# New economic stimulus plan



## tpj (14 October 2008)

The first homebuyers grant will be doubled from $7,000 to $14,000.Is there will be any time frame ( houses brought until a particlular date)  for that grant?

Best regards

TPJ


----------



## singlefished (14 October 2008)

First homebuyers will be eligible for grants of up to $21,000 designed to stimulate housing activity. 
The scheme will be time limited. All contracts entered into by June 30 next year will be eligible for the new assistance. 

The payment under the first home buyers scheme will be doubled from $7000 to $14,000 and first home buyers who buy newly-constructed home will receive an extra $14,000 taking their total grant to $21,000. 

The Government will invest about $1.5 billion in the housing market over 2008/09 and 2009/10 through this initiative. 


http://www.news.com.au/business/money/story/0,25479,24494397-14327,00.html



Starts from sometime in December I think I read somewhere....

Cheers,
Scotty....


----------



## prawn_86 (14 October 2008)

Does everyone on Centrelink payments recieve something? Or only families??


----------



## Sean K (14 October 2008)

Oh great!

More free money splashed about to assist those who can't buy a home buy one and get themselves in a world of hurt.

The stupidity rolls on.


----------



## sam76 (14 October 2008)

singlefished said:


> First homebuyers will be eligible for grants of up to $21,000 designed to stimulate housing activity.
> The scheme will be time limited. All contracts entered into by June 30 next year will be eligible for the new assistance.
> 
> The payment under the first home buyers scheme will be doubled from $7000 to $14,000 and first home buyers who buy newly-constructed home will receive an extra $14,000 taking their total grant to $21,000.
> ...




Would kit homes fit the criteria for the extra payments?


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2008)

tpj said:


> The first homebuyers grant will be doubled from $7,000 to $14,000.Is there will be any time frame ( houses brought until a particlular date)  for that grant?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> TPJ



As an existing homeowner, I must thank Mr Rudd for adding $7000 to the price my house would sell for.  

What I don't like is the lie that this is intended to help first home buyers when it's a blatant attempt to prop up house prices. Higher prices don't help buyers.


----------



## xoa (14 October 2008)

Stupid idea.

This will benefit first home buyers for 6 months, and then what? The grant will evaporate into thin air and we'll be stuck with house prices that are $14,000 more expensive than they would otherwise.

If Labor still represented workers, they would encourage the construction of new homes, not bail out speculators.


----------



## prawn_86 (14 October 2008)

xoa said:


> If Labor still represented workers, they would encourage the construction of new homes, not bail out speculators.




No governments represent anything but their own wallet and lifestyles


----------



## Ageo (14 October 2008)

lol another example of governments thinking that throwing money into society will help them.


----------



## dhukka (14 October 2008)

kennas said:


> Oh great!
> 
> More free money splashed about to assist those who can't buy a home buy one and get themselves in a world of hurt.
> 
> The stupidity rolls on.




Agreed, absolutely ridiculous, anything to prop up the bubble and keep people indebted for the rest of their lives, great move.


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2008)

Well at least we won't have to find jobs on the dole anymore




> Bowing to pressure from the welfare lobby, Labor has softened John Howard's "mutual obligation'' laws - which required unemployed people to find work or lose entitlements.




http://www.news.com.au/story/0,23599,24494371-29277,00.html

I'm not to sure what to think of Rudd and the current labor government. One week I think they are doing alright the next leaves me scratching my head


----------



## marcadrian (14 October 2008)

One could argue that the Govt knows all too well that the sorts of people they will be giving this "extra" money to will be going straight back into the economy. New cars, plasma TVs... these are the toys of the middle class Aussie battlers who don't have enough financial sense to know better.


----------



## Happy (14 October 2008)

This is scary, that all is being done is to >give the confidence<

Real changes are needed; with current changes we will be doing the same and expect different results.

What chances do we have for that?


----------



## Temjin (14 October 2008)

Everyone should check out the replay of live blog on news.com.au for this particular news. It's a horror to see how many "readers" are praising the grant and asking questions related to it and if they have "missed" out. They are so blinded by the short term greed that is being handed to them and fail to understand the bigger picture. Not to mention they are doing this with our tax money too! 

Freaking vote grabbing plan! To hell with Rudd!


----------



## MrBurns (14 October 2008)

Wow - 160 point rally costs $10B bailout.

Now if Rudd can do that every weekend the market may recover !


