Play Nice Random Chat Thread V

[koshari]

No, not if it runs contra to the wishes of the Australian government..

Even politics aside, surely we are not so far down the gurgler we have to sell off or long term or lease out assets that are so critical to our day to day operations. iam not sure if your trying to be smart here but iam completely dumbfounded by these moves, and the fact that Andrew (Robb by name robb by nature) Robb pops up as i highly paid "consultant" to this deal and pretty much crickets from the media is even more surprising.

in other countries he would be tried for treason.

 

[B4Bear]

You are incredibly simple.

Better to be simple than to be a fool.

Idiots like you would allow the Chinese to build our 5G network too.

Stick to your howling at the moon over women emasculating the male half of the population, at least it is mildly amusing.

 

[koshari]

Better to be simple than to be a fool.

Idiots like you would allow the Chinese to build our 5G network too.

Stick to your howling at the moon over women emasculating the male half of the population, at least it is mildly amusing.

i hadnt even realised that Singapore government has since onsold the controlling interest in the Grid to china as well.

In May 2013, Singapore Power sold 19.9% of its 51% stake in the company to State Grid Corporation of China for A$824 million

it really reads just like a bad dream. our government are literally asleep at the wheel. i remember years ago the outrage when conrad black wanted to buy a newspaper banner, and these days this crap flies.

 

[ferball]

It probably would have. Australia Post may only just have been saved by the actions of its current CEO and the previous one. Not that they've fought to save it though. Imo. Anyone need an indoor plant? A watch perhaps?

I think things would have been different if Gough hadn't been sacked. He was finding ways to escape the financial system people like Buckminster Fuller (look him if you don't know who I mean) criticised in books like Grunch of the Giants

We brought into Neo Liberalism after the ALP changed with the Hawke gov. Tef bamgs on about the ALP selling out the working class. IMO that started with Hawke and Keating's economic policies. If Whitlam hadn't been sacked there wouldn't have been the momentum for that change in the ALP.

We are talking about something that happened 45 years ago tho so it's a fairly moot point.

 

[ferball]

You don't think the Singapore government would have a say in how SP Ausnet is run, or the Chinese CPP a say in the Darwin ports operations?

AusNet - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Can the Darwin Port's 99-year lease to China be reversed?

Just over three years into a 99-year lease of Darwin Port, the $506 million paid to the NT Government has been spent. Many of you asked whether the decision could be reversed and what role — if any — was played by former federal trade minister Andrew Robb.

www.abc.net.au

How the **** does SP Ausnet still even exist after burning Kinglake and Marysville to the ground?

 

[ferball]

Mate that 5 hour gig, jeepers, was a Sunday night after playing footy, decided to just get there and have a couple before the show .... the Shepherds Bush Empire ..... snagged a beer, thought I could hear him already playing at about 7ish, poked my nose in then left at about 11:30 ..... even I had had about enough. Lol, probably wasn't 5 hours, but near enough.

Tell your grandkids. That is awesome.

 

[B4Bear]

How the fu** does SP Ausnet still even exist after burning Kinglake and Marysville to the ground?

You mean that corporate responsibility that they have so much more of than governments as explained in the Covid thread?

 

[ferball]

i hadnt even realised that Singapore government has since onsold the controlling interest in the Grid to china as well.


it really reads just like a bad dream. our government are literally asleep at the wheel. i remember years ago the outrage when conrad black wanted to buy a newspaper banner, and these days this crap flies.

If nothing else this is a form of tribute. Like in the old days when smaller nations went sucking up to big empires by giving them heaps of their best stuff for free.

We need nukes and a really ornery attitude or we will be screwed hard over the next 100 years as peak everything kicks in.

How would you feel about nearly all our best food going offshore?

Cos it's been happening in some industries for decades.

 

[ferball]

You mean that corporate responsibility that they have so much more of than governments as explained in the Covid thread?

It's a joke.

If that was a person responsible they would still be in prison.

People wonder why decisions like the security company one get made but this has been a cultural problem in business forever. (Anyone ever hear of asbestos?) Why would you expect the government to be accountable now when all we've heard for decades is government should be more like business.

