Andrew Bolt

Remove this Banner Ad

The debt is perfectly serviceable though, so who cares? It's not a household budget, it's a nation's economy.

We have relatively very low levels of debt and a AAA credit rating. The money is being spent on vital infrastructure projects that pump money back into the economy anyway. Despite really difficult conditions over the past half a decade, whoever wins the election will be in charge of an economy that is in pretty good shape.
 
El_Scorcho said:
The debt is perfectly serviceable though, so who cares? It's not a household budget, it's a nation's economy.

We have relatively very low levels of debt and a AAA credit rating. The money is being spent on vital infrastructure projects that pump money back into the economy anyway. Despite really difficult conditions over the past half a decade, whoever wins the election will be in charge of an economy that is in pretty good shape.
Click to expand...

vital infrastructure projects hey? I can't think of any? Most of it has been pissed away on nothing.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The NBN for one, but there are loads.

In what way is money being pissed away?

In what way do we have a debt crisis when our debt as a percentage of GDP is the lowest in the western world?
 
Where did I say we have a debt crisis? We are heading towards one, it has to be paid back sometime and we only have a small population to do it with, what the rest of the world does I don't really care.

The NBN lol, if you think the NBN will bring a return you are delusional. I'm still not sure what sort of economy wide game changer people expect once its finished but providing businesses with the same speed internet they could already get in Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide Perth etc is not really going to do much. I'm not sure what else all the money has gone on that will bring a return in the future, I can't think of anything off the top of my head but failed projects and gigantic waste.
 
StrappingTape said:
We are taxed highly, treasury is hardly independent or reliable since they were politicised. What I mean they've only missed their projections by BILLIONS the last 6 years. If they are going to do comparison using averages is not telling the full story, include superannuation and other personal taxes in and we'd be well over the OECD average. .
Click to expand...
This is simply not true.

Australia is not a highly taxed country by world standards.

The Treasury GDP figures are historical data based on actual tax receipts, not speculative future projections.

Do you have any evidence to support your assertion that Treasury is not independent?

If you think Treasury has been politicised, who would you say was responsible for that? Is Godwin Grech an example of the politicisation of Treasury?

Finally, superannuation is not a tax, it is a trade off for higher wages, which have been kept lower over the past 30 years, during which the growth in GDP and national wealth has accrued predominantly to capital (ie profits) rather than labour (ie wages).
 
I'm talking about personal income tax rates where a lot of the time in comparisons the tax we pay on super is not included, we have many hidden taxes on personal income in Australia so when you actually look at the complete total we are well above the OECD average.

Treasury is politicised, Ken Henry was spruiking things for the Labor government and only got shitty when they screwed him. They got involved in the last election campaign attacking coalition policies that they weren't even asked to cost etc and lets face it, their performance has been appalling.
 
StrappingTape said:
Where did I say we have a debt crisis? We are heading towards one, it has to be paid back sometime and we only have a small population to do it with, what the rest of the world does I don't really care.

The NBN lol, if you think the NBN will bring a return you are delusional. I'm still not sure what sort of economy wide game changer people expect once its finished but providing businesses with the same speed internet they could already get in Brisbane, Sydney, Adelaide Perth etc is not really going to do much. I'm not sure what else all the money has gone on that will bring a return in the future, I can't think of anything off the top of my head but failed projects and gigantic waste.
Click to expand...

One way it would make money is allowing people to live further away from the city. I personally wouldn't be able to move to some suburbs because of slow internet speeds, and whether a business has high internet speeds doesn't matter if their employees or customers don't. Either way the NBN is far and away better than what the liberals proposed (even if they won't do what they proposed).

As far as your second post goes, there are a tonne of ways to get tax returned in this country.
 
Lurk3r said:
One way it would make money is allowing people to live further away from the city. I personally wouldn't be able to move to some suburbs because of slow internet speeds, and whether a business has high internet speeds doesn't matter if their employees or customers don't. Either way the NBN is far and away better than what the liberals proposed (even if they won't do what they proposed).

As far as your second post goes, there are a tonne of ways to get tax returned in this country.
Click to expand...


There's also a ton of taxes you pay on everything.

Yes being able to work from home for a tiny amount of the population after they get the NBN is a real game changer... I take it you have no idea about how the liberals one works either, one guarantees a minimum speed of 13mbps and one 25mbps and a s**t load less of the coast.
 
The NBN will be cheaper than the coalition plan in the long term because of maintenance costs, and you are very ridiculously underestimating the advantages it will bring.

And we are not heading toward a debt crisis. We have a super low debt as a percentage of GDP and a AAA credit rating. It's simply not a problem for Australia. We have the most manageable public debt in the developed world
 
StrappingTape said:
There's also a ton of taxes you pay on everything.

