Now let’s talk about what wasn’t in the budget

Rick says:

09:23am | 17/05/11

Should have put the billion on BC….......dont know what the odds were but it shit it in.

MarK says:

10:04am | 17/05/11

“If the intention is to raise revenue by imposing a tax and then dole the proceeds out to families and corporations, then the measure is surely budget neutral.”

Ok let us take your premise.

Why do it then? It actually costs to collect tax from people, ensure they comply and then to send it on to others.

By your own measure it a unecessary churn that will give the ATO some more staff and do nothing but redistribute wealth.

And then, of course, is the big kicker.

The carbon tax (sic) is there to make the world cooler, to fight global warming. If all it does is redistribute wealth and make industries less competitive by artificially raising the cost of our cheap power, Australia’s big competitive advantage, why do it?

Ando says:

10:54am | 17/05/11

MarK,
Why don’t you listen to the explanation which has been given many times. It costs the Emitters and encourages them to invest in technology that will reduce how much carbon tax they pay.

There is already incentive for people to use less power, your power bill.
This tax is solely to encourage companies to emit less carbon and is purposely designed to have a neutral effect on households.

It may or may not work and you don’t have to agree with it but at least understand it.

BRB says:

11:18am | 17/05/11

Ando, MarK is not listening to the explanation because it is nonsense.

Taxing the emitters, who then pass the cost on to the consumers, (some of which) are then compensated for the increased cost of living by the government using the money that was taken in the first place is (just as MarK said) nothing more than a massive unnecessary churn.

Now, if the taxes collected from the emitters was all passed on as research and development funding, that might have some credibiltity…

RyaN says:

11:20am | 17/05/11

@Ando: more likely if gives the emitters a great excuse to move their operations off shore, they are already planning to shut down an oil refinery in Sydney in obvious anticipation of this $40 per ton carbon tax.

Keith Hammersmith says:

11:23am | 17/05/11

Sorry Ando,  but if you are simply compensating the user for using the higher emitting industries, then it has no point what so ever.
It changes nothing, and just demonstrates clearly how poorly conceived the supposed carbon tax is.

stevem says:

11:54am | 17/05/11

A carbon tax should have been taken into account for the forward estimates. It will have an effect even if it is “revenue neutral”, bacause it can’t be neutral. The tax will raise upward of $10Billion a year, 10% of which has been committed to the UN. So the economy will have at least a billion ripped out of it. Administration of the tax will also cost a fortune - it seems the government budgates more than 10% as overheads. These factors need to be modelled otherwise the forward estimates are useless.

The forward estimates are useless.

LeftRightOut says:

12:12pm | 17/05/11

Don’t forget, consideration of the carbon [dioxide] tax will also affect ALL assumptions regarding inflation, employment levels, and general tax revenue from the rest of the economy.
ALL [current] budget figures are based on an entirely different [economic] environment, and therefore, the numbers are utter rubbish.

When the tax detail is released, a mini-budget will be required, this is without question. That alone suggests that the current numbers are tish!

acotrel says:

01:01pm | 17/05/11

@Sophie
‘Many of Australia’s brightest researchers and innovators will gather in Brisbane this week for the annual conference of the Cooperative Research Centres (CRC) Association.’

Will you be there giving a paper?  What is YOUR latest innovative brainwave as Shadow Minister for Innovation?  The only creative stuff we’‘ve ever had from you has been poison which you couldn’t even sell to the Commonwealth Serum Laboratories for use in production of an antivenene, to counteract the effects of the Liberal Party’s rhetoric.

No 1 Rosie says:

02:08pm | 17/05/11

acotrel

It is not Sophie you should concern yourself about but Bob Browne. You need Bob Browne to sell Gillard Labor’s carbon tax and he is losing it by taking it out on the jurnos. $40 per ton on the carbon falls way short! OMG $40 per ton falling short! You guys need to work miracles to revive the politically dead Gillard.

The Gillard Labor Govt is not listening, instead is fighting what the people are trying to tell them.

Ando says:

04:02pm | 17/05/11

Brb,
It may be nonsense but that is why they are doing it.  I assume the companies wont be fully compensated and a price for carbon will be set. The effect of the tax on companies will be introduced slowly but it certainly isnt zero. I thought some of the tax collected was going to research but I may be wrong.
I can understand the argument that it is unnecessary but I think it will have an effect on emitters trying to reduce their tax bill in the long term. However introducing the full brunt of it without some compo for emitters and no time for an adjusment would be a disaster

Col. of Blackburn says:

04:47pm | 17/05/11

@John C
I thought the whole idea of introducing a Carbon Dioxide Emissions Tax was twofold, firstly to artificially inflate the cost of using conventional fossil fuels and secondly to use that money to fastrack R & D on Alternative sources of energy.

Adam says:

05:37pm | 17/05/11

@ Col - “I thought the whole idea of introducing a Carbon Dioxide Emissions Tax was twofold, firstly to artificially inflate the cost of using conventional fossil fuels and secondly to use that money to fastrack R & D on Alternative sources of energy”

But to what end? Are the Govt just artificially inflating the cost of some fuels and putting the money into alternative energy sources for fun or to f*ck with the market cause they are bored? Of course not; they are doing it cause they told us all carbon dioxide was bad, our emissions need to be reduced and somehow manmade carbon emissions are responsible for climate change. Sadly, this is a blatant lie so their carbon tax should never be allowed to go ahead. If you have evidence to the contrary go and claim the $10k prize:

http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/10k-for-the-first-person-to-prove-weve-caused-climate-change/

Steve Smith says:

08:18am | 17/05/11

The poor, the pensioners and those on low wages don’t count under liberal governments.
Those with money.and middle class salary earners are the ones that are look after best by the liberals.
Under the Liberals, the rich gets richer, while the poor gets poorer,a bit like the serfs and peasants in medieval times.

Smee says:

09:07am | 17/05/11

Rubbish Steve, pure ideological drivel.

Paulb says:

09:17am | 17/05/11

You seriously think that isn’t happening under Labor?  If you think Labor is some great equalizer can I refer you to the bulk of the 1990s to see otherwise?

Sony B Goode says:

10:40am | 17/05/11

Freedom of choice in a market which is a network of sellers and buyers yields pareto distributions of wealth. Look it up on the internet you lazy shallow thinking socialists. Small differences in products yield big differences in profits. Its normal, its healthy so get over it.

The socialists anti prosperity, class warfare policies of envy are the bellwether of shallow thinking.

Tom says:

11:27am | 17/05/11

@Catching up, Taking money from workers who have worked hard to earn it is always wasteful.  Protecting workers from theft by the powerful ruling elite is what the labour movement used to stand for.

Therein lies the roots of a once trustworthy Labor party. What happened to them?