----------



## MrBurns (14 October 2008)

> The Government's plan to triple the first home owner grant from $7,000 to $21,000 for newly built homes has been welcomed by the housing industry, which says it will provide a much-needed boost to the sector.
> 
> As part of a $10.4 billion package announced today designed to stimulate the Australian economy in the midst of the global downturn, the Government will also double the grant for existing homes to $14,000.




what sort of con game is this !!!, encourage first home buyers with a few pennies into a debt spiral that may wipe them out when the property market collapses which it will.

Disgraceful.


----------



## Nyden (14 October 2008)

What a stupid plan.

What will this do to inflation? I sincerely hope rates stop dropping now, at least. What's this nonsense about helping home buyers as well? All they've done is hindered us by trying to keep prices up! If they really wanted to help first time buyers, they'd let house prices completely crash, possibly even remove tax incentives, so that a new generation could buy in at respectable prices; with stable growth. 

Why give families $1000 per kid? What rubbish. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. Same as if you can't afford a house - don't buy one! These idiots have a vote as well, scary stuff.

 ... on the bright side though; surely house prices cannot rise exactly $7000? Many home buyers are not first ones, after all.


----------



## BradK (14 October 2008)

Nyden said:


> Why give families $1000 per kid? What rubbish. If you can't afford kids, don't have them. Same as if you can't afford a house - don't buy one! These idiots have a vote as well, scary stuff.




'These idiots' are your fellow Australians. Thanks for my $1000 Mr Rudd  - I know you want it to go to Plasma's, and new cars, but mine is going into a savings fund for the daughter  

Nyden - your just jealous you didnt get any! hahahahhaa 

My pensioner parents are going on a cruise now to add to their holiday fund! Good on them!!!! 

Fancy that! Even idiots get a vote!!! 

Brad


----------



## Pommiegranite (14 October 2008)

tpj said:


> The first homebuyers grant will be doubled from $7,000 to $14,000.Is there will be any time frame ( houses brought until a particlular date) for that grant?
> 
> Best regards
> 
> TPJ




This 'plan' to increase the FHOG is nothing but a con.

All the government is doing is shifting one asset(cash) to another asset class (property) albeit indirectly. Any accountants will know that this is a balance sheet reclass, and BS reclasses have no bearing on the P&L.

To take it in microcosm, many people are losing value on their investment properties and would be loathe to spend cash on those properties. So what makes the goverment's plan any different?

This is just expensive campaign by the government to protect banks loans and the building industry (jobs). Those sucked into buying overvalued assets will lose out.


----------



## Nyden (14 October 2008)

BradK said:


> 'These idiots' are your fellow Australians. Thanks for my $1000 Mr Rudd  - I know you want it to go to Plasma's, and new cars, but mine is going into a savings fund for the daughter
> 
> Nyden - your just jealous you didnt get any! hahahahhaa
> 
> ...





My fellow Australians? Doesn't mean there's anything upstairs, buddy. When the pyramid collapses ... or when the stock market further collapses, or when property implodes; do not expect any sympathy, or even restraint on my joy (which is apparently what people expect) I must admit, I am hoping for a pullback on the market tomorrow as well. Aren't I just evil?

Sigh, end rant yet again. 

Brad, you really get under my skin. I've decided to remove my somewhat malicious comment, and request that you lay off whatever pills you're on; and try to be more tactful with your opinions.


----------



## son of baglimit (14 October 2008)

umm its $1000 if you receive FTB part A - not per kid - so it dont matter how many kids you have (and recipients of various pensions, or others who exist mainly or solely on govt payments).

so clearly it benefits stay at home mums (or very small earners) who hubby earns less than $150k, or single parents.

lets face it - its there to be splashed around the whole economy, rather than filed away into a mortgage or invested in the market - the recipients are LIKELY to spend it all, on probably essentials, and yes no doubt some waste it. the majority will do the right thing with it, and thats what matters.

in the lead up to xmas, all those wanting part time casual employment will likely now have those jobs, with the funds available dec 8.

so despite the loud minority voicing their concerns here, i have no problem with it.


----------



## numbercruncher (14 October 2008)

ommg just how much cash does Australia need to blow on the RE industry ??? surely we have more important priorities ??/

crazy ....


----------



## justasx (14 October 2008)

kennas said:


> Oh great!
> 
> More free money splashed about to assist those who can't buy a home buy one and get themselves in a world of hurt.
> 
> The stupidity rolls on.




I don't think it's that simple. Our banks have become quite stingy with money since the last time I applied for a loan in June this year. They took a very close look at my fingernails to find some dirt. 

