied, 'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'

Her parents beamed *[-]*.

'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have to wait until you're *President *to do that. You can come over to my house and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll take you over to the grocery store where *the *homeless guys hang out, and you can give them the $50 to use toward food and a new house. '

She thought that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked, 'Why don't the homeless guys come over and do the work, and you can just pay them the $50?' 
I said, 'Welcome to the *Republican Party*.'

*[...]*Her parents still aren't speaking to me. 




There, fixed it for you Pixel:  http://whpmotorsports.com/blog/blog.html - possibly not the original source, but posted in April 2010


----------



## cynic (21 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> That's what the *Greens* forget about. They've always been quick to proclaim that big company x only employs y number of workers at a mine or factory. But they *completely forget about all the flow-on effects to businesses *such as yours.
> 
> There wouldn't be many people in the trades or engineering contracting businesses who haven't, either directly or indirectly, done work for a major mining or manufacturing company at some time. The flow-on effects are truly massive and greatly *underestimated by* the general public and *especially the Greens*.




What makes you think that the Greens forgot and/or underestimated these flow-on effects? Do you really believe that these effects weren't their primary intention?

I have always been of the opinion that, in order for any policy/practice (social, environmental etc.) to be sustainable, it must also be economically sustainable, otherwise it will promptly fail. 

I believe that the Greens are intelligent enough to know this, hence I question the veracity of their expressed intentions and am inclined to conclude that their true motivation is more closely aligned to the economic and political changes that implementation of these purportedly "friendly" policies will undoubtedly precipitate.


----------



## Logique (21 July 2011)

pixel said:


> I  recently asked my neighbours little girl what she wanted to be when she grows  up. She said  she wanted to be Prime Minister some day. Both of her  parents, Labor supporters, were standing there, so I asked her, 'If you were  Prime Minister what would be the first thing you would do? '
> She replied,  'I'd give food and houses to all the homeless people.'
> Her parents beamed  with pride.
> 'Wow...what a worthy goal.' I told her, 'But you don't have  to wait until you're Prime Minister to do that. You can come over to my house  and mow the lawn, pull weeds, and sweep my yard, and I'll pay you $50. Then I'll  take you over to the grocery store where some homeless guys hang out, and you  can give them the $50 to use toward food and a new house. '
> She thought  that over for a few seconds, then she looked me straight in the eye and asked,  'Why don't the homeless guys come over and do the work, and you can just pay  them the $50?' I  said, 'Welcome to the Liberal Party.' Her  parents still aren't speaking to me.



That is a very telling story Pixel.


----------



## noco (21 July 2011)

This looney Green/Labor socialist left government looks like exploting the media problem in the UK.

This will be there lever to introduce privacy laws preventing the media from criticizing the government. They would love to put a muzzle on what the media can say or not say.

This is the way communism works. Scare the hell out of the media by threats of leagl action, heavy fines and even imprisonment.

Be afraid. Be very afraid of socialism.


----------



## trainspotter (21 July 2011)

Go Sir O. Love your work and wordplay.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 July 2011)

pixel said:


> 'Welcome to the Liberal Party.




Would this be the same liberal party that introduced a lot of middle income welfare? Hmmmm 

Sure must be nice to ignore facts & truth, and spew propaganda.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> I don't disagree but does that mean that we shouldn't care about the short-term impacts of our economic decisions?




Only so far as to allow us to take responsible long-term economic decisions.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> The government certainly cares about that sort of stuff. It's in the charter of the Reserve Bank..here's a quote...
> 
> Why do you think this is written into the charter of the RBA?  I know this is somewhat of a leading question, but I want to try and figure out how you came to your viewpoint.




To confuse people into thinking that we need to be part of the global banking cartel.

If the RBA _really_ abided by those principles, they wouldn't have let the mother of all ponzi schemes that is our housing bubble build up - let alone to the stage it has.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> We as in Australia, or we as in the world? Unfortunately we don't seem to have the power to force other countries to do the same as us.




Australia. Any sort of an argument along the lines of, "we can't do it because nobody else does it", has the obvious flaw that everyone can go around in a circlejerk saying that forever while nobody does anything - someone has to stand up and do what is right. That is apart from the fact that the world's more advanced countries are already using an ETS or are planning to implement one.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> What is the cause for your pessimistic attitude towards the future? You seem to be saying that we are destined for decades of economic depression, rather than the fairly normal reaction after a major corrective cycle in our economy.




Many reasons. Overpopulation, resource & energy depletion & complete lack of recycling of said resources, unsustainable nature of the world's economy, lack of freshwater, global warming, increasing world propagation of cancer causing substances in food, rampant corruption everywhere, worldwide banking cartel wanting to make everyone it's slaves, probably suppression of technologies which can solve at least some of these problems by governments, stupid people who don't even bother finishing highschool (in Australia's case), magnitude of resources and money wasted on useless crap as opposed to scientific research 

The whole world is turning into ****. Take bees for instance, the world's bee population has drastically fallen in the last few years, which has enormous ramifications for all plantation in the planet, including farming. Worse yet, nobody seems to have a good idea as to why this is happening. How often is this threat to all life on Earth discussed on TV? Newspapers? All I see is BUY BUY BUY CONSUME CONSUME CONSUME (so I don't watch TV anymore). This planet is full of stupid people and problems, so how can anyone wonder why people who take an interest in what's really going on have a pessimistic view of the future?

More specifically for Australia, our housing bubble, our soon to be over mining boom, and the state of government finances once **** hits the fan, let alone other economic impacts on our country. Oh and of course, our politicians (all major parties equally so) are extremely short-sighted and throw money at people to get elected, rather than enacting long-term policies which benefit the country. Leaders from major parties aren't even capable of answering questions directly. The exception is of course, the Greens.

The two best summaries of at the very least the economic problems we face are here:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnXZzx9pAmQ (30 parts I think)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU



Sir Osisofliver said:


> If you had a choice between acting on an environmental initiative now and causing significant damage to our economy, or waiting a few years to make the same environmental initiative and not cause the damage...which would you do?




First of all, I would like to point out the inherit flaw in your assumption that action you take years in the future will have the same effect as action you take now, to combat a problem which gets worse every year.

Second of all, I would like to point out again, that I do not believe that our economy will be any better at any point in time in the foreseeable future.

If you disregard the above - or even if you disregard the second as it can be said to be an opinion rather than fact, the obvious answer is yes. But the first is not an opinion, it is a reality of the challenges we face.



sptrawler said:


> Your last statement indicated you wanted to leave the minerals in the ground or at least reduce the recovery of them. So your tax revenue will look a bit dismal along with your unemployed workers.




Not all at once - over time.



Ruby said:


> What cave have you been living in?   *ALL *manufactured products rely at some point on natural resources.




First of all, there is a significant difference. For instance, if we made CPUs (just to give an example, I am not suggesting we start competing with Intel and AMD), the amount of money obtained from exporting them, far exceeds the amount of money the raw materials used to make them cost.

Second of all, services require little if any export of natural resources.


----------



## wayneL (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Would this be the same liberal party that introduced a lot of middle income welfare? Hmmmm




Well this is a point we can agree on. Middle class welfare is just pork barreling pure and simple, an anathema to liberal economics. pffft.

Bad show from the Liberals IMO!

<ETA> and plays right into the Fabian agenda.


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2011)

But starcraftmazter, to even make c.p.u's requires a silicon smelter which again is quite energy intensive. Therefore our raw material will be exported to be processed in another country then we will have to import the processed silicon to make the c.p.u's.
It isn't that I disagree with your ideology it is just there has to be a better way of reaching the required end result than giving the government more money to waste.
A far better way ,I feel, would be for the government to impose limits rather than just imposing a tax with no measureable outcomes.
Also as is being reported in the papers, China is adopting a carbon reduction programme, why wouldn't we be looking at and adopting a common approach?
The governments approach basically is just to tax polluters and then add the tax to consolidated revenue, I know at the moment they are going to compensate people and use some to develop new technologies. But as has been seen in the past, by both sides of government , the original intent is soon forgotten and the government expands to absorb the increased tax revenue.
Then after it is proven to be a failure they go, oh well we will try something else, but the tax remains as well as the increase in marginal tax.
I may appear cynical but after living through several governments there is little to be confident about when it comes to believing that this is nothing other than a tax grab. 
Why wouldn't the government instead of saying we are going to tax the miners, tell them unless they put in state of the art steel mills, they can't mine the ore?
Then tell the Bauxite miners unless they put in renewable energy supplies to their aluminium smelters they can't mine the bauxite.
Tell the miners unless they put in renewable power stations in remote regional towns of W.A and Queensland they can't mine there.
They wont do any of the above because it's not about actual outcomes it is about the tax they will collect. 
Then when they prove, as we all know, that renewables can't supply base load and the gas shortfall is going to necessitate going back to coal the taxes stay and the outcome, as far as renewables, was just another blip in our journey.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> But starcraftmazter, to even make c.p.u's






> just to give an example, I am not suggesting we start competing with Intel and AMD






> just to give an example, I am not suggesting






> just to give an example




I have no problem with any tax grabs so long as the revenues are used well. From what I've seen, the revenues from the ETS with fixed pricing will be used well enough, so I'm happy.

A lot of what you suggest is good in principle, but to have a free market economy, you need to have an efficient free market. The best way to use the free market to combat global warming is to put a price on carbon emissions, pure and simple. This has been shown in various government studies, and this is why various countries are using this method to move forward with action.

If we had a centrally planned economy we could easier build renewable power plants everywhere and do a lot of other things, but this is simply not the case. We must only act within the constraints of our economic system. And to have some sort of a wishy washy in-between is in my opinion inefficient.

The NBN is a good example. The free market will never in a million years build it, and for it to work a lot of crap has to happen, for instance, compensation for the private companies effected, a stand-down of the ACCC, etc. Then a repeat of all current problems when NBN is privatised.

This is the inherit inefficiency of the free-market economy, there is not point ignoring it.


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I have no problem with any tax grabs so long as the revenues are used well. From what I've seen, the revenues from the ETS with fixed pricing will be used well enough, so I'm happy.
> 
> A lot of what you suggest is good in principle, but to have a free market economy, you need to have an efficient free market. The best way to use the free market to combat global warming is to put a price on carbon emissions, pure and simple. This has been shown in various government studies, and this is why various countries are using this method to move forward with action.
> 
> ...




The problem with your free market principal is the companies have no reason to invest in renewable or less polluting technology. They just keep passing on the extra cost untill the market can no longer bear it then close or relocate offshore.
This has been shown on numerous occasions in the past with our steelmaking in W.A, S.A and N.S.W most of our manufacturing even Solahart hot water systems moved offshore LOL.
When the multinationals start closing down Australian operations, the government drops it's bundle and folds like a pack of cards.
There is nothing in the proposed tax to encourage companies to invest in non profitable equipment or R & D.
Actually it is interesting you bring up the N.B.N you sound very much like another member, NBNmyths, he was well versed and very pro government also. LOL


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The problem with your free market principal is the companies have no reason to invest in renewable or less polluting technology. They just keep passing on the extra cost untill the market can no longer bear it then close or relocate offshore.




Actually that's contrary to how the free market works. Someone will figure out a way to eliminate the extra cost, their products will be cheaper, they will get more customers, and the companies unable or unwilling to adapt will die out. The reason for people to try and figure it out is to expand their business.



sptrawler said:


> There is nothing in the proposed tax to encourage companies to invest in non profitable equipment or R & D.




It's not meant to do so directly, but through market forces.



sptrawler said:


> Actually it is interesting you bring up the N.B.N you sound very much like another member, NBNmyths, he was well versed and very pro government also. LOL




I'm not pro government, I'm pro-doing the obviously good thing.


----------



## Sir Osisofliver (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I don't disagree but does that mean that we shouldn't care about the short-term impacts of our economic decisions?
> 
> Only so far as to allow us to take responsible long-term economic decisions.



 Um did you mean to say long-term environmental or economic in answer to my question? I'm kinda guessing from your brief answer to the above and I think I'm guessing wrong.  Would you mind elaborating on your answer?



> Why do you think this is written into the charter of the RBA?  I know this is somewhat of a leading question, but I want to try and figure out how you came to your viewpoint.
> 
> To confuse people into thinking that we need to be part of the global banking cartel.
> 
> If the RBA _really_ abided by those principles, they wouldn't have let the mother of all ponzi schemes that is our housing bubble build up - let alone to the stage it has.




That's...um....an interesting (if somewhat jaded and conspiracy theorist) response.  It's all just a massive con perpetuated by every Reserve Bank in the world? I don't mean to ridicule your response, but it is just a bit silly really.

What I was looking for is some appreciation of those subtle shades of grey I referred to before.  With a stable and prosperous economy there are a number of advantages that our country has. *Without* a stable and prosperous economy what happens? Well for a start...higher levels of unemployment. We enjoy quite low levels of unemployment in Australia. We know that high levels of unemployment creates two major things.... An increasing class divide between the rich and poor...and increasing levels of crime (as desperation drives people to do things just to survive). Probably *not* something we want to have happen as it's a characteristic of a third world country. 

Also, just for the sake of making sure you understand....the RBA raises interest rates in order to effect a level of control in the Housing market. (I say level of control because they can only influence, they can't send the RBA special forces out in jackboots with machine guns to stop people purchasing property). This is the mechanism that they use to price some households out of the market (IE, reduce demand and so slow the price "bubble" you refer to)...you are aware that this is what they have been doing for a while now? What else would you have them do?



> We as in Australia, or we as in the world? Unfortunately we don't seem to have the power to force other countries to do the same as us.
> 
> Australia. Any sort of an argument along the lines of, "we can't do it because nobody else does it", has the obvious flaw that everyone can go around in a circlejerk saying that forever while nobody does anything - someone has to stand up and do what is right. That is apart from the fact that the world's more advanced countries are already using an ETS or are planning to implement one.




Ah no that wasn't going to be my discussion point. I agree it's a pointless and circular argument to say they aren't doing it why should we. What I'd like to discuss is that since other's have gone before us, surely we can learn from their example? 

We can look at what others have done and make an assessment whether it is successful at achieving the goals it was set out to do? Current data that I have seen is that we cannot make this claim. The ETS system appears to be easily rorted. I have to ask myself the question... *Is an ETS scheme the only solution to the goals and aims of a greener cleaner tommorrow?*  Sptrawler for example kinda made my point.  If the objective is to create a greener outcome there are other ways to achieve this rather than through a taxation mechanism. If I was a cynic I'd say that Governments like it simply beacuse it increases the tax base, rather then the results the scheme achieves.







> What is the cause for your pessimistic attitude towards the future?
> 
> Many reasons. Overpopulation, resource & energy depletion & complete lack of recycling of said resources, unsustainable nature of the world's economy, lack of freshwater, global warming, increasing world propagation of cancer causing substances in food, rampant corruption everywhere, worldwide banking cartel wanting to make everyone it's slaves, probably suppression of technologies which can solve at least some of these problems by governments, stupid people who don't even bother finishing highschool (in Australia's case), magnitude of resources and money wasted on useless crap as opposed to scientific research
> 
> The whole world is turning into ****. This planet is full of stupid people and problems, so how can anyone wonder why people who take an interest in what's really going on have a pessimistic view of the future?




Wow! Stop the world I want to get off eh?  So just so I'm clear how would you compare all of the above in your generation, to someone your age in say the early 1930's? Someone in your family (perhaps multiple people) have been killed in WWI. It was the war to end all wars. There is still a crapload of international tension around the world because of it and a breakdown in international trade. Black Tuesday has occurred and they had to put up nets to stop stockbrokers who jumped out the windows harming people on the streets below. There is no end in sight for what they are calling the Great Depression. If you are *damn lucky* you have a job because 29% of the population are without one. If you're really lucky you're living in a house, not a shack that has been hastily built in fashionable ghetto style with enough room for a garden to grow vegetables. Crime is *rampant* and murders are on the increase and suicides are commonplace. The police and government are seen as corrupt and incompetent.

I'm not shaking my cane and saying you kids have it easy I had to walk five miles to school in the snow uphill both ways. I merely wish to point out that your current assessment of our conditions may not be as bleak as it first appears.  







> More specifically for Australia, our housing bubble,




Again with the housing bubble? *sigh* Joe tends to frown on discussions of property that get a bit out of hand and vocal.  Perhaps let me just that the Housing market, unlike the share market, is a) not a homogenous one, b) weak efficiency, c) is driven by specific drivers, and finally d) I have no sympathy for people who don't do their homework and overcapitalize on a highly leveraged investment. As far as I am concerned there is no "bubble" that you speak of. There is just the normal effects of the developing property cycle being loudly and hysterically shouted by the media to anyone who will listen. 







> our soon to be over mining boom,




Um how soon? Within five years? Ten years? Fifty years?  







> and the state of government finances once **** hits the fan, let alone other economic impacts on our country. Oh and of course, our politicians (all major parties equally so) are extremely short-sighted and throw money at people to get elected, rather than enacting long-term policies which benefit the country. Leaders from major parties aren't even capable of answering questions directly. The exception is of course, the Greens.
> 
> The two best summaries of at the very least the economic problems we face are here:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnXZzx9pAmQ (30 parts I think)
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU



 I did point out I was a busy guy right? You really think I'm going to sit through 30 parts of a *you-tube* video? Or a 45 minute documentary? Perhaps if I get time I'll see what they have to say...but um..yeah I didn't watch them...do I have to?







> If you had a choice between acting on an environmental initiative now and causing significant damage to our economy, or waiting a few years to make the same environmental initiative and not cause the damage...which would you do?
> 
> First of all, I would like to point out the inherit flaw in your assumption that action you take years in the future will have the same effect as action you take now, to combat a problem which gets worse every year.




Um actually that's your projection. I was going to point out that the effect was likely to be greater in the future simply because there would be greater funds available with which to address the issues.







> Second of all, I would like to point out again, that I do not believe that our economy will be any better at any point in time in the foreseeable future.
> 
> If you disregard the above - or even if you disregard the second as it can be said to be an opinion rather than fact, the obvious answer is yes. But the first is not an opinion, it is a reality of the challenges we face.




I don't disregard your response at all. I don't agree with it but I don't disregard it. You've said that you have a long-term focus, but cannot seem to appreciate that people are just people, no matter what time they are living in. 

They aren't stupid people, they are just people, who by and large all have the same aims and goals...that for the vast majority of them they wish that things stayed the same and they were left in peace to live.  

When you start thinking that the world is full of stupid people that don't agree with you it's perhaps not too far a stretch to start thinking that perhaps the world is full of the wrong kind of people. Wasteful, horrible and nasty people who aren't doing as they should...perhaps we should line them up against the wall, but don't give them a cigarette...that would be polluting.

Cheers

Sir O


----------



## sptrawler (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I have no problem with any tax grabs so long as the revenues are used well. From what I've seen, the revenues from the ETS with fixed pricing will be used well enough, so I'm happy.
> 
> A lot of what you suggest is good in principle, but to have a free market economy, you need to have an efficient free market. The best way to use the free market to combat global warming is to put a price on carbon emissions, pure and simple. This has been shown in various government studies, and this is why various countries are using this method to move forward with action.
> 
> ...




Actually it is a bit strange that you use the free market economy to support your ETS. Yet you recommend an isolationary market principle when you discuss selling our raw materials.
What more efficient way of bringing about improvements in emmissions and energy consumption than force the companies to use their "super profits" to do it. 
Adding another layer of bureaucracy and taxation has never brought about a good outcome in the past. 
We have had it constanly rammed down our throats that goverment intervention or direct participation reduces efficiency.
I guess you must work for one of the departments that is going to benefit from the introduction and administration. Unfortunately I think the next election will tend to prove whether you have the support of the general population
Also your comment that you have no problem with a tax grab as long as it is used well. When applied to this government it would be a whole new experience for them to spend money well IMO.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> First of all, there is a significant difference. For instance, if we made CPUs (just to give an example, I am not suggesting we start competing with Intel and AMD), the amount of money obtained from exporting them, far exceeds the amount of money the raw materials used to make them cost.



My main objection to the carbon tax is that it directly encourages the export of raw materials an import of manufactured goods.

Of course we should focus our exports more toward processed and manufactured items rather than the "dig it up and sell it" approach we have today. Doing so would add massive value and is far more sustainable. Just one problem though - it would send our electricity use and CO2 emissions through the roof.

Victoria and especially Tasmania followed this course of economic development through much of the 20th Century. The full story is complex, but the Greens weren't exactly keen on those big brown coal plants (Vic) and hydro dams (Tas) that provided the energy. Indeed it was this issue that broght the Greens into being in the first place.


