It was a dumb memo to write:
“Brumby’s recommended some “simple things for you all to do to find some extra sales”.
“We are doing an RRP (recommended retail price) review at present which is projected to be in line with CPI (consumer price index), but take an opportunity to make some moves in June and July, let the carbon tax take the blame, after all your costs will be going up due to it,” Mr Priest wrote.”
“It is understood the newsletter was sent to franchise owners last month.” [The West Australian]
But the outcry about it is over-the-top. It has drawn national interest, been published on the news around the country. The company has issued apologies. The outrage has been so overdone, that today managing director of Brumbies bakery’s (Deane Priest) resigned.
The memo was dumb because it wasn’t suggesting a totally honest approach, and because it projected the wrong attitude to staff of Brumby’s, and it was especially dumb, because there is a witchhunt on for any business which blames a fraction of a cent more than they should on the carbon tax. With 300 stores across the country there was a 100% chance of at least one staff member being a fan of the carbon tax, or the Labor Party, and leaking it to the press, whereupon it would fuel the fire at the stake being readied for some random unlucky sod.
Don’t mistake me, trying to pull one over on customers is a bad-and-mad business strategy, but at the end of the day, the customer was still getting the same load of bread, for a price agreed in advance. If they didn’t like the price (or the tax quotient), they can always shop at Bakers Delight, right?
In normal times, sloppy memos like that one never make it to the national news. The company is not making itself richer by promising that the bread contained Hand-Seeded Organic Aztec Flax while it was really made with GM wheat from Weifang, China. If the memo was cheating anyone here, mostly it wasn’t the customer, it was the government. If Brumby’s was trying to sell more bread by pretending that a larger cut of the price was “helping the environment” then that would be deceptive, and customers could rightly feel aggrieved that more of their money was not subsidizing bird-chopping fans, as they had been led to believe — but they weren’t. Brumby’s, or rather, Deane Priest, was trying to cheat the government of it’s story that the price rise due to the carbon tax would only be 2 cents.
So look how effective that threat of fining businesses $1.1million dollars is already? It didn’t need to be invoked, or tested in the courts (which could potentially backfire badly) it just needed to be announced, as long as the furore against it was moderate and bearable, and it was.
Thus the Labor Party have silenced their critics – and I’m not talking about Deane Priest, I’m talking about all the honest business people watching the news for the last two days who now know absolutely that it’s better not to mention the carbon tax, unless they do it in cautious careful terms, with their lawyer at their side.
The regulation never needs to be tested in court, it merely needs to hang like a cloud of dengue-filled mosquitoes. The drone with encephalitic undertones will clear the area.
In a real free market, with true free speech, when a new tax comes in and one company takes a silly approach and blames the tax unfairly, a whole lot of push-backs occur. Some customers will figure that since the other baker only put up his prices by 2c due to the carbon tax, they’ll shop there instead. There are customers who might be in favour of the tax (remember in a democracy, in theory, that’s supposed to be near 50%). If they suspect the owners of the bakery are exaggerating, it poisons the goodwill, they shop elsewhere. Then there are competitors, who might point out — or even advertise — that their company was more environmentally friendly, and didn’t produce so much “pollution” as baker XYZ, and they’d win over some customers too. Lastly, there is a chance the memo would leak, and customers would feel they weren’t being treated with care and respect, and that would be bad for business too.
All of which tells us that in a real free market, there are plenty of ways to reduce this type of “spin” and the only situation where it might go down a treat is one where most of the customers didn’t like the tax, didn’t like the government who made it and didn’t care less if the tax was blamed unfairly, because they liked to whine about it themselves. And in this situation the problem is not the bakery but the government.
And the government knows it, which is why it needed draconian anti-speech laws. They knew the free market wasn’t going to protect them. Ultimately, the regulating class can’t rely on the free market to help them, because they are not an honest player in the game.
While too many politicians were caught on the hop today, pandering to the ACCC witchhunt, at least one politician put things in perspective. From the HeraldSun:
“Opposition small business spokesman Bruce Billson said Mr Bradbury was threatening small firms.
“Small businesses across Australia will be hit with the carbon tax – ovens, fridges, freezers and air conditioners will cost more to run and suppliers will increase prices,” Mr Billson said.
“This is the result of the carbon tax and no amount of threats by Mr Bradbury will hide that fact.”
Mr Billson said the biggest misleading comment about the carbon tax was Prime Minister Julia Gillard’s broken promise not to do it.
“If David Bradbury wants to crack down on misleading and deceptive conduct, he would ask the Prime Minister to apologise for her no carbon tax lie,” he said.”
It was a foolish thing for Priest to do, but he didn’t deserve to lose his job — and in normal times he wouldn’t have.
Post Note: Looking closer at the memo (or the only part we can see) — The company is thinking of lifting prices anyway (partly due to the carbon tax), and his crime is to suggest that timing the price rise to fit with the carbon tax timing is an “opportunity”, because people will assume it’s due to the carbon tax (and some of it is). He’s not suggesting anyone write or say anything to deceive the public. It’s is a form of cheap opportunism: “Let the carbon tax take the blame“.
H/t and thanks to Jaymez
I think retailers should put up their prices and simply make the following statement:
“Just as soon as the Government tells us how much the temperature will drop due to it’s Carbon Tax, we’ll tell you how much of this price rise is due to the Carbon Tax!”
00
Perhaps the Aussies should tell this to the lying Jooliaar. We are giving UK politicians the same message**.
The 0.7 K from doubling [CO2] assumes the energy is directly thermalised by the activated molecule losing energy over ~1000 collision. There is no such process. Quantum exclusion forbids it. Students of various soft sciences are taught this false physics which is contrary to the most basic aspect of statistical thermodynamics, the Gibbsian Principle of Indistinguishability
Molecules in an assembly have no memory. An already thermally activated molecule emits the same energy photon at the same time as the incoming photon is absorbed, restoring local thermodynamic equilibrium. The new photon moves to a different region of the atmosphere and the same process is replicated. Thus the GHGs are an energy transfer medium. Thermalisation occurs mainly at clouds. All experiments claimed to show direct warming can be explained by indirect warming at the container walls.
Nahle has proved this by reducing the thickness of the ‘PET bottle’ wall by a factor of 12 – he observed no warming. Also, data in the metallurgical literature show unequivocally that the absorption of IR by CO2 levels off at ~200 ppmV in a long optical path.
There can be no CO2-AGW. The warming from water vapour is concentrated in clouds. The IPCC IR hoax has been known since 1993 when Princeton physicist Will Happer refused to lie about it for Gore. The people at the centre of the scam cannot claim ignorance.
**The main scientific advice to No 10 is apparently from Australian David Hone, a chemical engineer who has impressed Shell by his apparent success at carbon trading. No vested interest there them?
00
It is ironic that while the Government is demanding such a high level of truth and accuracy from business on the impact of the carbon tax, they are lying through their teeth about it to the Australian people.
