Talking Politics | PUNT ROAD END | Richmond Tigers Forum
  • IMPORTANT // Please look after your loved ones, yourself and be kind to others. If you are feeling that the world is too hard to handle there is always help - I implore you not to hesitate in contacting one of these wonderful organisations Lifeline and Beyond Blue ... and I'm sure reaching out to our PRE community we will find a way to help. T.

Talking Politics

While we are on wind farms how is this for a complete waste of public money...

http://theconversation.com/the-stampede-of-wind-farm-complaints-that-never-happened-75911
 
WesternTiger said:
While we are on wind farms how is this for a complete waste of public money...

http://theconversation.com/the-stampede-of-wind-farm-complaints-that-never-happened-75911

crazy. Literally.
 
KnightersRevenge said:
Yes, let's have an inquiry into the flavour of unicorn horns.

They did. Unicorn horns taste like bull *smile*. Don't ask me how they came to that conclusion. I don't want to know. I believe the unions, the banks and plenty of politicians were 'invited' to that inquiry.
 
KnightersRevenge said:
I agree that is what the system has morphed into in the last almost half-century. I am as you know unconvinced on the real world possibility of perfect markets. I know think you aren't advocating that but as soon your market is open to corruption it fails to be better than the corrupt system we now have. That is why I keep returning to the charge of perfect markets with homo-economicus making perfect decisions and acting in consistent and logical ways.
No respectable economist is convinced about the real world possibility of perfect markets. The theory is demonstrably wrong as a descriptor of the real world. I don’t know why you consider corruption to be a bigger problem for free markets than our current system of government intervention. No corruption is more common than that of government officials, and even examples of private corruption usually involve some form of government regulation. A necessary condition for corruption is that someone has power to make decisions for others, decisions that those others can't perfectly monitor. That's why private corruption often occurs in corporate purchasing departments. The reason so much corruption occurs in government is that government officials hand out so much in the form of subsidies, tax breaks, permits and regulatory exceptions.
I’m not arguing free markets are free from corruption, but the problem is definitely less severe than compared to the government intervention alternative.

KnightersRevenge said:
The current system was designed and improved based on fossil fuel generation so of course it looks as though only that type of generation works within the system. It is circular reasoning of a sort. It is not that the more variable generation of renewables can't work it is that they don't work in a system designed around coal/oil/gas/nuclear. That is a an engineering challenge. It sounds as though some corners were cut in S.A.
Renewables caused the blackout, that might change in the future.

KnightersRevenge said:
Agreed, hence why you need government intervention. "Entrepreneurs" (perhaps Musk excepted) don't go for capital spending and long pay-offs on the scale needed.
The reason why private individuals aren’t building it is because it is not economic. That means that people have greater demand for scare capital to be put to other uses. Now for you to say that this justifies government intervention effectively means that you want to stop others from having their demands met so that you can have your demands met. Government intervention isn’t mana from heaven, it can only redistribute resources to away from uses that reflect consumer preferences to uses dictated by political considerations. Only through substantial savings can big scale projects become economic; your argument that entrepreneurs don’t go for capital spending and long pay-offs is simply false, they do when consumer preferences favour them. Governments give no concern to consumer preferences, hence every time they intervene in markets it results in waste and general impoverishment.

KnightersRevenge said:
Yes the system is the way it is because, the system is the way it is.
I explained why states become isolated in the NEM, and this is your response? What point are you trying to make?

KnightersRevenge said:
I don't think the current system works but I don't think private individuals or corporations would be better at making sure a system is equitable, it rhymes with profitable but that's where the similarity ends.
What do you mean by equitable and why is that of any relevance?