----------



## Logique (22 July 2011)

The Greens moaned for years (as an argument against the woodchip industry) that  Tasmanian woodchips should be processed and value-added domestically. 

So Gunns said ok and went to an industrial area at Bell Bay with plans for a paper mill. The Greens response - not on your life. Surprising nobody.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (24 July 2011)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> Um did you mean to say long-term environmental or economic in answer to my question? I'm kinda guessing from your brief answer to the above and I think I'm guessing wrong.  Would you mind elaborating on your answer?




Basically whatever long-term action you need to take, only consider the short-term consequences once it is decided what broad set of goals you need to achieve in the long-term. Once you have decided on that, you can think about the best way to achieve them with regard to short-term consequences - but such as to not compromise what you will achieve in the long-term.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> That's...um....an interesting (if somewhat jaded and conspiracy theorist) response.  It's all just a massive con perpetuated by every Reserve Bank in the world? I don't mean to ridicule your response, but it is just a bit silly really.




What exactly is silly? Over the last 20 years we have had a massive credit bubble build up, especially in housing. The RBA exists (among other reasons) to prevent that sort of thing, as it will always have a very negative outcome for the economy. Yet overtime they lowered interest rates to allow for more and more borrowing. They failed miserably. Call it however you like, but there is nothing theoretical about this.




Sir Osisofliver said:


> What I was looking for is some appreciation of those subtle shades of grey I referred to before.  With a stable and prosperous economy there are a number of advantages that our country has. *Without* a stable and prosperous economy what happens? Well for a start...higher levels of unemployment. We enjoy quite low levels of unemployment in Australia. We know that high levels of unemployment creates two major things.... An increasing class divide between the rich and poor...and increasing levels of crime (as desperation drives people to do things just to survive). Probably *not* something we want to have happen as it's a characteristic of a third world country.




This is all nice and well, but I fail to see what it has to do with what I said, other than it will _not_ be like you described once the credit bubble bursts. So are you agreeing with me that our central bank (along with politicians and regulators) have helped create the worst possible scenario for us?



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Also, just for the sake of making sure you understand....the RBA raises interest rates in order to effect a level of control in the Housing market. (I say level of control because they can only influence, they can't send the RBA special forces out in jackboots with machine guns to stop people purchasing property). This is the mechanism that they use to price some households out of the market (IE, reduce demand and so slow the price "bubble" you refer to)...you are aware that this is what they have been doing for a while now? What else would you have them do?




Actually no;







From about 1987, they have failed completely. What they _should_ have done, is raise the interest rates so high, as to eliminate all excess demand until such time that houses stopped rising in price past inflation. This would force people to actually save money to buy houses and not speculate over them.

The governments are also to blame of house for toxic housing policies, FHOG type nonsense, failing to legislate a minimum deposit of around 50%. Regulators are also to blame for allowing banks to lend so much and to be so highly leveraged on home loans. Overall there is a lot of blame to go around to everyone who has influence in our economic policies and directions.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> We can look at what others have done and make an assessment whether it is successful at achieving the goals it was set out to do? Current data that I have seen is that we cannot make this claim. The ETS system appears to be easily rorted. I have to ask myself the question... *Is an ETS scheme the only solution to the goals and aims of a greener cleaner tommorrow?*  Sptrawler for example kinda made my point.  If the objective is to create a greener outcome there are other ways to achieve this rather than through a taxation mechanism. If I was a cynic I'd say that Governments like it simply beacuse it increases the tax base, rather then the results the scheme achieves.




There may well be better ways, and it's fine to critisise the government for not doing a better job, but since the ETS is all we have, and the opposition will not give us even that, I fail to see what alternative there is, politically.

I'm also wondering what you refer to when you say it can be easily rorted?




Sir Osisofliver said:


> Wow! Stop the world I want to get off eh?  So just so I'm clear how would you compare all of the above in your generation, to someone your age in say the early 1930's? Someone in your family (perhaps multiple people) have been killed in WWI. It was the war to end all wars. There is still a crapload of international tension around the world because of it and a breakdown in international trade. Black Tuesday has occurred and they had to put up nets to stop stockbrokers who jumped out the windows harming people on the streets below. There is no end in sight for what they are calling the Great Depression. If you are *damn lucky* you have a job because 29% of the population are without one. If you're really lucky you're living in a house, not a shack that has been hastily built in fashionable ghetto style with enough room for a garden to grow vegetables. Crime is *rampant* and murders are on the increase and suicides are commonplace. The police and government are seen as corrupt and incompetent.




That is completely irrelevant in the face of the problems I outlined in my view. It was a very temporary (in the scale of human history) phenomena, and there were no underlying problems with the world which were unfixable that prevented a recovery. 

Fast forward to today, we have a massive amount of titanic problems which are absolutely not fixable (at least not without completely changing the way the world works, and getting rid of all politicians...and as if that will happen). If you think the great depression was bad, then I suggest that the future is much much worse.

It may not look it now because we are only at the start, but just wait....

Even if you look at the world now, most people are slaves to the banking cartel through interest. At least there was no slavery during the great depression?




Sir Osisofliver said:


> Again with the housing bubble? *sigh* Joe tends to frown on discussions of property that get a bit out of hand and vocal.  Perhaps let me just that the Housing market, unlike the share market, is a) not a homogenous one, b) weak efficiency, c) is driven by specific drivers, and finally d) I have no sympathy for people who don't do their homework and overcapitalize on a highly leveraged investment. As far as I am concerned there is no "bubble" that you speak of. There is just the normal effects of the developing property cycle being loudly and hysterically shouted by the media to anyone who will listen.




Well we can disagree on that I suppose, until the housing market crashes :



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Um how soon? Within five years? Ten years? Fifty years?




I would say before 4 are up, but probably sooner.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> I did point out I was a busy guy right? You really think I'm going to sit through 30 parts of a *you-tube* video? Or a 45 minute documentary? Perhaps if I get time I'll see what they have to say...but um..yeah I didn't watch them...do I have to?




No, just posted them in case you're curious or don't understand why our (and everyone else's) economy is bound to catastrophically collapse.



Sir Osisofliver said:


> Um actually that's your projection. I was going to point out that the effect was likely to be greater in the future simply because there would be greater funds available with which to address the issues.




Greater funds? How exactly? The entire developed world is in massive debt, we have a large, aging population and healthcare and welfare costs will shoot through the roof. How exactly is any country, on a macroeconomic scale, going to have more funds in the future, when a record low amount of people will be working for every one person in retirement?



Sir Osisofliver said:


> I don't disregard your response at all. I don't agree with it but I don't disregard it. You've said that you have a long-term focus, but cannot seem to appreciate that people are just people, no matter what time they are living in.
> 
> They aren't stupid people, they are just people, who by and large all have the same aims and goals...that for the vast majority of them they wish that things stayed the same and they were left in peace to live.




Well too bad...they need to wake up from their daydream, because things are going to get a whole lot worse, and significant sacrifices need to be made in the present for there to even be a future.


(Continued below due to post size limited)


----------



## Starcraftmazter (24 July 2011)

Sir Osisofliver said:


> When you start thinking that the world is full of stupid people that don't agree with you it's perhaps not too far a stretch to start thinking that perhaps the world is full of the wrong kind of people. Wasteful, horrible and nasty people who aren't doing as they should...perhaps we should line them up against the wall, but don't give them a cigarette...that would be polluting.




I don't think the world is full of stupid people because they don't agree with me, rather because they choose to buy all sorts of stupid useless crap, overpriced houses, max out their credit cards, know nothing about politics or economics or science, or anything worth a damn - yet they have the audacity to have opinions and vote based on them, on political, economic and scientific matters. Largely what you said. I don't like them, not one bit. Worse yet, they raise children without the capability to teach them how to properly navigate the world, as to have a good idea regarding everything that is going on, and make correct decisions for themselves and future generations.

You only need to look at the present carton "tax" and it's effect on polling. I bet a lot of people don't like it simply because they have the _impression_ that it will somehow cost them money - meaning they are unwilling to pay even a little tiny bit more for environmental action, but rather waste their money in ipads and other crap.

Disgusting.




sptrawler said:


> Actually it is a bit strange that you use the free market economy to support your ETS. Yet you recommend an isolationary market principle when you discuss selling our raw materials.




One is a realisation of the best course of action with regards to what we have to work with, and the other is an idea of how things should work in the best possible way (if I could change the way the world works).



sptrawler said:


> What more efficient way of bringing about improvements in emmissions and energy consumption than force the companies to use their "super profits" to do it.




This is pretty much what the ETS does? It takes away money from companies and puts it into research and improvements (among other things).



sptrawler said:


> Adding another layer of bureaucracy and taxation has never brought about a good outcome in the past.
> We have had it constanly rammed down our throats that goverment intervention or direct participation reduces efficiency.




Maybe, but the free market will never without government intervention do what is right or responsible. There is no way to make companies do what is right, it must indeed be rammed down their throats.



sptrawler said:


> I guess you must work for one of the departments that is going to benefit from the introduction and administration.




No, I work for a private company which has nothing to do with the government, please stop with the stupid assumptions.



sptrawler said:


> Also your comment that you have no problem with a tax grab as long as it is used well. When applied to this government it would be a whole new experience for them to spend money well IMO.




They won't do it worse than companies (yacht parties with expensive wine) or people (cloths, ipads, restaurants, McDonalds)  - that's for sure.




Smurf1976 said:


> Of course we should focus our exports more toward processed and manufactured items rather than the "dig it up and sell it" approach we have today. Doing so would add massive value and is far more sustainable. Just one problem though - it would send our electricity use and CO2 emissions through the roof.




Not if this was done with clean energy!


----------



## Smurf1976 (24 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Not if this was done with clean energy!



Indeed that is true.

However, in order to do it with clean energy we need (1) a source of clean energy and (2) industry to use that energy.

If we are going to switch production to clean energy then that will not be acheived by first shutting down production and then trying to build a clean energy system. That is the wrong way around. What we need to do is retain and expand production, then build the clean energy system. 

The problem is, the carbon tax / ETS has the primary effect of permanently relocating production rather than actually advancing viable clean energy. It never achieves an outcome of production using clean energy.

The problem is one of timing. 50 years from now we're not going to be relying predominantly on coal (or gas) for electricity that is pretty certain. But there's no sense whatsoever in using this as a reason to relocate key industeies offshore - what, exactly, does that achieve for the environment?


----------



## sails (24 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> ...The problem is, the carbon tax / ETS has the primary effect of permanently relocating production rather than actually advancing viable clean energy. It never achieves an outcome of production using clean energy.
> 
> The problem is one of timing. 50 years from now we're not going to be relying predominantly on coal (or gas) for electricity that is pretty certain. But there's no sense whatsoever in using this as a reason to relocate key industeies offshore - what, exactly, does that achieve for the environment?





I agree, Smurf.  But I think this is something that hasn't been thought about yet.  As  have said before, if this carbon tax is another ill thought out policy, it is going to be the mother of all labor debacles - and Gillard's in particular.

There is nothing about carbon tax that makes any sense for the Australian environment or the economy, imo.


----------



## RandR (25 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Indeed that is true.
> 
> However, in order to do it with clean energy we need (1) a source of clean energy and (2) industry to use that energy.




Hey smurf, i notice your vastly more knowledgable about energy/electricity then me or most of the people here, I wonder what your opinion is on the Zero Emissions Plan ? 

Is it something that to your knowledge sounds reasonable ? Or is it a pile of **** ? Do the costings seem wrong in your opinion, or fairly right  ? I believe it cites the majority of electricity to be produced by solar thermal tech. Do you think this tech is at the stage where it can take up baseload power ? Sorry to bombard you with the questions, but generally interested to hear your thoughts.

The report can be found here - http://www.zerocarbonplan.org/


----------



## Wysiwyg (25 July 2011)

> Zero Carbon Australia is an independent, not-for-profit organisation. *We receive* *no government or industry funding.*



Yet government through the Prime Minister harps on about carbon reduction. Like grants allotted to the Chinese in preference over the Australian solar panel manufacturer. The governments solution is to  tax it. So fake. Sad to watch really.


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2011)

RandR said:


> Hey smurf, i notice your vastly more knowledgable about energy/electricity then me or most of the people here, I wonder what your opinion is on the Zero Emissions Plan ?
> 
> Is it something that to your knowledge sounds reasonable ? Or is it a pile of **** ? Do the costings seem wrong in your opinion, or fairly right  ? I believe it cites the majority of electricity to be produced by solar thermal tech. Do you think this tech is at the stage where it can take up baseload power ? Sorry to bombard you with the questions, but generally interested to hear your thoughts.
> 
> The report can be found here - http://www.zerocarbonplan.org/




I am sure smurph will give a thorough answer when he gets on line.
However here is my take on it.
Australia consumes approximately 222million MW/hr per year. The cost per MW/hr to produce it is for coal $79, gas $97, wind $1502 and solar $4004.
So do the sums at present it is 18 times dearer to produce with wind and 50 times dearer with solar.
How much do you think it will effect you and Australias manufacturing.
IT IS FRIGHTENING BE SCARED
As far as base load goes renewables are useless, what happens when the wind isn't blowing hard enough or there isn't enough sun. 
Untill mankind comes up with a better storage sytem (battery) that can store the excess generated capacity when it is making power and release it when it is not, renewables will have limited application.
To sum up its a pile of *****, the government knows it and doesn't care if it works or not they get the tax anyway.


----------



## ghotib (25 July 2011)

RandR said:


> Hey smurf, i notice your vastly more knowledgable about energy/electricity then me or most of the people here, I wonder what your opinion is on the Zero Emissions Plan ?
> 
> Is it something that to your knowledge sounds reasonable ? Or is it a pile of **** ? Do the costings seem wrong in your opinion, or fairly right  ? I believe it cites the majority of electricity to be produced by solar thermal tech. Do you think this tech is at the stage where it can take up baseload power ? Sorry to bombard you with the questions, but generally interested to hear your thoughts.
> 
> The report can be found here - http://www.zerocarbonplan.org/



Smurf commented on this plan in the hysterical thread. Overall he gave it 97 out of 100 and thought it could work with a few tweaks. https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17955&p=642456&viewfull=1#post642456

Ghoti


----------



## Starcraftmazter (25 July 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> However, in order to do it with clean energy we need (1) a source of clean energy and (2) industry to use that energy.
> 
> If we are going to switch production to clean energy then that will not be acheived by first shutting down production and then trying to build a clean energy system. That is the wrong way around. What we need to do is retain and expand production, then build the clean energy system.
> 
> The problem is, the carbon tax / ETS has the primary effect of permanently relocating production rather than actually advancing viable clean energy. It never achieves an outcome of production using clean energy.




These are all good points, but I would like to ask how you would propose this be done? Green energy costs more than coal. The way around this is to price coal emissions - because they do come at a price, a very high cost of dealing with a deteriorating climate.

Whether you price emissions through a market ETS or force industry to use green energy, it will not be as cheap as coal, so the end effect is the same as it is now.

How exactly would you suggest we circumvent this?


----------



## drsmith (25 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Whether you price emissions through a market ETS or force industry to use green energy, it will not be as cheap as coal, so the end effect is the same as it is now.
> 
> How exactly would you suggest we circumvent this?



You better start by turning off the computer, turning out the lights and having an early night.

No fossil fuel heating in the bedroom either.


----------



## sptrawler (25 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> These are all good points, but I would like to ask how you would propose this be done? Green energy costs more than coal. The way around this is to price coal emissions - because they do come at a price, a very high cost of dealing with a deteriorating climate.
> 
> Whether you price emissions through a market ETS or force industry to use green energy, it will not be as cheap as coal, so the end effect is the same as it is now.
> 
> How exactly would you suggest we circumvent this?




First of all you ensure the technology is available and proven before you commit to using it. Most of what is being suggested as being suitable for our base load requirements is in its infancy and yet to be proven technology.
It would seem to me that the correct way would be to wait untill alternatives are available before your start penalising your industry to adopt them.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (26 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> First of all you ensure the technology is available and proven before you commit to using it. Most of what is being suggested as being suitable for our base load requirements is in its infancy and yet to be proven technology.
> It would seem to me that the correct way would be to wait untill alternatives are available before your start penalising your industry to adopt them.




This is exactly what has been happening for a very very very very very long time now (emphasis on the very). It has produced no results. It is time to drag the industry kicking and screaming, as there really is negative time left for action.


----------



## sptrawler (26 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> This is exactly what has been happening for a very very very very very long time now (emphasis on the very). It has produced no results. It is time to drag the industry kicking and screaming, as there really is negative time left for action.




Oh yeh, don't make me laugh, they certainly brought Cool and Cosy and several other insulation companies kicking and screaming. Yes kicking and screaming into administration.
They also did a marvelous job of building school canteens, I think not.
Yet you expect me to believe these buffoons who couldn't run a garage sale are going to change the way Australia produces energy, lead the world with new technology.
What an absolute load of CR*P. 
Tell me something this government has succeeded in doing well or even thought out well. Actually if you do come up with something, let them know, they could use it to turn around public opinion. 
Do you come up with this rubish while sitting under a pyramid in the zen position incense or something else burning in the backgound. LOL


----------



## sails (26 July 2011)

Here's a $600,000 tuckshop.  Not much bigger than a cubby house.

Full story here from SMH: *$600,000 school tuckshops are 'unusable' *


----------



## sptrawler (26 July 2011)

Not to worry sails, the government could use that building to throw a party for all its supporters.LOL


----------



## joea (26 July 2011)

Hi.
Glen Stevens from the RBA thinks the Australian people are ready to spend again.
Well I am only a "dumb dick" from Nth. Qld. and I believe the Australian people will spend again when the rate is lowered.
The rates should be about 0.5% lower than where they are.
Stevens, Gillard and Swan have been on the "happy weed " too long.

Once again the RBA has got it wrong.
Dump Steven and install Costello and we may have a shot at surrival.
If not , then we are heading for a cliff with a big drop.
joea


----------



## startrader (26 July 2011)

joea said:


> Hi.
> Glen Stevens from the RBA thinks the Australian people are ready to spend again.
> Well I am only a "dumb dick" from Nth. Qld. and I believe the Australian people will spend again when the rate is lowered.
> The rates should be about 0.5% lower than where they are.
> ...




Yes, and isn't it a comforting thought to think that he gets paid $1 million per annum to come up with those interest rates.  How many hours a week would it take him to ponder what the interest rates should be?  There is only so much research you can do on this and I think it is quite wrong that he is being paid this amount of money.


----------



## Ruby (26 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> .............. because they do come at a price, a very high cost of dealing with a* deteriorating climate*.




Where do you get the idea that we have a deteriorating climate?



Starcraftmazter said:


> . It is time to drag the industry kicking and screaming, as there really is negative time left for action.




With each post you make you show your exteme naivety!  

(My bolds)


----------



## Julia (26 July 2011)

joea said:


> H
> The rates should be about 0.5% lower than where they are.



Not as far as I'm concerned.
I'm really tired of always seeing the emphasis with interest rates being placed on how they affect borrowers.   A bit of understanding for the interests of those who have worked hard enough to save and be depositors has been quite pleasant for a damn change.

And Startrader, Mr Stevens is being paid for somewhat more than simply the number of hours he spends thinking about where interest rates should be.  Perhaps, however, you could email him with your recommendations.


----------



## sails (26 July 2011)

Ruby said:


> Where do you get the idea that we have a deteriorating climate?...





Because he is here on a mission as part of the campaign to "educate" the stupid Aussies into accepting climate change /AGW - or whatever he wants to call the warming invention? (see below...)

Of course, he won't admit it.  There are a few of them around - thankfullly looks like only one assigned to ASF....  Seems they have nothing else to do all day except post AGW propaganda.


----------



## sptrawler (26 July 2011)

I reckon your right on the money there sails, him and nbnmyths.LOL


----------



## startrader (27 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Not as far as I'm concerned.
> I'm really tired of always seeing the emphasis with interest rates being placed on how they affect borrowers.   A bit of understanding for the interests of those who have worked hard enough to save and be depositors has been quite pleasant for a damn change.
> 
> And Startrader, Mr Stevens is being paid for somewhat more than simply the number of hours he spends thinking about where interest rates should be.  Perhaps, however, you could email him with your recommendations.




I am well aware of what Mr Stephens is being paid for and I have no recommendatioins for Mr Stephen, so won't be emailing him thank you.  In my opinion the Reserve Board will be more inclined to lower than raise the interest rate over the next year when they take all relevant factors into account and it has nothing to do with what I WANT them to do.  FYI it would suit me better if the rates were higher or remain the same but that has nothing to do with my point - which was that Stephens is grossly overpaid for what he does (over twice what his US and UK counterparts are paid) and certainly he doesn't get it right all the time.