This article in The Australian just about say’s it all.
I particularly liked this:
“The Australian carbon tax is a species orphan, the Collins-class submarine of global environmental policy. It is environmentally inconsequential, economically costly, administratively nightmarish and unlike anything else in the world. Policy folly that it is, the Gillard government would still have a better chance of selling it if it occasionally told the truth about it.”
00
OMG Jaymez! That was written by Greg Sheridan. Have you no shame?
00
Yes it was a dumb memo to write. It also tells me that there must be an extreme sensitivity about the tax in the minds of average Aussies (bread eaters). This must very frightening to the people that brought you that stupid tax.
00
Agreed it was a dumb memo. But from my recollection the sensitivity about Carbon tax is similar to the sensitivity about the GST during its introduction. The ACCC was highly active at that time for the same reasons.
But one point gets skipped over in all this fuss. According to the “science” for Carbon Taxes or ETS to have any effect on the climate global carbon prices will need to be very much higher than even $23 / tonne. I seriously can’t see the world doing this when even now US, China, Japan, Canada and so on baulk at any serious commitment to emissions reductions that would make any difference even if you believe the positive feedback theory. Since Copenhagen there have been a succession of talkfests with no binding commitments made. In fact less progress since 2009 (5 years) than was made way back in 1997 under Kyoto. Since then Al Gore and the Hockey Stick have been discredited and the two climategate releases helped the general public see the light of what “peer review” really means.
With the current global economic uncertainty you can see economic reality beats environmental wishy washy feel good every time.
When Greg Combet makes claims about $5 / week carbon tax costs someone needs to pull him up on what it will need to be to make any difference.
00
For the life of me I can’t see the connection between the Carbon Dioxide Tax and the GST, with GST other taxes were reduced or abolished, this is patently not the case with this stupid new tax. As for the memo, stupid but not illegal and the over-reaction to it is just the Main Stream Media trying to help the Govt out, as the price of everything goes up and the compensation falls short even the true believers will start to understand that this is a pointless drain on our Country.
00
I actually agree with you. I was just pointing out the strict role being played by the ACCC in Jo’s story. It was also an opportunity to express my dismay at these fruitless efforts to control the climate through new taxation measures. But unfortunately it may not be fruitless for the goals of the regulating classes.
00
Totally agree with you, unhappy constituent.
Some people forget that there were 3 levels of sales tax on goods pre-GST (12%, 22% and 32% applied to most goods but there was no sales tax on food). So the majority of products went down in price, not up (my recollection was only processed foods went up and fresh food, education and health costs did not attract a GST at all).
The sting in the tail with the GST was, of course, the service tax of 10%. Compensation was given for this.
The GST was, and still is. an administrative nightmare but Howard was very clever by tying the tax amount raised to state allocations so the state govts were less likely to object. This, as you point out, allowed some other govt taxes to be dropped as well.
However, this carbon tax will flow through to all sectors of the business world and will need to be passed on either now or as it rises in the next two years. All the areas the GST missed, such as fresh food, health and education will be affected.
The GST, however unpopular, had a point (even Keating wanted it). This tax has no point at all, just a redistribution of money.
00
There is little if any comparison between carbon dioxide tax and goods and services tax which replaced wholesale sales tax on goods and other taxes, albeit that the Labor state governments were slow to remove or failed to remove the taxes they signed an agreement to remove when the tax reform package GST Agreement was signed.
00
Two observations about this:
1: This is straight out of the indoctrination song book. When you start to control the language (by force or shifting definitions) you start to control thinking itself. Of course this has been going on since the late 1920’s, but this new development carries with it the implication that the thought police are just quietly waiting in the shadows for you to step over the line. Think about that. It is very serious.
2: Dean Priest was forced to resign, presumably by his Board. In normal times, a normal Board would just roll with the punch and insist that the company issue an apology and then quietly continue operations with an understanding that they would not pay a bonus, or would not renew his contract. The company would presumably take a drop in sales and everybody would recognise the reason why, but that will happen anyway, and keeping him on gives the Board time to find and groom a replacement. Firing a CEO is an incredibly expensive thing to do. Even if you don’t pay a golden handshake, the loss of continuity represents huge hidden cost. And that is money you can never recover. My assessment is that the Board were got at by persons unknown, but probably well connected to the Union Movement or the ALP.
Dean Priest is in good company, he should give Bob Diamond a ring.
00
Mr. Whakaaro, when I first read the story I though “no one at the level of Mr Priest would be that stupid.
Perhaps it’s a setup, we should follow the next few career moves of Priest. That might prove interesting.
00
A very astute observation, Mr D.
00
Or possibly the board just asked him to resign because he was stupid?? Much simpler explanation that doesn’t require the conspiracy angle……oh, forgot where i was a moment there!! Carry on.
00
Does it really require a conspiracy theory when a government begins censorship? Perhaps you can explain how any citizen should desire such government action, or not assume the worse after that occurs?
00
Are you seriously saying that if the ACCC was to bring a case against petrol retailers for price gouging that you’d be on the side of the petrol companies in the interests of free speech?
00
Are you seriously saying that delaying an inevitable CPI increase in prices to co-incide with the carbon tax is in any way analogous to the collusion of multiple petrol suppliers in price fixing?
Because it isn’t.
Are you seriously saying that the purpose of the carbon tax has a scientifically sound basis in physics that is at least as precise and necessary as our need for petrol and bread?
No of course not, you’re just trying to placate everybody about the tax on behalf of your government paymasters, regardless of the verifiable fact that a reduction in CO2 has never been good to any living thing on this planet at any time in history, and the tax will not benefit any living thing any time this century, the coffers of UN greenwashed crony capitalists excepted.
The CO2 emissions trading scheme was founded on a lie founded on pseudo-science, and since nobody in the government could still believe the pseudo-science after the last 3 years of revelations, the continuation of the ETS on carbon is a tyranny.
00
Bravo, Andrew.
Adam Smith is an “appeaser”- a man who feeds the crocodile, hoping it will eat him last.
00
Catastromon, That’s exactly what Jo said “It was a dumb memo to write:” thanks I must have missed that point !!
00
It was a dumb memorandum, of course bakers will be penalised by rising electricity and gas costs as well as receiving carbon dioxide tax from many or most of their suppliers that will also impact on production costs. And don’t forget that every supplier that receives a carbon tax bill will most probably pass it on with a profit margin added and therefore carbon dioxide tax grows as it passes along the chain of supply and then 10% GST added on top for end consumers.
00
Well we are way past controlling the language. In fact reading instruction these days is back to whole word sight reading with officials basically deciding what words and concepts in print future voters are going to be familiar with. Most of the ed terms have such counterintuitive meanings I practically could publish an Invisible Serfs Collar Glossary for Frustrated Parents, Manipulated Teachers, and Tapped Out Taxpayers.
