The really scary thing is that the *blue* team should be falling all over themselves to support a Cap and Trade carbon trading system.
Why? Because of all the alternatives, this is the ultimate free market system - the one that is driven by their private enterprise based ideology and so-called market purity.
The principle is simple:
The cap is set in advance and the government will issue "permits to pollute" to a certain level of emmissions on behalf of the nation. This cap is designed to reduce over time - improving the emission performance of the nation.
As we have already seen there is an enormous amount of lobbying around the detail but eventually Penny and Kevin will get the mix and balance right - and issue the permits. Note to Penny - "Sooner is better".
Those who can't (or won't) change their carbon polluting habits will need to acquire new permits to pollute over time from those who have them - and pay the market price.
The market price is determined by the natural laws of "supply and demand" - so greater demand will naturally mean a higher price. This should be music to the *blues* ears - at least the rational ones.
And this "permit price" will need to be factored in to the cost of the "goods and services" on offer. So over time, the intent is that "carbon polluting products and services" will be more expensive than those that don't produce excessive carbon and therefore don't need to acquire permits.
According to the *blues* ideology - this is precisely how you would design and implement such a system.
But Kevin and Penny can't take all the credit - this is how the existing systems work and how an international system would work.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
Carbon - Lets just delay and deny
So with the single exception of Malcolm, the *blue* team started off by denying that there is a carbon problem and that sustained their opposition for a while.
But then it became painfully obvious even to the most one-eyed that there is a major carbon problem and that those in denial are increasingly seen as neanderthals - so they had to change tack.
And so their new approach is to deny that an "Emissions Trading Scheme" based on *Cap and Trade* is the best way to deal with the problem.
This ignores the fact that all existing schemes operate under Cap and Trade and there are compelling reasons why it has been selected.
There are a few schemes in place - the European Union has been operating since 2005 and New Zealand since 2008 while a number of individual States of the United States have schemes going back as far as 2003.
Lots of detail can be found here.
My sense of it is that the *blues* are really about delay - and when they get rolled on Cap and Trade then they will find something else to nit pick about - all designed to delay the introduction of any scheme or take any action.
Because that is really what this is all about - delay and deny as long as possible while their mates in the big polluting businesses continue to get a free ride.
Malcolm is the only one who wants do do something about it and now they want to get rid of him - numbnuts or smart-arses?
But then it became painfully obvious even to the most one-eyed that there is a major carbon problem and that those in denial are increasingly seen as neanderthals - so they had to change tack.
And so their new approach is to deny that an "Emissions Trading Scheme" based on *Cap and Trade* is the best way to deal with the problem.
This ignores the fact that all existing schemes operate under Cap and Trade and there are compelling reasons why it has been selected.
There are a few schemes in place - the European Union has been operating since 2005 and New Zealand since 2008 while a number of individual States of the United States have schemes going back as far as 2003.
Lots of detail can be found here.
My sense of it is that the *blues* are really about delay - and when they get rolled on Cap and Trade then they will find something else to nit pick about - all designed to delay the introduction of any scheme or take any action.
Because that is really what this is all about - delay and deny as long as possible while their mates in the big polluting businesses continue to get a free ride.
Malcolm is the only one who wants do do something about it and now they want to get rid of him - numbnuts or smart-arses?
Wednesday, October 7, 2009
Liberal Emissions
What is it with the *blue* team - and carbon emissions?
Just about every one of them speaks against an emission trading scheme and a large number of them actually don't believe that increasing carbon in the atmosphere is a problem - duh.
If you believe George Megalogenis (and i do) then you will understand what went on during the *glorious* Howard years - and this is what they are desperately trying to replicate - unaware that the game has changed.
One of the fantastic revelations George points to today is in Annabel Crabb’s Quarterly Essay on Malcolm Turnbull - is a previously unreported argument in the Liberal partyroom after the 2004 election.
Senator George Brandis, a moderate Queensland Liberal, asked Howard if the government seriously believed its public rhetoric that a hairdressing certificate was as a good as a PhD. As Crabb writes:
Brandis was heckled by some of his colleagues, who jeered that people with degrees weren’t as smart as they thought they were. "He was howled down, of course. It was frightening," recalls one (university-educated) MP who was present. "They were a mob by that stage. You couldn’t get up and say things like that. It was like the French Revolution." Howard himself, recalls another Liberal, made it clear where his sympathies lay. "He just gave out this big laugh, and said: Oh, George. At least you have more chance of making some money with a hairdressing degree."