This first home owner grant is however very likely to prop up house prices. 

Interesting times....


----------



## chops_a_must (14 October 2008)

prawn_86 said:


> Does everyone on Centrelink payments recieve something? Or only families??




You would hope it would be offered to disability pensioners as well, who actually _need_ it.

Rather than, as proven here, given to those who really don't.


----------



## sam76 (14 October 2008)

Was everybody reassured by our esteemed leaders address to the nation 5 minutes ago?


----------



## nikemi (14 October 2008)

Eventhough my familiy will personally benefit from the $ 1K per child grant i can't help but be horrified by the idea. Up till today i was convinced that Australia is in a better position than most contries to weather this crisis as we have a budget surplus that we can fall back on when thing really get tough. Not much comfort anymore when i see that surpluss being pissed away and it won't even make a difference to anyone's life. 

$ 1K i'll spend before i know it and forget we ever got it. This is my daughters childcare fees for a month (after the rebate) if i could not afford that i wouldn't have had her. And if we could not afford the repayments on a home loan up till now how is 14K going to make a house more affordable or is it just going to make people buy blind without thinking about the consequences so they don't miss the boat that leaves on 30 Jun 09.

Short term gain long term pain!


----------



## gav (14 October 2008)

nikemi said:


> Eventhough my familiy will personally benefit from the $ 1K per child grant i can't help but be horrified by the idea. Up till today i was convinced that Australia is in a better position than most contries to weather this crisis as we have a budget surplus that we can fall back on when thing really get tough. Not much comfort anymore when i see that surpluss being pissed away and it won't even make a difference to anyone's life.
> 
> $ 1K i'll spend before i know it and forget we ever got it. This is my daughters childcare fees for a month (after the rebate) if i could not afford that i wouldn't have had her. And if we could not afford the repayments on a home loan up till now how is 14K going to make a house more affordable or is it just going to make people buy blind without thinking about the consequences so they don't miss the boat that leaves on 30 Jun 09.
> 
> Short term gain long term pain!




Well said


----------



## Smurf1976 (14 October 2008)

nikemi said:


> Short term gain long term pain!



Precisely. And the extent of the pain will exceed that of the gain. 

Simply having individuals borrow more money from overseas and blowing the government's surplus such that we pay more $ for exactly the same house is destroying wealth, not creating it. 

Put that money to work in some productive area instead - $10 billion would do something worthwhile with infrastructure, energy, water, education, health or any other real problem. And yes, it would create jobs in doing so.

Edit: I just realised we've reached the ultimate sign of recession. We're evaluating things on the basis of how many jobs they will create. Six months ago it was a labour shortage but now we're trying to make work. Bad times are here...


----------



## moXJO (14 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Put that money to work in some productive area instead - $10 billion would do something worthwhile with infrastructure, energy, water, education, health or any other real problem. And yes, it would create jobs in doing so.




This is what I can not understand. Why not spend it on infrastructure, education etc. Instead we get one almighty last pi$$ up against the wall effort. Maybe there is more spending to come in these areas (infra, educ, health)??

Surely infrastructure alone would create a lot of jobs in itself, and keep us going in the long run.


----------



## Julia (14 October 2008)

chops_a_must said:


> You would hope it would be offered to disability pensioners as well, who actually _need_ it.
> 
> Rather than, as proven here, given to those who really don't.



The one off payment of $1400 ($2100 to couples) goes to all pensioners, including people on Disability Pensions.

The group left out of this largesse is those on the dole who are on the lowest amount of welfare payments anyway.   If they are having to pay rent (and many of them are ) they cannot possibly exist on just over $200 per week.
Rent alone is usually more than that.

Sure there are some layabouts on the dole but there are also many people (and about to be many more as the economy fails) who have been retrenched and in older age groups where they will find it very difficult to get re-employment.

All the fuss has been about people on the age pension.  These people have at least had some chance to save something towards their own retirement, unlike Disability Pensioners and those on the Dole.

I just can't believe the housing package.  I thought we had just spent years trying to deal with a ****** housing bubble, and we are now going to feed price rises further!

The payments to pensioners and low income families will make the government look good in the short term in the eyes of those who view life through their own narrow prism.  The retail spending results for the December quarter will look good.  What an utterly short term waste of the surplus which could have achieved so much in terms of infrastructure.