I have a new post up that explains that Australia’s Student Wellbeing Framework means that government officials and employees have a license to make changing values to create an ecological consciousness and the interconnection with Mother Earth the primary focus of school. In fact much of the idea behind this caring economics is to make it a less material, ecologically sustainable, new “cooperative” economy.
Plus any time you get this kind of consistency between the US, UK, and Australia, the impetus is coming out of the UN. They see education as the primary global weapon to get the kind of human nature that will be amenable to its meddling. Or simply won’t be able to notice.
http://www.invisibleserfscollar.com/if-education-transforms-values-and-feelings-and-beliefs-to-control-behaviors-are-we-free/
00
Come on Jo – you can’t defend the Brumby’s memo. It was an attempted straight exploitation of customers regardless of carbon tax issue. Sleazy business practices.
BTW – has the sky fallen yet – you’re all still here whinging and whining.
00
Mate
Brumby’s can stand or fall in the real market place depending on their overall performance.
The Carbon Tax was born of a lie and raised by democratically immoral parents. As they have unleashed the beast amongst us the sky indeed is darker and lower than it was yesterday.
00
What does “democratically immoral” mean?
Are you still pissed that Tony Abbott was incapable of negotiating his way to the PMship?
00
How could he negotiate with people who had already been recruited by Labor? It has been reported that Oakshott was recruited by KRudd soon after the 2008 by election in Lyne and that Windsor is a cousin of the Labor spin doctor Hawker. Both of these men were former Nationals and they have promoted themselves as conservative independents, their largely conservative constituents did not anticipate that these MPs would prop Union Labor. Why were they recruited? Because the results of the 2007 federal election indicated that in 2010 the result would be very close, even a hung parliament was possible. Nothing wrong with Abbott’s negotiating skills but he was dealing with people who were not genuine.
00
Don’t forget also that The Greens whole electoral strategy was to block the Coalition in the Senate, or that Adam Bandt was reported (in The Age on August 15 2010, more than a week before the election) as declaring that he would support Gillard if there was a hung parliament since “an overwhelming majority of people in Melbourne do not want an Abbott government”.
Bit hard to have any chance of fair-dinkum negotiations with a group who have categorically told you that they wouldn’t deal with you, or actively campaigned against you, isn’t it?
Once again, however, Team Smith refuses to let the truth and facts get in the way of their biased political viewpoint.
00
How can you ‘exploit customers’.
This emotive language is the signature sign of a person who thinks with emotions insted of logic.
I go into Brumbys and see the prices of the bread.
I either buy or I don’t.
If I buy, I get a loaf of bread at a price I was willing to pay. They sold me the loaf at a price they were willing to accept.
I could have told them I bought it to defend against invading aliens, who are all gluten intolerant. They could have told me the price was up 4c because the solar flux readings on their factory swung into the gamma quadrant.
Bread is the ultimate competitive market – they compete not only against each other, but against home baking or eating something entirely else for lunch.
You cannot exploit someone making a voluntary transaction unless the product description was false or misleading.
I am cheesed off at Brumbys for crumpling like a cheap shirt. They should have stuck it out and told the government to nick off. 66% of the AUstralian population thinks the Carbon Tax is a crock, it’s not like they wouldn’t get public support.
Brumbys is boycotted for me, not for the memo, but for being such lightweights. The board should have backed their CEO.
00
Good question, but obviously people with no commercial acumen would understand it.
00
I sure hope that the business community rallies around Brumbys bakery. If the business community fails to do so then the business community deserves this tax and any others in the future that could be modelled on it.
I would argue that there is no way a business can accurately estimate how much the carbon tax is going to affect their bottom line. It’s impossible to estimate something that is so opaque.
Businesses cannot operate effectively if they cannot plan and have a clear understanding of their costs. Without this, there is no way for a business to estimate their margins.
Until this lame excuse for a government can detail to every individual and every business exactly how much this carbon tax will cost them over the years ahead, businesses are well advised to raise their prices by whatever amount they see fit and to name the carbon tax for this.
This is one of the reasons why the carbon tax has got to be repealed, it is so incredibly opaque and so easily changed by government that it is the perfect tax and as such provides the very mechanism for government to destroy any business or demographic group they wish to.
I think you will all agree that that is far too much power for any government to possess.
00
Spot on Madjak.
Of the many things that irk me about the conversation around this story is a comparison to the GST.
As a Libertarian, I view any tax as theft. Theft, by definition, is the transfer of ownership of an asset from one individual to another under force or threat of force. This definition fits the definitions of a tax precisely.
However, the Libertarian ideal of a society in which any services provided by the public sector are funded by voluntary contributions is just that: ideology. Such an ideal can be functional only in a society in which informed intelligent individuals are able to think clearly. So I have to admit that some tax is necessary in an ideal world. However, a tax on production, such as in income tax is entirely counter-productive as it punishes those who provide the very goods and services that the populace desires. The GST however is a tax on consumption, which has the opposite effect. This insidious tax whose name must never be spoken, with no purpose other than to bring the economy to its knees so that it will be easier picking for a totalitarian un-elected one world order is not mere larceny. It is more akin to assassination.
00
No. I think its a power that all Govt’s have possessed to varying degrees since time immemorial.
Wow, this whole Brumby’s guy being a farkwit has really rattled the cage hasn’t it? I’ll bet he thought he was being funny.
00
The question isn’t what powers governments have arrogated to themselves, but what powers are legitimate and what abuses governments are capable of when they do so. Those who think that such things are either desirable or are somehow of no consequence will sooner or later regret it (unless they succeed in holding those reins of power themselves). The Brumby’s guy is a mere piker compared to totalitarian types in government.
00
Did you feel the same sense of outrage when the GST was introduced and the ACCC was given exactly the same powers?
Of course back then they were policing a 2.5% increase to CPI, whereas now they are policing just a 0.7% increase.
00
Yet the GST was firstly dependent on how much one spent and secondly the GST eliminated multiple other taxes. Nice try Adam.
00
Abuse of that power is the problem, freedom of the press should never be in question, bullying by senior government people of anybody they perceive to be in their way is also intolerable.
00
To Mark D., I was a franchisee who also worked closely with Deane Priest for quite a few years. That “stupid” advice was typical. I always felt he was inept, unethical and untrustworthy. The statement he made in the memo revealed his true colours and as far as I’m concerned he got what he deserved. He is a perfect example of the Peter Principle – being promoted to a position of incompetence. I’m surprised it took so long for him to be found out.
———————————
Note: I have not verified that this person is real. From her email she might be, but a google search produces nothing. Answer? Maybe – Maybe not. – Jo
———————————-
UPDATE #2: the email appears to be real, and has now been verified. As far as I can tell, I’m reasonably sure she is real and the comment legitimate. – Jo
00
Damn! That pretty much deflates the whole thrust of this tread then??
00
Not necessarily. Jane D (who I presume is no relation to Mark D) is expressing an opinion, no more.