Catching up says:

04:07pm | 17/05/11

Tom, I know it was a fact years ago and I would be surprise if it still not the case.  Money for welfare comes mostly from working people, not the wealthy.. 

If you are a worker, you provide the taxation money to pay for any benefits you get through life.  Very little comes from the wealthy. 

We have a coalition that cannot see the fairness in some of the massive profits of the mining industry being transferred back to the people who own the minerals they are making their profits from.

This in spite that their massive profits are causing problems in the rest of the economy.

Tom, you will also know that hard work is not always rewarded with high wages.  Many are in the position to earn high wages with little effort.

None of us know what tommorow will bring.  In spite of your best efforts and plans, it is possible you might find yourself on the welfare teat.  There is no shame in that.

Tom says:

05:52pm | 17/05/11

@Catching up, You have not let go of your delusions that money stolen from workers will be used wisely and will help the less fortunate to improve their lot. Perhaps, as the years catch up, you will come to that understanding.

Sony B Goode says:

06:12pm | 17/05/11

Dollars reward value not physical effort.

It’s the classic marxist double bind, the boss gets the profits for taking the risk with his capital with no physical effort, while the proletariat work their asses off 12 hours a day. let’s take back the money peoples, it’s time for the workers revolution!

bzzzt wake up! it’s a new century! Marxist shallowthink is out, new deeper thinking is in.

Dollars flow to risk and value creation. People are poor because they create little marketable value.

People who get ahead do so because they create more value. It’s not rocket science, governments who prey on the feeble and weak to incite class hatred are the real culprits.  The rich get richer because they reinvest and create compound returns, something the poor and the middle class do not. That’s it; the magic formula has been outed. No need for marxist flat earth egalitarian utopias and paranoia and rhetoric of class warfare.

Later day socialists appeal to the lazy and the something for nothing crowd to everyone’s detriment. Curtail reinvestment and you curb progress and general prosperity.

Opportunity is all around you, waiting for government handouts is shorting your own potential.

Tator says:

08:19pm | 17/05/11

Catching up,
“Money for welfare comes mostly from working people, not the wealthy”
Considering that 70% of net income tax receipts is paid by the top 27% of income earners who earn only 53% of total income, compared to the 30% of tax paid by the 73% of income earners who earn 47% of total earnings.  So what are the wealthier income earners paying for as welfare spending is 1/3rd of total government spending

Mahhrat says:

08:18am | 17/05/11

And yet still you don’t get it, AtM.

Stop calling her “Gilltard” or “Juliar”.  I don’t care what you think of the person, as politician or as person, what you think of her values, her marriage status or any of anything else, she deserves the same basic respect that I’m sure you get.

Petty name calling nullifies your whole argument.  Which is a shame, really, because it’s an important argument to have.

Nossy does it too, and he’s just as badd “Dr Tones, Dr No” whatever, I don’t care.  These people, right or wrong, are still people.  Treat them as such, because all you’re doing is making yourself look like a right peanut.

Rick says:

09:21am | 17/05/11

The looser libs have a couple of years to wait in the political backwaters…......and Abbort has failed again…........failed to be elected.

Smee says:

10:28am | 17/05/11

Quite right Mahhrat. “Oi am the architect of the nay-shun” Gillard should be given all the respect she deserves.

LeftRightOut says:

12:17pm | 17/05/11

Rick, using your logic, Gillard didn’t get elected, either.
She just happened to be aligned with a couple of pretend conservatives in Oakshott and Windsor. The ONLY reason they backed Gillard and labor, is their hatred for the Nationals.
If an election were held now, though - Abbott would romp it in. Moot point to be sure, but it’s demonstrative of how on-the-nose Gillard and Labor are.

RHYS!! says:

12:24pm | 17/05/11

your right gillard should be given all the respect she deserves which is lil to NONE what so ever down with giltard ( love that name ty ATM) and up with a government that dosent have its head so far up its arse that the only time they see daylight is when they yawn!

Against the Man says:

01:27pm | 17/05/11

@ Mahhrat - Yes, we should give Juliar Gilltard respect. The same respect she gave KRudd and his family when she stabbed him in the back, the same respect she showed the QLD flood victims when she appeared indifferent and not bothered (like their tragedy was an inconvenience to her), the same respect she showed Australia by lying about the carbon tax!

@ Rick - At least KRudd had a real victory, unlike Juliar who couldn’t get a majority win and yet is happy to prance around at the Royal Wedding with her BOYFRIEND Timmy claiming to be the real Australian PM, BAHHAHAHAHAH Gilltard is a loser through and through.

Hey at least you guys couldn’t defend her policies…..........thats right what policies? 

Rick says:

04:05pm | 17/05/11

Left right out against the man….......when last I looked Julia was PM…...and Labor won the majority Lib’s second Nat’s third…....end of story

Against the Man says:

06:10pm | 17/05/11

So why does she need the Greens and Independents? Majority governments don’t need anyone.

ps: The Coalition won the most seats

pps: Thanks for your support in acknowledging that the ALP have zero policy success since ‘07, it makes it all the more sweeter.

Against the Grain says:

07:08pm | 17/05/11

The coalition of the willing won the votes atm that’s why your hero’s are in opposition.

TimB says:

08:50am | 17/05/11

And you need to explain how much set-top boxes cost two years ago) for a hint, just read the article you linked to), and why there’s such an epic level of waste in the Governments current program.

Times have changed. You would have thought your argument would have changed to reflect that. Apparently not.

michael j says:

09:29am | 17/05/11

Senator Minchin only said they might help putting them in ?
Sentor Conroy ALP said they would maybe supply and put in,
just goes to show the LIBS are the same SELFISH Bastards they have always been,,
And the ALP have made good on a maybe Promise from the olde RUDD dayz ,,back in the black in no time flat,,,,,,,
1,000 dollars for a set top box ,,ha ha,,,,,

PTom says:

03:01pm | 17/05/11

TimB,
It is funds allocated based on the past project not currently funds used. 
How much does it cost to install 100 set boxes in a city compared to install 100 in 100 different regional towns.
So where is the waste if it is allocated funds.

I guess phoney, liebarls and you, all must have gone to the skool of simply costs slogan.

Tom says:

03:42pm | 17/05/11

I just wonder if Conroy put it up there as bait for the coalition, given Minchin’s stated position two years ago. Turnbull would have fallen for it hook line and sinker.

TimB, I agree the costs are different today (due to the dollar and the techology), but an attack on Conroy could have been quite easily reversed back on the coalition.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

09:45pm | 17/05/11

I live in a rural area & had a new anntena fitted, “Jims Antenna” cost $120, a new TV with the ability to pause & record live TV, delivered to your door$129, total cost, $249, saving on Labor’s cash splash, $151. Let’s face it, an anologue TV would be “OLD” so why bother with a box? ? Oh I know, Swan is STUPID! ! ! !

