Unpredictable Roy Morgan has violated the laws of nature by publishing a face-to-face poll on a Thursday (which surely makes more sense than its normal practice of placing it in the news cycle dead zone of late Friday). This has Labor’s two-party lead up 1.5 per cent on the rather unusual previous face-to-face poll, which was half conducted before Christmas and half after new year, from 57-43 to 58.5-41.5. The figures show a pretty straightforward exchange between the two parties on the primary vote, with Labor up two points to 45.5 per cent and the Coalition down 1.5 to 35.5 per cent and the Greens steady on 10.
Elsewhere:
• After 22 years in parliament, Bob McMullan has announced he will not contest the next election, opening a vacancy in his safe Labor ACT seat of Fraser. Susanna Dunkerley of AAP reports that McMullan denies having been pushed, “despite recently declaring his intention to stick around for another term”. Furthermore, James Massola of the Canberra Times reports Annette Ellis is under pressure to make way for new blood in the other ACT seat, Canberra. Constitutional lawyer George Williams, who recently moved to Canberra and was reportedly Kevin Rudd’s choice to contest the safe Sydney seat of Blaxland in 2007, was said to be planning a preselection challenge against McMullan last October. However, a number of reports have identified the front-runner as Nick Martin, the party’s assistant national secretary. Other possible starters named by Massola are Andrew Leigh, Australian National University economist and prolific blogger, and Chris Bourke, a dentist of Aboriginal heritage who ran in Ginninderra at the 2008 ACT election. Both are factionally unaligned, which might be an asset as they seek to succeed the similarly placed McMullan. Another Canberra Times report mentions Michael Cooney, chief-of-staff to ACT MP Andrew Barr and former adviser to Mark Latham and Kim Beazley. Those whose names were floated but have since ruled themselves out are ACT Chief Minister Jon Stanhope, Deputy Chief Minister Katy Gallagher and prime ministerial chief-of-staff Alister Jordan. Jonathan Pearlman of the Sydney Morning Herald reports an ALP national executive meeting on February 12 is likely to decide whether the candidate will be chosen locally or imposed externally.
• Samantha Maiden of The Australian reports Malcolm Turnbull is “being urged by supporters and business leaders to make a run for New South Wales premier in 2011”, firstly by replacing Peter Debnam in Vaucluse, which is located entirely within his existing electorate of Wentworth. Debnam has now confirmed what he describes as an “open secret”, that he won’t be contesting the seat at the next election. It had already been established that University of NSW deputy chancellor Gabrielle Upton would contest preselection, and numerous others have been named in connection with the seat: former John Howard chief-of-staff Arthur Sinodinos, restaurateur Peter Doyle, barrister Mark Speakman, UNSW Deputy Chancellor Gabrielle Upton and barrister Arthur Moses. Also mentioned was Paul Fletcher, before he landed his federal gig in Bradfield. There have also been suggestions, reiterated in Samantha Maiden’s report, that Joe Hockey might assume the seat with Turnbull’s support as an entree to the premiership.
• A couple of Labor national executive preselection determinations that had sliipped through the net. Michelle Rowland, a former Blacktown councillor and member of the Right faction, will contest Greenway, which the redistribution has transformed from 4.5 per cent Liberal to 5.8 per cent Labor (the sitting Liberal member, Louise Markus, will contest Macquarie). Holding Redlich lawyer Laura Smyth, whom Andrew Landeryou at VexNews links to the “Andrew Giles/Alan Griffin sub-faction of the Socialist Left”, will run in the outer eastern Melbourne seat of La Trobe, where Liberal member Jason Wood survived a 5.3 per cent swing in 2007 to hold on by 0.5 per cent. Human Services and Financial Services Minister Chris Bowen will contest McMahon, which is effectively a reincarnation of his existing abolished seat of Prospect.
• Chas Hopkins, 60-year-old former Perth Lord Mayor, has nominated for Labor preselection in the marginal Perth seat of Cowan, where the party has admitted it is struggling to find a replacement for Wanneroo mayor Jon Kelly who doesn’t share his connections with Brian Burke. Other confirmed starters are party state executive member Alex Banzic and political staffer Sam Roe.
the Annette Ellis link:
http://www.canberratimes.com.au/news/local/news/general/ellis-to-announce-retirement/1731753.aspx
TTH 94
[The U.S economy is now in meltdown.