It is obvious that she does not like Deane Priest, and is pleased to broadcast that emotion. That is her choice.
But as Philip Bradley points out in comment #10, all commercial companies have a legal obligation to their shareholders to maximise their return on investment. There is a sweet-spot on the price/volume curve, and all Boards and CEO’s are constantly looking to stay on that sweet-spot whilst remaining competitive.
As MadJak, in comment #7, points out the way this tax has been implemented by the Government, makes that nigh-on impossible to do. Plus, if you seek to explain that situation to your customers, you are committing an offense that carries a very hefty fine.
So the stupid situation we find ourselves in, is that Boards of Directors and CEO’s will be breaking the letter of the law no matter what they do.
And my final point, is that the subject of this was an internal memo, and therefore a privileged document. The Government and the activists get uptight when other privileged documents get leaked, and their plans are laid bare, but in this case …?
00
As far as I know I am not related to Jane D. Based upon her photo, we share the same hair color.
I should clarify what I said above. The memo was stupid because it was a memo and traceable. That is why it was stupid. Others have commented on the market sorting out Brumbys prices if they were too high. Any retailer has a duty to make the most of profit.
Any buyer that doesn’t know this….well, should shop at my store!
If Brumbys wants to blame their price raises on the phase of the moon, so be it (until no one buys their bread). Taking advantage of circumstances to increase profit is as old as that “other” oldest business.
00
Though I had never heard of Priest before this event, I accept Jane Ds descriptors of him because anyone who would write such a stupid memo doesn’t even deserve to be a store manager let alone a CEO.
Good riddance to this crook. Hope he finds it difficult to make dough in the future.
00
Baa, how many other times would a manager have sent an internal memo suggesting that the next price rise due be coincided with some event that was contributing to the rise, but was not wholly responsible?
Methinks, a thousand times….
00
Jo
A CEO or General manager is the head of the company. Everything, including policy, company mission and standards starts with him/her.
This particular GM suggested a dishonest action be taken by store managers. If he was allowed to keep his job, the following will develop WITHOUT FAIL.
A state manager will fudge, bend or break regulations to gain an advantage for his state.
A regional manager will fudge…. etc etc to gain an advantage for his region.
An area manager will…. etc etc
This is a slippery slope that no large structured organization can risk getting on to. (It’s the same with governments. look at the performance of our ministers since Gillards crooked performance starting with the knifing of rudd).
What this bloke should have done, is to state that a RRP review is in place, in the meantime, we calculate that the cost of a loaf of bread will rise by X cents due to the Carbon Tax. Please consider raising your prices by this amount as of July 1st until the RRP review is complete.
A fish rots from the head.
00
baa you saved me the same rant… and I don’t think we even needed Jane D’s (possible) first hand experience.
I’ll keep ranting on about this but supporting or deriding something because it fits a personal ideology is, per se, a great way to stuff up your credibility and ability to engage in useful discourse.
00
Madjak
How will businesses adjust to a varying market price.
I wonder how the government thinks they should do it?
00
ghl,
The government is full of public sector people on fixed, stable incomes.
They are unable to comprehend how businesses can cope withvarying circumstances at the best of times.
That is one of the reasons tehy even comprehended this stupid tax.
In short they have neither the brain cells or the common sense to comprehend such things.
00
That is why they hire consultants. who are unable to comprehend how businesses can cope with varying circumstances. It sort of makes it official, somehow.
00
Consultants
Normally have never been around long enough from learn about how much of a ballsup they’ve made.
Honestly, who in their right mind, successful in their field would spend their time wiping the arse of some political ideologist?
00
I don’t see anything wrong with the memo. Not only do all companies charge as much for their products as the market will bear, they have a legal obligation to their shareholders to do so.
The problem here is that people believe the advertisements from the likes of Woolies and Coles that they are trying to help their customers save money, etc. Which is only true to the extent that it helps Woolies/Coles maximize the price they sell their product for.
Incidentally, their product isn’t groceries, its shelf space. And they maximise the price they can charge for it by increasing the number of customers walking past the shelves.
00
Absolutely!
All large supermarkets are in the retail-shelf-real-estate business. And they even go as far as getting competing companies with similar products to bid for the same shelf space. I wonder how that keeps prices down?
What is more, a lot of these stores run loyalty schemes. The scheme lets them gather all sorts of intelligence on family size, gender makeup, age groups, etc. Not only can they use that information for targeted advertising, the information is worth a great deal in its own right. Add that to cameras over the checkout queues, and facial recognition technology, and they have got you even when you decline to use your card.
00
Right on the money Philip. It was only five years ago that the made-for-TV-Rudd hauled these two firms up to ask why the price of groceries is so high? Remember the failed “grocery watch”?
Wasn’t the government then intervening in what is supposed to be a free market to influence competition?
Wasn’t the Coles brand nearly beaten into the dust. Now look at the whinging about there being too much competition!
Is this negative thinking towards the competition not exemplary of the anti-capitalist propaganda spread by the —
Communist PartyGreens?I must admit that for a free market to operate correctly there needs to be more than two players in a market the size of that grown by these two successful firms. Given time, that will happen.
00
So what’s wrong with cheating the government? The government has been cheating you since 1914, as well as killing you for no good reason, while telling you it is a good reason. You would think by now more people would have put 1 + 1 together to equal 2 but apparently not.
We melt you with acid rain… Keep you poor for economic gain… Convince you your biggest threat… Is drugs & terrorists… They don’t even have to be real… etc etc etc
00
The latest co2 emissions per country are interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_carbon_dioxide_emissions
See 2008 and at the bottom major emitters for 2010. As at 2012 OZ would probably be less than 1% of the planet’s emissions.
China emissions are soaring at about 1 billion extra tonnes of new emissions every 12 months, while USA are heading south back to 1990 levels.
Incredible to think that China and USA were at the same levels in 2006.
As of 2012 China would be at 25% and the USA about 16%.
00
I got a letter in the mail from Red Energy saying my prices are increasing due to the carbon tax. Can the ACCC investigate please?
No? Thought so.
00
OT. . .
The cover of the latest issue of ‘New Scientist’ says:
“Driven to Extremes. Is global warming driving our weather wild?”
Theres a six page article inside with lots of general assumptions and pretty charts and graphs.
Ive put the relevant pages into a small pdf which you can download here:
New Scientist 7th July 2012
00
The introduction of the GST certainly caused some strange behaviour. At the Saturday morning school footy barbecue a sausage suddenly cost $1.10. Well the guy in charge was an auditor – I doubt that any other school barbie in the state did that! That price lasted exactly one week and I doubt the school ever paid the GST to the government. Do people who run garage sales have to pay GST? I doubt it. What irks me is that you still see prices advertised with “includes GST”, as if people are not going to buy the product if they don’t say that. Who gives a stuff?