Scranbag says:

08:19am | 18/05/11

The fact is that the Opposition has *already* voted in support of the *existing* program, which has:

1. been in place for two years and
2. has, so far, helped 38,000 pensioners in areas where analogue TV is already switched off.

I’ll leave it to someone with more time on their hands to check the likely cost/box, installed, from a reliable, quotable source.

And free of any shrill finger-waggings.

Off for the day.

L. says:

08:39am | 17/05/11

Sony, that is the dumbest thing I have read here…

I’m 43, most definately non-religious and single. If I were to meet some and get married again, I wouldn’t be having kids. Would that marriage be “fake”, and if so, why..??

Sony B Goode says:

09:34am | 17/05/11

Only you know what your beliefs are, Julia’s are against prosperity, religion and children.

michael j says:

10:29am | 17/05/11

TWINS on the way ? back with a majority,,,,in both houses,,,

L. says:

11:36am | 17/05/11

@ Sony..

“Only you know what your beliefs are, Julia’s are against prosperity, religion and children.”

Hang on… If only “I” know what my beliefs are, doesn’t it also follow that “ONLY” Julia knows what her beliefs are..??

You can’t have it both ways…

Sony B Goode says:

11:55am | 17/05/11

julia has made her beliefs public, you have not. google it yourself

Julia and her cause dead green cohorts are aiming to destroy australias prosperity

read the admission by one of the top greens, the green cause is dead

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/may/02/environmental-fixes-all-greens-lost

“Top Green admits “We are lost!”
http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2011/05/03/top-green-admits-we-are-lost/

Nothing will distract us from the truth that socialism is prosperity destruction, coloured green or red.

L. says:

12:14pm | 17/05/11

Rubbish..

Show us where Julia stated she is againt prosperity, religion and children…or it never happened.

fehowarth@iprimus.com.au says:

04:13pm | 17/05/11

Sony, people do not have civil marriages? 

I think you will find it was a civil ceremony long before the church adopted it.  All cultures and nationalities, Christian and none Christian have some type of marriage.

Marriage is a sacrament that was created by the RC sometime in the 16th century, I believe. 

For most of history, only the wealthy bothered with marriage, mostly to protect wealth and kingdoms.

Robert Smissen, rural SA, God's own country says:

09:48pm | 17/05/11

For Julia & Tim to get married & have kids, wouldn’t one of them have to be a woman? ? ?

Catching up says:

04:28pm | 17/05/11

I suggest we do not know how well the GST has performed.  There has been no in-depth studies done. 

What we do know is that many of the taxes it was supposed to replace still exist.

We know that it is a regressive tax and has moved the tax burden from the wealthy to the lower income earners. This has been intensified by massive income taxes that benefited the upper income more than the poor.

We know that in times of economy downturns, the states who outlays do not decrease, while their receipts do. This has left the states short of revenue.

Any that live in the real works, knows that it has not lessened tax avoidance or the hidden economy, which is thriving.  When were you last given to quotes, the one if you pay in cash much lower.

We know with the GST, it is hard to allocate it fairly among the states.

Sony B Goode says:

05:31pm | 17/05/11

Hello “Catching up”

Repeat after me, the marginal utility of an extra dollar in the hands of the wealthy is an extra dollars’ worth of job creation.

Twisting reality by calling black, white, does not make it so.

Calling aggressive taxation “progressive” does not make it less prosperity, progress and job destructive.

Get educated son, follow through the implications of your beliefs, do some research, think deeper. Stop parroting socialist dogma. Inequality is natural and healthy consequence of progress and freedom of trade.

Wishing the world the world was flat will never make it so. Inequality is a natural consequence of freedom of choice. Every time you make a choice when purchasing an item you contribute to vast inequality. These inequalities like the number of inbound links to web sites are healthy, normal and signs the system works, distributing the best products and services to the most people.

Pareto distributions of wealth are the result of vast value generated for mutual benefit in a free market. Inequality is as inevitable as the sun rise, where there is freedom.

Abandon your class warfare rhetoric, its so last century marxist.

Catching On says:

05:57pm | 17/05/11

Son
“Repeat after me, the marginal utility of an extra dollar in the hands of the wealthy is an extra dollars’ worth of job creation.”
wrong,
Repeat after me, the marginal utility of an extra dollar in the hands of the wealthy is an extra dollars’ worth of petrol in the Cabin Cruiser or the Roller.

Sony B Goode says:

06:22pm | 17/05/11

Catching “Repeat after me, the marginal utility of an extra dollar in the hands of the wealthy is an extra dollars’ worth of petrol in the Cabin Cruiser or the Roller. “

For god’s sake man are you so envious of others success that you can’t see with your own eyes, research man, research.

Look at the asset lists of the billionaires and millionaires. Wealth is not built by consuming luxury toys. Wealth is built through businesses that create vast value for others.  The more value you create for others, the more luxury toys you can play with.

You are so blinded by envy that you can’t even see past first base. You are stuck in oldthink, the rhetoric of socialist dogma.

Think man think!

Rick says:

09:29am | 17/05/11

Agree nossy…....I see last night Dr.No was comparing the carbon tax to the GST….......................stuck his foot in his mouth again….he ‘s better off not mentioning the GST most off these luibs have forgoten that GREAT BIG TAX

The Original Oz says:

11:00am | 17/05/11

Whilst the GST was a GREAT BIG TAX, what it did was to simplify the previous Sales Tax regime which was messy and uncoordinated, had different rates for different products and was a nightmare for small business to navigate and comply with. The GST, although not as simple as it could be, has leveled the mess that was the Sales Tax regime, although it is still a bit of an administrative nightmare for businesses it is much easier to comply with. Also, the GST was put forward to the voting public as an election issue.

The Carbon Tax on the other hand has not been put forward for a mandate, even up to the last day of the election campaign the Labor candidates were proudly pronouncing that “There will be no Carbon Tax” - done purely to secure those essential votes to get back in to power. If Ms Gillard and co. had any propriety they would postpone the Carbon Tax implementation until after it has been presented to the public at election so that they can obtain a mandate. Both taxes (GST and Carbon) are taxes that intrude on just about every aspect of commercial reality and just as was done for the GST the Labor party should also seek a mandate for the Carbon Tax.

LeftRightOut says:

12:22pm | 17/05/11

Don’t forget, the GST was also supposed to lead to elimination of other state taxes such as stamp duty… guess what all those LABOR premiers did? reneged!