It's just stunning that an Australian government, including Ministers and a Prime Minister can believe this crap.
It's why the tertiary sector was defunded and why science was treated with suspician by the ruling elite - it was simply a tragedy that will take decades to fix.
And this explains why such a high percentage of the *blues* are in some form of denial around climate change, increasing carbon in the atmosphere and an emissions trading scheme.
They simply don't understand the problem because they don't understand science - and this is a problem that requires a basic understanding of science.
Just about every one of them speaks against an emission trading scheme and a large number of them actually don't believe that increasing carbon in the atmosphere is a problem - duh.
If you believe George Megalogenis (and i do) then you will understand what went on during the *glorious* Howard years - and this is what they are desperately trying to replicate - unaware that the game has changed.
One of the fantastic revelations George points to today is in Annabel Crabb’s Quarterly Essay on Malcolm Turnbull - is a previously unreported argument in the Liberal partyroom after the 2004 election.
Senator George Brandis, a moderate Queensland Liberal, asked Howard if the government seriously believed its public rhetoric that a hairdressing certificate was as a good as a PhD. As Crabb writes:
Brandis was heckled by some of his colleagues, who jeered that people with degrees weren’t as smart as they thought they were. "He was howled down, of course. It was frightening," recalls one (university-educated) MP who was present. "They were a mob by that stage. You couldn’t get up and say things like that. It was like the French Revolution." Howard himself, recalls another Liberal, made it clear where his sympathies lay. "He just gave out this big laugh, and said: Oh, George. At least you have more chance of making some money with a hairdressing degree."
It's just stunning that an Australian government, including Ministers and a Prime Minister can believe this crap.
It's why the tertiary sector was defunded and why science was treated with suspician by the ruling elite - it was simply a tragedy that will take decades to fix.
And this explains why such a high percentage of the *blues* are in some form of denial around climate change, increasing carbon in the atmosphere and an emissions trading scheme.
They simply don't understand the problem because they don't understand science - and this is a problem that requires a basic understanding of science.
Monday, October 5, 2009
OK - all is revealed
So this new analysis by Possum reveals why the numbnuts are acting like the smart-arsed rabble they really are.
Unimagined and radical polling swings in Mayo, Grey, Boothby and Sturt would leave the Liberals with but one Federal seat in South Australia if an election were held anytime soon.
This would mean the demise of Jamie Briggs (Downer's replacement), Rowan Ramsay (never heard of him - but someone else's replacement), Andrew Southcott and Christoper Pyne (whose wife does most of his campaigning).
No wonder the Libs are alarmed and dangerous. They would be decimated.
I suppose this is why they are all over the shop and trying to play silly buggers with the ETS.
Under this scenario most of them won't be around long enough to have another emission.
Unimagined and radical polling swings in Mayo, Grey, Boothby and Sturt would leave the Liberals with but one Federal seat in South Australia if an election were held anytime soon.
This would mean the demise of Jamie Briggs (Downer's replacement), Rowan Ramsay (never heard of him - but someone else's replacement), Andrew Southcott and Christoper Pyne (whose wife does most of his campaigning).
No wonder the Libs are alarmed and dangerous. They would be decimated.
I suppose this is why they are all over the shop and trying to play silly buggers with the ETS.
Under this scenario most of them won't be around long enough to have another emission.
Saturday, October 3, 2009
Numbnut biscuits
There was a time - aeons ago now - when the Liberals had a smidgeon of credibility and were sometimes seen as a potentialy capable government.
That was when little Johnny was masquerading as leader ;-)
There were some players on the *blue* side of the house who even managed to regularly say a few smart words and demonstrate some level of credibility on a range of important topics.
Not any more - the numbnuts are now in charge at the funny farm.
Poor Malcolm must be cacking himself and wondering if he joined the right party.
Roswell and Wilsdom and Corbardi and the rest of the biscuits in the packet must give him and the smart Liberals nightmares.
If the party is incapable of controlling the dipsticks, the stupids and the opportunists then it has no chance of ever regaining the Treasury benches.
Thank goodness.
That was when little Johnny was masquerading as leader ;-)
There were some players on the *blue* side of the house who even managed to regularly say a few smart words and demonstrate some level of credibility on a range of important topics.
Not any more - the numbnuts are now in charge at the funny farm.
Poor Malcolm must be cacking himself and wondering if he joined the right party.
Roswell and Wilsdom and Corbardi and the rest of the biscuits in the packet must give him and the smart Liberals nightmares.
If the party is incapable of controlling the dipsticks, the stupids and the opportunists then it has no chance of ever regaining the Treasury benches.