So get down off your high horse as I also don't think joea's statement was just a mindless, selfish rant.


----------



## noco (27 July 2011)

Where the hell are we heading? After reading the attached link and watching Christine Milne on Qand A Monday ABC, we are heading into dangerous waters and we should turn the ship around.

It is not the first timed I have mentioned how socilaist left idiology, call it communism if you like, do not believe in freedom of speech and their desire to control the media. They will do anything to force their idiology onto people especially the naive. The word 'PUNISHMENT' was mentioned by the innocent face of Chistine Milne. Please look behind her.

To those who allowed these Green 'RATBAGS' into parliament, SHAME ON YOU. YOU WILL RUE THE DAY.


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...reens_plan_to_silence_the_press/#commentsmore


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2011)

noco said:


> Where the hell are we heading? After reading the attached link and watching Christine Milne on Qand A Monday ABC, we are heading into dangerous waters and we should turn the ship around.
> 
> It is not the first timed I have mentioned how socilaist left idiology, call it communism if you like, do not believe in freedom of speech and their desire to control the media. They will do anything to force their idiology onto people especially the naive. The word 'PUNISHMENT' was mentioned by the innocent face of Chistine Milne. Please look behind her.
> 
> ...




It seems that it has been so long since our fathers and grandfathers put their lives on the line for the sake of liberty that we have forgotten its significance... and how many of them paid the ultimate price for it.


----------



## noco (27 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> It seems that it has been so long since our fathers and grandfathers put their lives on the line for the sake of liberty that we have forgotten its significance... and how many of them paid the ultimate price for it.




wayne, too true, too very true.

As a Great Grand Father, I have been through this RAT BAG stuff before. The young and the naive will have to experience it for themselves with the hope they wake up before it is too late.

People power and commonsense will prevail and we will get through it in time. Thank God for our West Minster system. If we were a republic BE AFRAID, BE VERY AFRAID.


----------



## Logique (27 July 2011)

wayneL said:


> It seems that it has been so long since our fathers and grandfathers put their lives on the line for the sake of liberty that we have forgotten its significance... and how many of them paid the ultimate price for it.



So true Wayne, is this the Australia fought for by the Anzacs. Is this the Australian Labor Party of Curtin and Chifley. Ever dimmer grows the Light on the Hill.


----------



## joea (27 July 2011)

Julia said:


> Not as far as I'm concerned.
> I'm really tired of always seeing the emphasis with interest rates being placed on how they affect borrowers.   A bit of understanding for the interests of those who have worked hard enough to save and be depositors has been quite pleasant for a damn change.
> 
> And Startrader, Mr Stevens is being paid for somewhat more than simply the number of hours he spends thinking about where interest rates should be.  Perhaps, however, you could email him with your recommendations.




 Julia
Don't you think the retailers would appreciate a bit of spending. Jobs are important.
The  money has to come from somewhere.
Gillard and Swan have the "wind up " the Australian people because the people know they are incompetent. We do not know what crazy scheme they will think up next.

As for those people who have worked hard, they are now watching their super and investments decline.

We need to jump start our economy. 
1  Lower interest rates.
2  Devalue our dollar slightly.

Do not worry about emailing Stevens, he stuffed up when Labor took over and  he raised the rates.
email Costello and get his opinion. At least it will be the truth.
joea


----------



## Gringotts Bank (27 July 2011)

And now for something a bit different, as to where Australia is headed.

Just then whilst watching tv, Colliers Real Estate advertised the release of new high rise apartments in inner Melbourne....  completely in chinese.  Yep, the whole ad was in chinese.  There goes the neighbourhood.


----------



## moXJO (27 July 2011)

How big of a problem are these wind generators popping up all over farmlands? Also read that some farmers stopped herding cattle to instead use their farmland to become a carbon sink (cows farting is a no no). So using prime farmland for green dreams has become more important than food production?
I heard Labor will next introduce 'stop breathing for the planet hour'


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> These are all good points, but I would like to ask how you would propose this be done? Green energy costs more than coal. The way around this is to price coal emissions - because they do come at a price, a very high cost of dealing with a deteriorating climate.
> 
> Whether you price emissions through a market ETS or force industry to use green energy, it will not be as cheap as coal, so the end effect is the same as it is now.
> 
> How exactly would you suggest we circumvent this?



Fundamentally it is about productivity of energy supply and, since virtually all activity uses energy, productivity of the overall economy.

Fossil fuels (and nuclear, hydro etc) are essentially a means of leverage. Man puts x amount of effort in to extract the energy, and we get vastly more back than we put in.

An easy way to demonstrate this was the old exercise bike and treadmill that the Hydro (Tas) used to have as part of public education exhibits etc. If you pedal as hard as you can possibly manage then with a bit of luck you'll generate all of 200 Watts and it's much the same running on the treadmill. And of course you will quickly become exhausted doing this.

Now, you'd need to sprint for a good 10 hours to heat the water for a hot shower. And you'd need to sprint for 15 hours non-stop to generate the equivalent power we get from just one litre of diesel. 

So fossil fuels are a means of leverage. We put very little in, in order to get a lot out. Hence the vast majority are not employed in any form of energy extraction industry and man is able to do things (eg flight) that could not possibly be powered by muscles. 

The problem with "more expensive" sources is that fundamentally, they are "less productive". We have to put more effort in per unit of energy produced. Now think about that... If we are going to put a lot more in so as to get the same out, then all of a sudden we're going to have an awful lot of people employed in the electricity generation industry and that is why it becomes expensive. 

It's like any industry. If you switch to less productive means of doing things then you need to either employ more people to do the same work, or you do less work with the same people, or you do some combination of the above.

If we take it as given that coal is generally the cheapest (most productive) means of generating electricity in Australia, then any decision to cease using it is basically a decision to drop the overall productivity of the economy. Given that we don't have unlimited labour resources to offset the productivity drop, that ultimately means we end up with less overall economic wealth than we would otherwise have.

Technically, yes we could switch to a predominantly renewable energy supply in SE Australia (Qld, NSW, ACT, Vic, Tas, SA) I have little doubt about that. But the problem being faced nationally is probably best explained by these figures from Tas (where this energy debate is decades old...).

Electrolytic smelting = 45%
Paper manufacturing = 7%
Other heavy industry = 8%
Space heating = 12%
Water heating = 8%
General use electricity (light industrial, commercial and residential) = 20%

Of all of that, only the last 20% is a reasonably "safe" electrical load. The 60% consumed by heavy industry exists in Tas only due to electricity being at a competitive price. And the 20% used for water or space heating is an electrical load only whilst electricity remains competitive with other fuels (noting that historically electricity had very little of the space heating market).

If a new power source can not supply electricity at a price that is viable for smelting then there is simply no point in building it. If we can't expand or maintain supply at that price, then the smelters will ultimately be out of business. Now, those smelters and mills just happen to account for well over half the state's exports...

The situation isn't as severe nationally but the same principle applies. There is simply no point in building any new source of supply with a production cost above the lowest value use of electricity - market supply and demand 101 there.


----------



## ghotib (27 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> How big of a problem are these wind generators popping up all over farmlands? Also read that some farmers stopped herding cattle to instead use their farmland to become a carbon sink (cows farting is a no no). So using prime farmland for green dreams has become more important than food production?
> I heard Labor will next introduce 'stop breathing for the planet hour'



If wind farms are a problem, how much greater is the problem of coal seam gas wells popping up all over farmlands? And city water catchments? And even in suburbs? Cattle have no problems with wind farms, but they sure do have problems with contaminated water.


----------



## Julia (27 July 2011)

joea said:


> Julia
> Don't you think the retailers would appreciate a bit of spending. Jobs are important.
> The  money has to come from somewhere.



Well, for a start retailers could consider providing some actual service.  For too long they have taken for granted that sales will be ever increasing just because people spent without consideration and felt affluent.

They now do not feel affluent at all, but are feeling the pinch from ever increasing bills for electricity, rates, water, rego, food, everything really.  They also know that these increases will seem like chickenfeed when they're faced with the increases across the board from the carbon tax.

Further, most people are aware of the global financial mess, and quite reasonably consider a GFC MK II could be on the way.

So they are fearful and are saving to provide a bulwark against this future uncertainty imo.
I don't think for a second this would change if the RB were to drop rates slightly.  Any increase in household finances would just go into that savings account.

Consider, too, the increase in online shopping:  and why not?  You don't even have to leave home, the prices are way cheaper, and you don't have to trawl through some overpriced store hoping some slack assistant will actually deign to provide some help.

And when you're feeling unhappy about Mr Stevens earning $1M, how about considering this against the backdrop that the four CEOs of our major retail banks earn $44 MILLION between them.  Do you really think Mr Stevens' responsibilities are not at least equivalent to those of the CEO of a mere retail bank???

Further, if you look at Mr Stevens $1 million p.a. against the *billions* the government has wasted, I'd say the RB governor is providing pretty good value for money.

You disagree with what he is doing.  Perhaps that's why he's in the job and you're not.




> Gillard and Swan have the "wind up " the Australian people because the people know they are incompetent. We do not know what crazy scheme they will think up next.



So true.  I shudder to think what else may be exercising their lurid imaginations.



> As for those people who have worked hard, they are now watching their super and investments decline.



Oh dear.  Well, perhaps they could take a bit of responsibility for becoming financially literate and looking after their super and investments so that they do not decline.
Mine haven't, and neither have those of thousands of people.  It's simply about managing what you have, as opposed to sitting there passively watching your net worth diminish.


----------



## wayneL (27 July 2011)

ghotib said:


> If wind farms are a problem, how much greater is the problem of coal seam gas wells popping up all over farmlands? And city water catchments? And even in suburbs? Cattle have no problems with wind farms, but they sure do have problems with contaminated water.




There is hyperbole, then there is just plain nonsense. 

What?


----------



## moXJO (27 July 2011)

ghotib said:


> If wind farms are a problem, how much greater is the problem of coal seam gas wells popping up all over farmlands? And city water catchments? And even in suburbs? Cattle have no problems with wind farms, but they sure do have problems with contaminated water.




I don't support coal seem gas, or suburbs being built on farmland with good soil. But using farmland as a carbon sink means no cattle (talking more top end).It doesn't help when you get paid not to raise cattle and basically have the land do nothing. Oh wait I mean land sucking up carbon and saving the planet.


----------



## sails (27 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> I don't support coal seem gas, or suburbs being built on farmland with good soil. But using farmland as a carbon sink means no cattle (talking more top end).It doesn't help when you get paid not to raise cattle and basically have the land do nothing. Oh wait I mean land sucking up carbon and saving the planet.





I heard of a farmer recently who was happy with carbon tax as he will plant trees on his properties and get carbon credits.  Lovely for him, but this will come at the expense of those who are working in the cities and suburbs who do not have land space to plant trees.

It does seem like a money-go-round except I don't think it will find it's way back to the workers who are funding this scam.

And this is an article from last year explaining how some are set to make millions from climate change: 

From the London Evening Standard by Sri Carmichael:



> Tony Blair is set to earn millions of pounds advising an American businessman on how to make money from tackling climate change.




More here: *Tony Blair to earn millions as climate change adviser*


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 July 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I am sure smurph will give a thorough answer when he gets on line.



One comment that I'll put "out there" is this one.

In the 1980's most states built too many new power stations, to the point that even relatively new plants were permanently closed at the end of the decade as a means of partially dealing with this surplus.

The effects of this were profound:

1. It resulted in a huge "use more power" push and built-in higher energy use and emissions into the economy for years to come.

2. It sent the electricity utilities close to broke and ultimately resulted in most of them ceasing to exist as such.

3. We are now still very heavily reliant on these 1980's power stations, which are not much more efficient than the 1960's plants they replaced. 

Had we not built too many new plants and instead continued running the older ones for longer, those older plants would now be approaching the end of thier useful life and a huge opportunity would exist to build new state of the art plants (which produce significantly less CO2 than the 1980's ones we have now) to replace them. Instead, we blew a fortune to build the replacements 25 years too early and they aren't much more efficient than what they replaced.

4. Amidst the almost total stoppage of new construction after the over-building and also the privatisation of much of the industry, the Australian research and design capability was largely destroyed. That's a real problem when there is now a desire to improve environmental performance and you are dealing with brown coal that has properties unique to Australia. Losing the R&D is perhaps the single worst thing to have happened in that regard.

A big part of the problem with reducing CO2 emissions is the huge amount of "baggage" the industry carries as a result of previous poor decision making. My point is not to whinge about the past, but rather to point out that any decision whcih affects the supply of energy will have an impact for at least the next 3 decades and quite likely longer. :twocents


----------



## moXJO (27 July 2011)

sails said:


> I heard of a farmer recently who was happy with carbon tax as he will plant trees on his properties and get carbon credits.  Lovely for him, but this will come at the expense of those who are working in the cities and suburbs who do not have land space to plant trees.
> 
> It does seem like a money-go-round except I don't think it will find it's way back to the workers who are funding this scam.




Just seems stupidly unproductive and very inward looking (carbon tax) as a whole. I find it even more stupid that we will pay other countries to do the same.


----------



## noco (28 July 2011)

This Green/Labor socialist left government is fast moving to gain control of the media to squash any criticism of their looney policies. 

It is communistic  history being repeated once again.

Get Up is tied to the apron strings of this Green/Labor government and our assistant treasurer Bill Shorten is a foundation member. 


http://blogs.news.com.au/couriermai...p/couriermail/comments/getup_turns_to_shutup/


----------



## sptrawler (28 July 2011)

sails said:


> I heard of a farmer recently who was happy with carbon tax as he will plant trees on his properties and get carbon credits.  Lovely for him, but this will come at the expense of those who are working in the cities and suburbs who do not have land space to plant trees.
> 
> It does seem like a money-go-round except I don't think it will find it's way back to the workers who are funding this scam.
> 
> ...




Brilliant, with all these farmers growing trees for carbon credits and other farmers growing biomass for power generation when the sun isn't shining. Where are the farmers and land that are going to be growing food?
Oh they will probably be the Chinese and Indian farms in Australia, exporting food to their own countries while they burn our coal.LOL


----------



## medicowallet (28 July 2011)

moXJO said:


> I don't support coal seem gas, or suburbs being built on farmland with good soil. But using farmland as a carbon sink means no cattle (talking more top end).It doesn't help when you get paid not to raise cattle and basically have the land do nothing. Oh wait I mean land sucking up carbon and saving the planet.




The average Australian does not realise the importance of good quality land for agriculture.

If "city folk" actually knew where all the $$$$$ they saw were coming from, they would protect mining and farming.

Instead, shut inside their mcmansions or their townhouses, they walk through their urban jungle of cafes and retail offerings, and demand action on "climate change" which is nothing more than an imaginary fantasy which helps them feel better about their involvement in the world. 

Australians are a very naive lot.

Let us burn OUR coal. Let us DEMAND cheap electricity.

Why not?  How much is petrol in the middle east?


----------



## Knobby22 (28 July 2011)

Below is official Liberal policy - I admit I don't understand how it works, I'm pretty sure its not growing trees but can someone explain??


Soil Carbon – A Once in a Century Replenishment of our Soils
The single largest opportunity for CO2 emissions reduction in Australia is through bio-sequestration and the replenishment of soil carbon in particular. Significantly increasing soil carbon levels also boosts agricultural productivity and water efficiency. 


The Coalition will use the Emissions Reduction Fund to deliver about 85 million tonnes per annum of CO2 abatement through soil carbons by 2020 with an initial purchase of 10 million tonnes of abatement through soil carbons by 2012-13.


----------



## joea (28 July 2011)

Knobby22 said:


> Below is official Liberal policy - I admit I don't understand how it works, I'm pretty sure its not growing trees but can someone explain??
> 
> 
> Soil Carbon – A Once in a Century Replenishment of our Soils
> ...




Have a look at this site.
www.amazingcarbon.com

joea


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 July 2011)

ghotib said:


> Smurf commented on this plan in the hysterical thread. Overall he gave it 97 out of 100 and thought it could work with a few tweaks. https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=17955&p=642456&viewfull=1#post642456



I should clarify my comments as relating to the technical side rather than financial. Yes, technically it's not impossible to have a predominantly renewable electricity supply. 

Finanically it is however quite expensive to do so in most cases and that is where the problem exists (only real exceptions being any place with abundant hydro or geothermal).


----------



## Starcraftmazter (28 July 2011)

Gringotts Bank said:


> And now for something a bit different, as to where Australia is headed.
> 
> Just then whilst watching tv, Colliers Real Estate advertised the release of new high rise apartments in inner Melbourne....  completely in chinese.  Yep, the whole ad was in chinese.  There goes the neighbourhood.




Pretty terrible. This is why we need to ban immigration, and legislate that everyone must use English for all signs/posters/advertisements/etc.



Smurf1976 said:


> The situation isn't as severe nationally but the same principle applies. There is simply no point in building any new source of supply with a production cost above the lowest value use of electricity - market supply and demand 101 there.




Hence the ETS? Your post is all great and all, but you didn't address my question - how if not with an ETS do we switch to green energy?


----------



## sails (28 July 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Pretty terrible. This is why we need to ban immigration, and legislate that everyone must use English for all signs/posters/advertisements/etc....?




I totally agree.

However, I thought your ilk would like to let everyone arriving here by leaky boat into the community with all expenses paid for a life time if they so choose. Plus their relatives.  And where learning English doesn't seem convenient and now it appears they want to enforce the same oppressive laws from which they were supposedly fleeing...


----------



## sptrawler (28 July 2011)

Fom Starcraftmazter
Hence the ETS? Your post is all great and all, but you didn't address my question - how if not with an ETS do we switch to green energy?

One way would be for the Government instead of wasting $40billion dollars, of tax payers money, on the N.B.N then privatising it after 5 years.
They could have spent the money on building these supposed solar/ salt storage power stations that are going to save the planet, our biggest moral challenge, then privatised them.
But they know the same as you and I that at this point in time it is pie in the sky, but using the hype to gather a new tax with no measureable outcomes is easy.
One would think there would be far more benefit for Australia if we were the worlds first to have base load renewable energy. That would put Julia, Bob and the rest of the entourage in the history books. 
LOL what a joke it's the muppet show.


----------



## orr (5 August 2011)

http://www.themonthly.com.au/thomas-friedman-melbourne-town-hall-3657

This is Thomas Friedmans recent lecture, for the few of you that didn't attened any of the live events this is for you. Any body who wants to gel aspects of  this talk and the thinking of Sir Ken Robinson and work by Phillip K Howard when contributing to this thread, critical or otherwise, would be doing a great service.

As a personal note. please point out to me the negatives in the forceing the owners of Olimpic Dam to Value add on shore (enrich) the uranium oxide- from yellow cake to glod bricks.


----------



## sails (7 August 2011)

Interesting interview on the first segment of Bolt's show today with Sinclair Davidson, Economics Professor at RMIT University on the difficulties that come with stagflation.  

The interview starts around the 4 minute mark for those who don't like Bolt...


----------



## Starcraftmazter (9 August 2011)

sails said:


> However, I thought your ilk would like to let everyone arriving here by leaky boat into the community with all expenses paid for a life time if they so choose. Plus their relatives.  And where learning English doesn't seem convenient and now it appears they want to enforce the same oppressive laws from which they were supposedly fleeing...




That's because you are incapable of not generalising. It's ok, there are steps to recovery...



sptrawler said:


> They could have spent the money on building these supposed solar/ salt storage power stations that are going to save the planet, our biggest moral challenge, then privatised them.




Okey, now please explain how exactly they are supposed to make money without an ETS when coal electricity is cheaper? Further, please prove why your proposed massive cost to taxpayers for building said power plants is cheaper than a once off inflationary effect of the ETS.

This is supposed to be a forum for investors, but it seems like many people here have no idea about basic economics


----------



## sails (10 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> That's because you are *in*capable of *not *generalising. It's ok, there are steps to recovery...





Basic primary school lesson for a smarty pants full of propaganda:

Two negatives make a positive....




> This is supposed to be a forum for investors, but it seems like many people here have no idea about basic economics




Wow, how condescending.

The people here clearly have far more *common sense* than you have the brains to recognise.  One doesn't have to be a scientist or an economist to know when politicians are trying to be dishonest and mislead with partial truths.