This can’t be good for Obama…. afterall as the saying goes “it’s the economy stupid!”.]
The US economy has officially been in recession for almost two years. It began almost a year before Obama took office, and was one of the main reasons he won the election. Obama did not cause it. However I think he is being validly criticised for being too soft on those (bankers) who did cause it.
Cuppa@95:
[Sixty-nine words to attack someone who posted 37 words.
Seems a disproportionate response for someone who claims to not care.
I happen to agree with what Andrew said, and even if I didn’t, would still entirely support his right to contribute in any way he sees fit, except if he was being abusive or breaking the rules in any other way.
No one’s forcing you to come here or read anything on PB, much less respond disproportionately and aggressively to it. No one, to my knowledge, has made you an arbiter of what others may and may not post. Ever heard of the ’scroll’ button?]
Pot, meet kettle.
105 words!
😆
I sold out of all my share holdings yesterday… let the “crash” begin!
I’m cashed up and ready to buy some basement bargains.
TTH 94
Interested in your concern about the economy and your wise words “its the economy stupid” (did someone mutter this to Julie Bishop?).
I take it you must then be delighted with the Rudd Recovery we are enjoying here in contrast to the US, following on the success of the Swan Stimulus package. Do you think Rudd deserves his lead in the polls as a result?
There were also strong figures for car sales in December, so all the Australian data is pointing up now; the unemployment figures are not a fluke.
http://www.abs.gov.au/ausstats/abs@.nsf/mf/9314.0?OpenDocument
With the coalition having opposed the stumulus package, there is really nobody left to take the credit for our performance but Rudd and Swan, except perhaps Ken Henry and Glen Stevens. I presume the coalition must praise them highly too?
[TTH
The U.S economy is now in meltdown……it’s not Obama bashing… it’s credible criticism of a failed leader….]
HTT, you seem to be rejoicing in the prospect of economic adversity. You can save the champagne though, because the US economy will continue to gradually recover.
With equal certainty, we can be sure you will not be among the first to admit you were wrong and give credit where it is due: to Obama.
HTT, you have a long way to go: sour on prosperity, stingy when it comes to the frail, the indigent and the sick, fraudulent in your politics and bigoted in your heart….credible? Scarcely.
Grog at 101:
Continual renewal is likely to give the ALP the best chance at good results into the future.
And on the other side of the house, Ruddock, Bronwyn and Tuckey show no sign of being shifted – and they are just the most obvious ones (to say nothing of Andrews, Schultz, Scott, Moylan, etc). None of these people will ever serve in government again, and they should make way for some who might.
#93 – Aussie
[Why are you giving oxygen to the TROLL. As we have observed this TROLL thinks he speaks for the silent majority when the opinion polls state otherwise.
Please dont expect humane rational from the troll. Your just pissing against the wind!]
I have given Truthy open skies and heaps of oxygen. He has not taken advantage of the opportunity presented to him. He doesn’t want to discuss it any further.
Case closed !!!
Abbott believes in renewal too, you know. “Return of the Living Dead” just smacks of renewal!
Speaking of the US, many economists say they now risk going where Japan has been for the last two decades. Here is an article in the Economist that shows just how bad that has been: Japan’s GDP at the end of 2009 was slightly lower than 1989!!
http://www.economist.com/businessfinance/displayStory.cfm?story_id=15176489
[I have given Truthy open skies and heaps of oxygen. He has not taken advantage of the opportunity presented to him. He doesn’t want to discuss it any further.]
What further was there to discuss?
Some old woman wants a Visa… how does this affect me, why should I care, and what do you want me to do about it?
It’s Time @ # 87
Now this most likely will kill any export industry that I suspect would just move to another country.
Ratstar, you repeat this mantra without any evidence.
How would the power costs from the proposed $20 per tonne carbon tax compare with recent and foreshadowed power cost increases independent of a CPRS or carbon tax? How many companies have r have threatened to relocate offshore as a result of the non-carbon energy cost increases? How may companies have previously threatened to relocate but not done so?