Yes being able to work from home for a tiny amount of the population after they get the NBN is a real game changer... I take it you have no idea about how the liberals one works either, one guarantees a minimum speed of 13mbps and one 25mbps and a s**t load less of the coast.
Click to expand...

I've looked into it before, and as computer scientist I'd hope I'd know which is better. I also know someone who was involved in installing the network who confirmed exactly what I thought it would be. Instead of having the bottle neck be the fibre optic cables between hubs, the coalition are leaving it between the hub and houses.

This scenario is fine if you have 40000 houses connected to that single hub, as the speed will be roughly the same anyway, however if you don't then you will getting far, far lower speeds than from the optic fibre. Believe me the difference is enourmous. Looking at the numbers from this site. http://www.thefoa.org/tech/fo-or-cu.htm it says copper cables can achieve 1.5Mbs which is around 200 megaBytes per second. Compared with 2.5 gbps or roughly 300 megabytes per second.

I think both are capable of much higher speeds with copper around 100mbps which may improve in the future, compared with well over 1tpbs (1000 gbps, or 1,000,000 mbps) for the fibre optic cable, which may also increase in the future. I'm not certain about this though.

Anyway the point is that if you do not have a *lot* of people using it, then the bottleneck of your hub-to-hub cables shouldn't be that important, whereas if you have a lot of people on the same hub it may divide up the fibreoptic cables bandwidth enough to reach the low speeds of copper anyway. This is why you see ridiculous arguments such as yours above, when in fact the speed would be a thousand times faster in some cases, and never lower with NBN.

I'm not positive of the exact details of most of this, so if anyone has the actual numbers feel free to post them.

To me the comparison is simple, one is a better short term approach (but not much better) and the other is the far superior long term approach. I would go as far as saying the entire coalition approach is a lie, because it really doesn't add a whole lot given that you would have the same speeds from your house to the hub as we have now.
 
Can a person in your situation(the minority that may actually use the bandwidth available from connecting fibre to your home) pay to have your residence connected (by fibre optic cable) to the coalition's network?
 
power09 said:
Can a person in your situation(the minority that may actually use the bandwidth available from connecting fibre to your home) pay to have your residence connected (by fibre optic cable) to the coalition's network?
Click to expand...

I don't believe it would be the minority. It would also vary depending on the time of day.

Either way I don't know, sorry. Could be either yes or no.
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

I pay more taxes here in Ontario than I paid in Australia.

An $80k salary in Australia you get taxed at 21.9%. Here in Ontario it's 22.8% (split between federal and provincial taxes). Then our HST is 13%. Ontario is also one of the lowest taxed provinces in Canada. Australians most definitely aren't over-taxed.
 
Lurk3r said:
I don't believe it would be the minority. It would also vary depending on the time of day.

Either way I don't know, sorry. Could be either yes or no.
Click to expand...

A) Are you actually a computer scientist or still getting there because that big post doesn't seem to show it.

B) Yes the coalition's cheaper because if you want it you can pay the connection fee to get the fibre to your house.

C) El Scorcho, you should check out what it costs to do maintenance on some of the hardware in the NBN, the yearly cost to run it would probably blow your mind.

D) I still think both are the wrong move anyway, everything is moving towards wireless and it's very young in comparison. If we look at the technology it's increasing rapidly already.

E) Not sure what this has to do with Andrew Bolt...
 
C) Long term the NBN will be cheaper because maintaining the fibre is a lot cheaper than replacing an already well past it's used by date copper network as it wears out.

http://www.theage.com.au/it-pro/gov...ly-upgrading-experts-warn-20130410-2hkah.html

D) Wireless is great but it can never be as fast or as reliable as a physical connection. Wireless is just another bottleneck that we're trying to get rid of with the NBN.

E) I could have a stab at Bolt's latest piece where he is still whining about not being allowed to be publicly racist but it's been done to death.
 
The cost of maintenance isn't in the cables for the NBN it's the other stuff.

Never say never with wireless, it's consumers who'll drive the future of how we access the internet and that's all moving wireless. Wired connections to people's homes in the future will be a thing of a past for a lot of people.

There's nothing "racist" about what he wants to discuss and he should be able to but can't anymore in this country, the way he goes about it with a sledgehammer isn't the best for sure though.
 
StrappingTape said:
A) Are you actually a computer scientist or still getting there because that big post doesn't seem to show it.

B) Yes the coalition's cheaper because if you want it and you have too much money you can pay the connection fee to get the fibre to your house.