But it is strange how propaganda people like you are popping up all over various forums with an aim to put down anyone who doesn't agree with this government.  Tactics are very similar and often downright rude and condescending to other posters. Rather than people being stupid as you posted, most don't like to be seen to be uncaring, etc and you, and your ilk, are taking advantage of them, imo.  

The plan of attack seems to be:

Attack Abbott 

Get Turnbull back into coalition leadership seemingly for a weaker coalition
Attack Murdoch to gain public support for politically controlled media
Treat people like idots who don't want carbon pricing or ETS
Treat people like idots who don't like the Malaysian deal
Treat people like idots who would like a new election to stop this awful minority
Treat people like idots who don't want our children being brain washed in primacy school with political propaganda

Will add more to the list as SCM reminds me...

*And, when a government needs the sort of propaganda that you spew out here, 
it is clearly NOT telling voters the truth.*


----------



## sails (10 August 2011)

Definition of PROGAGANDA:

*prop·a·gan·da *Noun

1. Information, esp. of a *biased or misleading nature*, used to promote or publicize a particular political cause or point of view.


I have found any sort of reasonable debate with the likes of propaganda plants  are impossible due to the condescention they dish out and the way they misinterpret other's posts.  And they love to keep exchanges going - gives them more opportunity to keep spewing out their propaganda.

They are easy to spot...


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> That's because you are incapable of not generalising. It's ok, there are steps to recovery...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




That is selective quoting, maybe you could have added the rest of my qoute where I said it was pie in the sky, but that wouldn't have helped with your cheap shot would it?
This is supposed to be a forum for investors, however this thread is general chat on the way *OUR* Government is spending *OUR* money.
This government went to the last election with the N.B.N on the table and copped a huge voter backlash, but still continued on with it, spending OUR money on something we didn't want. Or so the polls would indicate.
Now they are back in with a minority Government they decide to increase our marginal tax rates and impose an onerous tax on our economy, without putting it to a vote.
This is a carry over from the way the trade unions run where the rank and file are manipulated for the unions ends independent of the memebers wishes (why they are against secret ballots). That arrogant behaviour is one of the major reasons for the demise of the unions as the members become disenfranchised.
The Government is elected to run the country and that requires us to contribute taxes to fund it. When the majority disagree with what THEIR taxes are being spent on you get a voter backlash as can be seen in the opinion polls.
But the blind arrogance of this Government, which was put on notice last election, continues to ignore the people they are representing. That takes a certain type of inwardly focused person to be able to reconcile that, but that is probably why you appear to have an affinity for them.


----------



## sptrawler (10 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> That's because you are incapable of not generalising. It's ok, there are steps to recovery...
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Also, maybe the majority don't mind burning coal at this point in time. Just because YOU, Bob and Julia don't doesn't make you right. It's not all about you.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (11 August 2011)

sails said:


> Two negatives make a positive....




Either you have a poor understanding of English or I have no idea what you are on about.




sails said:


> The people here clearly have far more *common sense* than you have the brains to recognise.  One doesn't have to be a scientist or an economist to know when politicians are trying to be dishonest and mislead with partial truths.




Sure. Blame both sides for middle income welfare. Blame them for the housing bubble. Blame them for the welfare state in general. Blame them for the lack of a SWF. Blame them for corporate donations. Blame them for populist policies. Blame them for a lot of things. All this however does not relate to the necessity for action on global warming.



sails said:


> But it is strange how propaganda people like you are popping up all over various forums with an aim to put down anyone who doesn't agree with this government.




I find it stranger that people like you pretend to know what people like me think. I am no supporter of any government, I assess each matter independently from the next.

It's also highly hypocritical that you claim people who disagree with you are propagandists.



sails said:


> The plan of attack seems to be:
> 
> Attack Abbott
> 
> ...




So basically a whole lot of generalisations. For the record I do wholeheartedely dislike Abbott. He is a complete twat without any brain capacity to make any policy. Like a fool, he has a ridiculous near 2 million $ mortgagte, and the only thing he will do if he ever gets into power is use every inch of his political capital to prop up our ponzi scheme of a housing bubble.



sptrawler said:


> That is selective quoting, maybe you could have added the rest of my qoute where I said it was pie in the sky, but that wouldn't have helped with your cheap shot would it?




There was nothing in your post that was relevant? Likewise this entire post of yours is a mindless rant, and you did not at all address my question of how your "brilliant" plan for the government to build renewable energy plans and privatitise them when the cost of electricity they generate is noncompetitive can work without an ETS?

All I see is a whole lot of rants from you but nothing of substance.



sptrawler said:


> Also, maybe the majority don't mind burning coal at this point in time. Just because YOU, Bob and Julia don't doesn't make you right. It's not all about you.




"The majority" are very stupid and short sighted. If the only thing our government achieves is to go against this and actually address our greenhouse emissions, I will be pretty happy.


----------



## sails (11 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Either you have a poor understanding of English or *I have no idea what you are on about*.




Really - you don't know?  Your second guess is the right one.  Were you only brain washed in political propaganda and don't learn English grammar?  
You might learn something from this from Wiki:  Two negatives resolving to a positive




> Sure. Blame both sides for middle income welfare. Blame them for the housing bubble. Blame them for the welfare state in general. Blame them for the lack of a SWF. Blame them for corporate donations. Blame them for populist policies. Blame them for a lot of things. All this however does not relate to the necessity for action on global warming.




Blah blah blah - any excuse to plaster your *PROPAGANDA* over this forum. Clearly you mainly learned political propaganda at school.





> I find it stranger that people like you pretend to know what people like me think. I am no supporter of any government, I assess each matter independently from the next.
> 
> It's also highly hypocritical that you claim people who disagree with you are propagandists.




You can say whatever you like on a forum and there's no way of proving anything.  And why should anyone believe you when your posts are SO FULL of nonsense *PROPAGANDA* and put downs to other posters.  I could tell you I bought a thousand puts yesterday - how can you prove it?  But then you might not know what a put is anyway...

And, I have had many conversations and REASONED debate with many who hold differing political opinions to my own.  But *the propaganda plants stand out like a sore thumb*.  You have been by far the most obvious.  There are others like you on forums other than ASF and they are easily recognised. 

Whatever else you do is not important.  The more likely fact is that you are possibly a trained in propaganda, imo. 




> So basically a whole lot of generalisations. For the record I do wholeheartedely dislike Abbott. He is a complete twat without any brain capacity to make any policy. Like a fool, he has a ridiculous near 2 million $ mortgagte, and the only thing he will do if he ever gets into power is use every inch of his political capital to prop up our ponzi scheme of a housing bubble.




*Anti Abbott PROPAGANDA*...  Abbott must be doing a fantastic job to require people like yourself to keep knocking him most likely in an effort to deflect from the unbelievably bad policies dreamed up by Gillard.




> There was nothing in your post that was relevant? Likewise this entire post of yours is a mindless rant, and you did not at all address my question of how your "brilliant" plan for the government to build renewable energy plans and privatitise them when the cost of electricity they generate is noncompetitive can work without an ETS?




*ETS PROPAGANDA*...




> "The majority" are very stupid and short sighted. If the only thing our government achieves is to go against this and actually address our greenhouse emissions, I will be pretty happy.





*More ETS PROPAGANDA* and indicating everyone is stupid but the minority opinion that you hold.  You are i*ncredibly outnumbered *in recent opinion polls.  You sound like the person who said the whole world is mad but me...




> All I see is a whole lot of rants from you but nothing of substance.




And your entire post is nothing of substance.  Mostly *PROPAGANDA*


Now be a good little boy and go and learn some English grammar.  Then you might be able to get a real job.


----------



## sptrawler (11 August 2011)

There was nothing in your post that was relevant? Likewise this entire post of yours is a mindless rant, and you did not at all address my question of how your "brilliant" plan for the government to build renewable energy plans and privatitise them when the cost of electricity they generate is noncompetitive can work without an ETS?

As I said before the very idea of building the renewable energy power stations was made in jest. I think the idea is stupid as does the majority of voters. The ETS will end up in the government coffers and be wasted as has the $130B since this government came to office.
End of story


----------



## Glen48 (11 August 2011)

Where is Aust heading the same way as UK with riots and blood in the streets with in a few years maybe sooner. Gillard and Obama are doing the same thing no idea about what's going on in the World and no plans to solve the problem because in their eyes there are no problem's just a minor hiccup.

Soon USA banks will be forcing people to turn up for a wheel barrow full of cash as Big Ben forces the bank to shovel money out the door or risk fines.

 They will do anything and every thing to pump money into the USA economy and if you bank account shows show a nice credit you will fined for not spending.

The money printing has not started in full yet but soon will as the Dow tank each day.


----------



## DB008 (11 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> ...
> For the record I do wholeheartedely dislike Abbott. *He is a complete twat without any brain capacity to make any policy.*




Please pass those words of wisdom on to Gillard and Co that "They" are beyond hopeless! 

Labor has been in power since 2007, please supply a list of what they have achieved....


----------



## Starcraftmazter (11 August 2011)

sails said:


> Really - you don't know?  Your second guess is the right one.  Were you only brain washed in political propaganda and don't learn English grammar?
> You might learn something from this from Wiki:  Two negatives resolving to a positive




Let me show you the quote again;
"That's because you are incapable of not generalising".

I don't know what your English skills are, and what you think I meant, but I am going to re-affirm that reads as it should. You are incapable of not generalising. That is, you are not capable of saying things which are not generalisations.

Looks like you need some of this school "indoctrination", especially in the English language.



sails said:


> herp derp propaganda




I may as well be talking to a wall.



sptrawler said:


> As I said before the very idea of building the renewable energy power stations was made in jest. I think the idea is stupid as does the majority of voters. End of story




So you suggested an idea which you think is bad? Ok. Also, you do not represent nor speak for any proportion of voters.




DB008 said:


> Labor has been in power since 2007, please supply a list of what they have achieved....




There's obviously a lot of things, and different people may appreciate different ones. For me the big ones are;
 - NBN (key infrastructure needed for business, will provide cutting edge services to rural towns, and help in the de-centralisation of cities)
 - ETS (key policy for addressing global warming)
 - Tightens immigration standards (because I don't like immigrants who come here without much purpose, and can't even speak English)
 - Against population increase (preserves quality of living for present occupants of our country)


If Gillard/Swan don't stimulate the housing market (or at least much), I'd be more than happy to sing praise for their current term. In fact they are now talking about having seniors sell their houses, which is excellent. All retirees should be forced to sell all their property before they are eligible to receive any pension payments.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> All retirees should be forced to sell all their property before they are eligible to receive any pension payments.



Brilliant! 

They could live in the street on a park bench.

They would not need a pension too long living that way.

Now, how do I avoid getting old ?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (11 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> They could live in the street on a park bench.
> 
> They would not need a pension too long living that way.




Downgrade to low-maintenance, low-cost retiree housing, free up housing supply for young families.

There is no reason the government should pay pensioners any money if they are capable of sustaining themselves through selling their assets. Indeed, this is impossible and unsustainable. It's all about what's best for society.


----------



## drsmith (11 August 2011)

To me, someone who has spent their working life paying taxes has the right to live out their retirement in the comfort of their own home.

These are people who have spent their lives contributing to society as a whole, not cattle ready for the knackery.


----------



## Julia (11 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> There's obviously a lot of things, and different people may appreciate different ones. For me the big ones are;
> - NBN (key infrastructure needed for business, will provide cutting edge services to rural towns, and help in the de-centralisation of cities)



Dannyboy stipulated "that they HAVE achieved".  You absolutely cannot claim that the NBN is anywhere approaching being achieved.



> - ETS (key policy for addressing global warming)



Same objection.  They have not instituted an ETS.  They have *proposed* a carbon tax which is not the same thing and which has yet to get through the parliament.



> - Tightens immigration standards (because I don't like immigrants who come here without much purpose, and can't even speak English)



Hah, what a joke!  They loosened the previously successful policy and are now back pedaling frantically (albeit unsuccessfully) to reverse their disastrous change in policy.



> - Against population increase (preserves quality of living for present occupants of our country)



Ah, that will be why we get to send 800 (if the high court doesn't veto this) so Malaysia can send us 4000.



> In fact they are now talking about having seniors sell their houses, which is excellent. All retirees should be forced to sell all their property before they are eligible to receive any pension payments.



 What absolute rubbish.  All that is being discussed is a report from the Productivity Commission which suggests research should be carried out into having those people requiring aged care access some of the equity in their homes, to a maximum of $60,000.
There is absolutely no suggestion that retirees will be 'forced to sell all their property before they are eligible to receive any pension payments".

Get some facts before you make such ludicrous statements.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (11 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> To me, someone who has spent their working life paying taxes has the right to live out their retirement in the comfort of their own home.
> 
> These are people who have spent their lives contributing to society as a whole, not cattle ready for the knackery.




I don't disagree - and if they have the money, sure.

But otherwise it's a simple matter of resources, energy, economics. We cannot have a massive retiree population surviving by the hard work others, in the smallest ratio in history. It just won't happen.



Julia said:


> Dannyboy stipulated "that they HAVE achieved".  You absolutely cannot claim that the NBN is anywhere approaching being achieved.




It is a long-term infrastructure project. Every major project should be long-term, this way it provides jobs and growth over a longer time-span. It is also a very big project, and cannot be done in a year or two.



Julia said:


> Same objection.  They have not instituted an ETS.  They have *proposed* a carbon tax which is not the same thing and which has yet to get through the parliament.




I disagree with your assessment.



Julia said:


> Hah, what a joke!  They loosened the previously successful policy and are now back pedaling frantically (albeit unsuccessfully) to reverse their disastrous change in policy.




Not really, record amounts of immigrants came in under Howard, less will come in under ALP's new policy.



Julia said:


> Ah, that will be why we get to send 800 (if the high court doesn't veto this) so Malaysia can send us 4000.




Don't see why this is relevant. If 3200 is the amount of people that will be added to our population than that would be pretty terrific. However in reality it is a drop of water in a lake.



Julia said:


> What absolute rubbish.  All that is being discussed is a report from the Productivity Commission which suggests research should be carried out into having those people requiring aged care access some of the equity in their homes, to a maximum of $60,000.
> There is absolutely no suggestion that retirees will be 'forced to sell all their property before they are eligible to receive any pension payments".




It's the beginning of a policy which I expect will lead to that in the coming one or two decade as baby boomer retirement becomes more of a social and economic issue.


----------



## DB008 (12 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> For me the big ones are;
> 
> - NBN (key infrastructure needed for business, will provide cutting edge services to rural towns, and help in the de-centralisation of cities) *Debatable and the total cost will easily exceed the Governments original $40-$50 Billion estimate.*
> 
> ...




I don't know what to say...Your living on another planet with your own little fascist view on life. Sad to see a younger person which such arrogance and negative view on the world, and this is coming from someone who is similar in age.  

http://www.aph.gov.au/library/pubs/bn/sp/boatarrivals.htm


----------



## startrader (12 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> ....
> 
> There's obviously a lot of things, and different people may appreciate different ones. For me the big ones are;
> - NBN (key infrastructure needed for business, will provide cutting edge services to rural towns, and help in the de-centralisation of cities)
> ...




You really can't be serious about this.  We have had record levels of immigration under the Labor government after Rudd got into power.  He said he believes in a BIG AUSTRALIA.  Julia may SAY she doesn't want large immigration numbers but that's just talk.


----------



## disarray (12 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> To me, someone who has spent their working life paying taxes has the right to live out their retirement in the comfort of their own home.




if they can support themselves, sure. otherwise what about the rights of young people to not have to pay for a burgeoning elderly class?


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2011)

It's funny the baby boomers supported their parents and most I know have, and still are helping their 20 - 40 year old kids.
But listen to the Gen Y kids "why should I support anybody, its all about me".
I can see why the government doesn't want the baby boomers to retire, they are the only ones who do a decent days work without bitching and crying.LOL


----------



## disarray (12 August 2011)

needs more generalisation sptrawler


----------



## Julia (12 August 2011)

> To me, someone who has spent their working life paying taxes has the right to live out their retirement in the comfort of their own home.






disarray said:


> if they can support themselves, sure. otherwise what about the rights of young people to not have to pay for a burgeoning elderly class?



Haven't we always paid for the generation that preceded us?   e.g. the baby boomers are presently paying for those that are already retired.  The baby boomers will be the first generation to at least make a reasonable contribution to their own retirement.

However, I do agree that there should be no valid reason why the principle that all our lives we pay for our own accommodation and other needs should not continue into retirement, hence compulsory Super.

It's apparently much cheaper to provide additional services to keep the aged in their own homes so this seems a more positive alternative all round than shoving people into nursing homes which they hate.

Whenever we have this discussion, I do have to admit to a bit of resentment that once again it's those of us who have been prudent, saved and generally taken responsibility for ourselves who receive the least.  I'm not saying everyone who is not self supporting has failed to try to do this, but there sure as hell are plenty who have spent on whatever they desired throughout their lives in the absolute presumption that the taxpayer will look after them in old age.  And thus far, yes, the taxpayer does.



sptrawler said:


> It's funny the baby boomers supported their parents and most I know have, and still are helping their 20 - 40 year old kids.
> But listen to the Gen Y kids "why should I support anybody, its all about me".
> I can see why the government doesn't want the baby boomers to retire, they are the only ones who do a decent days work without bitching and crying.LOL






disarray said:


> needs more generalisation sptrawler



So funny, disarray.  (Though I do agree with sptrawler).


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2011)

disarray said:


> needs more generalisation sptrawler




Why did I miss someone? lol


----------



## moXJO (12 August 2011)

disarray said:


> if they can support themselves, sure. otherwise what about the rights of young people to not have to pay for a burgeoning elderly class?




Probably the same reason I have to pay for young able bodied bludgers that have contributed nothing to society and sit on their ass because 
"That jobs just not for me/ to far away/ not what I want to do" 

Umm where's my rights not to pay disarray Come on throw me a bone here. Gen x is always left out


----------



## disarray (12 August 2011)

moXJO said:


> Umm where's my rights not to pay disarray Come on throw me a bone here. Gen x is always left out




get angry man. or generalise more. either way i don't give a stuff what generation someone is, but a man should always pay his own way. granted sometimes there is bad fortune, or things go wrong and people need a helping hand, but people should always pay their own way if they are able.

if you are old with a large house and can't afford to live your lifestyle then you should downsize. if you are young and able bodied then get a friggin job. everyone should work. to get all biblical "those who do not work, neither shall they eat"



			
				Julia said:
			
		

> I do have to admit to a bit of resentment that once again it's those of us who have been prudent, saved and generally taken responsibility for ourselves who receive the least.




i hear you


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2011)

disarray said:


> get angry man. or generalise more. i don't give a stuff what generation someone is, but a man should always pay his own way. granted sometimes there is bad fortune, or things go wrong and people need a helping hand, but people should always pay their own way if they are able.
> 
> if you are old with a large house and can't afford to live your lifestyle then you should downsize. if you are young and able bodied then get a friggin job. everyone should work. to get all biblical "those who do not work, neither shall they eat"




The problem is mate, what happens if you start from the bottom and do without, you live in a dump, drive a crap car, don't go out. 
Instead you just save and invest so you don't have to rely on charity.
Your mates p!!!$$ it up, have a great time, drive monaros and gt falcons, take holidays, wine and dine the chicks and have nothing at retirement.
Then you end up with people like you saying, I have to pay more to support them in retirement. 
I hope you end up there some day.LOL


----------



## disarray (12 August 2011)

sorry man but i don't know what you are talking about. what is your point? that the sensible and frugal should support those who spend their lives pissing their money up against the wall?

p.s. fix your quote tags


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2011)

disarray said:


> sorry man but i don't know what you are talking about. what is your point? that the sensible and frugal should support those who spend their lives pissing their money up against the wall?
> 
> p.s. fix your quote tags




Obviously that is the plan.LOL
By the way are you starcraftmazter?


----------



## disarray (12 August 2011)

actually it's more like the reality, but whatever.

and no i'm not. that's a stupid question.


----------



## sptrawler (12 August 2011)

disarray said:


> actually it's more like the reality, but whatever.
> 
> and no i'm not. that's a stupid question.




Yes but your responses begged the question.


----------



## Ruby (13 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> In fact they are now talking about having seniors sell their houses, which is excellent. All retirees should be forced to sell all their property before they are eligible to receive any pension payments.






Starcraftmazter said:


> Downgrade to low-maintenance, low-cost retiree housing, free up housing supply for young families.
> 
> There is no reason the government should pay pensioners any money if they are capable of sustaining themselves through selling their assets. Indeed, this is impossible and unsustainable. *It's all about what's best for society*.