----------



## ozambersand (15 October 2008)

> This is what I can not understand. Why not spend it on infrastructure, education etc. Instead we get one almighty last pi$$ up against the wall effort. Maybe there is more spending to come in these areas (infra, educ, health)??
> Surely infrastructure alone would create a lot of jobs in itself, and keep us going in the long run.



Perhaps, they stumbled on a script from the next series of "The Hollowmen" and used it by mistake?? 
Has all the earmarks...... it sounds exactly what the focus group would have come up with and there are pictures of a fearless leader on the front page.


----------



## ozambersand (15 October 2008)

Headline in the Business section of today's Sydney Morning Herald.


> "PM's boost could be a fine cushion" by Elizabeth Knight



I keep getting this picture of a small, highly stuffed cushion being put on the ground under this tall building which someone has just fallen from in the hope that they may land on it. 
Any cartoonists out there?


----------



## son of baglimit (15 October 2008)

unaccustomed as i am from doing so, it appears this morning i must apologise.
my post stemmed from initial media reports of $1k for those receiving FTB.
but all media today are reporting the payment is $1k PER CHILD.

i do find that a little excessive - that sort of money on someone with a cupla kids will mean more big tv's, rather than simply the groceries. maybe an extra mortgage payment, but yeah its a bit too much at this time.

free school shoes for 3 years would achieve more.


----------



## Aussiejeff (15 October 2008)

Julia said:


> The one off payment of $1400 ($2100 to couples) goes to all pensioners, including people on Disability Pensions.
> 
> The group left out of this largesse is those on the dole who are on the lowest amount of welfare payments anyway.   If they are having to pay rent (and many of them are ) they cannot possibly exist on just over $200 per week.
> Rent alone is usually more than that.
> ...




Hi Julia.

Thanks for the good wishes re: my broken ankle. I can manage an hour or so at the 'puter then have to crutch meself to the couch and lie down for an hour or so with the foot up to reduce the swelling. The bone pain has reduced a lot but the foot/ankle swelling under the cast when I put the foot down is a pain in itself!  

FYI I currently receive a disability support pension (due to being 57 years of age and having lower back and eyesight conditions making it v. difficult to gain employment). My wife is 59 and is forced to do 15 hours volunteer work per week at a nursing home and ironing at a St Vincent DePaul shop to qualify for Newstart Allowance (otherwise, NO PAYMENT, which I think is ridiculous for an older woman her age. 

She had to go through the whole soul destroying rigmarole of registering for Newstart (which means her being endlessly interviewed by WorkChoices - every few weeks - about what jobs she had been applying for etc, sending resumes to "possible" employers who never reply etc). She has been registered for 6 months now, with no chance of getting a job in Wodonga apart from the volunteer work. 

She has had her Newstart payments cancelled TWICE in 2 months due to clerical errors by Centrelink staff. You can imagine our response to letters saying "Your Newstart Payment has been cancelled because you have not provided correct infoprmation"! Both times we had to queue for hours at our local Centrelink office and go through a full interrogation before being told "oops - our fault". Anyone who thinks it is beer and skittles claiming Newstart better be prepared for a whole load of hoop-jumping and administrative sh*te to go along with it.

A few years ago there used to be a special allowance (equivalent in value to the current disability support pension) for un-employed people over 55 years of age but the Howard government scrapped it under his plan to make all "older" people rejoin or stay in the workforce. All well and good for those who are able physically/mentally able to! The fact is, from our experience in a country town at least, that 99% of employers WILL NOT TAKE ON anyone approaching 60 - especially if you have any health issues.

I think it would have been better if Rudd had permanenetly increased the base rates of pensions across the board NOW - starting with next fortnights payments - rather a one off hit in early December.


aj


----------



## Happy (15 October 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> I think it would have been better if Rudd had permanenetly increased the base rates of pensions across the board NOW - starting with next fortnights payments - rather a one off hit in early December.
> 
> aj





Suppose lump sum payment is not included in total income, so those in housing commission accommodation will not have to give 25% back in rent increase.


----------



## chops_a_must (15 October 2008)

Julia said:


> The one off payment of $1400 ($2100 to couples) goes to all pensioners, including people on Disability Pensions.
> 
> The group left out of this largesse is those on the dole who are on the lowest amount of welfare payments anyway.   If they are having to pay rent (and many of them are ) they cannot possibly exist on just over $200 per week.
> Rent alone is usually more than that.
> ...



Thanks for that, and I totally agree.

It's the same with Austudy. You get far far less iirc on that, than if you were looking for work, and a hell of a lot less than a pension. Not a whole lot of incentive to eventually provide skilled labour to society in the end.

