The ScoMo Government

[sptrawler]

The only way Labor can win the election is to publicly declare their opposition to Clive Palmers' death taxes

Someone with better computer skills than I, should start a thread "2022 election" and start a blind poll, it would be interesting to see how feelings fall on the forum, there seems to be a good cross section of people.
Maybe @Joe Blow might think it appropriate? For a bit of side interest, it also might keep a lot of threads uncluttered with election too and fro ing.
Maybe the poll could allow people to change their selection, as their decisions change, I don't know how hard the coding would be for an option like that?

 

[IFocus]

Why do you think that IFocus, I think Albo has done a good job of keeping Labor under the radar and the Morrison Government have bounced from disaster to disaster, I would have thought Labor were a shoe in.
The only thing I can see as a down side for Labor, is the time frame to get their message across is becoming tight, other than that I can't see a problem especially with the impetus toward climate change action.

In terms of a pure political player / actor I rate Morrison as one of the best and would never write him off.

Rating him and his government based on performance, action and policy pretty much a failure and another lost term along with Abbott and Turnbull.

Giving $40 bil to profitable company's (biggest transfer of wealth from tax payers to corporate / company's ever) after pursuing the weakest in our society, welfare recipients (ROBO debt, was it 2000 suicides?) and removing penalty rates from the lowest paid is a hell of a record.

Abbott and Costello couldn't even pass a budget (dumber and dumber) and what was it Turnbull did again?

 

[basilio]

ScoMo has introduced a couple of important new catch phrases to the political lexicon.
"The Australian Way" is the new "Can-do Capitalism" that is going to magically turn CC on it's tracks .

Indeed but what is "Can-do Capitalism" ? Let's see...

Can-do capitalism: an explainer

An innovative new form of capitalism, known as ‘can-do capitalism’, works by providing large tax-payer funded government subsidies to industries that would otherwise not exist in an open market.

An economist who spoke to The Shovel said a recent example of the new economic system – a $600 million gas plant that nobody asked for – illustrates how can-do capitalism works. “An investor, in this case the government, determines where future demand will be highest. It then ignores that opportunity, and instead assigns funds to a different industry that is threatening to withdraw party donations. It’s just a different way of thinking about the word ‘demand’,” he said.

He said there were some other important differences when compared with the traditional system. “Unlike normal capitalism, which relies on market forces to determine the allocation of resources, can-do capitalism uses an advanced form of resource allocation known as ‘corruption’. The technique has been used to determine where key infrastructure – such as roads and sporting grounds – should be built”.

Another difference is the way prices are set. “Prices under this system can be higher, particularly if it’s for a parcel of land owned by the mate of a government minister”.

Can-do capitalism also has its own way of dealing with externalities, like greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of using a market-based system, such as a carbon price or trading scheme, it funds the polluters directly.

Can-do capitalism: an explainer — The Shovel

It uses an advanced form of resource allocation known as ‘corruption’.

www.theshovel.com.au

 

[sptrawler]

The really funny thing is @basilio , you and I are hoping on can do capitalism to make money, with FMG and hydrogen.
So are you hoping on a home goal? ?
I mean really, do you think through your reasoning?

 

[SirRumpole]

ScoMo has introduced a couple of important new catch phrases to the political lexicon.
"The Australian Way" is the new "Can-do Capitalism" that is going to magically turn CC on it's tracks .

Indeed but what is "Can-do Capitalism" ? Let's see...

Can-do capitalism: an explainer

View attachment 132801

An innovative new form of capitalism, known as ‘can-do capitalism’, works by providing large tax-payer funded government subsidies to industries that would otherwise not exist in an open market.

An economist who spoke to The Shovel said a recent example of the new economic system – a $600 million gas plant that nobody asked for – illustrates how can-do capitalism works. “An investor, in this case the government, determines where future demand will be highest. It then ignores that opportunity, and instead assigns funds to a different industry that is threatening to withdraw party donations. It’s just a different way of thinking about the word ‘demand’,” he said.

He said there were some other important differences when compared with the traditional system. “Unlike normal capitalism, which relies on market forces to determine the allocation of resources, can-do capitalism uses an advanced form of resource allocation known as ‘corruption’. The technique has been used to determine where key infrastructure – such as roads and sporting grounds – should be built”.

Another difference is the way prices are set. “Prices under this system can be higher, particularly if it’s for a parcel of land owned by the mate of a government minister”.