Good on you Deane Priest. You’ve taken one on the chin for the team. Actually he must know what he’s doing because no-one in his position could be so naive. The carbon tax is such a huge joke that it deserves the be the object of contempt, ridicule and exploitation. I agree it has no comparison with the GST which replaced other taxes and did not attempt to alter the weather.
00
The “Super El Nino” in 1998, coinciding right when the GST was first introduced, resulted in the greatest single year increase in the entire global temperature recorded history! And you still want to blithely suggest that the GST had nothing to do with the weather?!?!? You dirty, evil, oil-shill, “Climate Weirding Denier”, you!!!!
00
Yep, it is witches.
00
Maybe.
But which witch is which? It’s important to know you know, and know that you know which witch is which.
00
I shudder to think what would happen if you got the whethers and the witches together in the same sentence.
Probably…. Total protonic reversal.
In other news…
Buffalo buffalo buffalo buffalo Buffalo buffalo buffalo. 🙂
00
Australia didn’t really have a “1998 El Nino peak” so all the GST did was help the northern hemisphere countries. Here’s what happened:
http://www.bom.gov.au/cgi-bin/climate/change/timeseries.cgi?graph=tmean&area=aus&season=0112&ave_yr=5
Of course this HQ-data derived graph is badly flawed anyway. So Johnny Howard achieved an own goal did he? Actually the GST started in July 2000 anyway.
It’s all right Winston, I’m just playing along with the gag mate!
What’s the carbon tax supposed to achieve again Julia? How much influence is a southern hemisphere country’s reduction in carbon emissions, which won’t happen anyway, going to have on the temperature in the northern hemisphere, when there is no cause and effect between the two?
I suggest people who are bored go to a lookout and watch a big city’s daily activity for, oh ten minutes and ponder how ridiculous the Greens’ policies are.
00
Will Coles Supermarkets be required to pay the Gillard/Greens carbon (dioxide) tax on baked fresh daily bread they import from Ireland?
What “carbon” price will Coles/Wesfarmers have to pay, will it be the European price of around around $10 per tonne, or will it be the antipodean price of $23 per tonne?
Will Bradbury and his fellow travelers now invite Coles executives to be guests of honour during their next series of ritual stake burnings?
00
Oh dear. Only businesses that emit more than 25,000 tonnes of CO2-e at one location per year need to buy carbon permits.
Coles and Woolies don’t need to buy carbon permits. You are criticising something that you simply don’t understand.
00
How does this relate at all to Bob of Castlemaine’s statement He talks about the Carbon Tax on imported bread and you talk about buying Carbon Credits. Perhaps you should criticise something you understand !!
00
Well pretty simply mate. He asserted that supermarkets have to pay the carbon tax on imported bread!!!
Not true!!!
00
Oh dear.
You forgot about the Carbon Tax paid on all the electricity that Coles and Woolworths use to run the lights, freezers, fridges and air conditioners.
Then there is the massive markup on the refrigerant that those big cold rooms and display cabinets use.
Coles and Woolworths aren’t directly going to pay the Carbon Tax, but boy, they (and in reality, YOU) are going to be paying.
00
I heard a large crashing sound – I raced outside and yep the sky had fallen. Oh darn. 🙁
00
I was waiting watching for Whyalla to fall apart and then the dishonest federal government paid Bluescope several hundred million dollars of taxpayer’s now being borrowed monies to keep going. The Kurri Kurri aluminium smelter, Kandos Cement and some others should have made more noise to get paid to keep operating, the Vic brown coal power generators in the PM’s electorate did, and Alcoa Vic. What a farce, “Carbon Tax” Con.
00
Off-topic ??
Scott Adams has a “take” on the qualifications of CEO’s.
00
More seriously; I suggested a while ago that it’s entirely appropriate and necessary to itemise the Carbon Tax component on invoices in the supply chain. Only then can that component be reported accurately. Much like the GST.
Many of the price rises to support the carbon tax have already been in the supply chain for years; vis greenhouse gas reporting.
Similarly, the cost component in electricity supplies for the mandated purchases of industry to purchase “renewable energy” at non-market, regulated and exorbidant prices have added substantially to the price that needs to be paid by ordinary consumers; who don’t want to dip their hands into their neighbours’ wallets and become part of the scam.
00
With all the information for all electrical power providers published with respect to their new price rises, as a result of this new Tax, and with published grid power costs direct from the Plants themselves, it now becomes an easy thing for them all to be investigated, and then to wait and see how many of them actually are prosecuted and fined, and the answer will be zero.
There will probably be small investigations into some small ‘fish’ seeking to take some advantage, and note that while this Brumby’s Bread person was laid off, again, there will be no official charges or huge fines. Other smaller operations may also come under the umbrella, but I seriously doubt there will be any of those huge fines imposed. Not because of the threat, but that all of those large operators, eg power plants and power providers will have very carefully worked out the full story long prior to the publishing of the new data, solely due to this Carbon Tax (sic) imposition.
Asa reluctant as I am to bring this up again, it is indeed well worth mentioning because this is not just some internal memo situation but a published official send out to all clients. So, this is incontrovertible proof if those who want to see an investigation and imposition of those huge fines, then this makes it easy for that to happen.
This is a ‘send out’ from AG Coombs, and they are basing their costs on those of the Company that supplies them, Heatcraft, who have also published their new costing structure as well. Now, while the Heatcraft data was just a price list (pre and post Tax) the AG Coombs has the price structure explained a little better with an official Company message.
Image For New Heatcraft Cost Structure
Image For New AG Coombs Cost Structure
These prices indicate the cost of the gas per Kg, supplied, of the most commonly used refrigerants, as each link in the chain passes on the extra cost of those Credits they now have to purchase.
HFC134a is the most common refrigerant used here in Australia. While the older gas R22 is being regulated out, equipment using that gas needs to be replaced, as the newer gases require up to three times the compression and more.
Accompanying the AG Coombs list was an explanatory message, which I will link to at the foot of this Comment.
Some things of note from that Message are the following:
SGG is Synthetic Greenhouse Gas, gases also now falling under the umbrella of this new Tax.
This indicates that the cost will be increasing each year.
In the second part of the message, (Recommendations) it indicates a couple of things that are of particular note here, considering how some people have asked questions as to consumption of those gases, and their interchangeability:
Now, as you can see, while some smaller items of equipment may only use smaller amounts, then those larger fridges, freezers chillers etc use a lot of the gas.
This recommendation looks pretty straight forward until you realise that even medium sized Chillers are costed at many tens of thousands of dollars each, so while you may get improved efficiency over the years, there is a considerable pay back period for that new equipment.
Now why I have even bothered to ‘go there’ again after what has happened earlier, it relates directly to this Thread of Joanne’s.
This information, along with the power plant grid info, and the now published new price lists for also electricity, and gas providers are actual physical hard copy.
Now wait and see how many of these will be investigated, and how many of them will be fined those huge amounts.
If this information was not 100% accurate, and verified, there is no way these Companies would risk those fines.