Add to that, anyone under 25 has been virtually shafted when it comes to rent, and you have a problem. It makes me quite angry with all these pensioner stories on ACA etc. because they aren't actually the ones doing it the hardest.  They aren't being turfed out of rentals, or not offered places for being too young.

And lets face it, if you've been on centrelink recently, you are either completely unemployable or are doing something like involved study that means essentially the same thing for the moment. You sure as hell couldn't live off it.


----------



## CoffeeKing (15 October 2008)

Such is life as we know it?



kennas said:


> Oh great!
> 
> More free money splashed about to assist those who can't buy a home buy one and get themselves in a world of hurt.
> 
> *The stupidity rolls on*.






MrBurns said:


> _*what sort of con game is this !!!, *_encourage first home buyers with a few pennies into a debt spiral that may wipe them out when the property market collapses which it will.
> 
> Disgraceful.






Nyden said:


> _*What a stupid plan.*_
> 
> What will this do to inflation? I sincerely hope rates stop dropping now, at least. What's this nonsense about helping home buyers as well? All they've done is hindered us by trying to keep prices up! If they really wanted to help first time buyers, they'd let house prices completely crash, possibly even remove tax incentives, so that a new generation could buy in at respectable prices; with stable growth.
> 
> ...






moXJO said:


> This is what I can not understand. Why not spend it on infrastructure, education etc. Instead we get one almighty last pi$$ up against the wall effort. Maybe there is more spending to come in these areas (infra, educ, health)??
> 
> _*Surely infrastructure alone would create a lot of jobs in itself, and keep us going in the long run.*_




Have to agree with all of the above...

I do not get any of it but will probably help to pay for these amounts along the way somehow.
Years back in W.A. an extra $50 was added to something (can't remember what, registration I think, it's that long ago)
Extra $10 on every airline ticket ( probably still applies, just forgotten about )

Govt says it's a global crisis, give the paupers some loot to keep voters happy
and the banks can lend more money, where's the money to lend coming from and what happens when it has to be paid back.
New kid on the block, fancy car - flash house, oops lost their job !!!

Now I know why I voted for the other guy
I can just see the one track mind pensioner waiting outside the RSL

PS could all these amounts given out in this fianacial year be added together then devided by number of taxpayers
and claimed as a "Gift" or "donation" for next years tax to the R.R.R fund


----------



## Julia (15 October 2008)

Aussiejeff said:


> A few years ago there used to be a special allowance (equivalent in value to the current disability support pension) for un-employed people over 55 years of age but the Howard government scrapped it under his plan to make all "older" people rejoin or stay in the workforce. All well and good for those who are able physically/mentally able to! The fact is, from our experience in a country town at least, that 99% of employers WILL NOT TAKE ON anyone approaching 60 - especially if you have any health issues.



Yes, I remember this.  There was also another allowance for women who had been stay at home mothers, never working, dependent on the husband, when the husband died.  I think it was called the Widows' Allowance.  Approx equivalent to Newstart.

It is plainly ridiculous to expect someone over 55 like your wife, especially in a regional area, to be able to find work.  To put these people through all the hoops is an unnecessary imposition and loss of dignity.
This move was one of John Howard's blind spots.




> I think it would have been better if Rudd had permanenetly increased the base rates of pensions across the board NOW - starting with next fortnights payments - rather a one off hit in early December.



It would seem to have made more sense than supplying retailers with a one-off sales burst pre-Christmas, most of which will probably go to Christmas presents with tags showing "Made in China".

I keep thinking of all the infrastructure - like e.g. a desal plant for South Australia and many other such useful projects - that could have gone ahead instead of this short term move to make the figures look good for a couple of months.

On a slight diversion, I see Mr Turnbull is requesting that we should be able to know the Treasury figures which prompted Mr Rudd's decision to let loose this massive spend-up.  Seems like a reasonable request to me.

Mr Rudd has made much of how he is not keeping Australians in the dark but facing up to the "tough decisions" (could he please find a new phrase here).
OK.   Then we should also be privy to what the Treasury forecasts are so we can better assess the value of the Great Spending Spree.


----------



## Glen48 (15 October 2008)

The latest word is the 21K will push up House prices, I think most will think twice about buying.
Barny Joyce is on the right track saying all the money will be used to buy items with Made in China on the back.
No wonder the Chinese have 10% growth.