C) El Scorcho, you should check out what it costs to do maintenance on some of the hardware in the NBN, the yearly cost to run it would probably blow your mind.

D) I still think both are the wrong move anyway, everything is moving towards wireless and it's very young in comparison. If we look at the technology it's increasing rapidly already.

E) Not sure what this has to do with Andrew Bolt...
Click to expand...

A) Really? So you pull out a complete piece of bullshit saying that the speeds will jump from 16 to 23 mbps, and may have in fact implied that the coalition approach would achieve fasters. I explain that Fibre Optic cables are well over one thousand times faster than Copper cables, and your response is "you are a bad computer scientist".
Can you perhaps explain this one, I also might ask what you think a good computer scientist even does, and why.

B) FTFY, and I personally don't believe you should have to pay for the infrastructure in your local area to be equal to that of wealthier/more important areas. "If you want clean pipes delivering your water you can pay to have them installed to your home". If one area gets it, every area should get it.

C) This is just a lie. It doesn't take much research to prove that, but I suppose if you research enough in one direction you can prove your lie to yourself.

D) Wireless is not even close to the speed of cables at present particularly when you account for ping (the time it takes for a packet to be sent, received, and returned) , and the amount of wireless boosters/routers it would take to get something from my house to whatever cable runs to the US would be insane. Wireless is also ridiculously inconsistent in performance.

E) Your spouting of mistruths as though you are the expert because of very biased research on the internet is strikingly similar to your mate Andrew Bolt. Either way we are in the BDC AKA the deadzone I don't really think anyone should be complaining if we go off-topic.

I'm genuinely sorry if I sound like a complete dick right here, but I don't generally take kindly to being insulted for no reason.
 
It's not the amount of tax that you pay that matters. It is the competence with which it is managed that is more important. There is an argument that the more money a Government has the more it wastes.
 
Lurk3r said:
A) Really? So you pull out a complete piece of bullshit saying that the speeds will jump from 16 to 23 mbps, and may have in fact implied that the coalition approach would achieve fasters. I explain that Fibre Optic cables are well over one thousand times faster than Copper cables, and your response is "you are a bad computer scientist".
Can you perhaps explain this one, I also might ask what you think a good computer scientist even does, and why.
Click to expand...

I have no idea what you are on about with 16 to 23mbps? The Coalition WILL give a higher minimum speed standard, 25mbps vs 13mbps on the Labor plan, whats the 16 and 23 about? I am a computer scientist hence when I read your explanation I was a bit baffled.

Lurk3r said:
B) FTFY, and I personally don't believe you should have to pay for the infrastructure in your local area to be equal to that of wealthier/more important areas. "If you want clean pipes delivering your water you can pay to have them installed to your home". If one area gets it, every area should get it.
Click to expand...

But no one would get it, whoever wants it would pay for it. It's nothing to do with rich vs poor, going by your logic I assume you are fervently against the solar panel schemes and such as well?

Lurk3r said:
C) This is just a lie. It doesn't take much research to prove that, but I suppose if you research enough in one direction you can prove your lie to yourself.
Click to expand...

You are talking about cable upkeep, I'm talking about the complete network upkeep, we are talking about different things.

Lurk3r said:
D) Wireless is not even close to the speed of cables at present particularly when you account for ping (the time it takes for a packet to be sent, received, and returned) , and the amount of wireless boosters/routers it would take to get something from my house to whatever cable runs to the US would be insane. Wireless is also ridiculously inconsistent in performance.
Click to expand...

Yes, right now it's not but we are talking about building infrastructure for the future. One needs to only look at consumer trends now which are the people who will drive how we access the internet in the future and they are all towards wireless devices running on their own connections (tablets, smart phones etc) without a home connection. A lot of my non technical friends now have tablets for their home internet, they don't have PC's or a home internet connection. Wireless technology is only in it's infancy and only a simpleton would put a limit on it's possibilities, as we know from the past with anything to do with technology what appears like a insurmountable problem one day will be solved the next. You can bang on all about your cabling but in the future it's not that hard to see how a broadband network would backend the wireless AP's that everyone is using to access from home.

Lurk3r said:
E) Your spouting of mistruths as though you are the expert because of very biased research on the internet is strikingly similar to your mate Andrew Bolt. Either way we are in the BDC AKA the deadzone I don't really think anyone should be complaining if we go off-topic.
Click to expand...

I'm not sprouting mistruths and either was he as was the argument of this thread at the start.

Lurk3r said:
I'm genuinely sorry if I sound like a complete dick right here, but I don't generally take kindly to being insulted for no reason.
Click to expand...