Can-do capitalism also has its own way of dealing with externalities, like greenhouse gas emissions. Instead of using a market-based system, such as a carbon price or trading scheme, it funds the polluters directly.

Can-do capitalism: an explainer — The Shovel

It uses an advanced form of resource allocation known as ‘corruption’.

www.theshovel.com.au

While recognising the satire of this article, seriously if you leave things to the private sector, they end up owning everything and can therefore threaten the government to give them whatever they want or they will walk away, like the company that owned Hazelwood did, 25% of Victoria's power supply was gone overnight.

Government are hear for the long term and their survival depends on satisfying the consumers and voters , not shareholders.

ScoMo is running crony capitalism, favour your friends and starve your enemies, we deserve something better than that.

 

[sptrawler]

While recognising the satire of this article, seriously if you leave things to the private sector, they end up owning everything and can therefore threaten the government to give them whatever they want or they will walk away, like the company that owned Hazelwood did, 25% of Victoria's power supply was gone overnight.

Government are hear for the long term and their survival depends on satisfying the consumers and voters , not shareholders.

ScoMo is running crony capitalism, favour your friends and starve your enemies, we deserve something better than that.

Even in W.A , Victoria and Queensland, which are labor States, they are encouraging the private sector to develop the H2 industry, there is no way the taxpayer could afford to fund the amount needed, taxes would have to go through the roof.
The private generators, were given the opportunity to invest in new generation and refused, so the Feds are encroaching further into the private sector generation market, with Kurri Kurri and Snowy 2.0, the Tassie State Government is also joining in by increasing their output so in reality the private generators are being squeezed.
McGowan, who IMO is doing a great job, is encouraging private sector investment, what are you suggesting the Feds can do differently?
Seriously Rumpy I'm really interested, because I can't see what the Feds can do other than encourage private sector investment, without increasing taxes a lot.
Even taking Labors suggestion, of reducing the taxes on BEV's, that apparently will only drop the price by $2,000, which really isn't going to improve the affordability for low income and pensioners etc.
The fact is, it is only the likes of FMG, BHP, RIO, WES, WPL,WOW, the Banks etc reducing their carbon footprint and also investing in things like hydrogen production, that is going to change the way we live.
The amount of H2 required to be produced to replace fossil fuel, is absolutely mind boggling, there is no way taxpayers could possibly have any effect on the amount required and the money required, I think I read the other day Twiggy is taking about $130 trillion being invested in renewables over the coming years, even in Australia it will work out into the hundreds of billions.IMO

 

[basilio]

The really funny thing is @basilio , you and I are hoping on can do capitalism to make money, with FMG and hydrogen.
So are you hoping on a home goal? ?
I mean really, do you think through your reasoning?

SP I very much think through my reasoning - and on dealing with CC it is absolutely razor sharp.
The contempt thrown at ScoMo in that piece of satire highlights a number of intersecting issues.

1) The absolute BS of the government in pretending it is doing something about CC when they literally have no cogent policy beyone a vague belief that technology will save the day. And then at the same time Angus Tayor and co are supporting and encouraging the gas industry which will spew out millions of tons more CO2 and trying to pretend the Carbon Capture technology is some sort of salve.

2) The second issue is the open corruption of the Government in allocation of grants to favoured electorates as well as grants to support financial backers.

I'm cheerfully schizophrenic about CC. I have to keep some sense of hope (even though it does like like xhite) because otherwise life would all be a complete downer. In that context I see Twiggy as a very clear eyed and determined entrepreneur who understands how dangerous CC is and can see a critical part of the solution in a business that he can create and make a buck out of.

He also recognises the importance of leadership to make these things happen. But of course you also need seed capital, great engineering skills, strong planning and plenty of development capital to see it through. In that context there is "Can-do Capitalism" in action.

 

[orr]

Tragically Bas....
There certainly will not be anything that looks like 'Can-do-Government' what we have is Schmo's 'Can-SNAFU-government'...
The crony-capitalist handouts to Murdoch... \
The Bone-out of AGL by Frydenberg
The agririan-solcialists of the NATs' with their retiement plans sorted by the mining industry. See.; Anderson, McFarlin, and that dildo in charge of WhiteHaven, Ahh Barnaby how the bossom of Gina beckons; plenty more too....
Ohh and while where in the coalition old peoples home ; Coonan at Crown...

poor old trawler "I can't see what the Feds can do"..lost in some aplogists wilderness with no understanding of the importance of the Federal Governments capacity to set policy enabling investment certainty to the private sector and everything that flows from it. ...... and likes these people vote; and invest????? it'd make a cat laugh.....