----------



## Tysonboss1 (16 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> As an existing homeowner, I must thank Mr Rudd for adding $7000 to the price my house would sell for.
> 
> What I don't like is the lie that this is intended to help first home buyers when it's a blatant attempt to prop up house prices. Higher prices don't help buyers.




Better than that,.... $7000 extra in the deposit = $35,000 grand at 80% LVR,...


----------



## Tysonboss1 (16 October 2008)

Imagine if the goverment actually put the $10B into renewable energy infrastructure,... maybe putting up to $7000 for solar elcetricity and hot water on all new homes built.


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 October 2008)

With the financial markets again heading for turmoil overnight, we need a new Economic Stimulus Plan, say Part "B"?.

Yeah. I reckon another $12BillionBananaBucks before Chrissy should keep the natives happy! It's always more fun when you break open the Piggy Bank to grab ALL the loose change to buy lollies rather than leave a few rusty pennies behind.....   :bananasmi


----------



## MrBurns (16 October 2008)

Rudd - Swanny mate what are we gunna do now the place is r***@ed

Swann - Buggered if I know Ruddy, I'm as thick as 2 bricks, hey can I go overseas again ? I love room service at those big hotels.

Rudd - No way Swanny it's my turn next time, the wife has already got the trip planned, trying to make it look legit isn't easy, like trying to find a conference in Hawaii or a talk fest in Italy.
Besides I want to be out of the country when it all hits the fan, you can cover for me Swanny, I'll dob you in for party leader when they realise I'm a useless drama queen who only likes the limelight, you can then go on to be PM while the wife and I dine out on my taxpayer funded super for the rest of our lives.

It's pretty good here in Oz Swanny if it wasn't for those whining voters expecting me to fix their problems.

Pass the caviar Swanny, I've run out and I've still got some Champers left.


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> Rudd - Swanny mate what are we gunna do now the place is r***@ed
> 
> Swann - Buggered if I know Ruddy, I'm as thick as 2 bricks, hey can I go overseas again ? I love room service at those big hotels.
> 
> ...




*chuckle*


----------



## prawn_86 (16 October 2008)

MrBurns said:


> Swann - Buggered if I know Ruddy, I'm as thick as 2 bricks




LOL! Classic!


----------



## Smurf1976 (16 October 2008)

Tysonboss1 said:


> Imagine if the goverment actually put the $10B into renewable energy infrastructure,... maybe putting up to $7000 for solar elcetricity and hot water on all new homes built.



Better than the solar electric panels on houses would be simply building a large scale solar thermal or geothermal power plant. A new industry that cuts far more CO2 per dollar invested than panels on roofs and it has the potential to feed major industry and boost the economy in the long term. 

I note that building major energy infrastructure is the way Tasmania has always worked its way out of economic trouble. An idea that arose during WW1, it was scaled up big time in the 1930's depression and again after WW2 through to the early 1980's. And it was again used at the beginning of this decade after years of economic doom and gloom. So the concept is proven in one state at least.

Given the oil and climate issues, I'l go as far as to predict that the world as a whole will eventually get out of this mess substantially on the back of a new growth industry - that being renewable energy. It's the most obvious potential growth industry, the next big thing, in my opinion.


----------



## moXJO (16 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> I note that building major energy infrastructure is the way Tasmania has always worked its way out of economic trouble. An idea that arose during WW1, it was scaled up big time in the 1930's depression and again after WW2 through to the early 1980's. And it was again used at the beginning of this decade after years of economic doom and gloom. So the concept is proven in one state at least.
> 
> Given the oil and climate issues, I'l go as far as to predict that the world as a whole will eventually get out of this mess substantially on the back of a new growth industry - that being renewable energy. It's the most obvious potential growth industry, the next big thing, in my opinion.




Maybe they are waiting till we are all jobless so they can get cheap labour to build it.


----------



## Aussiejeff (16 October 2008)

moXJO said:


> Maybe they are waiting till we are all jobless so they can get cheap labour to build it.




Now THAT sounds like a plan!

[size=-2]*cheap, cheap*[/size]


----------



## Happy (17 October 2008)

Smurf1976 said:


> Better than the solar electric panels on houses would be simply building a large scale solar thermal or geothermal power plant. A new industry that cuts far more CO2 per dollar invested than panels on roofs and it has the potential to feed major industry and boost the economy in the long term.






Exactly, every individual home if installs greed back-feeding solar panels has to have about $5,000 gadgets to do that.

Building large-scale plant would greatly reduce this part of the project, giving bigger bung for bucks.


----------