It all goes back to the limiting of liability while corporations are viewed as people under the law. A corporation can't go to jail or be hit in the head with a cricket bat.

 

[Snake_Baker]

Even politics aside, surely we are not so far down the gurgler we have to sell off or long term or lease out assets that are so critical to our day to day operations. iam not sure if your trying to be smart here but iam completely dumbfounded by these moves, and the fact that Andrew (Robb by name robb by nature) Robb pops up as i highly paid "consultant" to this deal and pretty much crickets from the media is even more surprising.

in other countries he would be tried for treason.

Now you are referring to something different again, and I am in agreement with this.

However, you have to delve a lot deeper to gain an understanding of this, in order to reveal to your self that Australia is ruled by two political entities that do not put Australians first. The Liberal party are corporatists regardless of their national origins, and the ALP are internationalists.

The "commonwealth" is not for the common folk.

 

[koshari]

If nothing else this is a form of tribute. Like in the old days when smaller nations went sucking up to big empires by giving them heaps of their best stuff for free.

We need nukes and a really ornery attitude or we will be screwed hard over the next 100 years as peak everything kicks in.

How would you feel about nearly all our best food going offshore?

Cos it's been happening in some industries for decades.

As i said, pretty much completely bemused. At least all our best produce going overseas makes a minimal amount of sense, a market stall in its purest form operates this way as do we with our beef, simply no economic rationale for us to have one of our Angus steers processed for ourselves and freezing half a tonne of beef when they are fetching so much at market when we can simply turn out a Holtein steer which costs up near nothing comparatively for our own consumption. especially when they are both raised on the same fodder.

The perceived value of the Angus largely comes from a very successful marketing campaign. Thats not to say the quality isnt there, just nip in to squires loft and order a Gippsland certified Angus steak and the results speak for themselves. http://squiresloft.com.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/Squires-Loft-Menu-01-12-2017.pdf/

But sheesh i have never had a bad bit of meat of a nice little B&W either. and they would ( along with poll hereford, Lowline, MG, belted galoway or higlander) both run rings around the northern states Santa Gertrudis.

Several research studies have shown that the taste and tenderness of Holstein beef is at least equal to beef from Angus steers. Researchers from Cornell University found Holstein steers had 5.28 percent less meat yield compared to small-frame Angus steers at the same shrunk weight

Sidenote, iam tipping being a Cornell Uni Researcher would be a pretty plum gig.

 

[Themanbun]

My two cents on the issue are that people make disproportionate noise about Chinese companies buying strategic assets. I think that's because local magnates dislike foreign competition, so they fire up the media drums to take aim at their competition, rather than the heart of the issue.

I don't think we should be selling off key resources and infrastructure to any private company, let alone foreign ones.

If anyone thinks private companies have the national interest (yes, I am also aware that the same argument can be made for government) at heart, they're gravely mistaken. They march to one tune and one tune only - how to make money. Whether it's Gina or a company from overseas, or even a company based in China, I don't think we should be selling this stuff.

 

[koshari]

My two cents on the issue are that people make disproportionate noise about Chinese companies buying strategic assets. I think that's because local magnates dislike foreign competition.

I don't think we should be selling off key resources and infrastructure to any private company, let alone foreign ones.

If anyone thinks private companies have the national interest (yes, I am also aware that the same argument can be made for government) at heart, they're gravely mistaken. They march to one tune and one tune only - how to make money. Whether it's Gina or a company from overseas, or even a company based in China, I don't think we should be selling this stuff.

Precisely, even completely disregarding the soverign risk, the fact these assets are being snapped up is evidence enough that there is a buck to be made, and the profits come directly from our pockets.

 

[koshari]

Now you are referring to something different again, and I am in agreement with this.

However, you have to delve a lot deeper to gain an understanding of this, in order to reveal to your self that Australia is ruled by two political entities that do not put Australians first. The Liberal party are corporatists regardless of their national origins, and the ALP are internationalists.

The "commonwealth" is not for the common folk.

but you still maintain that the CCP wouldnt dare utilise their ownership of these assets to push their own agenda?

 

[LuvtheKangas]

My two cents on the issue are that people make disproportionate noise about Chinese companies buying strategic assets. I think that's because local magnates dislike foreign competition, so they fire up the media drums to take aim at their competition, rather than the heart of the issue.

