Where in the hell is Australia heading?

[IFocus]

The Labor party went to the last election with the N.B.N as one of its main policy objectives and was hammered.
Anyway most of the discussion regarding the carbon tax and N.B.N will die away with the demise of this government. Which with luck won't be too far into the future.

I think it was the NBN and Abbott that got them over the line, remember the independents wanted the NBN and hey didn't want Abbott.

I really haven't heard much discourse about the NBN (business and industry particularity want it)other than the usual hardliners taking a anti everything stand.

 

[sptrawler]

I think it was the NBN and Abbott that got them over the line, remember the independents wanted the NBN and hey didn't want Abbott.

I really haven't heard much discourse about the NBN (business and industry particularity want it)other than the usual hardliners taking a anti everything stand.

Well they certainly lost a lot of seats that they gained in the 2007 election. If you think the N.B.N helped them they are really in trouble, as for business wanting it I have always agreed with that.
It is just a shame that we are having to foot the bill for it, I notice our marginal tax rates are going up, yet I don't see 30% tax on business going up. That is unless your a miner or make electricity.LOL and I don't think they will give a rats about the N.B.N either.

 

[Smurf1976]

Is it?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electricity_pricing

Or do you suggest that mineral processing industries get preferential pricing well below retail?

That is all well and good (if true), but what is your assessment of our exchange rate in particular as a bigger factor than electricity pricing? The steel industry for instance is shedding jobs now. It has been in trouble for a while. Surely the ETS is not a factor at this stage?

Australia is competitive at generation with costs well below that of many other countries (other than those using predominantly hydro which is of course usually very cheap).

Retail rates are high because we're not overly cheap, indeed the opposite is increasingly true, at distributing the power. That is, the "poles and wires" in your local area that connect you to the major sub-stations. The same increasingly applies to transmission as well and this gives rise to relatively high rates for small business and households despite low prices in the wholesale market.

The reasons for the issues with transmission and distribution are multiple but in short:

Distance and low population density are a factor.

Government regulation increasingly requires huge investments, in order to supply no additional power, that would not be made elsewhere in the world.

The disaggregation of the industry into separate generation, transmission and distribution companies removed co-operation between the 3, thus initiating additional investment which in some areas has been truly massive in cost.

Declining load factors (average load as a % of peak load) in most areas have further increased the need for capacity investment whilst supplying no additional kilowatt hours (therefore the rate charged per unit necessarily increases).

Personally, I believe the National Electricity Market has been a failure since it has not delivered ongoing economic or environmental benefits. Prices have risen faster than inflation for most consumers and environmental performance is below that which the former state utilities had planned to (and most likely would) achieve.

I don't deny that there are examples of benefits, but as a whole I wouldn't regard the change as having been successful. So what if there is "competition"? The average consumer has no means of properly evaluating what's on offer anyway (since suppliers don't like to release much info) and in any event, what's the point of competition if it doesn't mean lower prices?

As for exchange rates, agreed that is seriously harming manufacturing in this country. Another example of the Australian "head in the sand" approach, putting faith in a "level playing field" that does not exist outside an economic text book.

The ETS would be a factor at this stage to the extent that future investment is contemplated or required in order to keep the business running. Why invest in a 30+ year life asset that may be subject to a tax when you could instead make that investment elsewhere and pay no tax? I'd be surprised if there was a single energy-intensive manufacturer in the country that isn't engaging in a capital strike to some extent - once that starts it's only question of when, not if, the operation becomes unviable and is shut down completely.

 

[Wysiwyg]

As for exchange rates, agreed that is seriously harming manufacturing in this country. Another example of the Australian "head in the sand" approach, putting faith in a "level playing field" that does not exist outside an economic text book.

Hi Smurf, this paragraph suggests the exchange rate is manipulated to favour "other" countries, particularly USA. When the AUD/USD exchange rate was at 62 c this would not be the case.

 

[Smurf1976]

Hi Smurf, this paragraph suggests the exchange rate is manipulated to favour "other" countries, particularly USA. When the AUD/USD exchange rate was at 62 c this would not be the case.