It sounds to me as though it is all about what is best for *YOU*, SCM!  What an incredibly juvenile, selfish and narrow minded view you have!  Younger generations have always looked after the older generation - throughout history.  You will appreciate it when your turn comes.

There are a few things you don't seem to be aware of, living in your naive little cocoon.  When the current crop of elderly people was young:-


There was no Superannuation Guarantee (unless you were a public servant)
There was no equal pay for equal work, so women occupied low paid positions.
There was no childcare, enabling mothers to work
There was a high level of work place discrimminaton, meaning that many jobs were not open to women, and if they were, they were not open to *married *women.  (I remember when the public service did not employ married women.)
There were no high salaries, which meant that people could not *ever *save enough for a comfortable retirement.
The high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys* was created by today's aging baby boomers*
.

But then...........you still have a lot of growing up to do.

(My bolds.)


----------



## moXJO (13 August 2011)

disarray said:


> get angry man. or generalise more. either way i don't give a stuff what generation someone is, but a man should always pay his own way. granted sometimes there is bad fortune, or things go wrong and people need a helping hand, but people should always pay their own way if they are able.
> 
> if you are old with a large house and can't afford to live your lifestyle then you should downsize. if you are young and able bodied then get a friggin job. everyone should work. to get all biblical "those who do not work, neither shall they eat"
> 
> ...



 No I understand what you were saying.
Some people just seem to be brought up with or develop a welfare entitlement mentality that in reality don't / shouldn't need.


----------



## disarray (13 August 2011)

are you missing the irony here? don't you think a person with substantial assets claiming benefits is demonstrating this "welfare entitlement mentality"?


----------



## disarray (13 August 2011)

Ruby said:


> Younger generations have always looked after the older generation - throughout history.




yes they often did, but leftist social engineering, the dismantling of the family unit and the rise of the welfare / nanny state have thrown traditional social dynamics out of whack.



			
				Ruby said:
			
		

> There are a few things you don't seem to be aware of, living in your naive little cocoon.  When the current crop of elderly people was young:-
> 
> [*]There was no Superannuation Guarantee (unless you were a public servant)




given the current state of superannuation funds due to market volatility and fees, taxes, government regulation and (tinfoil hat on) the likelihood super will be compulsorarily acquired by the government at some stage in the future to pay for whatever crisis our leaders have managed to blunder their way into, i don't really see super being that good of a long term bet. but time will tell.



			
				Ruby said:
			
		

> [*]There was no equal pay for equal work, so women occupied low paid positions.
> [*]There was no childcare, enabling mothers to work
> [*]There was a high level of work place discrimminaton, meaning that many jobs were not open to women, and if they were, they were not open to *married *women.  (I remember when the public service did not employ married women.)




and due to a much lower cost of living and higher real value of dollars (before fiat was badly debased), this meant purchasing power was much higher and families could survive and even build assets on a single income. zero chance of that now.



> [*]There were no high salaries, which meant that people could not *ever *save enough for a comfortable retirement.




just as well house prices have increased so much then! pretty sure downsizing assets could help many people enjoy "a comfortable retirement"



			
				Ruby said:
			
		

> [*]The high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys* was created by today's aging baby boomers*




this is crap and typical of the self-important attitude many boomers like to throw around. it was our grandparents generation, who grew up in the depression and fought in WW2 that created our countries standard of living. it was the boomers milked the benefits while overseeing its debasement though.

now tell us about how boomers invented computers and went to the moon etc. etc. (hint: they didn't, it was the WW2 generation again)



			
				Ruby said:
			
		

> But then...........you still have a lot of growing up to do.




age does not necessarily equate to wisdom

anyway generalisation doesn't help resolve any issues. generational conflict is part and parcel of our society. starcraftmazter raises valid points about personal responsibility and the duty of an individual to pay their own way if they possess the means to do so. getting all indignant and saying "we had it so hard so we deserve to live the lifestyle we are accustomed to even if it needs to be subsidised by others" is bullsh!t and should rightly be challenged by those who are expected to pay for it.


----------



## Ruby (13 August 2011)

disarray said:


> yes they often did, but leftist social engineering, the dismantling of the family unit and the rise of the welfare / nanny state have thrown traditional social dynamics out of whack.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Disarray, you are talking nonsense.  You clearly didn't live in that time, and have only an idealised concept of what society was like then.   You are looking back through a 2011 lens!!

Yes, there were some who could save and build assets - and they are the ones who live in reasonable houses and are self-funded.  Those peope have every right to stay where they are.   There are others who had absolutely no chance of doing that, and they are the ones who need to rely on a pension, because the only asset they own is their home (if indeed they own that much), and that is usually quite small and unpretentious anyway.  Why should they give up that home? They have a right to live somewhere.  Old people are part of society too, and are just as important as young people.  They are not commodities to be tossed to one side when they can no longer work. 

Oh, and I said nothing about age and wisdom.  I said SCM needs to grow up.  Different thing!  Being a grown up has nothing to do with age either!!


----------



## Julia (13 August 2011)

disarray said:


> given the current state of superannuation funds due to market volatility and fees, taxes, government regulation and (tinfoil hat on) the likelihood super will be compulsorarily acquired by the government at some stage in the future to pay for whatever crisis our leaders have managed to blunder their way into, i don't really see super being that good of a long term bet. but time will tell.



Yep, agree that it's entirely possible government will e.g. take contributed Super from individuals and issue those individuals with some sort of annuity.



> and due to a much lower cost of living and higher real value of dollars (before fiat was badly debased), this meant purchasing power was much higher and families could survive and even build assets on a single income. zero chance of that now.



For someone who decries generalisation, you're doing a fair bit of it  yourself.
Plenty of people live on a single income these days.  It simply depends on that level of income.
And a couple of generations ago, people were more content to start with a very modest house, second hand furniture, and have both partners work at least two jobs.  They also were more disposed to accept a pretty old car.

There were simply different expectations.



> this is crap and typical of the self-important attitude many boomers like to throw around. it was our grandparents generation, who grew up in the depression and fought in WW2 that created our countries standard of living. it was the boomers milked the benefits while overseeing its debasement though.



Wow!  Not just a huge generalisation but simply rude as well.


----------



## disarray (13 August 2011)

yes you are both touching upon the point i am highlighting.

what is the standard of lifestyle one should reasonably expect? what level of assets are required to support this lifestyle? if one has assets in excess of "reasonable lifestyle" requirements then why should they expect to be subsidised by others?

should those who were spendthrifts throughout their life have the right to demand benefits from others in their retirement? 

this is especially pertinent now when the population of "non-productive" aged is bulging, life expectancies are increasing, asset allocation is skewed heavily towards the elder generations while debt load is heavily skewed towards the younger generations, and the value of currency has been seriously debased causing a huge spike in asset prices but with no corresponding increase in wages.

you both mention the person who worked hard, lived modestly, played the game and thus should have the right to enjoy what they have. i don't think anyone is disputing this right. however in the case where there are people with assets but excessive lifestyle expectations, or people who wasted their money throughout their lives but expect to be subsidised in retirement, i think it is reasonable to challenge assumptions that they should be financed by the increasingly burdened taxpayer.

it is a challenging time as far as generational shift goes. acknowledging generational perceptions and differences are the first step to a civil discussion on how best to manage the next 30 odd years because it should be obvious to all that the system is failing NOW due to excess debt, and you can't mortgage the future off forever.

also julia, you agree with the assertion that "the high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys was created by today's aging baby boomers" and not the WW2 generation?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (13 August 2011)

Jeez, you guys are pessimists.

This is THE land of opportunity.

As an active boomer I look forward to engaging in it with my descendants. 

gg


----------



## Ruby (13 August 2011)

disarray said:


> yes you are both touching upon the point i am highlighting.
> 
> what is the standard of lifestyle one should reasonably expect? what level of assets are required to support this lifestyle? if one has assets in excess of "reasonable lifestyle" requirements then why should they expect to be subsidised by others?
> 
> ...




The "welfare entitlement" mentality exists in all age groups.  Certainly there is a small proportion of people who "double dip" - spend all their money and then expect to be supported via a pension in their old age.  I certainly don't support this.  There are also plenty of people of working age who refuse to work and expect to be supported on a pension (dole).  This has nothing to do with an age group.


----------



## moXJO (13 August 2011)

disarray said:


> are you missing the irony here? don't you think a person with substantial assets claiming benefits is demonstrating this "welfare entitlement mentality"?




where did I lead you to think that I would think otherwise?

I'm not big on govt handouts.


----------



## chrisalex (13 August 2011)

Everyone is missing the big picture. The elderly would sell the home as a last resort, if they had no one to help. And of their volition.
       Bob Brown  woul like to make this a LAW. Gillard is no different. I have watched her over more than 20 years work her way up from the Socialist quagmire of our universities, and happily send us down the same rd. as every leftist government.
                                chrisalex


----------



## Julia (13 August 2011)

disarray said:


> what is the standard of lifestyle one should reasonably expect? what level of assets are required to support this lifestyle? if one has assets in excess of "reasonable lifestyle" requirements then why should they expect to be subsidised by others?



Disarray, I'm not sure where you get the notion that any significant group of people is expecting the taxpayer to fund some sort of really extravagant lifestyle which seems to be what you're suggesting.  I might be misunderstanding what you're saying.

I actually think the current system is probably as close to being fair as is possible. i.e. there is a taxpayer funded very basic pension available for those who are unable to generate an income from their own funds.   People do exist on this, and I don't actually think it's all that difficult for a couple getting the married rate of around $1100 per week which if they own their own home seems more than reasonable to me.

Not so easy, however, if you are single and get only a bit over half that but still have the same rates, water, insurance, electricity etc.

The age pension is means tested and reduces on a sliding scale depending on level of assets and income.  These limits are, again, reasonably generous imo, allowing a significant number of people to qualify for even a small amount of govt pension and especially the prized Pension Card which gives access to many very worthwhile discounts on rates, insurance, rego, pretty much everything.

So you could say in purely amoral and pragmatic terms, it's possibly even worth a self funded retiree spending some of their carefully saved money in order to get just $1 of pension and all the attached benefits.

But, to go to your point, is this fair or reasonable?
I'd say most self funded retirees will approach this on the same basis that has guided them so far, viz pride in taking responsibility for themselves.  



> should those who were spendthrifts throughout their life have the right to demand benefits from others in their retirement?



Imo, no, but in fact this is exactly what happens.  
We should always be looking after those who have not been able to properly care for themselves to a far better level than we do at present, but I get very fed up with the notion that those for whom the welfare mentality has been their guiding principle throughout their lives will carry this through to their final days.

I'm therefore all for user pays aged care where those who are able to pay for a good level of care get superior treatment.
Those who can't pay still get looked after but only on a basic level.

I'm not sure how this would go down across the electorate but it seems fair to me.
If someone wants to do without an overseas trip every year in order to have more comfort when they're old, then that's what they should be able to do.



> it is a challenging time as far as generational shift goes. acknowledging generational perceptions and differences are the first step to a civil discussion on how best to manage the next 30 odd years because it should be obvious to all that the system is failing NOW due to excess debt, and you can't mortgage the future off forever.



True.   I also think we need to engage in a candid discussion about the prolongation of life in old age.  Huge amounts of medical resources are given over to slightly extending the life of someone who is going to die within a year anyway.  I would like to see this stopped and the resources devoted to younger people.

I think we're more or less on the same page, disarray.  Probably just have somewhat different ways of expressing it.
e.g. I am excessively long-winded!



> also julia, you agree with the assertion that "the high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys was created by today's aging baby boomers" and not the WW2 generation?



To be honest, I really wouldn't want to attribute the present standard of living to any particular generation.  I think it's way more individual than that, and that one's standard of living usually reflects the effort one has made during a lifetime.

Not everyone enjoys a high standard of living in Australia.  We have a woeful level of homelessness which is often attributable to mental illness/addictions/low IQ/personal inadequacy, rather than simply slackness.


----------



## Ruby (14 August 2011)

Julia said:


> .........think it's all that difficult for a couple getting the married rate of around *$1100 per week *which if they own their own home seems more than reasonable to me...........




Julia, small correction.   That is the fortnightly rate.


----------



## Julia (14 August 2011)

Oops!  Of course it is.  Thanks, Ruby.


----------



## joea (14 August 2011)

Meeting are being held in North Qld. in relation to the "convoy to canberra".
The meeting are apparently to organise and plan way's to call an election.

Is there any mention of this in other area's?
joea


----------



## breaker (14 August 2011)

disarray said:


> needs more generalisation sptrawler




no it does'nt


----------



## Happy (14 August 2011)

joea said:


> ...
> The meeting are apparently to organise and plan way's to call an election.
> 
> Is there any mention of this in other area's?
> joea




There should be somewhere a mechanism for calling ealy election by voters.

Maybe election trigger should be enough that politician lied before election and did the opposite after elected?


----------



## joea (14 August 2011)

Happy said:


> There should be somewhere a mechanism for calling ealy election by voters.
> 
> Maybe election trigger should be enough that politician lied before election and did the opposite after elected?




I think you are close to the mark.
Why should the voters have to contribute to a government which is out of control?
I now think a lot more people will be using a bit more common sense at the next election. I think Bob Brown is running s**t scared!!!!
joea p.s. It can not come soon enough for me!!!


----------



## DB008 (14 August 2011)

I have asked this in another thread (or so l think...), but what options do we (as a people) have for an early election? (...Basically, none???)


----------



## noco (15 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> I have asked this in another thread (or so l think...), but what options do we (as a people) have for an early election? (...Basically, none???)




A MIRACLE. Maybe a by-election or a resignation as I just posted on another thread.


----------



## noco (15 August 2011)

noco said:


> A MIRACLE. Maybe a by-election or a resignation as I just posted on another thread.




Here is a little more on the Craig Thompson saga. He is becoming desperate to save himself.


http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-mp-accused-of-credit-card-rort-20090407-9zl7.html


----------



## sptrawler (15 August 2011)

noco said:


> Here is a little more on the Craig Thompson saga. He is becoming desperate to save himself.
> 
> 
> http://www.smh.com.au/national/labor-mp-accused-of-credit-card-rort-20090407-9zl7.html




That all sounds pretty serious and it is not an isolated incident. This could go really bad for him.


----------



## Happy (15 August 2011)

Maybe Mother in Law one of Labor’s politicians or should I say Governor General could call one, but …

Quite interesting if anybody else can see possibility of gross impartiality, or I am just too happy to jump to too outrageous conclusions.


----------



## sails (15 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> I have asked this in another thread (or so l think...), but what options do we (as a people) have for an early election? (...Basically, none???)





Danny, here are some people giving it a try:

From the Australian: *Mass convoy to make 'real' voices heard* 

*The organisers’ petition PDF* - here's an excerpt:

… the 43rd Executive Government of Australia has been compromised into wilfully and intentionally misleading the Australian people by introducing a ‘Carban Tax” without the
    consent of the Australian people and, that would be normally decided by a free and unencumbered ballot.

    I therefore demand that the Prime Minister with the concurrence of the Governor-General, immediately dissolve both Houses of the 43rd Parliament and a ballot of the Australian people called so that the people of Australia may elect a responsible 44th Parliament of the Commonwealth of Australia.​
Below is a map of the convoy routes and  *more details here*







Thanks to Andrew Bolt for placing these links in his blog today: *Protesters, start your engines*


----------



## Smurf1976 (15 August 2011)

Someone might want to check their spelling there. It's a carbon tax, not a carban tax.

Nothing worse than getting lots of people to sign a petition or participate in a protest rally and then realise you stuffed something up and now look like a fool. 

Note to self: having the generator run out of petrol at a protest rally is also one to avoid as that's rather embarassing too. Been there with that one...


----------



## Wysiwyg (15 August 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> Someone might want to check their spelling there. It's a carbon tax, not a carban tax.



Well a car-ban would be more effective than a carbon tax because micro exhaust particles do severe damage to lungs.


----------



## Glen48 (16 August 2011)

IF/ when Gillard and co go out then what who do you vote for who can save the country and how, it is all part of a Global mess about to get a lot worse.
 Bank of America is on the verge of going under and just received another 1/2 trillion bail out.
 Big Ben has warmed up the choppers and is getting the loot ready to drop out the door's.
 So don't vote maybe they will get the message you want action.


----------



## drsmith (16 August 2011)

Glen48 said:


> IF/ when Gillard and co go out.......



No if, it's when.

The good ship Gillard Labor might be sinking a little slower than many of us would like, but it is sinking.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (17 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> Debatable and the total cost will easily exceed the Governments original $40-$50 Billion estimate.




Have you ever had to convert from a phone line to a naked adsl connection? I am happy for the NBN to cost $100bn if that is what it takes. There *must* be a unified, efficient, high-speed network. There is just no other way.

And before anyone gives me crap about being selfish again, to draw on a great example, I work for a company producing real professional services (that is, not bogus crap that relies on any boom cycle) for export to other countries, and yet we have to put up with the most ridiculously expensive, slow and ****ty internet right in the middle of Sydney CBD. This presents very real challenges even when working with Australian clients. All of us are eagerly anticipating the NBN because it will allow us to do business far better - and I *strongly* suspect we are not the only company in this position.




DB008 said:


> And we will make a HUGE difference in reducing CO2 emissions while China and USA do nothing. Renewable technology is too expensive and can't handle base power loads.




USA is doing more than you think by tanking their economy with idiotic policies (not that I'm implying they are doing so to combat climate change).

China is moving to impose emission caps by next year, several Chinese provinces already operate their own emission trading schemes. The current five year plan has significant commitment to stopping the rise of emissions while growing the Chinese economy.



DB008 said:


> And the Christmas Island debarcle that is happening right NOW? The Government dismantled a working policy, and totally stuffed it up. See chart below.




I don't like it one bit, but what exactly have the Liberals proposed as a means to deal with it? The only thing I've heard is "herp derp stop the boats". How exactly do they plan to stop them?



DB008 said:


> You clearly have no idea what you are talking about! Look at Germany, 4 times the population and high standard of living!




Germany also has a 4 (if not 40) times better government. Better than Libs, Labor, Greens, whatever other party you can think of. Just about everything in Germany is done the way it should be done, and I do not see our own politicians ever reaching such high standards of governance. The only thing that will result from population increase in Australia is a lowering of the quality of life (this has already been happening), because politicians here are incapable of addressing any problems which come with greater population.

In the last few decades Sydney's population has grown immensely. We should have built high-tech satellite cities with high speed rail connections to Sydney. We should have had massive investment in infrastructure.
What have we gotten? Zero infrastructure investment, urban growth boundary bull****, supply shortages, idiotic government grants, banking deregulation causing a credit bubble, red tape for developers and the most expensive housing market in Australia. In Germany, in the last 70 years, real property medians haven't risen once.

Traffic is ridiculous, there is not even any space on footpaths during peak hour. Our governments (federal, state and local) are a _joke_.

I would not be so much against population increase if our politicians had a clue - but they don't. This is apart from the fact that there are simply too many people live on the planet. Why have more of us competing for Australia's resources? No way.



DB008 said:


> I don't know what to say...Your living on another planet with your own little fascist view on life. Sad to see a younger person which such arrogance and negative view on the world, and this is coming from someone who is similar in age.




Some here have called me socialist, and now I'm fascist. You guys really should make up your mind 

My views are not ever negative - merely realistic.




startrader said:


> You really can't be serious about this.  We have had record levels of immigration under the Labor government after Rudd got into power.  He said he believes in a BIG AUSTRALIA.  Julia may SAY she doesn't want large immigration numbers but that's just talk.




Aha....








Ruby said:


> It sounds to me as though it is all about what is best for *YOU*, SCM!  What an incredibly juvenile, selfish and narrow minded view you have!  Younger generations have always looked after the older generation - throughout history.  You will appreciate it when your turn comes.




I disagree thoroughly. I only and only think about what is best in the long-term for (the Australian) people and society.



Ruby said:


> The high standard of living that Australia currently enjoys* was created by today's aging baby boomers*




I think China had a lot more to do with it. That and immigrant workers because apparently you boomers are too good for driving a truck for $280k pa.

I don't consider any of your other points relevant to what I had posted.


----------



## drsmith (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Have you ever had to convert from a phone line to a naked adsl connection? I am happy for the NBN to cost $100bn if that is what it takes. There *must* be a unified, efficient, high-speed network. There is just no other way.



$100bn if that's what it takes ??

What about $200bn, $300bn, or more if that's what it takes ?

It's easy to demand and spend, spend, spend when it's other people's money.