Want to pay more tax? Vote Labor.

nihonin says:

01:25pm | 17/05/11

nossy, looks like the Carbon-Tax, is also causing overheating within the ‘stable’ (and I use that term loosely) government.  Seems Bob wants more but Julia says less, they can’t even agree on a price.  Not looking to good for Labor if Bob doesn’t get what he wants:

http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/the-greens-say-the-carbon-tax-will-need-to-be-far-above-40-a-tonne-while-the-government-says-it-will-be-well-south/story-fn59niix-1226057359647

PTom says:

03:08pm | 17/05/11

Don’t forget, the GST was also supposed to raised in a state be given back to that state. Guess what LIBERAL Prime Minister did? reneged

So the states decide to keep some of their own revenue.

Denny Crane says:

03:16pm | 17/05/11

PTom - the states themselves determined the formula by which the GST was to be distrubited. The fact that they were all labor should have been a warning to Howard that they would stuff it up. Blaming Howard for the inadequacies of labor run staes seems to be a common theme among those without the guile to understand. They try the same thing for states failing to invest in infrastructure.

When are people going to learn that labor cannot be trusted with money. Waste - its in their DNA.

PTom says:

03:17pm | 17/05/11

The Original Oz
“Both taxes (GST and Carbon) are taxes that intrude on just about every aspect of commercial reality”

Not true a Carbon Tax would only be charge on a percentage of emission (It was about 5%) of the list industries (whatever they will be). So a power station would have 95% of it emission free of a carbon tax.

Also there would be no Carbon tax on your finance transaction, health fee or education fees unlike a GST.

PTom says:

04:02pm | 17/05/11

Denny Crane
Not true it was the commonwealth Grants commission. I blame Howard for hiw own doings.
Maybe some one else to give you overview of what happened.
http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/one_more_gst_myth_to_kill/

Rick says:

04:17pm | 17/05/11

I’m sick of hearing that Jack boot Jony had a mandate for the GST, he never never never did.The only reason it got pass was because of the Democrats leader of the time (no one remembers her name and I shall not utter it hear) did a deal to get it through. So cut thebullshit you Liberal looser and read your history books. The last thing Abbort should do is to bring it up in any poli speak and by the way how much is that GREAT BIG TAX costing the average household? Does anybody Know? I know I’m still paying income tax and wasn’t it supose to replace a WHOLE raft of taxes?How much was that birthday cake again?

Denny Crane says:

04:17pm | 17/05/11

PTom - you link proves nothing except that the labor states reneged on the GST deal. hardly suprising given that they were all labor and keen to take and waste as much as possible. Given how Rudd/Gillard have performed it seems nothing has changed. It must be in labor DNA. How the GST pot was to be distributed among the states WAS determined by the states themselves. How big the pot was was determined by the Grants commission - and guess what. All GST raised went into the pot. Howard did not reneg - that was the domain of lazy wasteful state labor.

Steve says:

04:51pm | 17/05/11

The GST was not really a new tax rather it was a replacement tax. The major tax that it replaced was the wholesale sales tax (WST). The WST was introduced when the bulk of the economy was goods not services. The GST reduced the tax on goods and introduced tax on previously untaxed services. Services had the biggest part of the economy which put too much burden on GST.

Rick I find it incredible that people still say it was not mandated. Not even Labor polititions attempt to make that claim. I wont waste my time and yours trying to outline the facts because I think you will ignore them in order to hold onto your opinion.

Sony B Goode says:

04:53pm | 17/05/11

“When are people going to learn that labor cannot be trusted with money. Waste - its in their DNA”

Labor is a socialist party stacked full of socialists. Reducing everyone to the lowest common denominator is its core belief. Eradicating the injustice of difference is what social justice really is, as opposed to natural justice under rule of law.

Socialists twist and distort the very fabric of reality to avoid their own cognitive dissonance.  Socialism is even being wound back in cuba, yet in australia we have a socialist government still lying about its aims whilst actively encouraging and engaging in class warfare, through the deliberate introduction of redistributionist policies. Whilst at the same time claiming conservative values and morals. This is not the 50s badass, the public is educated, prosperous and highly connected; we will not be treated like mushrooms any longer.

Gillard and her pals can rail against prosperity, but we now know that freedom and specifically the freedom to trade creates and amplifies difference and creates vast inequality and only authoritarianism can produce egalitarian outcomes. Gillard and her crew are nothing but “know better than everyone else” authoritarians. When she is ignoring the public, it is the only time she is the real Gillard, acting on her own delusions of superior insight and ideological righteousness.

This the base cognitive dissonance of the entire left: you cannot believe in freedom and hold egalitarian ideals as they are diametrically opposed.

Punishing success hurts everyone, a lesson Gillard and her tribe should have learnt by now.

TimB says:

07:18pm | 17/05/11

“I know I’m still paying income tax and wasn’t it supose to replace a WHOLE raft of taxes?”

I think that sentence says it all about your intelligence Rick. Are you seriously saying you thought the GST would replace income tax?

Good Grief.

LeftRightOut says:

12:23pm | 17/05/11

Reggie, wtf are you on about, son?

John says:

01:20pm | 17/05/11

If that was the case reggie i doubt they would use it for power. Heard of a thing called cost benifit or return on investment. Lets say you buy a pank of 10m wood for $100.00. Now 80% of that wood is waste as per you arguement. So you only can sell 20% of it.  Lets say our profit margin is 30% so you will need to make $130 to be viable.You will then have to sell it at a 500% mark up to break even and 650% to make your profit margin. Basic economics reggie but I dont think they teach that ar the green HQ.

If you dont want pollution then push for nuclear power, Cleaner and cheaper then coal.

neil says:

01:33pm | 17/05/11

Sorry Reggie 100% of the coal burns and produces heat which generates electricity which is about 40% efficient, that is the nature of heat engines, about half of that is lost in transmission to the user so only 20% of the energy in the coal does work in the home, that is the nature of electricity. In comparison, solar generation is only about 10% effricient.

Rick says:

04:42pm | 17/05/11

Neil do the math son…..........20%+80%=100%
So Reggie is right so 100% of the coal burns to produce40% of the power and 20% is lost in transmision total loss is 80%

C1 says:

09:35am | 17/05/11

Christian,

The Government with all of its resources available to it (Traesury etc) can’t even balance the books so why nabg on about the Oppoistion trying to.
This promise about a surplus is excatly that - a promise and a pretty weak one at that. A forecast surplus of $3.5 Bn (out of a trillion dollar economy) talk about under promising. It is so small an amount it is hardly worth crowing about, but this is the state that this Government has reached- small achievements overblown.
The surplus simply means we have paid of our bills and we have some some money to pay off our debts - it does not mean the debt is paid off . It is like me saying to the bank that I will have in a year’s time an additional $50 to pay off my $10000 credit card, yet at the same time I have extended my credit limit by 20%.
Crazy Crazy!