Well the first thing you have to realise that it is not a mantra it is an argument which is based on very good facts and business practices.
Assuming that you are running a business that exports. Your costs are increased dramatically by the sudden imposition of a carbon tax so making you product uncompetitive on the world market.
What can u do?
I guess that you would argue that increased efficiencies in the production process will take account of this however this might take years and in that time you could find yourself bankrupt. In circumstances where a business finds that its cost of productions is greater than its competitors and it can’t reduces those cost in the very short term it has two options and only two. One is to cease business all together and liquidate the company or mover to a country that does not impose this additional cost or a lessor cost.
Of cause what that means in either case there is a loss of jobs in this country. Alos remember that each time a firm ceases operations or moves overseas there is an invisible loose to this country and that is taxation – the taxation base shrinks..
You ask for examples of firms moving to reduce costs. In Australia the most notable was “Hardies” along with a number of joint ventures mainly in the mining area and “joint listings” that some companies have entered into.
It was very evident in the USA during the 80’s where a lot of US companies moved to Mexico with the sole aim of reducing labour costs. It was this movement plus the move of technology that lead to the term “rust belt” to describe parts of the USA industrial heartland.
Would not have a clue how “power costs from the proposed $20 per tonne carbon tax compare with recent and foreshadowed power cost increases independent of a CPRS or carbon tax?” and nor is it relevant to this discussion.
For one thing a power station is not an export industry and regardless of what the cost of carbon is to that power production you and I have very little choice but to pay it if we want power to tun our computer of our fridge etc etc.
The difference between a carbon tax and an ETS is significant anyway. With the carbon tax it is an additional tax that applies to all producers in accordance with their emissions. In the case of non power producers there is a good chance that the amount of carbon emitted per unite will be relatively close. In these cases all producers will increase their costs by the cost of carbon and each firms cost of production relatively will be changed very little if at all.
In case of power stations that have a relatively lower rate of emissions against those that have a high rate of emission there will be an advantage. But the effect on the lower emitters would be nil, as thy don’t have any incentive (in the short term) to reduce their carbon output Thos with a high rate of omissions (like the Victorian brown coal generators) could find themselves struggling to stay in business. Because of the extra cost now involved in their production.
If the demand for powers continues to rise you could find that the Vic brown coal generators are needed to maintain supply and regardless of what cost you put on carbon these plants will still continue emitting GHG at the same rate if not higher.
Of cause if the Vic brown coal generators do close, this will cause a demand for newer power stations to take their place however it will be greater than two years before they would be up and running
The two years that this policy of the greens is supposed to operate would have very little effect on most power producers and industry in general unless there is a marked change in consumers demand in a particular market for some reason but I cant things of one right now where this might happen. Maybe you can.
As I mentioned with a cap and trade scheme there is an inbuilt mechanism to reduce emissions unlike a carbon tax for in a cap and trade scheme each year the cap comes down and therefore the cost goes up. I don’t prepose to explain it here for I am sure you are well aware how a cap and trade scheme works.
Megafauna slaughtered by “early Australians”. Seems the stories of enivornmentally sound lifestyles by the “early Australians” was bullshit.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/health-science/humans-get-the-rap-for-killing-megafauna-giants/story-e6frg8y6-1225822446181
[The giant marsupials, reptiles and flightless birds, known as megafauna, that inhabited Australia more than 40,000 years ago were most likely killed off by early Australians, according to new research that shows both species co-existed only for a short period.
The findings challenge the long-held theory that climate change wiped out the animals, which included giant wombats and kangaroos.]
[Writing in the journal Science, geochronologist Bert Roberts, of the University of Wollongong, and earth scientist Barry Brook, of the University of Adelaide, claimed the cause of megafauna extinction coincided with the arrival of the first Australians between 60,000 and 45,000 years ago.
“There are two theories. One is people came in and did so much burning of vegetation and that caused hardship and the megafauna died of starvation,” they wrote.
“The other is they (humans) only had to eat a very few each year and they still would have driven the species to extinction.”
Professor Roberts said the findings were “damning evidence” that humans are to blame for the extinction of megafauna.]