So, when I see people pooh poohing recent price rises as having nothing to do with this CO2 Tax, or very little to do with it, I can indeed wryly smile to myself.
Some small time people may get investigated, but in the very much bigger picture, these people will have very carefully looked into this.
I wonder if Government Ministers have been as careful with some of the ‘spurious’ things they have just ‘put out there’ without having checked.
The following is the link to the AG Coombs message, and I’m certain that some here will look at this and point out something they ‘perceive’ as indicating this will all be of little effect, but those people will only be supporting a particular political following for doing so.
Link to AG Coombs Message
Tony.
00
Hi Tony,
I have a question. Let say the Coalition wins the next election and tries to end the ETS. The earliest they would be able to do so would be in late 2014, i.e. after the new Senate comes in in July.
My question is this. If this happens and electricity generators no longer need to buy carbon permits, while the price of electricity at the retail level go down in real terms?
I propose to you that this won’t happen. Ending the ETS may reduce the rate of increase to power prices, but it won’t actually make electricity cheaper for households.
Do you honestly think electricity will become cheaper at retail without the ETS?
00
As I have detailed at length in earlier comments with documented proof, not mine, but actually from those plants, the cost of generating electrical power has gone up by a range of $28 to $35 per MWH, and more, (as shown in that original image I linked to) due solely to the introduction of the Tax last Sunday, and from that, the providers have passed on in full that whole impact of this Tax to all electrical power consumers.
Let’s say that the Tax is actually repealed, then the cost of generating electricity actually becomes cheaper because now they do not have to add the price of those Credits.
Those prices now having gone down, then I am absolutely certain that the next step in power distribution, all those electrical power providing Companies (origin, etc etc) who have all published their new costs reflecting those new costs due solely to this new Tax will lower their prices, and if they don’t, I am absolutely certain that pressure will be placed on them to do exactly that.
They will be named and shamed like you would not believe.
So, yes, immediately (and let me emphasise that word immediately) this Tax is repealed, then the cost of generating power becomes at least 2.8 to 3.5 cents per KWH cheaper in this first year, keeping in mind it rises with each successive year as less Credits are given away, and the cost of those Credits rises, then so does the cost of electricity.
In much the same manner as this Government’s ‘Carbon Cops’ are attempting to find gouging due to the increase in costs because of this Tax, then the same will apply when the Tax is removed.
The same will apply for Natural Gas prices at the retail level, and also those other equivalent gases as well. The Carbon Credit cost will be removed, hence prices will fall, because after all, it’s not the big emitters who are paying for all this. It’s the end consumers. Those large emitting entities are just the middlemen.
It’s pretty obvious really, and I’m surprised that you, a Doctor, couldn’t work this out for yourself, and as this is axiomatic, it requires no further response from me.
Tony.
Also, you have based your date (2014) on when the new Senators take their seats. To actually do that, then you are obviously assuming that at that next election, the Liberals will have a large enough swing to take control of the Senate. I like that thought from you Doctor. Because, if they didn’t win, then any repeal would have to be accomplished with a DD, which would take even longer eh! But then, you knew that didn’t you?
00
Well this wasn’t my question. I am talking about RETAIL prices that households pay. Do you honestly think electricity prices in late 2014 will be cheaper than they are now assuming generators no longer have to buy carbon permits?
I accept that the cost of power will increase at a reduced rate, but this is different to saying that the price will be lower than it is now in dollar terms.
What an astonishing admission! Apparently you think it is wrong for the government to direct the ACCC to ensure there is no price gouging after the ETS has started, but you think it would be fine for the government to direct the ACCC to ensure there is no price gouging if/when the ETS is stopped!
That’s pretty hypocritical Tony.
I don’t think the Coalition will win a majority in the Senate at the next election Tony. I was just putting forward late 2014 as the earliest possible date for the ETS to be repealed if everything goes the Coalition’s way (big if).
I have long felt that mid 2015 is a more likely scenario, but that assumes the Coalition can win a D.D. election on the issue which most people would’ve moved on from by the middle of next year, let alone by 2014 or 2015.
By mid 2015 the ETS will shift to a floating price, and everyone will be completely bored of the issue.
In fact even if Abbott wins the election next year he will just squirm his way out of actually repealing the ETS, it will be too hard and expensive to do by then.
00
I’ll jump in here quickly only because I’m bored.
Smiths reply…
Warmists like Smith readily accept the term “Ocean Acidification” even though oceans will never ever be acidic. But when Tony says electricity prices will be lower if the CO2 tax is removed (rather than being precise and saying prices will be lower than they would otherwise be), Smith tries to pick him up on it and uses the word ‘hypocritical’ in the same response. Amazing.
Just because one predicts a future action of a government doesn’t necessarily mean one endorses it, but you knew that Smith, you’re a smart guy.
For instance, I predict that huggy kissy leftist pinko commos will squeel like stuck pigs (think “Deliverance” type squeeling) every time a future Abbott government removes one of the entitlements of the millions who exist on government largess.
I will enjoy watching the squeeling, but that doesn’t mean I endorse the “fat camper in the bayou” treatment of the said huggy kissy leftist pinko commos.
Newsflash Sherlock, people NEVER move on from taxation issues. You obviously don’t get out much. What do you do Smith, sit at home blogging and watching DVDs all day?
00
Tony, I might even hazard a guess and say that new electrical retail firms would be created with cheaper power and therefore adding to the competition and thus leading to lower electricity costs..That’s what I like about free markets !!
00
The wholesale price made a step change from an average below $30 to a little over $70 in Tasmania. That will be a 4 cent per kWH at the consumer’s meter. (Assuming the average for last week remains permanent).
00
A 134% increase in electricity price in Tasmania? Don’t worry, I’m sure Bob Brown will be adequately compensated.
00
Of course it will go down when the tax is removed.
And as for not being able to remove before 2014, you’re assuming what’s left of Labor will fight it in the Senate instead of dumping the carbon tax / ETS policy like a dead dog on day 1 following the election slaughter.
When the coalition is given a 100 seat majority in the parliament, and picks up a couple of senate seats to boot, and Gillard resigns at 8 am the morning following the election, do you really, honestly think the incoming new Labor leader is going to ignore the mandate given to rid Australia of ‘carbon pricing’ (sic)
This BS about the Carbon Tax not being able to be removed is like someone pretending that Workchoices could not be removed. It could, and it was, and the coalition barely said anything because they dumped it as policy.
Make no mistake, after the next election, whether it’s in 2 months or 12 months, carbon dioxide pricing will no longer be official Labor party policy. If anyone is going to pretend that isn’t the case, they haven’t been paying attention.
00
So you seriously think that without the ETS, electricity will be cheaper in mid 2014 than it is now?
I think you are dreaming. Ending the ETS would reduce the rate of electricity price increases, but it won’t actually reduce the price to a figure that is lower than it is now.