Sony B Goode says:

09:38am | 17/05/11

blah blah blah. The socialist in charge couldn’t organise a piss up in a brewery let alone manage a trillion dollar economy. If they stopped focusing on the politics of envy, class warfare and theft of rightfully earned income to buy votes they might stand a chance.

Instead they let the opposition lead them around by the nose like some fat
cow.

TimB says:

10:55am | 17/05/11

Christian, the black hole was a fantasy as I have shown you repeatedly. You are a liar.

The Liberals HAVE produced surpluses. Repeatedly. They have a track record. What’s Labor’s track record? How much have their last few budgets blown out by? Why not criticise the ACTUAL black wholes that appeared in THEIR budgets? When was the last time Labor actually produced a surplus? Try not to break a glass as you think of the answer.

TimB says:

11:21am | 17/05/11

*holes

Guh.

Mouse says:

03:11pm | 17/05/11

Christian Real, The Liberals did their calculations using the information given to them by the Treasury and Labor. The $11B “black hole” was given by the Treasury after they redid the same calculations using “revised”  numbers, ergo the Liberal deficit.
But hey, it really doesn’t matter what figures the Opposition come up with, they are in opposition, their numbers have no contributing actions to our economy. It only matters for the current government. Liberal can do it, as they have proven time and time again. Labor have yet to get there, maybe one day then.

Steve Putnam says:

07:15pm | 17/05/11

@TimB Christian Real is right. No matter how you massage the figures Joe Hockey’s numbers didn’t even come close to adding up. Why else would the last named refuse to release them until the eleventh hour and then lie about them being audited?
Witness the hasty letter admitting this Loughnane and Henderson had to fire off to WHK Horvath to circumvent possible legal action after both Hockey and Robb had made such claims. Among other schoolboy errors, Hockey factored in a wildly optimistic figure for the sale of Medibank Private and then neglected to omit it as a source of future revenue. Abbott realises Hockey has zero credibility, hence his diatribe in reply avoiding all talk of matters fiscal or financial.
Suggestion to Dr No - get your own house in order before you start lecturing the other side about clean living in the economy.

Christian Real says:

03:26pm | 18/05/11

Mouse
One again Shadow Treasurer Joe Hockey has proved that he simply can’t do mathmatics, .his figures just continue to fail to add up, this story from News.com.au, Today:
“Hockey left stumbling over budget figures.”, written by Malcolm Farr on May 18, 2011 @ 2.50pm
“Shadow treasurer left stumped and unable to answer claims he miscalculated budget spending savings”

Christian Real says:

03:32pm | 18/05/11

Hockey the shadow of a Treasurer,still can’t calculate or get his figures right, first the $11 billion black hole in the Liberal party’s policy costings at the last election, and now today a story in News.com.au today where it was revealed that Joe Hockey was left stumped and unable to answer claims he miscalculated budget spending savings,”

Paulb says:

09:22am | 17/05/11

Seems to now be a common Talking Point tactic to claim the Opposition should do the work of the Government and then attack them for being what they are: the Opposition.  Last I looked it was the Government’s job to bring the budget back into surplus, not the Opposition’s job.

Dash says:

09:22am | 17/05/11

@Christian, it is not the LNPs job to tell the ALP how to manage the nations finances! As Joe Hockey said, if the ALP expect the LNP to explain to them how to run the place, they should hand over the keys to the lodge.

The LNP’s ability to balance the budget, restore the nations AAA rating, pay off $96billion in ALP debt and deliver economic growth the envy of the western world is on record. By contrast, the ALP cannot balance a budget, are borrowing $130m a day and have racked up over $100billion in debt! The contrast and the choice the Australian people have is obvious too me.

Tony Abbott was clear in his reply, that a LNP government would scrap the Carbon tax. Given the ALP, and in particular Gillard and Swan, deliberately lied to the Australian people on the eve of the last election, that sounds like great policy to me! He was also clear that the stupid 5 for 1 asylum seeker deals outsourcing our border cpntrol to places like Malaysia, would not happen under a coalition government. Once again, sounds like great policy to me!

Blinkers off. Start listening.

Paulb says:

09:23am | 17/05/11

Seems to now be a common Talking Point tactic to claim the Opposition should do the work of the Government and then attack them for being what they are: the Opposition.  Last I looked it was the Government’s job to bring the budget back into surplus, not the Opposition’s job.

Sony B Goode says:

09:30am | 17/05/11

The labor trolls are out in force trying to find some momentum for their policy of class envy, theft of rightfully earned income to buy votes, and other stupid socialist ideology that has failed humanity at every turn.

Socialism is the bellwether of extremely shallow thinkers.

The marginal utility of each additional socialist is a big negative on society.

LeftRightOut says:

12:26pm | 17/05/11

The Libs have cottoned on to ALP tactics… remember what Anna Bligh did last state election in QLD? She basically copied each and every economic policy of the LNP for the campaign.

Never mind that she changed it all the second she was elected - which explains her utter lack of popularity, despite even, her very good performance during the flood crisis.

Christian Real says:

08:06pm | 17/05/11

Dash
As an Opposition, the Liberals are presenting themselves as an alternative choice,and if they are too gutless to put their agenda on public display,then they are obviously not worth voting for.
What exactly does the coalition stand for?, How will the Coalition bring the budget back into surplus as they claim they can?, what cuts will the Opposition,if given the chance to govern make?,and where would the Opposition make those cuts?
Tony Abbott gave the worst budget supply speech, that ever an opposition Leader could give,but I suppose once an attack dog for the former Liberal government, he will always be an attack dog because he simply hasn’t been retrained to do anything else.
While an Opposition usually opposes some things, Tony Abbott opposes and attacks everything.
If Tony Abbott is presenting himself and the Liberal / National party to the Australian people as an alternative choice of Government then he should be more honest and upfront by using the budget reply speech to not attack his opponents policies,but show that he has actually got some of his own.
“Empty vessels make the most sounds’ and Tony abbott has certainly proved that proverb to be spot on.

Christian Real says:

08:35pm | 17/05/11

Dash,Paulb,
The Opposition should show why they should even be considered as an alternative choice of Government in the near future.
Tony Abbott has failed as an Opposition leader to deliver a Budget Reply Speech in regards to how they could bring in a surplus,what cuts they would make to bring in that surplus,and where the cuts would be made.
Why would any sensible or intelligent Australian vote for Tony Abbott and his opposition party, when they don’t know what he stands for or what policies that he would implement once elected.
Personally, I have already summed Tony Abbott up, he stands for nothing that will ever benefit the Australian people that he hopes will elect him one day.
The only thing and interest that Tony abbott has, is not for the Australian people, but for himself and his arrogant ambition to become Prime Minister.

Tator says:

10:42pm | 17/05/11

Christian Real,
in that case, why would the Australian Public vote for the ALP who have form for saying they won’t do something major like a carbon tax and then backflip on it once they hold office.
then again, Garrett’s quote from 2007 “once we get in we’ll just change it all”  is just one more piece of evidence that the current ALP cannot be trusted to uphold their own election policies.