#11 – Truthy
[ Some old woman wants a Visa… how does this affect me, why should I care, and what do you want me to do about it?]
Truthy, you seemed like an expert on all things relating to people coming from overseas to live in Australia, so I thought you may have something useful to contribute. I was also interested to know what your views were in respect of this woman – he is an “illegal” – and therefore has some similarities with the asylum seekers she seem opposed to, but at the same time is different because she is white.
I don’t want you to do anything. I am communicating with other people who may be able to assist, and have a good working knowledge of how the immigration system works.
correction-
#114
4th line he should be “she”
5th line – the first she should be “you”
This give the Libs something scare monger about this year.
[Get set for higher tax, says Henry]
http://www.theage.com.au/business/get-set-for-higher-tax-says-henry-20100121-mo8z.html
[Truthy, you seemed like an expert on all things relating to people coming from overseas to live in Australia, so I thought you may have something useful to contribute. I was also interested to know what your views were in respect of this woman – he is an “illegal” – and therefore has some similarities with the asylum seekers she seem opposed to, but at the same time is different because she is white.]
What does them being white have anythign to do with it, I am against all illegals not just the non-white ones.
She failed to comply with her visa and now she’s in a world of shit. Who woulda thought.
Warren scaring the bankers.
[ Bank CEOs should lose wealth in failures: Buffett
January 22, 2010 – 7:54AM
US President Barack Obama’s proposal to regulate banks should include a requirement that chief executive officers and their spouses forfeit their assets when companies fail, billionaire Warren Buffett said on Fox Business Network.
“There ought to be a huge downside,” said Buffett, whose Berkshire Hathaway is the largest shareholder in Wells Fargo & Co. “Make it so that the CEO of an institution that fails, or goes to the government and needs help, really gets destroyed himself financially. Why should he come out any better than somebody that gets laid off as an auto worker at General Motors?”
Buffett, who collects a $US100,000 ($110,000) salary as Omaha, Nebraska- based Berkshire’s leader, said CEOs must act as the “chief risk officer” of their companies. He has repeatedly criticized bankers for failing to realize that housing prices could fall and said they exacerbated their mistakes by borrowing to increase the size of their failed bets.]
http://www.theage.com.au/business/world-business/bank-ceos-should-lose-wealth-in-failures-buffett-20100122-moog.html
#117 – Truthy.
I don’t believe you are true blue. You are dissed.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ceWKrsJX9N4
[I don’t believe you are true blue. You are dissed.]
You wouldn’t know the meaning of the song if it slapped you on the arse.
Ratsars
[Your costs are increased dramatically by the sudden imposition of a carbon tax so making you product uncompetitive on the world market.]
Increased DRAMATICALLY! By how much? And since there can only be one lowest cost supplier in the world then there is obviously only one worldwide supplier of each individual item in the world. That is the logical extension of such a simplistic notion. Wait on, how come I can buy one of dozens of different makes of car? Surely the cost of their domestic energy would have wiped out all but the cheapest car!
[Would not have a clue how “power costs from the proposed $20 per tonne carbon tax compare with recent and foreshadowed power cost increases independent of a CPRS or carbon tax?”]
If you don’t know how much a carbon tax will end up costing a business, how do you know that a business’s costs will increase dramatically?
[You ask for examples of firms moving to reduce costs. In Australia the most notable was “Hardies” along with a number of joint ventures mainly in the mining area and “joint listings” that some companies have entered into.]
Hardies moved to Europe to minimise liability to asbestosis victims and minimise tax, not because they feared an extra couple of cents to flick on the lights.
[Well the first thing you have to realise that it is not a mantra it is an argument which is based on very good facts and business practices.]
No, sounds like a mantra to me.
Ratsars 112
I agree with you on a lot of policy discussions but I think some of this post is based on false assumptions. IN particular:
[Your costs are increased dramatically by the sudden imposition of a carbon tax so making you product uncompetitive on the world market.]