This is very unlikely because Labor knows that ending the ETS will blow the budget. The legislation to repeal the ETS will be sent off to every Senate committee you care to name. In fact Labor and the Greens will probably make up a few new Senate committees to slow the whole process down.
Well I can assure you that the PM won’t resign 8 AM on the morning following the election because the election results won’t be finalised by then! And anyway, I doubt the PM at the next election will be Gillard.
Well WorkChoices didn’t involve selling carbon pollution permits to businesses that became their property under the constitution, so your analogy doesn’t make any sense.
What a load of bullshit. Pricing carbon pollution has been labor policy since about 2006 and it was Coalition policy from 2006 to very late 2009 and will be Coalition policy again after Tony Abbott is dumped as leader.
Tony Abbott will be the last Liberal leader to oppose pricing carbon pollution. If anyone is going to pretend that isn’t the case, they havent’ been paying attention.
00
No, you’re the one speaking BS.
Labor is about to be electorally punished in a way not seen for decades, if ever.
They already dumped the ETS once as a policy, and then ruled out a carbon tax before the last election, and you think somehow you’re going to get bipartisan support for a carbon tax and ETS after Labor gets smashed at the next election, precisely on this very issue?
Wow, that really is having your head in the sand and being in denial.
Just because Labor has had this stinker of a policy since 2006, somehow they’re going to keep it after it is largely responsible for a historical electoral smashing? They’re not brainless idealogues like the Greens, they’ll dump the policy just as they have been trying to do for years. They know there is no votes in it. They can read the polls that says 66% of Australians don’t want the stupid pointless and costly policy (whether tax or ETS). No political party with a future is stupid enough to stick to a policy that nobody wants.
The Liberals dumped the ETS policy not because Tony Abbott told them to, but because the Wet Liberals who hanker for an ETS don’t have the numbers in the party to get it up. After a whole flood of new members at the next election, many of whom will be able to thank the ‘no carbon tax’ policy for their seats, you think somehow they are going to turn around and somehow agitate FOR a carbon tax? Tony Abbot is safe as houses in the leadership role, after the last election he was elected unopposed, has the party at a very high 2PP vote and matches the sitting PM on satisfaction ratings. He’s not going anywhere. And he can place much of his current popularity on dumping carbon pricing as a Liberal party policy.
Just as there is bipartisan support for not having Workchoices, there will be iron clad bipartisan support for a carbon price of ZERO after the next election. Anyone who thinks this isn’t going to be the case is living in dreamland (or more precisely, 2006). The only party that will have a Carbon Tax as a policy in 2014 will be the Greens. The Liberals will still run around saying ‘carbon tax’, ‘carbon tax’ right up until the 2016 election, making sure everyone remembers what Labor did, just like any Labor pollie shouts ‘workchoices’ any moment they can get.
Carbon Taxing in Australia is doomed unless Labor wins the next election. And seeing as they have a minute (and shrinking) chance of doing that, Carbon Taxing is as good as gone. The election will be decided by about 8:30 PM when it’s clear Labor has lost all of it’s seats in Queensland, and probably WA, and from that point they’re finished even if they hold everywhere else in Australia.
Gillard will call a press conference at first light and resign, just like Anna Bligh did. That’s because they can scuttle out quickly and get away with a higher pension.
00
costs have been rising steadily and considerably for some time because of CAGW policies. however, businesses are being forced to single out one aspect only – the carbon (dioxide) tax. in a sense, Deane Priest is australia’s first CAGW martyr!
btw, still not a mention in the MSM that i know of which mentions anything about 10% or whatever of the revenue from the CO2 tax that will allegedly go to the UN for the fake fund which would pretend to help poorer countries. unsurprisingly no-one’s been rushing to give the UN the funding it craves…for itself, no doubt:
5 July: Reuters: Reporting by Michelle Nichols; Editing by Vicki Allen: UN urges countries to impose global taxes to boost aid
The United Nations on Thursday urged countries to impose international taxes to raise more than $400 billion a year, such as a carbon tax, a currency transaction tax and a billionaires tax, to offset cutbacks in aid by many countries amid global economic turmoil.
The U.N. World Economic and Social Survey found the needs of developing countries were not being met, more money was needed to fight challenges like climate change and new taxes would help “donor countries overcome their record of broken promises.”
The United Nations has no authority or mechanisms to enforce an international tax and can only urge its 193 members to do so…
http://in.reuters.com/article/2012/07/05/entertainment-us-global-tax-un-idINBRE8640XP20120705
00
If I could, I would like to offer a small correction. Ten percent of the funds stolen by the government through this illegitimate mechanism is promised to the UN not for “aiding the poorer countries”. Not by a long shot. Ten percent of 77 million per WEEK is 7.7 million handed over TO HELP TEH UN FOSTER THE FALSEHOODS AND LIES ABOUT CLIMATE CHANGE, AND TO BUILD A FUND FOR FOSTERING WORLD GOVERNMENT. Please view question period.
at youtube.com/watch?v=rtTpjcYDEYY
Can someone explain why it “link” doesn’t work for me?
00
Here’s a thought.
Surely a notice to customers that says “Part of our price increases are due to the carbon tax we were promised would never happen” couldn’t be in breach of the law?
A slightly different tack: Someone somewhere pointed out – and I am stunned by the brilliant simplicity of this – that if Abbott finds the legislation to repeal the tax too difficult, it would be easy just to reset the rate to 0%.
00
No Level, clearly a zero setting for the carbon (dioxide) tax wouldn’t work. As you no doubt recall from the Y2K bug, an additional inconvenient zero would cause plague and pestilence on a biblical scale.
00
Ah, Bob
I appreciate your concern and wisdom. Every problem has multiple solutions… We could set it at 0.00001% then defer the ETS, and defer it, and defer it and defer it…
Turnbull, for one, would lose his shirt.
00
Well it is a pretty risky strategy politicising your businesses.
But there would be nothing wrong with a business increasing the price of their goods by a couple of cents per dollar as a result of the ETS.
Well, of course the fact there aren’t one and two cent pieces could be an issue.
00
“well it is a pretty risky strategy politicising your businesses” Threats now? That’s in character, anyway.
“fact there aren’t one and two cent pieces could be an issue” What a load of garbage.
00
Yes,Smith you’re so right again!! This will become a HUGE issue for businesses (and people) to have to deal with… if it wasn’t for the fact that since 1 and 2 cent coins were phased out in the 90s, yet you can still walk into any store anywhere in the country and STILL find items priced at ‘$X.99’.
Yep… a HUGE issue. *rolleyes*
00
It seems the voting buttons are broken?
Meanwhile, Jaymez at #1 gets a thumbs up from me..
00
Thumbs have been broken for some time Dave (as has been noted by Jo and the mod team several times in previous topics).
The techpeople are aware and working on a solution.
(PS: Jo, perhaps a banner announcement at the top of the page stating that the thumbs feature is not working currently might reduce the number of ‘oh hai, the thumbs arent working’ posts?)