KnightersRevenge said:
Where we disagree is what we see as "better". Homo-economicus sees only cost/benefit but discounts environmental costs. Homo-economicus is unconcerned about the damage done and costs incurred that won't hit the balance sheet till long after he's dead. That is where we disagree. I get that loosely speaking coal looks cheaper I just think that is because some of the costs are hidden.
Acting man best accounts for environmental costs under a system of private property, but this is of far less prominence under a system of public property. Perhaps you have heard of the tragedy of the commons? Public government is also far less concerned with environmental considerations because politicians do not own the capital value of the land under their control, in contrast to private government (monarchy). A private law society free from government intervention would be the best system for enhancing environmental protection due to capital value ownership and freedom from the threat of government intervention.

KnightersRevenge said:
Come on Gia you are talking about an individual making a "choice" about large scale power generation. This is equivalent to telling an employee at a multi-national that they have equal power to their boss when negotiating their employment contract. This is a nonsense. This is why a 'market' for this type of infrastructure doesn't work.
Large scale power generation is a relic of the vertically integrated government monopoly on power generation and transmission that was in effect prior to the start of the NEM. If fully deregulated, energy generators would have a far greater ability to contract directly with consumers. I think we would see a decentralised system that provides many different options for both mum’s and dad’s/small commercial and for large scale industry. Now if enough people want renewable energy sources, the market would inevitably supply this, but you better be prepared to pay for it. You’re going to have to do better than make a non-sequitur argument to make the proposition “markets for power infrastructure don’t work” valid.
 
A motion by the Greens to establish an anti-corruption commission at federal level has been defeated by the coalition and Labor.

Is Australia more politically corrupt than other developed countries?

------

"Battlers and plutocrats: How political connections reward Australia's super-rich
OPINION
The Drum By Paul Frijters and Gigi Foster
Posted 26 Aug 2015, 10:48am

Research reveals a huge proportion of Australia's richest people amass their wealth via political connections rather than via innovative businesses - which is helping them at the expense of everyone else, write Paul Frijters and Gigi Foster.

The Washington Post ran an article last week reporting that 65 per cent of the richest people in Australia had amassed their wealth via political connections rather than via innovative businesses.

According to the quoted research, Australian residents are rewarded for their political connections about as much as Indonesian or Indian residents, with Colombia offering the biggest rewards. Notably, the Australian situation is in stark contrast to that of the US, where only 1 per cent of the billionaires reportedly made their wealth through political connections.

Is Australia really such a plutocracy? Our own research, using different empirical methods, agrees with the conclusions reported in the Washington Post.

In fact, we put the figure closer to 80 per cent, making Australia potentially on par with Colombia. The authors whose research was reported in the Post only counted wealth that was visibly obtained via political connections, which may explain why their number is slightly lower than ours.

Our method was to look at the industry of operations of the 200 richest Australians on the BRW list. Based on the rich list from 2009, we reported the following finding in our paper:

Over 80 per cent of the wealthiest Australians have made their fortunes in property, mining, banking, superannuation and finance generally - all heavily regulated industries in which fortunes can be made by getting favourable property rezonings, planning law exemptions, mining concessions, labour law exemptions, money creation powers and mandated markets of many stripes.

Looking in more detail at the life histories of these people, none of the 200 richest Australians in 2009 looked like Bill Gates or Warren Buffett - namely, innovators who made their money by inventing, producing, or distributing cheaper products bought by millions.

Instead, the list abounded with mining magnates who enjoyed favourable government concessions; CEOs of superannuation funds who personally benefitted from government guarantees locking hundreds of thousands of people into doing business with them; banking and finance CEOs who received government guarantees and favourable legislation; and - the largest group of all - property developers who rely on rezoning and other favourable political decisions.

As the research reported in the Washington Post suggests, Australia's plutocracy has severe negative consequences for the rest of the economy.

For example, the overhead costs of superannuation firms are now 1 per cent of their total funds per year. Over a whole working life, this 1 per cent tax on total superannuation holdings each year easily amounts to 40 per cent of total superannuation wealth accumulated by retirement age. In comparison, in Denmark the overhead costs are 0.1 per cent, making the Danes 35 per cent better off in terms of accumulated superannuation wealth. Another way to put this is to say that 35 per cent of superannuation wealth is needlessly taxed away in Australia by the super-rich, on the back of favourable legislation.