This is NOT correct. Australian power supply costs are some of the lowest in the world. we have a ot of cheap high quality coal in NSW and Qld, and cheap really low quality coal in SA and Vic. The proposed ETS might have increased retail power costs by 25% (retail) at most. This would still leave them cheaper than Japan and most of Europe. If a manufacturer was uncompetitive here it wasn’t because of power costs. The only exception is aluminium, which is a highly subsidised, low-employment, low-value adding, high-pollution industry we would be better off without (except the hydro powered plants in Tasmania).
For most industries power is NOT a large cost. Transport, capital plant and resources are all usually a lot more. The main problem with power is if you want to use a manufacturing site that is remote from the grid. But that problem is the same with or without an ETS.
I raisd some of this in my previous comments on your post but you haven’t responded.
Please name ONE Australian manufacturing industry (ignoring aluminium smelting) that would become uncompetitive with a $20/tonne carbon price? Despite the lies of business lobby groups, I’m not aware of a single such instance cited by Garnaut or any of the other economic analysis of this issue.
Cuppa (95) please allow me to paraphrase in 105 words or less…
Don you are a tool…
4 words wraps it up pretty succintly…cue some smarta**e reference to party balloons and a garden hose.
Socrates @ # 92
I understand your concerns but don’t agree. Carbon taxes aren’t usually put on export goods anyway. Coal exports would be unaffected. The impact of a larger carbon price on retail electricity prices via an ETS was small. The real impact is on large electricity consumers like the aluminium industry, which is exactly where it should be.
If you are correct then my concerns are relatively baseless in respect to exporting industries.
However I must then ask what effect will this tax have on the production that takes place in Australia for Australia?
If the company is selling into this country then it just increases it price and you and I have to pay it (the more elastic the product the bigger impact there will be on demand) There is not need to reduce emissions because of the short time frame of the scheme and the small impact (if any) that there could be on sales. Of cause that is assuming that there in no importer that can now import these good into Australia and market them cheaper because of the additional cost the local producer now must carry. If this happens this is particularly sad as it can be assumed that if the local produces can market a product cheaper than an importer without a carbon tax then that firm is likely to be more efficient and it would be a good assumption that in that case it would likely leave a smaller carbon footprint then the product that is imported.
Now if there is a big difference between one firm as against another in the same market in respect of the emissions per unit then the company with the lower emissions will have a decided advantage.
In respect of firms like the aluminium producers I would contend that these may be the firms that would look hardest and longest at moving overseas. It is possible that you could end up with the same company that is now producing aluminium in Australia moving of shore and subsequently selling back into the Australia market. The problem here is that the emissions of the “new plant” may have a much higher carbon footprint that did the plant in Australia.
The problem with these sorts of discussions is that it is an argument. This is what we think will happen. There is no guarantee either way. The way one jumps depends on many traits in our own individual character. In this case I cannot see how the outcomes that the greens say will happen will come to be. However, on the other hand I understand to some degree how those points I put forward can apply.
Its Time 121
Snap; my thoughts exactly.
Good point about the Hardies red-herring too. Power costs had nothing to do with their move. I understand now they are looking to move company registration again to Ireland, finding no advantage in the Netherlands.
To put the costs in perspective overall utility industries cost about 8% of our GDP. That is including power, water, gas etc. Power alone would be no more than 4%. The net overall impact of the proposed Rudd ETS was only about a 1% change in costs. The impact of the Greens compromise was even less. Only heavily polluting industries would be affected, and they are the ones we want to affect. Meanwhile we would generate new jobs in solar, gas, wind and possibly geo-thermal power.
Ratsars 124
[However I must then ask what effect will this tax have on the production that takes place in Australia for Australia?]
Please see my 125. The short answer is – bugger all. Maybe a one off 1% increase in real costs. The claims of business groups against a carbon tax or an ETS are a scare campaign. Most of their claims are a great big lie.
Ratsars
I provided the quote that the reduction would be 2% at 84. If you can’t even read and comprehend plain English, you need to find a different site that is more in keeping with your level of functioning.
[It is possible that you could end up with the same company that is now producing aluminium in Australia moving of shore and subsequently selling back into the Australia market. The problem here is that the emissions of the “new plant” may have a much higher carbon footprint that did the plant in Australia.
]
That is exactly the same argument that the pro-slavery argument used for continuing British slavery; they were nicer slave-masters and it might have an economic flow-on.
