Where in the hell is Australia heading?

[Sir Osisofliver]

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]

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.


Precisely correct - which is why we shouldn't be shipping it off to other countries, but hogging it for ourselves.
Well thats a whole new kettle of fish, thats called isolationism it won't work and the government won't agree to it. Our trading parteners can do a lot more harm to us than we can do to them.
If we hog the resources to ourselves what are we going to do with them? We can't value add to them because that is polluting and we are shutting down the refineries.
Actually that statement tends to explain where you are comming from or else you are just having a lend of us.



It will be done with the tax revenues of mining.

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]

'Pixel', that is a classic!

 

[Ruby]

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]

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.



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

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]

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]

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]

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]

'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]

.......................... 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.'

Her parents still aren't speaking to me.

Gorgeous, Pixel.

 

[Smurf1976]

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]

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!"

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

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]

Go Sir O. Love your work and wordplay.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

'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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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]

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.