Similarly, Cameron Murray calculated that some 60 per cent of the increases in house prices following rezoning in Queensland flow to politically connected developers, which can be seen as a direct tax on the rest of the population, who would otherwise benefit that much more from rezoning.

The story is the same when it comes to high bank fees, high mortgage costs, high school fees, high health costs, high legal costs, high administrative burdens in various sectors, and high food prices: in each of these cases, political capture by a small group (such as university administrators, over-paid medical specialists, and bank CEOs) enables these groups to divert disproportionately large margins of our society's economic surplus to themselves. In short, the economic power derived from political connections in our society makes life for the unconnected much more expensive than it should be. The end result is a few who get special favours, and a vast majority who are kept poorer and less educated than they should be.

And the plutocrats are still winning, on both sides of politics. The last budget could have been written by the super-rich and the Treasurer is already making noises about more income tax cuts that will predominantly favour the rich.

The tragic part is that solutions are available. For example, we could legislatively limit the salaries of all workers whose income depends largely on the state, using a benchmark like the PM's salary as a cap. This would take away the honey pot created when the system makes it possible for the well-connected to achieve control of state-favoured institutions, and would force creative people to make their money competitively rather than via free-riding on the state.

Another avenue of reform would be to establish a national public bank that makes direct, cheap, minimal mortgage loans to the population, replacing the current system where the Reserve Bank lends cheaply to a few private banks who then lend expensively to the population.

Seeing what should be done is not the hard bit. The hard bit is the politics. Solutions like those suggested above will be bitterly resisted by the plutocrats who personally gain so much from keeping the population ignorant of their parasitic feasting.

The first step is to get the population to wake up and realise the massive degree to which they are being fleeced, and to feel outraged because it does not have to be this way."

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-08-26/frijters-foster-battlers-and-plutocrats/6725118
 
I wouldn't say Aust. is more corrupt than the US its just different. As for the population waking its going to take some sort of huge crash for that to happen IMO.
 
I am so fed up with this incredibly bad government. on one hand, they claim that wage growth is the key driver that will get the budget back to surplus in 2021. but on the other hand they put a 2% cap on wage increases for public servants. FYI, CPI is at 2.1%, so I am facing a drop in pay in real terms. The company I work for made a $197 million dollar profit in the first 6 months of the financial year, but claims their hands are tied in regards to the 2% cap. its an absolute disgrace. :veryupset :veryupset :veryupset
 
Ian4 said:
I am so fed up with this incredibly bad government. on one hand, they claim that wage growth is the key driver that will get the budget back to surplus in 2021. but on the other hand they put a 2% cap on wage increases for public servants. FYI, CPI is at 2.1%, so I am facing a drop in pay in real terms. The company I work for made a $197 million dollar profit in the first 6 months of the financial year, but claims their hands are tied in regards to the 2% cap. its an absolute disgrace. :veryupset :veryupset :veryupset
Well the government can hardly raise money by taxing public servants, they have to be paid from taxation in the first place.
 
Giardiasis said:
Well the government can hardly raise money by taxing public servants, they have to be paid from taxation in the first place.

A public servant friend of mine claimed that he paid his own wages every three weeks
 
antman said:
A public servant friend of mine claimed that he paid his own wages every three weeks
Ha, I'm a pube and I say something similar to my wife. "It's ok, you pay $80,000 tax to the government each year then they give it back to me!" Winning.
 
tigertim said:
Ha, I'm a pube and I say something similar to my wife. "It's ok, you pay $80,000 tax to the government each year then they give it back to me!" Winning.

Well played sir. I worked in the public sector for many years, only turned to the dark side about ten years ago. Aready feel like I've paid enough tax to have paid for all my old wages :hihi