Trouble is, sooner or later, other people get jack of that and it runs out.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (17 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> $100bn if that's what it takes ??
> 
> What about $200bn, $300bn, or more if that's what it takes.
> 
> ...




Well first of all, I would suggest that I would pay my fair share through taxes.

Second of all, I would argue that the NBN will contribute immensely to our economy (especially IT & professional services) and education, and is worth the cost.

We *must* use mining revenue to spend *big* on infrastructure, _especially_ to encourage non-mining exporting companies - or this country has no future. Mining cannot and will not last us forever. China will not continue growing forever. This is my view.


----------



## IFocus (17 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> No if, it's when.
> 
> The good ship Gillard Labor might be sinking a little slower than many of us would like, but it is sinking.





Keep dreaming Abbott will be PM soon enough then what............will he actually answer questions? Ha ha ha ha ha (hilarious)

God I will have a field day bring it on please.


----------



## DB008 (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter;
All l will say, check your facts.....


----------



## Starcraftmazter (17 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> Starcraftmazter;
> All l will say, check your facts.....




Yeh, anything more specific? I am happy to do the checking, I have a terrible memory anyway.


----------



## DB008 (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Have you ever had to convert from a phone line to a naked adsl connection?



Yep...and...



Starcraftmazter said:


> to draw on a great example...we have to put up with the most ridiculously expensive, slow and ****ty internet right in the middle of Sydney CBD.



Great example of a incompetent IT department that doesn't know what it's doing. I live a few clicks from the CBD and have ADSL2+. Also get 200gb for $80 per month, expensive, not really when you hear horror stories from the USA and Canada where people pay $50 for 'unlimited' ADSL and get snail speed (But l'm sure that you knew this already). 
 ADSL2 is more than fast enough for todays work loads, the only industries that could come close to utilising super fast NBN speeds would be hospitals doing video surgery, universities doing complex mathematical scenarios/earthquake hypotheticals with one another (live) and possibly ASIO/another Government department that needs it for real time issues with other agencies. 




Starcraftmazter said:


> China is moving to impose emission caps by next year, several Chinese provinces already operate their own emission trading schemes. The current five year plan has significant commitment to stopping the rise of emissions while growing the Chinese economy.






> The Times; China's coal power plants among least efficient in the world
> Turning China into the world’s manufacturing centre has given us a bountiful supply of dirt-cheap goods but is proving an environmental disaster. Chinese industry is overwhelmingly dependent on coal for its energy and China’s coal-fired power stations are among the least efficient in the world.








Starcraftmazter said:


> Germany also has a 4 (if not 40) times better government. Better than Libs, Labor, Greens, whatever other party you can think of.



 Prove it! I was in Germany earlier this year, think times a tough here, go and have a look there! 



Starcraftmazter said:


> Just about everything in Germany is done the way it should be done



Including immigration?



Starcraftmazter said:


> In Germany, in the last 70 years, real property medians haven't risen once.



Another load of BS. Your source please?



Starcraftmazter said:


> Traffic is ridiculous, there is not even any space on footpaths during peak hour. Our governments (federal, state and local) are a _joke_.



I just spent 6 weeks in Europe. Traffic is pretty bad there too! All the major cities were clogged during peak hour.



Starcraftmazter said:


> My views are not ever negative - merely realistic.



Only in your eyes.



Starcraftmazter said:


> That and immigrant workers because apparently you boomers are too good for driving a truck for $280k pa.



 Another load of BS from Starcraftmazter. Haul-pack operators aren't on 280k pa. I did 4 years FIFO (as a professional) in WA and l know the rates.


----------



## sptrawler (17 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter, if you work for a really professional company that supplies export quality product and is hamstrung by crap internet speed. Why not pay to have optical run to your office, why should I have to pay for it.


----------



## startrader (18 August 2011)

Starcraftmaster the *NET OVERSEAS IMMIGRATION* under the Coalition was 126,000 a year but under Labor rose to more than 300,000 and has decreased to 171,000 for the past year.  I was not talking about the net permanent and long term arrivals as per your non relevant graph.


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well first of all, I would suggest that I would pay my fair share through taxes.



How much tax you pay as an individual is not relevant to the point I raised.



Starcraftmazter said:


> We *must* use mining revenue to spend *big* on infrastructure, _especially_ to encourage non-mining exporting companies - or this country has no future. Mining cannot and will not last us forever. China will not continue growing forever. This is my view.



Again, not relevant to the point I raised.



Starcraftmazter said:


> Second of all, I would argue that the NBN will contribute immensely to our economy (especially IT & professional services) and education, and is worth the cost.



But, at any cost ?

Remember, you said $100bn.

Do you have a cost/benefit analysis to support that ?


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2011)

IFocus said:


> Keep dreaming Abbott will be PM soon enough then what............will he actually answer questions? Ha ha ha ha ha (hilarious)
> 
> God I will have a field day bring it on please.



In the meantime, I hope you have the bunker well stocked.


----------



## IFocus (18 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> In the meantime, I hope you have the bunker well stocked.





Europe may develop that necessity unfortunately, if not the Coalition will surely give us a recession we have to have with their spending cuts including reducing the public service that's currently the same size as in 1991, dunder heats incorporated.


----------



## satanoperca (18 August 2011)

IFocus said:


> Europe may develop that necessity unfortunately, if not the Coalition will surely give us a recession we have to have with their spending cuts including reducing the public service that's currently the same size as in 1991, dunder heats incorporated.




Hi Ifocus,

Are you implying that if Libs get in at the next election and have to make drastic spending cuts it will be their fault we go into a recession or are you implying that the Libs will have to make drastic spending cuts due to the current Labor government spending more than they have and putting our national into unnecessary debt. 

Either way, I think the fault clearly lies with this government not the next.

Cheers


----------



## IFocus (18 August 2011)

satanoperca said:


> Hi Ifocus,
> 
> Are you implying that if Libs get in at the next election and have to make drastic spending cuts it will be their fault we go into a recession or are you implying that the Libs will have to make drastic spending cuts due to the current Labor government spending more than they have and putting our national into unnecessary debt.
> 
> ...




No argument on who has been spending, but the idiot policy statements coming out from the Coalition is continually being ignored by the media and the ASF cheer squad.

Abbott's continued talking down Australians situation is seriously over blown by any measurement (no argument with the politics it works proven by the US Republicans) but if you are going to apply standards to the government (again no argument) then apply the same to Abbott..........gaping hole at best. 

Abbott's continual refusal to scrutiny is almost historic in Australian politics.

The cuts so far leaked by Hockey are at best dysfunctional.


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2011)

IFocus said:


> Europe may develop that necessity unfortunately, if not the Coalition will surely give us a recession we have to have with their spending cuts including reducing the public service that's currently the same size as in 1991, dunder heats incorporated.



The next recession we _have to have _ won't be the first. 

I was referring to the ALP supporter's bunker. It will need ample provisions and a thick reinforced roof.


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2011)

IFocus said:


> No argument on who has been spending,



The $100bn NBN man doesn't mind a little spending.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (18 August 2011)

DB008 said:


> Great example of a incompetent IT department that doesn't know what it's doing. I live a few clicks from the CBD and have ADSL2+. Also get 200gb for $80 per month, expensive, not really when you hear horror stories from the USA and Canada where people pay $50 for 'unlimited' ADSL and get snail speed (But l'm sure that you knew this already).




This is simply a serious of ill-made assumptions for you. First of all, it sounds as though you are referring to retail ADSL2+. Any real business needs a guarantee of speed 24x7, and this will cost a lot more than $80.

Second of all, due to our particular needs, we need SHDSL as ADSL does not provide an adequate upload speed. Again, this costs a lot more than $80.




DB008 said:


> Prove it! I was in Germany earlier this year, think times a tough here, go and have a look there!




Housing market - case and point. Look at their infrastructure - case and point. Their government won't even allow a bailout not involving private bank losses - case and point.



DB008 said:


> Including immigration?




Well, it achieves results I suppose. They can hope with it, we can't.



DB008 said:


> Another load of BS. Your source please?




I suggest you do your research before saying "load of BS".
http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/201...able-housing/real-house-prices-germany-vs-uk/



DB008 said:


> I just spent 6 weeks in Europe. Traffic is pretty bad there too! All the major cities were clogged during peak hour.




Some EU countries are definitely very bad. I am not making a case for _all_ of Europe at all.



DB008 said:


> Another load of BS from Starcraftmazter. Haul-pack operators aren't on 280k pa. I did 4 years FIFO (as a professional) in WA and l know the rates.




Not sure where I read it (only a few weeks ago), there was one account of a truck driver on 250k, who said they will be asking for 280k this year.



sptrawler said:


> Starcraftmazter, if you work for a really professional company that supplies export quality product and is hamstrung by crap internet speed. Why not pay to have optical run to your office, why should I have to pay for it.




Ridiculously expensive.



startrader said:


> Starcraftmaster the *NET OVERSEAS IMMIGRATION* under the Coalition was 126,000 a year but under Labor rose to more than 300,000 and has decreased to 171,000 for the past year.  I was not talking about the net permanent and long term arrivals as per your non relevant graph.




Well that is the only relevant thing. Departures and arrivals (what you refer to) is not immigration, but tourists, students, etc.



drsmith said:


> Do you have a cost/benefit analysis to support that ?




It is not possible to do a cost/benefit analysis of something like the NBN, and I would argue it is irrelevant either way. It is worth at any cost at which it can be reasonably built.


----------



## drsmith (18 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> It is not possible to do a cost/benefit analysis of something like the NBN, and I would argue it is irrelevant either way. It is worth at any cost at which it can be reasonably built.



This attitude of spend regardless of the underlying merit demonstrates well why this government are such bad fiscal managers.


----------



## sptrawler (18 August 2011)

Ridiculously expensive.

Again I ask why should I pay for it, when business and high data usage industries are the ones who benefit.
It is a bit like you saying why should the younger generation have to pay for baby boomer aged care, When your generation isn't using it.
By the same principal, why should the baby boomers and tax payers in general, have to pay for the N.B.N when the beneficiaries are business and government.


----------



## Julia (18 August 2011)

SCM, where did you get the expression "case and point" from?
What does it mean?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (18 August 2011)

drsmith said:


> This attitude of spend regardless of the underlying merit demonstrates well why this government are such bad fiscal managers.




Mate this is probably an ideological difference more than anything. In my view there is simply no good alternative to take us forward. Sometimes something of high quality is worth the price...and this is from a person who buys zero discretionary items 



sptrawler said:


> Again I ask why should I pay for it, when business and high data usage industries are the ones who benefit.




Can you guarantee that your children won't benefit from it? You also need to consider indirect benefits which you receive by Australia receiving economic benefits from it.

Whether you like it or not, everyone benefits.


----------



## satanoperca (18 August 2011)

Don't really wish to get involved in this debate as time will show that the NBN will be an absolute waste of money that this govnuts do not have. Oh, the solution, borrow the money that will benefit my child immensly in the future.

My young son has access to the internet, how much faster does he need to download pr0n, he only has two hands and one dick, just kidding.

While access to the internet is important for all Australians, if it means that the govnuts have to put us further into debt, then the answer is no from me. 

Technology is changing rapidly and by the time they implement this system it will already be out dated. I just look back over the last few years, from dial up to ADSL, I now using my iphone for my internet connection, fast enough for me to trade 5 min time frames and 12gb is plenty for me each month.

I do wonder if this money could be spent elsewhere for a better return on our (the taxpayers) dollar.

I see the arguement that there is no better alternative, that does not mean you take a less than adequate solution, well that depends if you think giving everyone $900 was a good future investment for Australians.

Cheers


----------



## sptrawler (18 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Mate this is probably an ideological difference more than anything. In my view there is simply no good alternative to take us forward. Sometimes something of high quality is worth the price...and this is from a person who buys zero discretionary items
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Why? because you say so. What a load of BS it is the same argument for the carbon tax. 
What if you are wrong on both counts, the result is a huge amount of debt for the N.B.N and a completely decimated manufacturing industry with the carbon tax.
I certainly hope you are right, it doesn't effect my kids but it will my grandkids.
The difference between me and you is probably 20-30 years and from my perspective there has been nothing, this government has done that inspires confidence.
If they are wrong s#!ts are trumps!!!!!!


----------



## DB008 (18 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> This is simply a serious of ill-made assumptions for you. First of all, it sounds as though you are referring to retail ADSL2+. Any real business needs a guarantee of speed 24x7, and this will cost a lot more than $80.
> 
> Second of all, due to our particular needs, we need SHDSL as ADSL does not provide an adequate upload speed. Again, this costs a lot more than $80.





2 minutes on Google.

http://www.shiftreload.com/internet-access-pricing.asp

http://www.exetel.com.au/business_shdsl.php

http://www.summitinternet.com.au/business-broadband/adsl2/ (20mbps)
http://www.summitinternet.com.au/business-broadband/shdsl/


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Why? because you say so. What a load of BS it is the same argument for the carbon tax.




Well I would presume I have more technical education and knowledge than you, as nobody else I know who's in the IT field disagrees with me. The vast majority of people in the IT field (ie. the ones who actually have the knowledge to judge NBN against any other proposal) support it.



sptrawler said:


> What if you are wrong on both counts, the result is a huge amount of debt for the N.B.N




It's not huge, it's barely anything for such a massive infrastructure project.



sptrawler said:


> and a completely decimated manufacturing industry with the carbon tax.




That's a fruitful exaggeration. The ETS has basically zero effect on manufacturing.





DB008 said:


> http://www.shiftreload.com/internet-access-pricing.asp




There are many other ISPs which have the same sort of speeds and cost. This is precisely my point - this is nothing compared to what the NBN would be able to deliver in terms of speed, and far too expensive compared to what businesses can get in the USA and Europe.



DB008 said:


> http://www.exetel.com.au/business_shdsl.php




Exetel is one of the worst ISPs there is, their CEO can't do anything rights and changes plans every month.



DB008 said:


> http://www.summitinternet.com.au/business-broadband/adsl2/ (20mbps)
> http://www.summitinternet.com.au/business-broadband/shdsl/




I don't see any upload speed greater than 1mb/s (inadequate).


Please stop pretending you know what you're talking about when it comes to choosing an internet connection for an IT business - which you are not even part of.


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> That's a fruitful exaggeration. The ETS has basically zero effect on manufacturing.



That is clearly incorrect based on the government's information.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 August 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> That is clearly incorrect based on the government's information.




Okey 0.1% effect.


----------



## Julia (21 August 2011)

SCM, many years ago Dale Carnegie wrote the book "How to Win Friends and Influence People".  It has been followed by many more by various authors, all aiming to assist those individuals, who have the unfortunate trait of exhibiting quite extraordinary  arrogant rudeness in their dealings with others, to become reasonable human beings.

I suspect Mr Carnegie may have had someone like you in mind when he divined the need for such advice.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 August 2011)

It is simply a fact that any company (especially manufacturing industries) affected will be almost 100% compensated. It just doesn't make any difference. I am not putting up with stupid scaremongering.

Either provide research to base your evidence around or don't make stupid claims.


----------



## startrader (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Well that is the only relevant thing. Departures and arrivals (what you refer to) is not immigration, but tourists, students, etc.




Starcraftmaster, it is a complete waste of time responding to you - what you write is absolute rubbish.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (21 August 2011)

startrader said:


> Starcraftmaster, it is a complete waste of time responding to you - what you write is absolute rubbish.




The feeling is very mutual.


----------



## noco (21 August 2011)

startrader said:


> Starcraftmaster, it is a complete waste of time responding to you - what you write is absolute rubbish.




Yes I agree. Comrades, and that includes JU-LIAR and that Brown t<*d, all stick together with the same propaganda and lies and if you don't agree with them, you are negative or scaremongering.

This Green/Labor socialist left wing government are all brian washed with the same boring repetitive lines and who are the greatest scaremongers of all times.

If you don't have a carbon (dioxide) tax to change the climate or stop global warming :-

a) the rains will stop coming and Brisbane,Sydney and Melbourne will all run out of water by 2009.

b) the The Great Barrier Reef will be distroyed and by the time our children and grandchildren grow up it will be all gone.

c) Flannery says, the North Pole will melt and the seas will rise to the height of an 8 story building on the Gold Coast.

I won't add any more. The majority of sane people on this forum  really do know what scaremongering is, except SCM.


----------



## breaker (21 August 2011)

The funny  or not so funny part is when I reply to Star gazer or any one else I'm the the bigot. but lefty greenies fabians can say what they like [ not allowed to use commie poof]


----------



## moXJO (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> It is simply a fact that any company (especially manufacturing industries) affected will be almost 100% compensated. It just doesn't make any difference. I am not putting up with stupid scaremongering.
> 
> Either provide research to base your evidence around or don't make stupid claims.




And do you know why they are being compensated star?
What position does manufacturing in Australia take regarding the carbon tax?
Honestly you dribble some crap through your posts with your own stupid claims.


----------



## sptrawler (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> It is simply a fact that any company (especially manufacturing industries) affected will be almost 100% compensated. It just doesn't make any difference. I am not putting up with stupid scaremongering.
> 
> Either provide research to base your evidence around or don't make stupid claims.




What I really like about you starcraftmazter, is no matter what proof or valid argument anybody puts forward, you just say no thats not right. You never substantiate anything you say, just knock any argument others put forward, it is quite a good passive agressive approach.
Labor have been trying it for the last 12months, since their absolute incompetence precluded them from using their track record as an argument to support their debate.
I certainly hope the tactic stands you in better stead than it has them, however by peoples responses, I feel you are going the same path. LOL


----------



## wayneL (21 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> What I really like about you starcraftmazter, is no matter what proof or valid argument anybody puts forward, you just say no thats not right. You never substantiate anything you say, just knock any argument others put forward, it is quite a good passive agressive approach.
> Labor have been trying it for the last 12months, since their absolute incompetence precluded them from using their track record as an argument to support their debate.
> I certainly hope the tactic stands you in better stead than it has them, however by peoples responses, I feel you are going the same path. LOL




Indeed


----------



## breaker (21 August 2011)

Would'nt it be bad to have no freind's
But wait would'nt it be terrible to have no freinds on a web forum
Oh well it's not like ya know em or anything


----------



## sptrawler (21 August 2011)

breaker said:


> Would'nt it be bad to have no freind's
> But wait would'nt it be terrible to have no freinds on a web forum
> Oh well it's not like ya know em or anything




Hey breaker, I hope you don't think I am paying out or trying to discourage starcraftmazter, far from it. He is one of the few active pro government posters on the forum and keeps the threads interesting and active.
The only thing that annoys me is, when you put forward the many reasons why a carbon tax will add unsupportable costs to an already stuggling manufacturing base.
Rather than debate that issue, he throws in responses like "how do you make them clean without a tax". When he could debate the ways that the implementation of a tax is going to improve our manufacturing and therefore jobs outlook.
You also have to put in context this is the person who thinks the older population should fund their retirement, but after they have funded N.B.N to his office.LOL


----------



## Smurf1976 (21 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> It is simply a fact that any company (especially manufacturing industries) affected will be almost 100% compensated. It just doesn't make any difference. I am not putting up with stupid scaremongering.
> 
> Either provide research to base your evidence around or don't make stupid claims.



Looking at just one local manufacturer whose operations I understand quite well:

They use electricity, but nowhere near enough of it to be a "big polluter" since their overall scale of operations is modest. They are simply paying government-regulated tariffs for their electricity.

Do you honestly think we're going to see two sets of commercial power tariffs for smaller consumers? One for manufacturing, and another for everything else? What happens in the numerous instances where the factory and office is the same building?

They also use sea, rail and road transport since some of their components are imported. Will the electricity used by the wharf cranes be carbon tax exempt when unloading goods destined for an Australian manufacturer? Likewise how will the railways pay tax on energy when some of the containers they are carrying are (according to your theory) going to be exempt?

And on I could go... The carbon tax goes right throughout the economy and there's no practical means to exempt any industry or company unless it really is a top 500 company that can afford an army of accountants to process all the paperwork. And even there, I dare say the company (not government) will end up having to pay all those accoutants.

There's also the point about new, as opposed to existing, operations which seems to be ignored in this debate. Suppose that I propose in 2015 to build a new factory and have a choice of any country in which to locate it. What proportion of my emissions will be compensated by government if I locate it in Australia? And how does this compare to other countries? That's the really important question since businesses come and go - either we establish new ones or within a few years we'll be stuffed.