 

[sptrawler]

Tragically Bas....
There certainly will not be anything that looks like 'Can-do-Government' what we have is Schmo's 'Can-SNAFU-government'...
The crony-capitalist handouts to Murdoch... \
The Bone-out of AGL by Frydenberg
The agririan-solcialists of the NATs' with their retiement plans sorted by the mining industry. See.; Anderson, McFarlin, and that dildo in charge of WhiteHaven, Ahh Barnaby how the bossom of Gina beckons; plenty more too....
Ohh and while where in the coalition old peoples home ; Coonan at Crown...

poor old trawler "I can't see what the Feds can do"..lost in some aplogists wilderness with no understanding of the importance of the Federal Governments capacity to set policy enabling investment certainty to the private sector and everything that flows from it. ...... and likes these people vote; and invest????? it'd make a cat laugh.....

Well @basilio and @orr enlighten me, as to what the Federal Government whether Labor or Liberal can do? Without committing billions in taxpayers money, which in the end the private sector can stump up anyway.
The Feds could subsidies BEV's, which would make it cheaper for those who can already afford one, the poor still wont be able to.
The Feds can put the tax up on fossil fuel, which again will hurt those who can least afford it.
The Feds can stop the sale of ICE cars after 2035, which will happen anyway, because manufactures wont make them.
The Feds can put a tax on coal, but that is going to happen anyway, with a global carbon tax, which the E.U is pushing.

So what can our Government being that Labor or Liberal do, that wont indirectly hurt the poor, when the changes required will come about anyway as the major companies and businesses clean up their industries.
I would really like to debate the issue, rather than just mindless ranting, due to tribal politics.

 

[SirRumpole]

Seriously Rumpy I'm really interested, because I can't see what the Feds can do other than encourage private sector investment, without increasing taxes a lot.

Private sector involvement is fine, but not unconstrained capitalism.

Morrison dropped the NEG which in my view was necessary to ensure continuation of supply even if it wasn't making money for investors at any particular time.

Considering electricity is an essential service I think that all generating, storage and distribution assets need to be (notionally anyway) part of the national infrastructure that cannot be disposed of without government permission (eg Hazelwood) . Smurf has already alluded to the fact that operators may be required to run generators in time of high demand, however I'm not sure if it prevents private operators just walking away when the going gets tough and therefore reducing capacity..

The thing that the government has to do is ensure that no one (or a cartel) of operators becomes so big that they can dictate policy or control supply and prices. Government has to pull the strings not the private sector. I don't think Morrison is committed enough to serving the public rather than serving big money.

 

[sptrawler]

Private sector involvement is fine, but not unconstrained capitalism.

Morrison dropped the NEG which in my view was necessary to ensure continuation of supply even if it wasn't making money for investors at any particular time.

Considering electricity is an essential service I think that all generating assets need to be (notionally anyway) part of the national infrastructure that cannot be disposed of without government permission (eg Hazelwood) . Smurf has already alluded to the fact that operators may be required to run generators in time of high demand.

The thing that the government has to do is ensure that no one (or a cartel) of operators becomes so big that they can dictate policy or control supply and prices. Government has to pull the strings not the private sector. I don't think Morrison is committed enough to serving the public rather than serving big money.

I agree with you on all those points, the thing is until there are enough alternative options for generation, the major stations will still be required. My guess is somewhere down the track the States with Fed assistance will have to buy out some of the non profitable power stations, in order to keep the lights on.
As you know, it is cheaper to put in renewables than run coal, so it is only a matter of time before the private generators refuse to operate them, I think that time is a lot closer than many realise.
A Government can't force a company to run at a loss, so if they are going to make them keep running they will have to be subsidised, which there already is an outcry about, "subsidising fossil fuel", or buy them out.
There isn't a magic wand, renewables will continue to be put in as they are lucrative, storage will be legislated and bulk storage will be Government owned, coal generation will become more and more uneconomical to operate so the real issue is the balancing act to keep the lights on.
Whichever party is in is going to be serving "big money", because they need big money to do most of the heavy lifting, 13million taxpayers can't possibly do it without a lot of pain.

 

[SirRumpole]

Whichever party is in is going to be serving "big money", because they need big money to do most of the heavy lifting, 13million taxpayers can't possibly do it without a lot of pain.