00
i meant to add to my last post that i commented a few weeks ago about my own bakery (brumbys franchisees) giving up after losing money for many months. lovely people, but they had fewer & fewer customers who had money for specialty baked goods, mainly because the customers were already paying higher prices for electricity due to CAGW renewable energy targets & high solar tariffs, and much higher water bills because of CAGW policies regarding water.
my franchisees were a husband and wife team and the husband baker has now got a fork lift and truck licences, and is looking for work in other industries.
bullying our entrepreneurs is going to end very badly.
00
What you say is important, Pat. The Carbon Tax is part of a package of mismanagement by people who would faint if they had to turn a real profit for a single month in any productive venture. The problem is not a projected percentage but the bounce backs and ripple effects.
Both the government and its “intellectual” boosters seem to really feel that spin is enough. One amazing specimen of spin is the defense that “the sky hasn’t fallen in yet”. Presumably one should wait for the absolute worst, then say “whoops”?
In country towns like mine, stats and spin have never hidden the sight of bungled school buildings and disintegrating batts blowing about the streets like tumbleweeds in an old western movie.
Shops are closing, jobs super-scarce, like they haven’t been since the Keating years. No doubt there are statistics to prove otherwise, but our tradies are emigrating from the region, while only a few years ago you had to chase them and book well ahead. This is nothing exotic. It’s just another crummy leftist government running out of other people’s money. Australia will be okay. It just needs a mediocre-to-bad conservative government, preferably one that stops placating Turnbull and the doctors’ wives once in power.
Cue the spin, guys, but…we’re not listening!
00
Well the richest guy in parliament is Malcolm Turnbull who supports a price on carbon, so your post doesn’t make sense.
The richest Labor MP is probably Peter Garrett (because of all the music royalties), or Kevin Rudd (if you count his wife’s business interests), and they too support an ETS.
So it seems your analysis is completely backwards. The wealthiest MPs are more, not less, likely to support an ETS.
00
Another point worth making, as well as the fact that these people – and their boosters! – would faint if required to be truly productive, is the pointy nature of the Carbon Tax. The GST was broad, pervasive and based on what was super-abundant in modern times: mass consumption of goods and services. Its introduction was a remarkable political achievement.
The carbon dioxide tax targets the most essential Australian products: our raw energy resources,when the energy is generated within Australia. That’s why it stinks so bad. Then there is the fact that it could evolve into an ETS – a price on a fraction of thin air, to be juggled and fiddled by all those “productive” scoundrels we neglected to lock up after ’08.
Of course, our decrepit coal facilities will chug and sputter along, wasting precious coal, while more than 70% of our massive coal production is hauled offshore to be incinerated (though less wastefully than here). Our uranium will be in the ground or on boats while we wait for the invisible pixie hand of the elfin market to create nukes by mysterious osmosis. The enormous regrowth of the Australian bush during this wet phase will be CO2 again when the dry westerlies come whistling over the divide in the next droughty phase. (I know, I know, impolite subject.)
Meanwhile, some money will have changed hands, some spin will have been spun. Which is what it’s all been about. No wonder an environmentalist is a banker’s favourite vegetable.
00
This is completely hilarious considering the whole idea [snip! time to reel you in Adam Smith. Not everything you disagree with is “hilarious”. Stop being pompous and rude or the snipping WILL get worse and quickly.] ED
00
“The GST was broad, pervasive and based on what was super-abundant in modern times: mass consumption of goods and services. Its introduction was a remarkable political achievement”
I just thought I’d re-post my own paragraph without pointless appendages and irrelevant responses.
00
Of course you forgot to mention the other reason Turnbull supports an ETS, didn’t you Smith.
The fact that he has links to a major investment banking company (Goldman-Sachs), as do many of the other non-government supporters both here and overseas (how many banks are big supporters of an ETS again? Most of them?), who stands to make a motza profit in the trading of ‘carbon permits’ has nothing at all do with it, does it Smith?
00
I am aware of one manufacturer in a specialist field of products with high electricity production requirement sold globally to military and para-military sources that packed up and left Australia earlier this year in anticipation of the carbon tax, and after research finding that considerably lower operating costs were available elsewhere. Did you know that skilled workers here cost around $600 a day (all costs included not just wage), US equivalent around $400 a day and in countries like India less than $200 a day? Australia will lose many more jobs and revenue sources because of the loss of competitive edge in a global economy. The decline in prosperity will be over time, including the gradual loss of new mining ventures as our competitors attract the substantial foreign investment needed to develop new projects. Let’s hope this really is the lucky country and that our luck is not being erroded by foolish socialist economic vandals.
00
So it has finally come to this!!!!!!!!!!
One cannot even tell THE TRUTH anymore.
The Carbon Tax [not price] will increase their costs. It’s simple arithmetic.
When will we be able sack this Marxist mob in Canberra & return our country to some degree of of normality.
00
Short answer – never – as long as the preferred option is to throw out the current Marxist mob, and replace them with the “other” Marxist mob.
Current, written, official Liberal Party Environment Policy supports an ETS with a floor price of $15.00 a tonne, EXACTLY as proposed by the current “Marxist mob”, and a target of 20% “renewable energy” (RET) by 2020 – EXACTLY the same as proposed by the current “Marxist” mob.
.
Rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic is unlikely to have much effect on the outcome.
00
Actually, Lenin had some pretty unfriendly things to say about the ALP.
Calling them Marxist just demonstrates that you don’t know anything about Marxism or contemporary Australian politics.
[And not answering why demonstrates that you don’t really know anything either] ED
00
Jo,
I have half a billion cyber dollars stored in my computer. The worth is only a few bites of memory.
I better not let the government find out or they may charge me REAL monetary taxes on it!!!
Yikes, where will I hide it?
00
Shh or they will bite you.
00
This interview with Peter Costello was published in The Weekend Australian, Cut & Paste: Peter Costello coy on his encounter in Berlin with Green and former German foreign minister Joschka Fischer in The Spectator Australia.
His robust defence of the West is music to my ears, but unlike anything I have heard an Asutralian Green say. I asked him his opinion of the Australian Greens. I cannot repeat his reply but it made me realise that our indigenous Greens are not only extreme by Australian standards. They are at the outer reaches of international Greenism as well.
00
[…] A memo was written (I don’t focus on the leak of the memo – the fact that it was written, that the concept was shared, is the beginning of the end), suggesting: “We are doing an RRP (recommended retail price) review at present which is projected to be in line with CPI (consumer price index), but take an opportunity to make some moves in June and July, let the carbon tax take the blame, after all your costs will be going up due to it,” Mr Priest wrote.” (West Australian, as reproduced by Jo Nova) […]
00
That person should not of lost his job, PM should lose her job ASAP. Perhaps person could of been cautioned.
If the Brumbys employee could find out who the carbon traders are and bill them for this fraudulent tax they are supporting and hope to profit from at the expense of people like him and Australian economy.
He or she could get some justice.
00