“The Opposition should show why they should even be considered as an alternative choice of Government in the near future.”
the only time the opposition has to show evidence is during an election campaign, unlike the party in government which has to show that it is worthy of being in power 24/7/365.  All the opposition has to do outside the election campaign is put the policies of the Government of the day under scrutiny and hold the government to account for policies that it has implemented.

Joel B1 says:

09:26am | 17/05/11

I see, “SPECIFIC natural disasters such as Cyclone Yasi and the Brisbane floods could not be directly linked to man-made climate change, the world’s leading climate change authority said yesterday. “

So Gillard was lying about that too. Hardly surprising. She’d do or say anything to cling to power, including screw Australia’s economy.

Gillard is a nasty piece of work. And so was her budget. As tough as a marshmallow in the sun.

Jane says:

10:07am | 17/05/11

Goes to prove a great big new tax to help stop man made climate change is jumping the gun, which the Gillard Government has now become so famous for. Abbott is right again!

Adam Diver says:

09:42am | 17/05/11

Great point, well done!!!!

ian says:

10:00am | 17/05/11

I know the feeling watcher, my wife insists on watching ABC monday nights QandA.  it’s just nausiating ,biased pro labour crap.  90% of the show panel and audience members are labour nuts, and anyone who dares to have a different opinion is an extremist.  so annoying

MarK says:

10:08am | 17/05/11

Ahh yes.

Censorship.

Brilliant. Makes you so much more balanced.

Steve says:

05:05pm | 17/05/11

I like sophie and wish she was on TV more often especially on Q and A where she is a strong advocate of conservative politics. The fact that so many Laborites dislike her simply reinforces my belief that she will be a very senior figure in the Liberal party of the future.(If Laborites hate it there is a fair chance it is good for the country).

Time will tell how senior that becomes but I would not be surprised if it is all the way to the top. Settle down Nossy I am not advocating a leadership change I am talking about quite some years into the future. Let the grooming begin!

For the present the Liberals need a strong woman to counter Gillard. Sometimes if a man goes hard on a female politition it comes across as a bit mean for some voters. So Sophie needs to come out and do some of the hard hitting against gillard. I am sorry to say that J Bishop does not come up to the mark for that hard hitting role.

Bev says:

07:14pm | 17/05/11

Steve says:05:05pm | 17/05/11
Sometimes if a man goes hard on a female politition it comes across as a bit mean for some voters. 
Why?  They are elected to govern not to trade on their gender.

Steve says:

07:38pm | 17/05/11

Bev. It is not about what should happen it is about what does happen. Not all men can control their protective insticts and get uncomfortable if they see a male politition dishing it out to a female politition. It doesn’t matter if that is right or wrong logical or illogical. What matters is how it effects voting and perception of the individual politition. I am not suggesting that it is a deliberate attept to trade on gender by the way. I think it happens by itself.

Sony B Goode says:

10:20am | 17/05/11

God save the greens because nothing will save the current socialists

Steve says:

12:58pm | 17/05/11

Billy. If you prefer think of the coalition in the following term:

They say YES to Howard era border protection
They say yes to good financial management and budget surpluses
They say yes to more efficient Government
They say yes to direct action on climate change

I hope that helps

Sony B Goode says:

10:45am | 17/05/11

The ideologically bankrupt pick on the man because they can’t touch the arguments. Keep up the vacuous drive for prosperity destruction with your policies of envy

Sony B Goode says:

11:08am | 17/05/11

Name calling shows that you have no arguments left to fight with.

A group of prosperity destroying socialists without a demagogue is like a church without a preacher

Brian B says:

11:19am | 17/05/11

By all means argue your point, Knemon, but to slander people by calling them “ugly and obese” makes you look cheap, mean and intolerant. Stick to the politics.

Dash says:

11:23am | 17/05/11

@Knemon - just a couple of points on this.

Isn’t 2012-2013 when we are meant to get the budget back into surplus? Wasn’t that a big part of the budget speech made by Swan? And yet, the biggest single policy impacting the economy in that year doesn’t rate a mention???

Why is it OK for the ALP to say that they will deliver $xbillion over the next 5 years for health or education for example, yet the biggest planned change to our entire economy as announced by the ALP is left out of the debate? Is their something the ALP are hiding here? Why announce anything that has any impact past 2011-12 then?

Also, you will note that the budget included $13million of taxpayers money for an ALP propaganda advertising campaign for the Carbon Tax. Why is it OK to allocate taxpayers funds to that yet to censor the financial information of the policy they intend to advertise?

Are the ALP going to re-cut the budget when they work out the finer points of the wealth redistribution policy that comes along with the carbon tax deceit?

Also, very poor form calling someone ugly to back up an argument! What someone looks like is irrelevant to this debate.

Knemon says:

11:55am | 17/05/11

Sony B Goode - you should read the definition of socialism - it is extremely difficult to be a socialist country after Howard and Costello sold the farm.

Brian B - It’s subjective, my view of her is different than yours.

Dash - what sense is there in detailing any carbon tax costings until those details are known?- the advertising is an attempt to counter balance the oppositions negativity (reminds me of the GST advertising campaign), which will be spent in the 2011-2012 fiscal year.

As for name calling, it seems OK for conservatives to disrespect our PM and call her what they want, as soon as someone labels a conservative politician in the same manner it’s called childish and bad form…go figure.

Sony B Goode says:

12:39pm | 17/05/11

knemon, call them whatever you like, communists, progressives, socialists, tall popyists. The results are the same, punish success and use the spoils to buy elections.

Julia Gillard and her ilk are socialists without any understanding of reality, real life, markets or even basic economics. They target success and punish prosperity to sucker the rest into voting for a quest to utopian equity of social justice. Only a shallow superficial investigation of the facts can be moved by the socialist demagogue.

carbon dioxide tax is not rocket science. 550 million tonnes of co2 divide by 11 millions workers times $20/tonne is $1272 per worker per year before redistribution. at $30/tonne its $1900 per worker per year.

Deceit dishonesty conceit arrogance fear and loathing drive the politics of envy by labor/green socialists

Mouse says:

02:52pm | 17/05/11

Knemon, the carbon tax has to be included for this Budget because they will need to know the revenue raised and its spending for their forward estimates.  (And don’t forget, gillard has said that the mining tax will come out the same day as the carbon tax. So it will not just need a mini budget but a whole revamp of this current budget because the $ numbers will have such a wide effect across the entire country.)  The carbon tax cannot be budget neutral because it will cost to implement and run, so will affect future budget costs. Labor are also going to spend $13M to to advertise for it and that also has to have an affect on the budget.  In other words, without including it, how can Swan give any estimates past 2011/12 of any substance?