My comment was more in relation to industry and things which affect it in general rather than specifically the currency.

5 years ago you could buy student type exercise books at 5 for 5 cents. That's literally 1 cent per 128 page exercise book - and that's at retail price in the shops. It seems rather obvious that they were a dumped product with the aim of destroying the Australian paper manufacturing industry or otherwise inflicting harm on existing Austrlaian industries. I just can't believe that the suppliers of those were making a profit at such a ridiculously low price against which nobody had a chance of competing.

Australia seems to be about the only country on earth that actually thinks others are going to play fair. By means of currency manipulation, direct assistance, tariffs or other means just about everyone else never stopped protecting at least some of their key industries. There's no chance we'll ever be able to compete in such markets.

 

[Glen48]

China is sending Solar companies to the wall in USA the feds pumped $$$$$ in to get the companies up and running and now they are all folding because China is making and selling solar panels below cost.

 

[IFocus]

I notice our marginal tax rates are going up, yet I don't see 30% tax on business going up. That is unless your a miner or make electricity.LOL and I don't think they will give a rats about the N.B.N either.

Abbott chose to rail against the mining tax that was going to be used in part to help smaller businesses (they actually employ most Australians GFC mark 2 will take care of that), he happily forfeited a once in a century dividend opportunity.

Still when he becomes PM the fix will be $70 bil of cuts and hit on the economy sure to solve all the problems.

 

[sptrawler]

Abbott chose to rail against the mining tax that was going to be used in part to help smaller businesses (they actually employ most Australians GFC mark 2 will take care of that), he happily forfeited a once in a century dividend opportunity.

Still when he becomes PM the fix will be $70 bil of cuts and hit on the economy sure to solve all the problems.

Actually Ifocus, I think that most voters, I have talked to, agree with some form of mining tax. As per usual the problem was the way the government handled the issue.
As for the $70billion hole, there wouldn't be one if the government hadn't dug it.
G.F.C 2 if it comes we are in deep manure, no more lollipops and plasma t.v's

 

[Starcraftmazter]

The Labor party went to the last election with the N.B.N as one of its main policy objectives and was hammered.

I would say that is the worst analysis I have ever heard. I am actually amazed that anyone can think this. I don't see how it is a main policy, and I don't see why you think voters looked only at that one thing when voting. I would argue it helped ALP get over the line.

I would also argue that it adds legitimacy to the ALP government, since it was able to form government largely due to the NBN.



Thanks for your detailed explanations Smurf1976. I don't have much to say in reply, but I can see that you are most probably qutie correct in your assessment.

 

[sptrawler]

I would say that is the worst analysis I have ever heard. I am actually amazed that anyone can think this. I don't see how it is a main policy, and I don't see why you think voters looked only at that one thing when voting. I would argue it helped ALP get over the line.

I would also argue that it adds legitimacy to the ALP government, since it was able to form government largely due to the NBN.



Thanks for your detailed explanations Smurf1976. I don't have much to say in reply, but I can see that you are most probably qutie correct in your assessment.

You don't see how it is a main policy, when it is a $40billion spend of taxpayers money.
You can't see why voters looked at that when voting, well the other major issue was the carbon tax and they took that off the agenda.
You may have forgotten, it doesn't get much air play. What The
Maybe you can enlighten me on the major issues, obviously I have forgotten.
Maybe it is just you are in complete denial.
Got to add if you think $40B isn't an issue I can see why you think this government is o.k

 

[Starcraftmazter]

You don't see how it is a main policy, when it is a $40billion spend of taxpayers money.

Of course, nevermind how they spend the other $400Bn of taxpayer money.

You can't see why voters looked at that when voting

I never said they did not look at it, I said it was not their main policy. Furthermore, if it is and everyone voted based upon it as you suggest, then that means enough people support it to allow ALP to form government based on it, and you are incorrect.

 

[sptrawler]

I would say that is the worst analysis I have ever heard. I am actually amazed that anyone can think this. I don't see how it is a main policy, and I don't see why you think voters looked only at that one thing when voting. I would argue it helped ALP get over the line.