----------



## sptrawler (21 August 2011)

Also if the carbon tax costs $520 a year per household and that is modelled on full employment(apparently all jobs lost will be replaced by new renewable jobs _cough_).
How much will it cost per household if unemployment goes to 10% and the compensation has to be payed to those that are now unemployed.
What would the resultant cost to the working taxpayers be. Can anyone run those numbers through the model, please.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (25 August 2011)

moXJO said:


> And do you know why they are being compensated star?
> What position does manufacturing in Australia take regarding the carbon tax?
> Honestly you dribble some crap through your posts with your own stupid claims.




Speak for yourself. The "carbon tax" won't be in effect for almost a year. Between now and then manufacturing will shed a massive amount of jobs, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the "carbon tax" - rather the Australian dollar and the noncompetitive nature of our manufacturers.

Look at Bluescope, they gave half a dozen reasons for their layoffs - and not one of them had anything to do with any "carbon tax".

So like you said - *you sure do dribble some crap in your posts*. Why not try and understand the topic you are discussing?



sptrawler said:


> He is one of the few active pro government posters on the forum and keeps the threads interesting and active.




I am not pro government. This is yet another example of your ignorance and inability to understand anything.



Smurf1976 said:


> There's also the point about new, as opposed to existing, operations which seems to be ignored in this debate. Suppose that I propose in 2015 to build a new factory and have a choice of any country in which to locate it. What proportion of my emissions will be compensated by government if I locate it in Australia? And how does this compare to other countries? That's the really important question since businesses come and go - either we establish new ones or within a few years we'll be stuffed.




This is 110% irrelevant - one cent of appreciation of our currency against the USD has far greater effects than any "carbon tax". You are completely misunderstanding the problem with manufacturing and putting all the blame to something which won't be in effect until far into the future, while the problems that exist in manufacturing are caused by far greater problems which have been building for decades.


Honestly, some people on these forums amaze me.

Price of labor? Irrelevant!
Lack of investment in better manufacturing technologies? Irrelevant!
Exchange rates & exchange rate manipulation by competitors? Irrelevant!
Protectionist policies of export markets? Irrelevant!
High input costs? Irrelevant!
Noncompetitive industry? Irrelevant!

It MUST be this new insignificant and almost entirely subsidised cost that will happen at some time next year which has zero affect now, yet the industry is already shedding jobs for some reason 


Don't quit your day job guys - *seriously*.


----------



## sails (25 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> ...Don't quit your day job guys - *seriously*.




And do you actually think anyone is taking your political propaganda seriously?...

Latest newspoll has Labor back down at 27% of primary vote.  Only rusted on labor supporters and those who might profit somehow by way of a cushy public service job or by way of investments that would do well with a carbon tax would likely make up that 27%.

Even if you add in the 14% of green primary vote, that still leaves 59% of primary votes who do not want this rubbish and it seems these people are no longer listening to the nonsense political propaganda.

Anyway, waste your time and type away...


----------



## NewTrade (25 August 2011)

Australia is headed into a sea of Liberal propagating and revenue busting on a fragile economy that needs supporters and not leeches.

We cannot sow dollar coins into the atmosphere; however we can sow the seeds of hope. The encouragment of todays generation to seek clean alternatives and the funding for research into such a field is half the race run. Next you need people to listen.

A Doco comes to mind, "Who killed the Electric car?".

Can anyone imagine what a sudden rejection of current energy sources would do to the worlds economy? No wonder there are several theories rampant that clean energy patents are held and never released. This society is not ready for such a change.


----------



## Smurf1976 (25 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Speak for yourself. The "carbon tax" won't be in effect for almost a year. Between now and then manufacturing will shed a massive amount of jobs, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the "carbon tax" - rather the Australian dollar and the noncompetitive nature of our manufacturers.



Not all our manufacturers are uncompetitive, and it is largely the highly energy intensive ones that ARE competitive.

For aluminium smelting, a $25 per tonne carbon tax represents about a 15% increase in total production costs for the refined metal. And it represents an even larger increase in the production cost of actual smelting (as distinct from simply selling the ore to someone else).

It's a no brainer that these industries will head overseas, especially if the carbon price is allowed to rise in future years as forecast.


----------



## moXJO (26 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Speak for yourself. The "carbon tax" won't be in effect for almost a year. Between now and then manufacturing will shed a massive amount of jobs, and it has absolutely nothing to do with the "carbon tax" - rather the Australian dollar and the noncompetitive nature of our manufacturers.
> 
> Look at Bluescope, they gave half a dozen reasons for their layoffs - and not one of them had anything to do with any "carbon tax".
> 
> So like you said - *you sure do dribble some crap in your posts*. Why not try and understand the topic you are discussing?




Way to answer a question I didn't ask


----------



## joea (26 August 2011)

NewTrade said:


> Australia is headed into a sea of Liberal propagating and revenue busting on a fragile economy that needs supporters and not leeches.
> 
> We cannot sow dollar coins into the atmosphere; however we can sow the seeds of hope. The encouragment of todays generation to seek clean alternatives and the funding for research into such a field is half the race run. Next you need people to listen.
> 
> ...




New Trade.
Could I ask one question please?
How do you charge a electric car.? and from what?
Comment on change. Re.. the Carbon tax! I have never see the words compiled yet, that explains how it reduces global warning.
I have read a lot, but have not seen a report from Julia Gillard to accurately explain it, and how it actually works.
joea
joea


----------



## Starcraftmazter (28 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Price of labor? Irrelevant!
> Lack of investment in better manufacturing technologies? Irrelevant!
> Exchange rates & exchange rate manipulation by competitors? Irrelevant!
> Protectionist policies of export markets? Irrelevant!
> ...






sails said:


> And do you actually think anyone is taking your political propaganda seriously?...




Alright, can you please refrain from wasting my time from here on end? Thanks.



Smurf1976 said:


> Not all our manufacturers are uncompetitive, and it is largely the highly energy intensive ones that ARE competitive.
> 
> For aluminium smelting, a $25 per tonne carbon tax represents about a 15% increase in total production costs for the refined metal. And it represents an even larger increase in the production cost of actual smelting (as distinct from simply selling the ore to someone else).
> 
> It's a no brainer that these industries will head overseas, especially if the carbon price is allowed to rise in future years as forecast.




I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you mind providing a source for that figure?

Additionally, who are our export markets for aluminium and who are our major competitors? If aluminium is anything like steel, then is it not the case that we have been undercut by China for a while now?

Lastly, at least until the price of carbon is determined by the market, wouldn't the aluminium industry be subsidies for their emissions?


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I'm not saying you're wrong, but do you mind providing a source for that figure?
> 
> Additionally, who are our export markets for aluminium and who are our major competitors?



The economics of the aluminium smelting industry have been in the public domain for 30 years now with a great deal written on the subject by industry, environmentalists and the electricity industry. Bell Bay (Tas) smelter historically has attracted the most attention, although there has been plenty written about the industry in Victoria as well.

In short, the smelters buy bulk wholesale electricity at or near the cost of production (about $40 per MWh, also a widely available figure) and this amoutns to 25% of the cost of smelting. As I said, those figures have been in the public domain for a long time now.

Also widely known is that coal-fired generation (from a typical operating black coal plant) emits about 1 tonne of CO2 per MWh. That figure has also been in the public domain from industry, government and environmentalist sources for many years now.

The rest is simple maths. A $25 per tonne tax works out to about a $25 per MWh increase in generation costs from black coal, increasing the total cost from $40 to $65 which is roughly a 60% increase in the cost of electricity, which represents 25% of smelting costs therefore the carbon tax is a 15% increase in the total cost of smelting.

Note that the other major costs are raw materials (alumina, the "half way" stage of aluminium production and also an energy intensive material to produce), petroleum coke, labour, building the plant in the first place etc. There's only limited scope to reduce those costs.

As for competition, in short it is anywhere that has cheap energy. South Africa, Brazil, Russia, Middle East, Australia, Canada etc are the relevant countries. Here's a list of operating smelters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_aluminium_smelters See this one also http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_aluminium_production

Historically, smelters tended to be built where cheap hydro-electricity was available. No surprise then to find the oldest smelter in Australia (1955) is in Tasmania and that there are lots of them in Canada and one in New Zealand too. In later times coal became a competitive alternative, hence the construction of smelters in Vic, NSW, Qld and plenty of places overseas. 

Will the smelters really close? At one point Japan had a large aluminium smelting industry. Then OPEC jacked up the price of oil the Japanese were using to generate the power. There is only one very small smelter remaining in Japan today, the rest being long gone.

Much the same happened in the USA during the early 2000's when that country's energy costs became uncompetitive. If a business becomes cash flow negative on a permanent basis then ultimately it must close.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2011)

Also the spin off in making our own aluminium it encourages offshoot industries in aluminium casting. The auto industry sources a lot of their aluminium parts e.g heads, water pumps and wheel rims locally also a number of irrigation products are made here. I am sure there are a lot more that will be impacted.


----------



## Wysiwyg (28 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Also the spin off in making our own aluminium it encourages offshoot industries in aluminium casting. The auto industry sources a lot of their aluminium parts e.g heads, water pumps and wheel rims locally also a number of irrigation products are made here. I am sure there are a lot more that will be impacted.



I know you will find 80% of Aluminium produced in Australia is exported and parts are predominantly imported.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Also if the carbon tax costs $520 a year per household and that is modelled on full employment(apparently all jobs lost will be replaced by new renewable jobs _cough_).
> How much will it cost per household if unemployment goes to 10% and the compensation has to be payed to those that are now unemployed.
> What would the resultant cost to the working taxpayers be. Can anyone run those numbers through the model, please.




Well starcraftmazter, what happens to Wayne and Julia's story of a better future if it goes "pear shaped" and unemployment goes through the roof. There are experts out there that think it will turn to s#!t.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...ng-on-carbon-tax/story-fn59niix-1226113382565

http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3239080.htm

But as has been shown in parliament recently, truth, honesty, integrity and looking after the people you represent, are not a high priotity.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> I know you will find 80% of Aluminium produced in Australia is exported and parts are predominantly imported.




That is probably true, however the aluminium rolling stock is a bulk product, so therefore 80% would be sent elsewhere.
I am talking about the 20% we use locally I am sure R.O.H wheels export all over the world. Also many components for our cars and locally produced export engines are cast here e.g the Ford Falcon heads and numerous auto parts.


----------



## Smurf1976 (28 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> That is probably true, however the aluminium rolling stock is a bulk product, so therefore 80% would be sent elsewhere.
> I am talking about the 20% we use locally I am sure R.O.H wheels export all over the world. Also many components for our cars and locally produced export engines are cast here e.g the Ford Falcon heads and numerous auto parts.



A classic example would be the aluminium powder plant at Bell Bay. They take hot metal (molten) directly from the smelter straight into the powder plant thus saving the energy otherwise used to re-melt previously cast metal. Some years ago they used to make automotive wheels on site as well (most notably for Mazda).

There's also the point that even if we're only using 20% of the stuff here, the other 80% is a valuable export that's roughly 20 times as valuable as the raw bauxite (that figure's a few years old but presumably it's still a similar ratio).

From a bigger perspective, I could also point out that the Bell Bay smelter, the first aluminium smelter in Australia, was in fact established specifically for the purpose of national security given the importance of aluminium metal. It was originally owned by the Australian government for this reason and was privatised some years later.


----------



## sptrawler (28 August 2011)

Smurph, you give examples how the carbon tax will impact on our industries, read back through the thread and try to find anything starcraftmazter puts forward that validates the fiscal credibility of the tax.
He constantly says renewables are a requirement(which no one disagrees with)but cannot say where the jobs are going to come from.
We put forward that renewable energy jobs e.g solar hot water and photo voltaic cell manufacturing is moving off shore.
Where in all his posts does he once supply any evidence of the jobs created as a counter arguement for the obvious job losses that have been put forward.
Just read his posts, they are evasive and general with no substance, just passive agression to undermine your argument.
You put forward valid arguement with statistical validity, he says he doesn't belive it but puts forward nothing to dispute it.


----------



## Smurf1976 (29 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> He constantly says renewables are a requirement(which no one disagrees with)but cannot say where the jobs are going to come from.



If you go back a few years then one of the arguments against hydro-electric development, and hydro is still the largest source of renewable energy in Australia and most countries, was that it creates virtually no ongoing employment.

You put perhaps 3000 people into construction then, once it's built, it's pretty much over in terms of employment. The same applies to solar - once built it just sits there. It's the same with most other renewables too - lots of jobs during construction but minimal ongoing employment.

I'm not arguing that we shouldn't go renewable in order to preserve jobs in coal-fired power stations. But the notion that renewables will offset massive job and export losses in other industries from aluminium to steel to zinc just doesn't add up.


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> If you go back a few years then one of the arguments against hydro-electric development, and hydro is still the largest source of renewable energy in Australia and most countries, was that it creates virtually no ongoing employment.
> 
> You put perhaps 3000 people into construction then, once it's built, it's pretty much over in terms of employment. The same applies to solar - once built it just sits there. It's the same with most other renewables too - lots of jobs during construction but minimal ongoing employment.
> 
> I'm not arguing that we shouldn't go renewable in order to preserve jobs in coal-fired power stations. But the notion that renewables will offset massive job and export losses in other industries from aluminium to steel to zinc just doesn't add up.




Exactly Smurph, the other problem is the technology isn't there to try and replace base load. So how can you tax base load untill there are alternatives, it's beyond stupid.
What's your call on molten salt storage, they don't seem to have a lot of data regarding reliability and maintenance. Also they only appear to be building a maximum of 20MW, yet they seem to be expecting this technology to be the answer.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (29 August 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> ....
> 
> Much the same happened in the USA during the early 2000's when that country's energy costs became uncompetitive. If a business becomes cash flow negative on a permanent basis then ultimately it must close.




We make more aluminium than USA? Jesus....well if those free-market deregulation libertarians can't compete, then I don't see any hope for us, carbon pricing or no carbon pricing.

I suppose it all depends on margins, and if their revenue can't take the cost of carbon then it is unfortunately inevitable that they shut down, unless they can figure out a way to use less energy or produce their own energy (put up some windmills?). The latter is of course preferred.


----------



## sptrawler (29 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> We make more aluminium than USA? Jesus....well if those free-market deregulation libertarians can't compete, then I don't see any hope for us, carbon pricing or no carbon pricing.
> 
> I suppose it all depends on margins, and if their revenue can't take the cost of carbon then it is unfortunately inevitable that they shut down, unless they can figure out a way to use less energy or produce their own energy (put up some windmills?). The latter is of course preferred.




Well this sums up your ideology, if it can't make a profit when the price of carbon is added to it's base line shut it down.
Can we apply the same theory to your company, if it can't make a profit with the added cost of putting fibre to the office, shut it down. Jeez what a d!!k
That is the problem with being idealistic, it all works out well when you apply your own parameters.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 August 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> We make more aluminium than USA? Jesus....well if those free-market deregulation libertarians can't compete, then I don't see any hope for us, carbon pricing or no carbon pricing.



Australia is competitive at electricity generation whereas the US is not. That's the crux of it. Electricity is one of the few things we're actually good at in this country, and it underpins a substantial share of our industry and wealth creation.

There's a lot of history behind it all, but suffice to say this fact was recognised and acted upon almost century ago. The HEC (Tas) was always about industry and employment - dams and power stations were just the means of generating the power. ETSA (SA) was much the same and to a slightly lesser extent so were the authorities in Vic, NSW and Qld. 

All of them were built absolutely on one very simple notion - cheap power and lots of it as a means of attracting industry to their respective states and bringing about broader economic benefits. All that differed was the means of generation.

The industry structure has changed (for the worse in my opinion) but we're still reasonably competitive at generating electricity from coal. Not as good as we used to be in international relative terms, but we're still in the game.


----------



## Smurf1976 (31 August 2011)

sptrawler said:


> What's your call on molten salt storage, they don't seem to have a lot of data regarding reliability and maintenance. Also they only appear to be building a maximum of 20MW, yet they seem to be expecting this technology to be the answer.



I'd put it in the same category as nuclear power. We probably can make the molten salt storage idea work at least well enough to be practical (it's not as though the older coal-fired plants didn't have lots of problems and a ridiculous number of breakdowns) but the question is cost.

If it costs, say, $100 per MWh for generation then the load just isn't there so there's no point in it. A huge chunk of the total load exists only whilst electricity is cheap - increase the price and that load goes offshore.


----------



## sptrawler (1 September 2011)

What I don't think is practicle is the size of the solar mirror field that will be required to produce the required output.
Together with that is the requirement for a biomass m.c.r boiler to be available for the times the sun isn't shinning. Then there is the problem of sourcing the biomass feedstock, it will take up land that may be required for food production.
The problems aren't insurmountable but they are beyond us at this stage I would think.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (1 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well this sums up your ideology, if it can't make a profit when the price of carbon is added to it's base line shut it down.




I've already laid out a list of other factors which are more important, so perhaps you could address them instead of perpetuating your strawman argument.



sptrawler said:


> Can we apply the same theory to your company, if it can't make a profit with the added cost of putting fibre to the office, shut it down. Jeez what a d!!k




No it's not. One is a market limitation on environmental damage and the other is a mass capital infrastructure investment. The two are nothing alike.





Smurf1976 said:


> Australia is competitive at electricity generation whereas the US is not. That's the crux of it. Electricity is one of the few things we're actually good at in this country, and it underpins a substantial share of our industry and wealth creation.




Is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

Or do you suggest that mineral processing industries get preferential pricing well below retail?



Smurf1976 said:


> The industry structure has changed (for the worse in my opinion) but we're still reasonably competitive at generating electricity from coal. Not as good as we used to be in international relative terms, but we're still in the game.




That is all well and good (if true), but what is your assessment of our exchange rate in particular as a bigger factor than electricity pricing? The steel industry for instance is shedding jobs now. It has been in trouble for a while. Surely the ETS is not a factor at this stage?


----------



## Garpal Gumnut (1 September 2011)

Unless we get rid of this dud government, we will all be rooned.

gg


----------



## sptrawler (2 September 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I've already laid out a list of other factors which are more important, so perhaps you could address them instead of perpetuating your strawman argument.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The carbon tax and the N.B.N are both financial imposts on the Australian tax payer, that the majority obviously don't want. You can try putting lipstick on a pig but it is still a pig and that is your carbon tax (market limitation on enviromental damage)LOL
As for the steel industry, if you check I think you will find that bluescope made a profit in 2008 and we were running at close to parity then. The problem post g.f.c is lack of demand in the U.S and Europe due to a prolonged recession, you may have missed it tin man.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (2 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The carbon tax and the N.B.N are both financial imposts on the Australian tax payer




These two are completely separate and different fundamentally. NBN is an incredible and impressive infrastructure project - and Australia desperately needs infrastructure investment after 25 years of malinvestment in the non-productive asset of property.



sptrawler said:


> that the majority obviously don't want.




Not only is this ad-populum, but there is no data to prove your claim. In fact there is data to the contrary.



sptrawler said:


> You can try putting lipstick on a pig




You can try to be original instead of using cliche american nonsense.



sptrawler said:


> As for the steel industry, if you check I think you will find that bluescope made a profit in 2008 and we were running at close to parity then. The problem post g.f.c is lack of demand in the U.S and Europe due to a prolonged recession, you may have missed it tin man.




Then you agree that your "carbon tax" has nothing to do with it.


----------



## sptrawler (2 September 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> These two are completely separate and different fundamentally. NBN is an incredible and impressive infrastructure project - and Australia desperately needs infrastructure investment after 25 years of malinvestment in the non-productive asset of property.
> 
> 
> 
> ...




The Labor party went to the last election with the N.B.N as one of its main policy objectives and was hammered. You can't get a better poll than that, also its carbon tax wasn't on the ajenda.
The N.B.N is an incredibly expensive infrastructure project, with dubious benefits, other than to businesses that move lots of data.
This was highlighted the other day when Oakeshott asked Conroy to start and explain what benefits and jobs it is going to create.
Obviously Oakeshott didn't know and he is the chairman of the committee in charge of its implementation.
As long as the network provides super high speed data transfer to commercial sites that require it there is no need to supply the same speeds to all residential areas. It is just an absolute waste of taxpayers money. But as shown this government is exceptionally good at wasting tax payers money.
Anyway most of the discussion regarding the carbon tax and N.B.N will die away with the demise of this government. Which with luck won't be too far into the future.


----------



## IFocus (2 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The Labor party went to the last election with the N.B.N as one of its main policy objectives and was hammered.
> Anyway most of the discussion regarding the carbon tax and N.B.N will die away with the demise of this government. Which with luck won't be too far into the future.




I think it was the NBN and Abbott that got them over the line, remember the independents wanted the NBN and hey didn't want Abbott.