As for the name calling, big deal, we all do it in our own way. It just seems that the worse it gets, the more deperate people appear. But hey, each to their own.

BadAss says:

12:41pm | 17/05/11

Nobody gives a shit what you think Sonny.
You are obviously a fringe dwelling conservative relic from the 50’s
No one wants to go back there except maybe you and Dr. NO.

Denny Crane says:

03:12pm | 17/05/11

Sony - according to BadAss you are back in the 50’s. You and the IR reforms that Gillard introduced after boasting to the world that our IR system (we were still under Howard syste) helped save s from the GFC. Funny how BadAss had to resort to abuse instea of responding.

The real elephant in the room on class warfare is Shortens superannuation reforms that will ensure that the Industry funds become the 5th financial pillar. His aim is to have a union representative on the board of every big company in the country. He doesnt care about the little bloke, all he cares about is making the Industry (Union) funds stronger than anyone else. In the process he is going to ensure that the average joe has no access to a financial planner, he will increase the number of people under insured, he will reduce the number of claims paid by insurance companies (adding to their bottom line), he will reduce peoples understanding of superannuation and markets, he will drive financial illiteracy, and finally he will ensure that people have no recourse to mistakes made by superannuation administrators (of which there are thousands each week).

He will however continue to allow Union funds to continue to use members money to sponsor football teams and to advertise. its only fair.

Tony of Poorakistan says:

12:14pm | 17/05/11

There are 42, currently, as far as I can see. Maybe the website is out of date, already. 
 
Interestingly, it isn’t so much the cutting of funds (which has happened) that hurts. It is the setting of priorities by the ALP Government - instead of real, cutting-edge research in meaningful areas, we are seeing funding directed to the usual soft-cock, greeny, tree-hugging shit normally espoused by the left. 
 
Might as well just give a bunch of dead people and overseas residents $900 each ...oh, wait.

Steve says:

12:31pm | 17/05/11

St. Michael. Because in this financial year we will have a deficit of $50 billion. In other words for this financial year the Govt spent $50 billion more than it collected in taxes. For nex financial year the deficit is forecast to be an addittional deficit of $22 billion. That is an extra $22 billion in debt required for next year. The accumulated debt for those 2 years is $72 billion. The budget is thge deficit or surplus for 1 year only. By 2013 Wayne Swann will have had 5 years of deficits totalling something like $150 billion. All of this has been borrowed on the national credit card. In other words they spent $150 billion more than they earnt spread over 5 deficits. Finally in 2013 a surplus of $3 billion is forecast reducing the overspending to $147 billion which is reflected in the “national credit card”

So the increase in the limit is required to pay for the addittional deficit of $22 billion forecast for next year plus “off budget” items such as NBN which are not included in the budget but still have to be paid for.

Just remember that the tern budget deficit/surplus is the position for one year only. So going from a budget deficit of $50 billion this year to a budget deficit of $22 billion next year is not a debt reduction of $28 billion ,as many people perceive, it is a debt accumulation of $72 billion for those 2 years only.

It is clearer to think of it as profit and loss. Swann has recorded 5 years of losses totaling approx $150 billion. In his last budget before the election he will record his first profit of $3 billion.

In the USA treasury has announced that their “national credit card” has maxed out overnight at $14.3 trillion dollars. They are awaiting a bill to be passed to increase the limit to $20 trillion or face debt default.

St. Michael says:

12:33pm | 17/05/11

@ Tony: it would be nice if the Liberals could actually direct their criticism to actual facts or those priorities rather than make shifty-sounding statements about the current state of affairs.  Both Sophie and BJ both fell into this hole in recent days, and the stupidity of it is that they really didn’t have to.  The silly directions for funding are real.  The 25% increase in the country’s credit card limit (via upping the total bonds able to be issued by the government) is real.

St. Michael says:

01:32pm | 17/05/11

@ Steve: I get that; I just think average voters understand the concept of “your credit card limit is going up” better than “debt, debt, debt, debt”.

“In the USA treasury has announced that their “national credit card” has maxed out overnight at $14.3 trillion dollars. They are awaiting a bill to be passed to increase the limit to $20 trillion or face debt default.”

It will be passed.  Stupid, yes, but it will.  Remember the US dollar is a fiat currency that isn’t backed by gold or any other saleable commodity.  It is literally just paper.  The Democrats are like America’s ALP, only a hundred times worse—and the Republicans don’t have the guts or the moral high ground to implode the US’s dependence on Federal tax benefits, because the Republicans are at least half responsible for the mess as well.

They’re in a perverse game of electoral musical chairs in that whoever’s in the chair at the White House when it all falls in a heap is guaranteed to be blamed for it.

The Democrats also *want* to play debt chicken with the US’s national debt. because the last time there was a major financial disaster for the US—the Great Depression—the Democrats were voted back in under FDR right through from 1929 until World War 2 was over.  They are figuring the American people haven’t changed and will again swing left in crisis conditions.

What will cause the default—exactly when is uncertain, it could be next month, it could be the next 10 years—won’t be failing to raise the debt ceiling.  That’s just a matter of politics and getting enough votes in Congress.  The default will be when the bond market finally says “Sorry, we’re not buying US bonds.  It’s too risky.  Your debt is waaay too high for us to have confidence we’d get our money back if we invest with you.”

When that happens, it’s either outright debt default (which would be painful, but over relatively quick) or hyperinflation as the US Treasury prints the money required to cover the debt shortfall from the withdrawal of US bond buyers from the market (which is insanely painful for everyone on the planet, and not over for years).  Pretty much guaranteed it will be option 2, simply because blame can then be shifted by the politicians to corporations for raising their prices.

Steve says:

03:56pm | 17/05/11

St. Michael. I agree with your sentiments. Ironicaly it is the widespread ignorance of how bad the situation is that is delaying the inevitable crash. It is the greatest elephant in the room/emporers clothes. Maybe it’s because in todays info byte world 20 trillion doesn’t really sound much more than 20 billion.

I agree that they probably won’t formally default but they should.I actually don’t see, in practical terms, much difference in a formal default or a default by stealth by printing money (quantative easing) The latter is the gentleman’s way to default. Either way investors in US treasuries don’t get their full investment back when it matures.

I always believed Obama was taking on a poisoned chalice with the economy. If he his lucky he will lose the next election. Perhaps we can coin a new phrase “American roulette”  Which president will get caught when the wheel stops spinning?

Why do ratings agencies still give AAA status to US treasuries? Is there a conspiracy theory or is it coincidence that nobody from the ratings agencies has been prosecuted over the GFC and the maintenance of the US AAA rating? Remember all the fancy loan packages were AAA rated until the day they were consigned to junk.

