Where in the hell is Australia heading?

[Starcraftmazter]

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.

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.

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.

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]

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]

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]

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.

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]

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.

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]

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]

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.

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]

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]

F


T


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.

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]

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]

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]

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]

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.

BRAVO ! View attachment 43638

Could not have said it better myself.

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]

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]

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]

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]

Your construct here is seriously unfortunate by any measure.

A baseball analogy is unfortunate.

 

[basilio]

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]

Happy to converse with the logical. It is the tolerance thing I need to work on.

 

[chrisalex]

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