I would also argue that it adds legitimacy to the ALP government, since it was able to form government largely due to the NBN.



Thanks for your detailed explanations Smurf1976. I don't have much to say in reply, but I can see that you are most probably qutie correct in your assessment.

As for your reply to Smurph, that is pretty understandable, as you are yet to put forward any substantial data or knowledgeable theory to any of your posts.
Just passive aggresive arguement by disputing without evidence, ala Gillard.
Which is great in debate but lacks substance in the execution.
I must give credit to Smurph for the time he puts in.
He gives in depth answers which are factually accurate and show a great understanding of the electrical distribution sytem.
Why he wastes his time proving and re proving the facts to some of these posters is beyond me. Maybe he is a saint

 

[sptrawler]

Of course, nevermind how they spend the other $400Bn of taxpayer money.



I never said they did not look at it, I said it was not their main policy. Furthermore, if it is and everyone voted based upon it as you suggest, then that means enough people support it to allow ALP to form government based on it, and you are incorrect.

Well WHAT was their main policy asylum seekers pink batts your office and its need for high speed internet
Please enlighten me WHAT was their main policy it eludes me?

 

[Starcraftmazter]

I must give credit to Smurph for the time he puts in.
He gives in depth answers which are factually accurate and show a great understanding of the electrical distribution sytem.
Why he wastes his time proving and re proving the facts to some of these posters is beyond me. Maybe he is a saint

Maybe he actually wishes to contribute to discussion instead of what someone like you like to do;

herp derp nbn bad i didn't vote for it so it's not democratic y u no see this?? ignorant leftist extremist lololo

Well WHAT was their main policy asylum seekers pink batts your office and its need for high speed internet

I would say there is no "main" policy but many different key policies (which are also targeted at different voter bases) for every party in every election.

It is very rare that one key policy can determine an election. Perhaps the only thing resembling this in recent time was work choices in 2007.

 

[sptrawler]

Maybe he actually wishes to contribute to discussion instead of what someone like you like to do;





I would say there is no "main" policy but many different key policies (which are also targeted at different voter bases) for every party in every election.

It is very rare that one key policy can determine an election. Perhaps the only thing resembling this in recent time was work choices in 2007.

Yes I agree with that one, starcraftmazter, and I am sure it will be rolled out again(workchoices)
But as per usual you fail to answer a question as per usual you deflect it.
Like I said, Smurph must be a saint putting forward precise arguement so people such as yourself can soak it up and regurgitate it, who knows where.
It really is a sad place we are going.
Mate you could be an Indian call centre set up for this purpose, it sounds like it.

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Yes I agree with that one, starcraftmazter, and I am sure it will be rolled out again(workchoices)
But as per usual you fail to answer a question as per usual you deflect it.
Like I said, Smurph must be a saint putting forward precise arguement so people such as yourself can soak it up and regurgitate it, who knows where.
It really is a sad place we are going.

What question? The only thing I see is you sounding like you've gone off a cliff.

 

[sptrawler]

Of course, nevermind how they spend the other $400Bn of taxpayer money.



I never said they did not look at it, I said it was not their main policy. Furthermore, if it is and everyone voted based upon it as you suggest, then that means enough people support it to allow ALP to form government based on it, and you are incorrect.

O.K lets go back ,what was their main policy, if it wasn't the N.B.N

 

[Starcraftmazter]

O.K lets go back what was their main policy, if it wasn't the N.B.N

...

I would say there is no "main" policy but many different key policies (which are also targeted at different voter bases) for every party in every election.

It is very rare that one key policy can determine an election. Perhaps the only thing resembling this in recent time was work choices in 2007.

 

[sptrawler]

O.k lets look at the other key policies, that target different voter bases, maybe you can enlighten me on those.
By the way Malaysia and Indonesian people smugglers don't count as voter bases.
So apart from them, what was the main policy platforms that the Labor party picked up a minority government on.
GIVE US A KEY POLICY

 

[Starcraftmazter]

Sorry buddy but this is entirely uninteresting to me, and I fail to see your point (if indeed you have any).