By definition the value (buying power) of US treasuries are being eroded by the printing press. Surely the loss of value from that alone should require a mandatory loss of AAA rating because your investment will be worth less when you get it back?

The lesson for Australia is that making budget cuts and repaying the debt is a hard option. It is far easier to not let the debt get out of hand in the first place.

St. Michael says:

04:41pm | 17/05/11

“Why do ratings agencies still give AAA status to US treasuries? Is there a conspiracy theory or is it coincidence that nobody from the ratings agencies has been prosecuted over the GFC and the maintenance of the US AAA rating?”

Two reasons:
(a) Mounting a case at that scale is so huge, and without a soundbyte-based benefit to the prosecuting authority, that it can’t practically be done.
(b) The AAA rating hasn’t been disproven because the US’s bond market hasn’t exploded in its face yet.  Which is a very stupid, cyclical argument, I grant you, but you’re not dealing with rational businessmen here.

St. Michael says:

05:06pm | 17/05/11

@ Steve (P.S.): “I agree that they probably won’t formally default but they should.I actually don’t see, in practical terms, much difference in a formal default or a default by stealth by printing money (quantative easing) The latter is the gentleman’s way to default. Either way investors in US treasuries don’t get their full investment back when it matures.”

True, the effect on bond investors is the same.  However, the overall consequences of straight debt default as opposed to hyperinflation are significantly different as I understand it.

If there was a straight default on the US debt, it’s basically cutting up the US’s credit card.  It’s the US reneging on its promises to pay back its debts.  It does mean a number of countries probably then renege on their own promises to pay back debts owed to the US in retaliation, and possibly debt default by other countries as a result.  The result is then that, since the US no longer has a credit card, anything it wants it has to pay for out of its own taxation pocket—or it might force its citizens to invest only in US bonds.  Since we already know the US cannot pay for all of its schemes out of its own tax pocket ($2 trillion US tax vs. $14 trillion US debt) they would have to cut spending by a good 50% or more on anything the Federal government funds or owns, right across the board.  Welfare programs would be the first target, education funding, everything right down to (last) defence, which I understand is in dire need of a financial enema with the waste it’s chalked up.

The attraction of that scenario is that whilst it’s not pretty, it’s over pretty fast: everyone knows the US dollar ain’t worth shit, nobody buys it, and to some extent the world has its reset button pushed financially, you can start from a (ruined) base again, possibly with the reserve currency based on the Yuan.  Whole thing hopefully gets worked out in a few months or so.  Don’t even have to worry about stupid IMF bailouts of the US since the IMF ain’t big enough to bail out the US at all.

If it’s a “print money” scenario, which possibly means hyperinflation on a Weimar Republic scale, it’s prolonged, because the US dollar continues to hold an illusionary value even while it plummets in price.  It sets off very fast inflation since all of a sudden you need many more US dollars to buy the same thing than you did months, or even weeks, earlier.

Since every currency on the planet is backed by the US dollar (thank you very much, Bretton Woods), this means every currency on the planet is therefore going to be inflated in value.  Australia’s dollar suddenly gets to be worth 20, 30 US dollars.  Hell, even the Hong Kong dollar gets to parity, which is insane given it’s presently 7 HK = 1 US right now.

If you get hyperinflation conditions, you get scenes like we saw in Japan after their plants were hit with a tsunami: food stores empty because people have desperately bought up as much food as they can before the prices rise again.  Black market conditions go into overdrive; you can make more money selling grapes than selling drugs.  Zimbabwe has had it happen to it recently; Russia in 1998 had exactly the same thing when they defaulted on their national debt.

And this scenario continues until most people across the entire planet realise the US dollar ain’t worth shit, and a different mode of exchange is arrived at by consensus.  The only difference is how long it lasts, and what follows in its wake—because the result of the Weimar Republic’s hyperinflation was the rise of Nazi Germany.  And, let’s remember, the US is a nuclear-armed state.  The largest remaining nuclear-armed state on the planet.

It’ll be the latter option, I think, mostly because that option allows the politicians who ordered it to slink quietly away with their reputations still intact.  Hell, FDR’s seen as a Leftie saint, popularly regarded as one of their best presidents up there with Lincoln and Washington, and he basically did the same things in office that Hoover did which set off the Depression to begin with.  Blame for inflation always gets thrown at business and industry first, not at the politicians who caused the problem to start with.

MF says:

05:11pm | 17/05/11

https://www.crc.gov.au/HTMLDocuments/Documents/PDF/CRCs over time - with sector splits - Jan 2011 update.pdf

A list of the CRC’s and their running dates. I used to do research in one of them a few years ago. Just bear in mind that the maximum time limit for govt funding for a CRC is 7 years. Some of them do eventually get turned into established research groups, just not officially CRC’s.

I think the more prudent thing to do would be to look at the combined CRC-ARC-NHMRC research budgets. Would give a much more realistic view of historical research funding in Australia. You can’t really look at one of the schemes on its own.

St. Michael says:

05:58pm | 17/05/11

@ MF: 404 error makes St. Michael sad. :(

Bev says:

07:45pm | 17/05/11

St. Michael says:01:32pm | 17/05/11
It’ll be the latter option, I think, mostly because that option allows the politicians who ordered it to slink quietly away with their reputations still intact.
I have to agree and deep down I think many people do.  The fact that people are running down their debt, means they sense the GFC was just the first glimpse of what is brewing. The only problem there is they don’t teach history any more so the vast majority have absolutely no idea of what a 1930 style depression really means.

St. Michael says:

09:50pm | 17/05/11

@ Bev: I know I rail on about it a lot, but the last thing I’d underline is that the history that we *do* have has been rewritten in ways that would make a Japanese history teacher proud.

Specifically, the fact that FDR’s measures to “help” people in the Depression actually prolonged it.

There’s a reason that after he dropped dead in office they quickly changed the Constitution so a President couldn’t serve more than two consecutive terms.

Steve says:

12:48pm | 17/05/11

Shane. You are missing the point. The ALP is running up deficits and making cuts at the same time. The coalition were recording surpluses while making cuts. I might add that those coalition surpluses were used to repay the previous ALP debt.

In private enterprise all businesses are trying to do more with less. Governments are notorious for waste. Sometimes the only way to achieve productivity gains is to take some of the budget away and ask for more from less. If it can be done in private enterprises then it surely can be done by our best scientists. Your more being vitally important to our future and being able to achieve efficiency gains are not mutually exclusive.

Scranbag says:

08:10am | 18/05/11

*All* the mainstream political Parties in Australia recognise the reality of global warming.

*All* have a climate change policy in response. Some may be better than others, but that’s the fact of the matter.  Every Party likely to be in Government in our country has a policy to take action on climate change.

So where does that leave SBG?  Which Party *can* he vote for?