Thank goodness.
Greed is still good then
According to the Productivity Commission there should be no direct interference with the setting of Executive pay - and lots of waffle around some new rules associated with the behaviour of corporations and directors and their boards - and blah blah blah.
You can read the draft report here. But really I wouldn't bother - it's just bureaucratic doublespeak.
The thing that I don't get is why.
Why is it that the administrative and clerical and technical and professional workers - those people who actually make the enterprise work - are constrained by awards and salary caps and limits and restrictions on what they can earn - but executive workers have no such constraints?
Why do employees below a certain class have *rules* associated with how much they can earn - but those above a certain class have no such rules?
Why is it that the *so called* executive class have the ability to take what they want - in terms of remuneration but the rest of us have to accept what is awarded by the industrial relations regime that determines what we can earn?
Why was there such a fuss about WorkChoices?
Why do Australian workers tolerate this inequality?
Why is there no revolution?
Why?
You can read the draft report here. But really I wouldn't bother - it's just bureaucratic doublespeak.
The thing that I don't get is why.
Why is it that the administrative and clerical and technical and professional workers - those people who actually make the enterprise work - are constrained by awards and salary caps and limits and restrictions on what they can earn - but executive workers have no such constraints?
Why do employees below a certain class have *rules* associated with how much they can earn - but those above a certain class have no such rules?
Why is it that the *so called* executive class have the ability to take what they want - in terms of remuneration but the rest of us have to accept what is awarded by the industrial relations regime that determines what we can earn?
Why was there such a fuss about WorkChoices?
Why do Australian workers tolerate this inequality?
Why is there no revolution?
Why?
Thursday, October 1, 2009
Will Incomes Double?
I suppose that It’s *almost* understandable that our government has continued to prime the real estate market with the "first home sellers grant" - driving prices up while the rest of the world went the other way.
They have had a few crises to deal with over the past two years which have distracted them from relatively *minor* issues like housing bubbles.
But now it appears that real recovery is underway so they will need to do something to stop the bubble inflating further.
As most knowledgeable analysts explain, It is simply not sustainable for house prices to remain where they are today - relative to the income and earning potential of Australians.
There are two options - either incomes will need to double or house prices will need to halve. I doubt that either scenario is possible.
A soft landing will mean that house prices will need to stagnate for a decade or more while incomes increase - to ensure that a more sustainable ratio between the two develops over time. This is the Japanese model as opposed to the US or UK model.
So how will they do it? Well there is only one way and that is to ensure that supply exceeds demand over an extended period - while making sure that the price of money remains at a more *normal* level.
So if the federal government and the RBA and the Treasury are serious about fixing this bubble then they will have to do a lot of work to get some greater level of control over the vested interests - including the state governments, the banks, the real estate industry, the media and the various hangers on who make short term gain at the expense of the rest of us.
Can they do it? I personally don’t think they can - because the electoral cycle isn’t long enough to allow the tough choices that need to be made.
So it does look like the vested interests are safe for the moment - they can keep feeding at the trough and inflating the bubble. When it bursts there will be a lot of sh*t hitting the fan - but hey who cares about tomorrow when we can milch the cow today.
They have had a few crises to deal with over the past two years which have distracted them from relatively *minor* issues like housing bubbles.
But now it appears that real recovery is underway so they will need to do something to stop the bubble inflating further.
As most knowledgeable analysts explain, It is simply not sustainable for house prices to remain where they are today - relative to the income and earning potential of Australians.
There are two options - either incomes will need to double or house prices will need to halve. I doubt that either scenario is possible.
A soft landing will mean that house prices will need to stagnate for a decade or more while incomes increase - to ensure that a more sustainable ratio between the two develops over time. This is the Japanese model as opposed to the US or UK model.
So how will they do it? Well there is only one way and that is to ensure that supply exceeds demand over an extended period - while making sure that the price of money remains at a more *normal* level.
So if the federal government and the RBA and the Treasury are serious about fixing this bubble then they will have to do a lot of work to get some greater level of control over the vested interests - including the state governments, the banks, the real estate industry, the media and the various hangers on who make short term gain at the expense of the rest of us.
Can they do it? I personally don’t think they can - because the electoral cycle isn’t long enough to allow the tough choices that need to be made.
So it does look like the vested interests are safe for the moment - they can keep feeding at the trough and inflating the bubble. When it bursts there will be a lot of sh*t hitting the fan - but hey who cares about tomorrow when we can milch the cow today.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