I really haven't heard much discourse about the NBN (business and industry particularity want it)other than the usual hardliners taking a anti everything stand.


----------



## sptrawler (2 September 2011)

IFocus said:


> I think it was the NBN and Abbott that got them over the line, remember the independents wanted the NBN and hey didn't want Abbott.
> 
> I really haven't heard much discourse about the NBN (business and industry particularity want it)other than the usual hardliners taking a anti everything stand.




Well they certainly lost a lot of seats that they gained in the 2007 election. If you think the N.B.N helped them they are really in trouble, as for business wanting it I have always agreed with that.
It is just a shame that we are having to foot the bill for it, I notice our marginal tax rates are going up, yet I don't see 30% tax on business going up. That is unless your a miner or make electricity.LOL and I don't think they will give a rats about the N.B.N either.


----------



## Smurf1976 (2 September 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Is it?
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing
> 
> Or do you suggest that mineral processing industries get preferential pricing well below retail?
> ...



Australia is competitive at generation with costs well below that of many other countries (other than those using predominantly hydro which is of course usually very cheap).

Retail rates are high because we're not overly cheap, indeed the opposite is increasingly true, at distributing the power. That is, the "poles and wires" in your local area that connect you to the major sub-stations. The same increasingly applies to transmission as well and this gives rise to relatively high rates for small business and households despite low prices in the wholesale market.

The reasons for the issues with transmission and distribution are multiple but in short:

Distance and low population density are a factor.

Government regulation increasingly requires huge investments, in order to supply no additional power, that would not be made elsewhere in the world.

The disaggregation of the industry into separate generation, transmission and distribution companies removed co-operation between the 3, thus initiating additional investment which in some areas has been truly massive in cost.

Declining load factors (average load as a % of peak load) in most areas have further increased the need for capacity investment whilst supplying no additional kilowatt hours (therefore the rate charged per unit necessarily increases).

Personally, I believe the National Electricity Market has been a failure since it has not delivered ongoing economic or environmental benefits. Prices have risen faster than inflation for most consumers and environmental performance is below that which the former state utilities had planned to (and most likely would) achieve. 

I don't deny that there are examples of benefits, but as a whole I wouldn't regard the change as having been successful. So what if there is "competition"? The average consumer has no means of properly evaluating what's on offer anyway (since suppliers don't like to release much info) and in any event, what's the point of competition if it doesn't mean lower prices?

As for exchange rates, agreed that is seriously harming manufacturing in this country. Another example of the Australian "head in the sand" approach, putting faith in a "level playing field" that does not exist outside an economic text book.

The ETS would be a factor at this stage to the extent that future investment is contemplated or required in order to keep the business running. Why invest in a 30+ year life asset that may be subject to a tax when you could instead make that investment elsewhere and pay no tax? I'd be surprised if there was a single energy-intensive manufacturer in the country that isn't engaging in a capital strike to some extent - once that starts it's only question of when, not if, the operation becomes unviable and is shut down completely.


----------



## Wysiwyg (2 September 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> As for exchange rates, agreed that is seriously harming manufacturing in this country. Another example of the Australian "head in the sand" approach, putting faith in a "level playing field" that does not exist outside an economic text book.



Hi Smurf, this paragraph suggests the exchange rate is manipulated to favour "other" countries, particularly USA. When the AUD/USD exchange rate was at 62 c this would not be the case.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 September 2011)

Wysiwyg said:


> Hi Smurf, this paragraph suggests the exchange rate is manipulated to favour "other" countries, particularly USA. When the AUD/USD exchange rate was at 62 c this would not be the case.



My comment was more in relation to industry and things which affect it in general rather than specifically the currency.

5 years ago you could buy student type exercise books at 5 for 5 cents. That's literally 1 cent per 128 page exercise book - and that's at retail price in the shops. It seems rather obvious that they were a dumped product with the aim of destroying the Australian paper manufacturing industry or otherwise inflicting harm on existing Austrlaian industries. I just can't believe that the suppliers of those were making a profit at such a ridiculously low price against which nobody had a chance of competing.

Australia seems to be about the only country on earth that actually thinks others are going to play fair. By means of currency manipulation, direct assistance, tariffs or other means just about everyone else never stopped protecting at least some of their key industries. There's no chance we'll ever be able to compete in such markets.


----------



## Glen48 (3 September 2011)

China is sending Solar companies to the wall in USA  the feds pumped $$$$$ in to get the companies up and running and now they are all folding because China is making and selling solar panels below cost.


----------



## IFocus (3 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I notice our marginal tax rates are going up, yet I don't see 30% tax on business going up. That is unless your a miner or make electricity.LOL and I don't think they will give a rats about the N.B.N either.





Abbott chose to rail against the mining tax that was going to be used in part to help smaller businesses (they actually employ most Australians GFC mark 2 will take care of that), he happily forfeited a once in a century dividend opportunity.

Still when he becomes PM the fix will be $70 bil of cuts and hit on the economy sure to solve all the problems.


----------



## sptrawler (3 September 2011)

IFocus said:


> Abbott chose to rail against the mining tax that was going to be used in part to help smaller businesses (they actually employ most Australians GFC mark 2 will take care of that), he happily forfeited a once in a century dividend opportunity.
> 
> Still when he becomes PM the fix will be $70 bil of cuts and hit on the economy sure to solve all the problems.




Actually Ifocus, I think that most voters, I have talked to, agree with some form of mining tax. As per usual the problem was the way the government handled the issue.
As for the $70billion hole, there wouldn't be one if the government hadn't dug it.
G.F.C 2 if it comes we are in deep manure, no more lollipops and plasma t.v's


----------



## Starcraftmazter (5 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> The Labor party went to the last election with the N.B.N as one of its main policy objectives and was hammered.




I would say that is the worst analysis I have ever heard. I am actually amazed that anyone can think this. I don't see how it is a main policy, and I don't see why you think voters looked only at that one thing when voting. I would argue it helped ALP get over the line.

I would also argue that it adds legitimacy to the ALP government, since it was able to form government largely due to the NBN.



Thanks for your detailed explanations Smurf1976. I don't have much to say in reply, but I can see that you are most probably qutie correct in your assessment.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I would say that is the worst analysis I have ever heard. I am actually amazed that anyone can think this. I don't see how it is a main policy, and I don't see why you think voters looked only at that one thing when voting. I would argue it helped ALP get over the line.
> 
> I would also argue that it adds legitimacy to the ALP government, since it was able to form government largely due to the NBN.
> 
> ...




You don't see how it is a main policy, when it is a $40billion spend of taxpayers money.
You can't see why voters looked at that when voting, well the other major issue was the carbon tax and they took that off the agenda. 
You may have forgotten, it doesn't get much air play. What The 
Maybe you can enlighten me on the major issues, obviously I have forgotten.
Maybe it is just you are in complete denial.
Got to add if you think $40B isn't an issue I can see why you think this government is o.k


----------



## Starcraftmazter (5 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> You don't see how it is a main policy, when it is a $40billion spend of taxpayers money.




Of course, nevermind how they spend the _other_ $400Bn of taxpayer money.



sptrawler said:


> You can't see why voters looked at that when voting




I never said they did not look at it, I said it was not their main policy. Furthermore, if it is and everyone voted based upon it as you suggest, then that means enough people support it to allow ALP to form government based on it, and you are incorrect.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> I would say that is the worst analysis I have ever heard. I am actually amazed that anyone can think this. I don't see how it is a main policy, and I don't see why you think voters looked only at that one thing when voting. I would argue it helped ALP get over the line.
> 
> I would also argue that it adds legitimacy to the ALP government, since it was able to form government largely due to the NBN.
> 
> ...




As for your reply to Smurph, that is pretty understandable, as you are yet to put forward any substantial data or knowledgeable theory to any of your posts.
Just passive aggresive arguement by disputing without evidence, ala Gillard.
Which is great in debate but lacks substance in the execution.
I must give credit to Smurph for the time he puts in.
He gives in depth answers which are factually accurate and show a great understanding of the electrical distribution sytem.
Why he wastes his time proving and re proving the facts to some of these posters is beyond me. Maybe he is a saint


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Of course, nevermind how they spend the _other_ $400Bn of taxpayer money.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they did not look at it, I said it was not their main policy. Furthermore, if it is and everyone voted based upon it as you suggest, then that means enough people support it to allow ALP to form government based on it, and you are incorrect.




Well WHAT was their main policy asylum seekers pink batts your office and its need for high speed internet
Please enlighten me WHAT was their main policy it eludes me?


----------



## Starcraftmazter (5 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> I must give credit to Smurph for the time he puts in.
> He gives in depth answers which are factually accurate and show a great understanding of the electrical distribution sytem.
> Why he wastes his time proving and re proving the facts to some of these posters is beyond me. Maybe he is a saint




Maybe he actually wishes to contribute to discussion instead of what someone like you like to do;



> herp derp nbn bad i didn't vote for it so it's not democratic y u no see this?? ignorant leftist extremist lololo






sptrawler said:


> Well WHAT was their main policy asylum seekers pink batts your office and its need for high speed internet




I would say there is no "main" policy but many different key policies (which are also targeted at different voter bases) for every party in every election.

It is very rare that one key policy can determine an election. Perhaps the only thing resembling this in recent time was work choices in 2007.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Maybe he actually wishes to contribute to discussion instead of what someone like you like to do;
> 
> 
> 
> ...




Yes I agree with that one, starcraftmazter, and I am sure it will be rolled out again(workchoices)
But as per usual you fail to answer a question as per usual you deflect it.
Like I said, Smurph must be a saint putting forward precise arguement so people such as yourself can soak it up and regurgitate it, who knows where.
It really is a sad place we are going.
Mate you could be an Indian call centre set up for this purpose, it sounds like it.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (5 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Yes I agree with that one, starcraftmazter, and I am sure it will be rolled out again(workchoices)
> But as per usual you fail to answer a question as per usual you deflect it.
> Like I said, Smurph must be a saint putting forward precise arguement so people such as yourself can soak it up and regurgitate it, who knows where.
> It really is a sad place we are going.




What question? The only thing I see is you sounding like you've gone off a cliff.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Of course, nevermind how they spend the _other_ $400Bn of taxpayer money.
> 
> 
> 
> I never said they did not look at it, I said it was not their main policy. Furthermore, if it is and everyone voted based upon it as you suggest, then that means enough people support it to allow ALP to form government based on it, and you are incorrect.




O.K lets go back ,what was their main policy, if it wasn't the N.B.N


----------



## Starcraftmazter (5 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> O.K lets go back what was their main policy, if it wasn't the N.B.N




...



			
				Starcraftmazter said:
			
		

> I would say there is no "main" policy but many different key policies (which are also targeted at different voter bases) for every party in every election.
> 
> It is very rare that one key policy can determine an election. Perhaps the only thing resembling this in recent time was work choices in 2007.


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2011)

O.k lets look at the other key policies, that target different voter bases, maybe you can enlighten me on those.
By the way Malaysia and Indonesian people smugglers don't count as voter bases.
So apart from them, what was the main policy platforms that the Labor party picked up a *minority* government on.
*GIVE US A KEY POLICY*


----------



## Starcraftmazter (5 September 2011)

Sorry buddy but this is entirely uninteresting to me, and I fail to see your point (if indeed you have any).


----------



## sptrawler (5 September 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> Sorry buddy but this is entirely uninteresting to me, and I fail to see your point (if indeed you have any).




Well that pretty well summs you up mate, no suds.
Must add to that I would like to nominate Smurph for a sainthood, for indulging this guy for so long.


----------



## Aussiejeff (6 September 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Well that pretty well summs you up mate, no suds.
> Must add to that I would like to nominate Smurph for a sainthood, for indulging this guy for so long.




I'd like to nominate this thread for a change of title - _"Where in the hell is this Thread heading?"_ 

[size=-3]Special thanks to Starcraftmazter for carrying out a successfull thread hijack.[/size]

Frankly, I think good ol' OZ is grinding inexorably towards the growing mountainous scrapheap of Westernised industrial nations...

Have an extra nice day, folks


----------



## RandR (6 September 2011)

> herp derp nbn bad i didn't vote for it so it's not democratic y u no see this?? ignorant leftist extremist lololo




We had hundreds of thousands of people protest against Australia going to war with Iraq. 

Which eventuated with us, going to war with Iraq. I dont recall John Howard ever receiving the 'mandate from the people' to take us to war 'democratically'.

We've had protests of a few thousand against a carbon tax. I find it hilarious that people are interpreting this as some sort of mass movement, when assesed in relation to the opposition to our involvement in Iraq.

Do people seriously think we are going to end up with anything but a carbon tax leading to an emmisions trading scheme ?

Especially that both major political parties have quite openly been supportive of such an initiative in the past.


----------



## noco (6 September 2011)

RandR said:


> We had hundreds of thousands of people protest against Australia going to war with Iraq.
> 
> Which eventuated with us, going to war with Iraq. I dont recall John Howard ever receiving the 'mandate from the people' to take us to war 'democratically'.
> 
> ...




I believe you may find under the Australian constitution, the presiding government can make decisions on National security without having a mandate from the voters.

I believe you will also find in Hansard, Kevin Rudd gave bipartisan support for that decision on Iraq.


----------



## Starcraftmazter (6 September 2011)

Can we please not start that debate, because indeed it is debatable to say the least what effect our contribution to the ME wars had on our security.


----------



## IFocus (7 September 2011)

RandR said:


> We had hundreds of thousands of people protest against Australia going to war with Iraq.
> 
> Which eventuated with us, going to war with Iraq. I dont recall John Howard ever receiving the 'mandate from the people' to take us to war 'democratically'.
> 
> ...




LOL for gods sake man get with the program war is no where as bad as a tax..........


----------



## Smurf1976 (7 September 2011)

IFocus said:


> LOL for gods sake man get with the program war is no where as bad as a tax..........



One of the issues I have with the carbon tax is that I believe it will, if applied globally in the form proposed in Australia and elsewhere, increase the chances of war.

In short, coal is very well dispersed geographically with a huge number of countries having reserves of the stuff. Even within countries it tends to be resonably distributed - locally Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas, SA and WA all have operating coal mines. On the other hand, at the global level gas is largely concentrated in the Middle East and Russia.

A world heavily dependent on gas is a world heavily dependent on Russia, Iran and Qatar who hold two thirds of world reserves. Let's just say I have serious doubts as to the wisdom of such a move from a strategic perspective. 

If it were a "fossil fuels tax" applied equally to coal, gas and oil then that would fix this problem. Gas industry lobbyists wouldn't like it however...


----------



## sptrawler (7 September 2011)

Smurf1976 said:


> One of the issues I have with the carbon tax is that I believe it will, if applied globally in the form proposed in Australia and elsewhere, increase the chances of war.
> 
> In short, coal is very well dispersed geographically with a huge number of countries having reserves of the stuff. Even within countries it tends to be resonably distributed - locally Qld, NSW, Vic, Tas, SA and WA all have operating coal mines. On the other hand, at the global level gas is largely concentrated in the Middle East and Russia.
> 
> ...




Is this the sort of issues you are alluding to Smurph.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gy-crisis-Russia-cuts-gas-supply-Ukraine.html

Shock, horror is this really happening in the world, I never saw it on the 6 o'clock news.
Isn't it lovely living in a cocoon. Aunty Julia will look after us with Uncle Wayne, sorry for being facetious.


----------



## noco (2 October 2011)

Why is it now whenever someone passes an opinion or makes an adverse remark about what a politician wants or an adverse racial remark, there has to be an enquiry?

Andrew Wilke now wants an enquiry into a remark made on Channel 9 at a football game which appeared to be derogatory to legislation he wants to put before parliament about poker machines. 

OMG. where is it all leading to?  

http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...-on-channel-nine/story-e6freon6-1226156246972


----------



## Julia (2 October 2011)

Andrew Wilkie is becoming quite unbelievably precious.  It will be good to eventually see him put back in his insignificant little box.


----------



## Wysiwyg (3 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Andrew Wilkie is becoming quite unbelievably precious.  It will be good to eventually see him put back in his insignificant little box.




Do we need politicians making life choices for us. No!


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 October 2011)

sptrawler said:


> Is this the sort of issues you are alluding to Smurph.
> 
> http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...gy-crisis-Russia-cuts-gas-supply-Ukraine.html



That is precisely the sort of thing that really concerns me. The notion that the world should depend more heavily on gas is ludicrous when you realise what that means in geopolitical terms. Even within a country, even within Australia, it all goes pear shaped pretty quickly when it comes to cross border trade in energy during an actual shortage. Some gets through yes, we don't want to make things too obvious, but those who have it ultimately put themselves first. 

That's the lesson of history and it's not likely to change. If you depend on energy imports then you have to assume there's going to be at least a partial cut-off sooner or later. Oil and especially gas fail the test in that regard since they are geographically concentrated in terms of resources, and building a large stockpile in importing countries is physically difficult especially with gas. Coal doesn't have this problem, it is distributed (and generally in "friendly" countries) and can be easily stockpiled. As for the rest, hydro is geographically somewhat concentrated but if you have it then it's not as though someone can suddenly take it away on a political whim.

I don't have the gas industry, actually I own shares in a few gas companies, but I really don't think it's wise to be relying on the stuff for baseload electricity. That's all.


----------



## sails (3 October 2011)

Julia said:


> Andrew Wilkie is becoming quite unbelievably precious.  It will be good to eventually see him put back in his insignificant little box.





I think Wilke got around 13,000 votes, rode to power on the back of LIBERAL preferences and then holds the entire other 22 million people to ransom with his 13,000 votes and with no apparent respect to the liberal voters who put him there due to our forced preferential system.

And we call this democracy?

I think something needs to be done with our preferential system so that does not put those with a small number of votes into power.

And I also think we need a recall option for minority governments which would force an early election.  Minority governments are clearly not good for the people due to minorities holding the balance of power.


----------



## Julia (3 October 2011)

sails said:


> I think Wilke got around 13,000 votes, rode to power on the back of LIBERAL preferences and then holds the entire other 22 million people to ransom with his 13,000 votes and with no apparent respect to the liberal voters who put him there due to our forced preferential system.
> 
> And we call this democracy?



It's especially ridiculous when the issue is such a minor one to 99% of the population.



> I think something needs to be done with our preferential system so that does not put those with a small number of votes into power.
> 
> And I also think we need a recall option for minority governments which would force an early election.  Minority governments are clearly not good for the people due to minorities holding the balance of power.



 Agree.


----------



## Smurf1976 (3 October 2011)

sails said:


> I think Wilke got around 13,000 votes, rode to power on the back of LIBERAL preferences and then holds the entire other 22 million people to ransom with his 13,000 votes and with no apparent respect to the liberal voters who put him there due to our forced preferential system.



He had a failed attempt at getting into state politics previously and much of what he said during the campaign did make him seem reasoanbly intelligent at the time.

His electorate covers the Hobart city area an inner suburbs, such that his vote reflects the stereotypical Green support base - higher income, urban residents.


----------



## sptrawler (3 October 2011)

Getting back on thread, as to where Australia is heading.
My thoughts at the moment are, unless China slows down and brings about a contraction in commodity prices, things will be put in place to wind in wages for mine workers.

http://www.smh.com.au/national/unions-push-local-supply-to-save-jobs-20111002-1l3za.html

Could be 457's for Chinese workers driving Haulpacs. Check the third paragragh, wage inflation, it will need the unions onside to pull it off.
That would be a classic!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


----------



## noco (12 October 2011)

Call me a racist if you must, but I hope one day Austrlaia may take a leaf out of France's book and insist all immigrants speak english.

Australia is heading in the wrong direction in many areas and one can only see a multitude of problems from multiculturalism and it should be kept in balance.



http://www.couriermail.com.au/news/...age-requirements/story-e6freonf-1226165270445


----------



## Starcraftmazter (13 October 2011)

noco said:


> Call me a racist if you must, but I hope one day Austrlaia may take a leaf out of France's book and insist all immigrants speak english.




That and mandating that all businesses/other places must have English signs, etc. Nothing worse than seeing chinese shops where everything is in chinese.


----------



## young-gun (13 October 2011)

Starcraftmazter said:


> That and mandating that all businesses/other places must have English signs, etc. Nothing worse than seeing chinese shops where everything is in chinese.





haha best you stay clear of sunnybank on brisbanes south


----------



## noco (20 October 2011)

I reckon the attached link just about sums up this inept Green/Labor socialist left wing government. 


http://www.theaustralian.com.au/nat...the-trashy-1970s/story-e6frgd0x-1226171067564


----------