So much sensible argument! Where are all the party hacks?
[It is possible that you could end up with the same company that is now producing aluminium in Australia moving of shore and subsequently selling back into the Australia market. The problem here is that the emissions of the “new plant” may have a much higher carbon footprint that did the plant in Australia.]
As well as being questionable in principle for the reasons Dio said, the specifics of this claim are also false. The Australian aluminium industry has one of the highest emissions per tonne figures in the world. Most other altenatives would be better. aluminium industries all over teh world have been buying sites near hydro power supplies because they know that as soon as there is a carbon price high polluting producers like most of the Australian plants will be dead.
Australia has a genuine competitive advantage in the coal and iron ore industries. It doesn’t in Aluminium. The only reason we refine almost 1/3 of the world’s alumina here is because various state governments in the 70s and 80s were suckered into signing lousy deals where we practically gave the power to the likes of Alcoa for free, after which they still did all the high value-adding refining back in the USA. We were fools.
Further to 130, you can see the Aluminium industry statistics here. We make 28% of the worlds alumina:
http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/bauxite_and_alumina/bauxite_and_alumina_table12.html
But we only produce 5% of the world’s finished aluminium:
http://www.indexmundi.com/en/commodities/minerals/bauxite_and_alumina/bauxite_and_alumina_table12.html
No other country gives power so freely and stupidly to the aluminium industry as we do.
HTT@113:
[Megafauna slaughtered by “early Australians”. Seems the stories of enivornmentally sound lifestyles by the “early Australians” was bullshit.]
That is very old news.
Pretty much as soon as aborigines came to an area, and that includes northern australia, they started firestick farming. This altered the landscape forever. There has been a lot of work done (for example) on the changes in pollen at Lake George on the way to Canberra from Sydney.
There was pollen from fire intolerant species such as casaurina and so on, then layers of ash, then pollen from fire tolerant species such as eucalypts.
Before the aborigines came from south east asia, the landscape looked very different. Eucalypts were a relatively minor part of the makeup of the forests.
Firestick farming was used to provide green pick for marsupials, and when it was done on a mosaic pattern, it meant that the marsupials (wallabies, kangaroos and so on) came to that area, where the aborigines were waiting.
There are a number of theories, none of which has gained complete dominance at this point.
a) the change in vegetation meant that the highly adapted megafauna, faced with fire tolerant species, simply ran out of food.
b) aborigines slaughtered all the megafauna (not immediately, took a few thousand years)
c) aborigines targeted young, tender, easily hunted megafauna, inevitably leading to the extinction of the megafauna.
d) megafauna gave more meat per unit of hunting, many were slow movers, so of course they were targeted preferentially.
There are stories of the changes that aborigines needed to adopt when buffalo were introduced for their hides and horns in northern australia by the white settlers. Here was a major source of food, megafauna if you like, which they needed to exploit.
Their spears, adapted for thin skinned kangaroos and wallabies and so on, simply bounced off the buffalo hide.
One method they developed was for a number of warriors to lie down in the mud, breathing through reeds, while their mates drove the buffalo herd towards them.
When the buffalo passed (presumably they took up positions behind rocks and trees where possible!) they jumped up, and using a stone axe, or steel if they had it, they chopped the achilles tendon. With one leg useless, the other was able to be disabled, and voila! Buffalo on the menu.
Braver than most of us, I reckon.
[So much sensible argument! Where are all the party hacks?]
Centrelink Pay Day I would assume.
[Centrelink Pay Day I would assume.]
Nah. Computers have arrived.
Drops into the account by magic, regular as clockwork.
No queues, no waiting, plenty of time to find a double shot long black and a muffin!
[So much sensible argument! Where are all the party hacks?]
I was thinking ther emust be drinks on in someone’s office 🙂 McMullen is retiring…
[Centrelink Pay Day I would assume.]
I would assume that your redneck ways are currently being supported at the taxpayer’s bounty, given you seem to have time to post here all day?
[I would assume that your redneck ways are currently being supported at the taxpayer’s bounty, given you seem to have time to post here all day?]