Megabits, Megabytes
 
StrappingTape said:
I have no idea what you are on about with 16 to 23mbps? The Coalition WILL give a higher minimum speed standard, 25mbps vs 13mbps on the Labor plan, whats the 16 and 23 about? I am a computer scientist hence when I read your explanation I was a bit baffled.
Click to expand...
Firstly, thank you for not insulting me :)

by 23/16 i was misremembering your numbers of 25 vs 13. And lets be fair then, cable speeds have little to nothing to do with Computer Science, it just means I work with computers so I know what the numbers mean. Where is the information that says this, becuase it sounds very untrue. Perhaps it is a comparison of the worst off areas? Because I'd hope you know as well as I do how incredibly fast fibre-optic cables are in comparison with copper. Unless there is some terrible incompetence (which will happen under either government, lets be honest :p) happening somewhere the speeds should by default be better under the labor scheme.


But no one would get it, whoever wants it would pay for it. It's nothing to do with rich vs poor, going by your logic I assume you are fervently against the solar panel schemes and such as well?
Click to expand...
I have no problem with solar panel schemes. What I'm talking about are things like roads, or public transport, things that everyone uses.


You are talking about cable upkeep, I'm talking about the complete network upkeep, we are talking about different things.
Click to expand...
I'm afraid I simply do not believe that these costs you speak of will be associated only with the labor scheme, and not with the coalition scheme. What exactly do you mean by "complete network upkeep"? The difference in maintenece costs will be incredible as stated pretty much everywhere.

Yes, right now it's not but we are talking about building infrastructure for the future. One needs to only look at consumer trends now which are the people who will drive how we access the internet in the future and they are all towards wireless devices running on their own connections (tablets, smart phones etc) without a home connection. A lot of my non technical friends now have tablets for their home internet, they don't have PC's or a home internet connection. Wireless technology is only in it's infancy and only a simpleton would put a limit on it's possibilities, as we know from the past with anything to do with technology what appears like a insurmountable problem one day will be solved the next. You can bang on all about your cabling but in the future it's not that hard to see how a broadband network would backend the wireless AP's that everyone is using to access from home.
Click to expand...
I don't believe wireless will ever match the speeds of fibre optic cable. Especially not with the same reliability.

I could easily be wrong, but even if I am we can't exactly wait 20 years or more (yes it could be 5) until the technology exists.


I'm not sprouting mistruths and either was he as was the argument of this thread at the start.
Click to expand...
I strongly believe your statement about maintenence/ongoing costs is a mistruth, if I am wrong I will take it back. Andrew Bolt has an extreme opinion, and I believe all extreme opinions are filled with mistruths bent to match their opinion. If you don't agree that he bends the truth, I think you do so for the sake of doing so. Which I suppose is something I do quite often, so I won't hold it against you.


Megabits, Megabytes
Click to expand...
Mbps, MBps or Megabytes xD Don't worry I know how bits work... too well.
 
At the end of the day Lurk3r I should make it clear as being a computer nerd either way I'll be getting fibre to my house so I can have 100mbps, I just don't agree with the way Labor is doing it and the costs involved. If there were going to be the huge economical advantages they claim then we would have seen a cost benefit analysis done but it wasn't because they know that it's not going to make that big a difference. Don't forget that all major businesses in Sydney, Adelaide, Melb, Perth could all access 100mbps internet before the NBN and nothing will change after for them so where is the increase going to be from? There'll still be the bottle necks in data leaving and coming to Australia, most people wont even notice as their webpage might load 1/3rd faster and will be wondering what the fuss was about.

When we are talking about spending nearly 100billion on a fibre network it is relevant to ask is this a gigantic pink elephant we are building here because in 20 years time will people even still use cabled internet? It's not looking likely.

Anyway so my point is whilst we disagree and I will argue til I'm blue in the face about this NBN stuff I don't really care that much because I'll be happy if the NBN finishes and happy if it goes the Coalition plan coz I'll just pay for the fibre to my house.
 
StrappingTape said:
Anyway so my point is whilst we disagree and I will argue til I'm blue in the face about this NBN stuff I don't really care that much because I'll be happy if the NBN finishes and happy if it goes the Coalition plan coz I'll just pay for the fibre to my house.
Click to expand...

And you will not be paying for people that don't need it, though taxes.

I don't believe wireless will ever match the speeds of fibre optic cable. Especially not with the same reliability.
Click to expand...
Yeah it definitely isn't as reliable. But it will be interesting to see which gets more utilized in the future. The OSI model was meant to be much better than TCP/IP but here we are.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Ford Fairlane
Vale Andrew Symonds
Replies
6
Views
1K
Festerz
Festerz

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top