I don't think we should be selling off key resources and infrastructure to any private company, let alone foreign ones.

If anyone thinks private companies have the national interest (yes, I am also aware that the same argument can be made for government) at heart, they're gravely mistaken. They march to one tune and one tune only - how to make money. Whether it's Gina or a company from overseas, or even a company based in China, I don't think we should be selling this stuff.

Much of the driver for privatisations worldwide, which commenced around the 1980s (give or take a decade depending upon country) is that governments no longer have the financial resources to construct and maintain very large pieces of infrastructure. The cost of building a new solar power plant, for example, is too great a drain on government cash.

From an efficiency viewpoint, it also makes sense that these assets are constructed and owned by the private sector. I know you and many others are very anti profit motive of big business, but left to governments, not being held to the return on investment criterion creates inefficiencies that cost the community significantly more.

It's a balancing act, but centralisation of utilities and infrastructure assets just doesn't work any more. The system does need to be safeguarded in terms of degree of foreign ownership, though. Another balancing act.

 

[Themanbun]

Much of the driver for privatisations worldwide, which commenced around the 1980s (give or take a decade depending upon country) is that governments no longer have the financial resources to construct and maintain very large pieces of infrastructure. The cost of building a new solar power plant, for example, is too great a drain on government cash.

From an efficiency viewpoint, it also makes sense that these assets are constructed and owned by the private sector. I know you and many others are very anti profit motive of big business, but left to governments, not being held to the return on investment criterion creates inefficiencies that cost the community significantly more.

It's a balancing act, but centralisation of utilities and infrastructure assets just doesn't work any more. The system does need to be safeguarded in terms of degree of foreign ownership, though. Another balancing act.

I disagree that it doesn't work anymore mate. Norway and China do just fine on that front. I also don't agree with artificially protecting 'Australian' (re: companies based in Australia, I don't think companies generally have a national identity) from foreign competition is efficient or facilitative of a free market, if that's the path we choose to go down.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I disagree that it doesn't work anymore mate. Norway and China do just fine on that front.

Norway has had significant oil wealth for a century or more and a small, relatively (geographically) centralised population who are subject to some of the world's highest tax rates, so can afford to be the exception that proves the rule. Thanks for providing it.

I assume you're taking the P by holding up China as a model to follow.

 

[Themanbun]

Norway has had significant oil wealth for a century or more and a small, relatively (geographically) centralised population, so can afford to be the exception that proves the rule. Thanks for providing it.

I assume you're taking the P by holding up China as a model to follow.

I don't think we can simultaneously call China this monolith taking over the world and acquiring everyone else's strategic assets, manufacturing, industry (they were virtually a feudal agricultural state not too long ago) and then pretend that they haven't done well to get to that point economically. Either they're successful to the point of being a global threat, or they're shit at managing their economy. I don't think we can choose both.

I'm not trying to take the P, I just think there are aspects that we can learn from. In particular, national shareholding in companies which own strategic interests.

While I understand how we go to that point, I don't think the book is closed on heterodox or even non-neoliberal economic theory. We've got a long life on this earth to play out yet

 

[LuvtheKangas]

I don't think we can simultaneously call China this monolith taking over the world and acquiring everyone else's strategic assets, manufacturing, industry (they were virtually a feudal agricultural state not too long ago) and then pretend that they haven't done well to get to that point economically. Either they're successful to the point of being a global threat, or they're sh*t at managing their economy. I don't think we can choose both.

LOL, straw man.

They manage their economy so well by exploiting their resources, in particular their vast human resources. Geez, given the way you always argue against evil corporations exploiting workers, it's the height of disingenuous to laud the CCP.

 

[Themanbun]

LOL, straw man.

They manage their economy so well by exploiting their resources, in particular their vast human resources. Geez, given the way you always argue against evil corporations exploiting workers, it's the height of disingenuous to laud the CCP.

Mate, I'm not trying to combat you. Chill.

 

[Themanbun]

Anyway, there are examples of abysmal nationalisation of key assets/industries and then there are examples of countries who've done relatively well with it (Venezuela vs Bolivia for countries near each other, as an example).