Sigh, that’s bad news for us taxpayers 🙁 Truthy I might have to start putting conditions on your continued receipt of my hard earned. Back to finish high school with you.
[I sold out of all my share holdings yesterday… let the “crash” begin!
I’m cashed up and ready to buy some basement bargains.]
Allegory, Socrates, you haven’t been paying attention. TTH, the upwardly socially mobile devil, has moved up to living in a basement from living under a rock.
[the Annette Ellis link:]
Surely George Williams will get one of these seats!
It’s Time @ # 121
Your costs are increased dramatically by the sudden imposition of a carbon tax so making you product uncompetitive on the world market.
Increased DRAMATICALLY! By how much?
This is a question like when did you stop beating your wife. But really for anyone with a little since can see it is plain that you don’t have to know and in fact the only ones who do know are the industries concerned. What I can say is that for industries with a similar carbon footprint the increase in cost per unit of production will be very similar. Of cause the greater the emissions per unit the greater the cost. The silly thing is that I explained this in my precious post however it would appear that you refused to read it or you were unable to comprehend the points made. What you have to understand is how costs affect a business and its cost of production and how it might react to reduce its costs. The figures are not necessary to understand the principle.
And since there can only be one lowest cost supplier in the world then there is obviously only one worldwide supplier of each individual item in the world. That is the logical extension of such a simplistic notion. Wait on, how come I can buy one of dozens of different makes of car? Surely the cost of their domestic energy would have wiped out all but the cheapest car!
This is semplice nonsense. If you care to examine the car market you will find that cars that are very similar have a similar price. However, I hope that you can see that if you have two cars that are similar and you increase the price of one car against the other then that cars’ share of the market will fall. The greater the increase in price the greater the fall in that cars market share.
A basic principle of such thing is that individuals and firms will always act in there best interest as they see it and in accordance with the information they have. What you are saying that when you go shopping you don’t look at the price of similar items to what you put in your cart. If this is the case you are wasting money
Would not have a clue how “power costs from the proposed $20 per tonne carbon tax compare with recent and foreshadowed power cost increases independent of a CPRS or carbon tax?”
If you don’t know how much a carbon tax will end up costing a business, how do you know that a business’s costs will increase dramatically?
Once more for those who cant understand. You don’t have to know at this level of discussion. The cost accountants in some firms will be working on this for months to come up with a figure. But regardless of what the additional cost per unit will be it is a cost and that will impact on the business somehow. If it is an exporter company this will mean most likely mean a fall in world wide sales due to an increase in cost. Of cause the greater the increase in cost the greater the fall in sales. If it is an Australian Company with no competitors or its competitors have a similar emission profile it will make no difference at all – it/they will just increase there prices by a similar amount
The only time there will be an impact on those in the market is where there is a difference in the emission profile (per unit), The firm with the higher output of carbon will have an increased cost which its competitors don’t have. This will result in an increase in it price and subsequently a loss of market share. These companies will have the greatest incentives to move off shore for what we know is that the greater the carbon output the greater the cost to the business under a carbon tax
You ask for examples of firms moving to reduce costs. In Australia the most notable was “Hardies” along with a number of joint ventures mainly in the mining area and “joint listings” that some companies have entered into.
Hardies moved to Europe to minimise liability to asbestosis victims and minimise tax, not because they feared an extra couple of cents to flick on the lights.
Well you understanding of why hardies went off shore is the first thing that you have posted that makes any since and is in any way connected to reality. However, the point that followers that I would expect a high school student to understand is that the liabilities that hardies was trying ti minimise are in accounting exactly the same as the addition cost of a carbon tax
I am sure that any student of Commerce at any high school in the land will tell you that they are both COSTS. And that any increase in cost adds to the cost of production and then must be reflected in the price of every unit of production. So you decrease the cost of production through the move that Hardies tried or you increase the cost of production by the imposition of a carbon tax or by increasing wages then this will be reflected in the sale price.
Firms that find that they cannot compete with an increase in costs would be very inclined to move off shore planning for a reduction in the costs that the had imposed in this country.
Well the first thing you have to realise that it is not a mantra it is an argument which is based on very good facts and business practices.
No, sounds like a mantra to me.