50 years ago 10 million taxpayers did it and we had the cheapest electricity in the world.

Governments don't have to make massive profits, they don't provide electricity for free, they can still make enough money to pay off the capital costs and cover running costs without having to satisfying greedy shareholders. Governments can keep power prices low because it's in the national interest to attract business and industry here.

 

[rederob]

Well @basilio and @orr enlighten me, as to what the Federal Government whether Labor or Liberal can do? Without committing billions in taxpayers money, which in the end the private sector can stump up anyway.
The Feds could subsidies BEV's, which would make it cheaper for those who can already afford one, the poor still wont be able to.
The Feds can put the tax up on fossil fuel, which again will hurt those who can least afford it.
The Feds can stop the sale of ICE cars after 2035, which will happen anyway, because manufactures wont make them.
The Feds can put a tax on coal, but that is going to happen anyway, with a global carbon tax, which the E.U is pushing.

So what can our Government being that Labor or Liberal do, that wont indirectly hurt the poor, when the changes required will come about anyway as the major companies and businesses clean up their industries.
I would really like to debate the issue, rather than just mindless ranting, due to tribal politics.

Scomo could claw back the $34B overpayments to business via Jobkeeper and reinvest that.
Oddly you think that a comparative pittance to incentivise new energy will lead to some kind of a tax blowout, yet the pandemic measures which added absolutely nothing to infrastructure, innovation or new employment was ok?

You seem to have an idea that everything has to be tax driven yet our massive debt levels have had a Scomo government actually reducing taxes. Go figure!

 

[sptrawler]

50 years ago 10 million taxpayers did it and we had the cheapest electricity in the world.

Governments don't have to make massive profits, they don't provide electricity for free, they can still make enough money to pay off the capital costs and cover running costs without having to satisfying greedy shareholders. Governments can keep power prices low because it's in the national interest to attract business and industry here.

Yes, as we have both said in the past it would be great if the electricity system gets nationalised, but with all the private sector rushing to put in solar and wind farms I can't see it happening.
The Governments will only be able to be 'generator of last resort', to be there when the private sector can't supply the load and have a role in setting the regulatory framework.

 

[sptrawler]

Scomo could claw back the $34B overpayments to business via Jobkeeper and reinvest that.
Oddly you think that a comparative pittance to incentivise new energy will leas to some kind of a tax blowout, yet the pandemic measures which added absolutely nothing to infrastructure, innovation or new employment was ok?

You seem to have an idea that everything has to be tax driven yet our massive debt levels have had a Scomo government actually reducing taxes. Go figure!

That should be done, they are quick enough to claw back overdue tax debts or welfare over payments, there is a moral obligation to treat business over payments the same way as they treat taxpayer over payments IMO .
By the way I didn't think the pandemic payments were reasonable, I thought they were excessive, however there will be many who think it was fair and reasonable.
I have had to live on my savings for the last 10 years, being under pension age and having savings, makes me ineligible for any assistance. So I tend to agree with you, investment in infrastructure is far more valuable to people, than just making welfare more attractive.

 

[SirRumpole]

but with all the private sector rushing to put in solar and wind farms I can't see it happening.

I have no problem with that, they are all part of the mix, as long as the mx is diverse enough to ensure supply reliability and cheap prices.

 

[Humid]

Scomo could claw back the $34B overpayments to business via Jobkeeper and reinvest that.
Oddly you think that a comparative pittance to incentivise new energy will leas to some kind of a tax blowout, yet the pandemic measures which added absolutely nothing to infrastructure, innovation or new employment was ok?

You seem to have an idea that everything has to be tax driven yet our massive debt levels have had a Scomo government actually reducing taxes. Go figure!

MSN

www.msn.com

 

[Humid]

 

[sptrawler]

I have no problem with that, they are all part of the mix, as long as the mx is diverse enough to ensure supply reliability and cheap prices.

Spot on IMO, the Government should only get involved to ensure that they keep the private generators honest, if they want to price gouge then dispatch the government generators, if they want to play fair give them the opportunity to earn a reasonable return on investment.
That then allows the Government, to direct taxpayers money to other areas of need.

 

[sptrawler]

View attachment 132824

Well it is hard to believe that, a lot of them are the 'baby boomers', you know the generation who had it so good and according to the media should be given a good thrashing.

Baby Boomers: This is the average super balance for your age

With retirement on the horizon, it's crunch time for Baby Boomers with the next decade your last chance to top up your super.

www.anz.com.au