I'd back us to be able to get it done and as stated up above, I don't think the book is closed on economic theory just yet, and I don't think mass privatisation is the end of history in that regard.

I do wonder if covid will cause a lot of countries to try to un-globalise industry.We'll wait and see where the world goes.

Ultimately none of us have any power to make these decisions so I'm not going to get too worked up over it.

 

[koshari]

Much of the driver for privatisations worldwide, which commenced around the 1980s (give or take a decade depending upon country) is that governments no longer have the financial resources to construct and maintain very large pieces of infrastructure. The cost of building a new solar power plant, for example, is too great a drain on government cash.

its a bit of a chicken and egg arguement, for example i will use the electricity industry as iam more knowledgeable with this, The SECV used to pump all its profits back into the infrastructure, but then the state governments sold off the SECV. these profits used to provide the capital to produce the next generation of generating assets. by selling the golden goose for lack of a better analogy we now simply dont have the capacity to manage our own direction going forward. remember back in SECV times we had among the cheapest electricity in the world, now its very expensive, something like 50 percent more expensive than the UK for example.

 

[LuvtheKangas]

its a bit of a chicken and egg arguement, for example i will use the electricity industry as iam more knowledgeable with this, The SECV used to pump all its profits back into the infrastructure, but then the state governments sold off the SECV. these profits used to provide the capital to produce the next generation of generating assets. by selling the golden goose for lack of a better analogy we now simply dont have the capacity to manage our own direction going forward. remember back in SECV times we had among the cheapest electricity in the world, now its very expensive, something like 50 percent more expensive than the UK for example.

This example highlights what I'm saying, too, in the sense that having among the cheapest electricity in the world is incompatible with generating sufficient profits - notwithstanding pumping all profits back into the infrastructure - to meet the capital and maintenance costs of the level of infrastructure required to effectively service a population that has more than doubled since the government asset sales.

I hate expensive electricity as much as everyone else, but if we were getting cheap electricity from the government, it would come at a cost somewhere else (reduced community services, e.g. health and social security, and/or significantly increased taxes). Again, there needs to be a balance and for essential services there should be some tariff ceiling and/or government subsidy, for example.

I'm not arguing from an economic theory viewpoint at all, it's simply the practical reality of fiscal constraints.

 

[DesertRoo]

If nothing else this is a form of tribute. Like in the old days when smaller nations went sucking up to big empires by giving them heaps of their best stuff for free.

We need nukes and a really ornery attitude or we will be screwed hard over the next 100 years as peak everything kicks in.

How would you feel about nearly all our best food going offshore?

Cos it's been happening in some industries for decades.

nukes, what nukes?

As Nuclear Weapon Ban Treaty Nears Force, US Urges Nations to Withdraw

Jessica Corbett reports on efforts by Washington and NATO allies to block the first legally binding global pact to fully prohibit nuclear weapons. By Jessica Corbett Common Dreams Disarmament advocates and nuclear experts responded with alarm Wednesday to reporting that the Trump administra

consortiumnews.com

 

[Themanbun]

This example highlights what I'm saying, too, in the sense that having among the cheapest electricity in the world is incompatible with generating sufficient profits - notwithstanding pumping all profits back into the infrastructure - to meet the capital and maintenance costs of the level of infrastructure required to effectively service a population that has more than doubled since the government asset sales.

I hate expensive electricity as much as everyone else, but if we were getting cheap electricity from the government, it would come at a cost somewhere else (reduced community services, e.g. health and social security, and/or significantly increased taxes). Again, there needs to be a balance and for essential services there should be some tariff ceiling and/or government subsidy, for example.

I'm not arguing from an economic theory viewpoint at all, it's simply the practical reality of fiscal constraints.

I know this is getting a bit theoretical, and I understand what you are saying about fiscal constraints, but a few economic theorists would question why the government no longer has the financial resources to begin, service and maintain these projects, despite productivity and proportions of private profit increasing pretty significantly over the past few decades. The argument in that case would be that the fiscal constraints are created by something we're doing, not organic.

Although notably Australian productivity has dropped the last ten year I believe - but it's the same story for countries that productivity has continued growing.