It is no wonder that you argument, if one could call it that, makes little sense and lacks a connection with the real world situation.
ShowsOn went:
[ the Annette Ellis link:
Surely George Williams will get one of these seats!]
I hope Andrew Leigh gets the other one!
[133
TheTruthHurts……So much sensible argument! Where are all the party hacks?…..Centrelink Pay Day I would assume.]
Such a dirty mind! And how far from the truth! Pernicious, sour, stingy, fraudulent and a bigot……all at once: remarkable.
Ratsars
Why can’t you just admit you are wrong? Most of James Hardies manufacturing isn’t evne in Australia any more; its in the USA. Hard to see how a carbon tax will change that. See this story:
http://www.businessday.com.au/business/looking-for-the-joke-in-logic-of-james-hardie-moving-to-ireland-20090616-cgjb.html
Power costs have nothing to do with it. Besides, costs are only one half of the equation. Companies balance up costs, access to markets, security and capability when they decide where to produce. They don’t just all magically move to the lowest cost production centre. If that were not so places like New York and London would be ghost towns, because their costs are a lot higher than ours. You are picking on one issue and blowing it to an absurd extreme. Are you going for the Ian Plimer award?
I say again, a carbon tax will make bugger all difference to most industries, except the ones we want to get rid of. I challenge you again – name ONE industry that will close here because of a $20/tonne carbon tax (besides alumina). Prove it with access to a peer reviewed report too, for extra credit.
[I am sure that any student of Commerce at any high school in the land will tell you that they are both COSTS. And that any increase in cost adds to the cost of production and then must be reflected in the price of every unit of production. So you decrease the cost of production through the move that Hardies tried or you increase the cost of production by the imposition of a carbon tax or by increasing wages then this will be reflected in the sale price.]
Or you adopt energy efficient methods which produce a net saving in energy costs. Or your absorb the additional cost, decrease your initial profitability, increase your marketing and maybe generate a higher net profit. Or you increase your price and sell yourself on some intangible quality. Or you squeeze your suppliers to reduce their prices, absorb your energy cost increases and maybe make a bigger profit.
There are many ways in which a business might cope with a marginal (not your “dramatic”) increase in energy costs; not just your simplistic, fear-mongering flight overseas.
And the size of the potential increase in energy costs is important. Many businesses have already been warned of large future electricity cost increases simply to pay for new generation capacity and maintain/upgrade existing distribution systems. Chances are that the Green carbon tax would get lost in margin of error in a business’s budgeted future costs.
You need to consider other weaknesses of a carbon tax rather than the fleeing business mantra.
From Fib HQ
http://www.liberal.org.au/news.php?Id=4562
[Rudd and Roxon take their inspiration from Sir Humphrey]
Someone’s been reading PB again
😉
[Someone’s been reading PB again]
It takes their heads out of those comic books.
[I hope Andrew Leigh gets the other one!]
One of them will go to a woman I guess.
Williams would be better in the Senate. They could shift Kate Lundy to Canberra, Leigh gets Fraser, Williams gets Lundy’s old Senate seat.
Done.
Interesting news about McMullan and Ellis in the ACT vacating their seats at the next election. Fraser (ALP 15.1%) and Canberra (ALP 11.8%) are safe seats and with popular sitting members moving aside in an apparently bloodless manner it should set things up well for whoever gets preselected to try and hold the seats.
Funny as well that of the Coalition seats they only hold 10 with margins better than 11.8% and only 2 with better than 15.1%. ALP currently holds 32 at better than or equal to 11.8% and 21 at better than 15.1%!!!
Seems that the ALP may be managing to move on some of its older members out of safe seats to make way for new blood while they are riding high which I think is a strategically good in the medium to long term. Libs especially just don’t seem to be able to achieve this and that will put them in an even more crap position after this years election. Couldnt happen to a nicer lot i reckon!
ShowsOn
What have you got against the electors of Canberra? Kate Lundy is the least impressive of the current ACT elected representative. Don’t do it.
[ALP currently holds 32 at better than or equal to 11.8% and 21 at better than 15.1%!!!]
Isn’t that to be expected in a first term government? A lot of their marginal seats became much safer thanks to the general swing at the last election.