Australian (ASX) Stock Market Forum

The ScoMo Government

Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Posts
11,109
Reaction score
6,187
Energy is a lot different to most other goods, it requires a lot of infrastructure to get it to the purchaser, whereas most other non essential goods the purchaser goes to get them.
So in reality electricity, water and sewage, which are essentials, should be left in Government hands. If you aren't going to do that, you will need a big stick to make them upgrade and renew aging infrastructure, that doesn't add to revenue.
Private can do it under the right circumstances.

Adjusted for inflation AGL charged less for gas as a monopoly, as they were for most of the company's existence, than the same company now charges the same customers in a competitive market.

That competition leads to lower prices is widely accepted but in practice true only if the loss of economies of scale are less than the benefits of added competitive tension which, in the energy sector, generally isn't the case.

Same happened with LPG in Tasmania. The price under a competitive market is around 50% higher in real terms than when the now defunct Gas Corporation of Tas, which was privately owned as an offshoot of Boral and in no way part of government, had a monopoly.

Economic theories, like most things, are valid under some circumstances but not all. Where the "competition drives lower prices" one fails is with things which have high scale of economy aspects and as we both know gas and electricity are the ultimate examples of that hence the issue causing so much angst.

The surest way to stuff anything up is to be wedded to an ideology and to keep going with it when it's clearly not working. :2twocents
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
14,279
Reaction score
4,077
Private can do it under the right circumstances.

Adjusted for inflation AGL charged less for gas as a monopoly, as they were for most of the company's existence, than the same company now charges the same customers in a competitive market.

That competition leads to lower prices is widely accepted but in practice true only if the loss of economies of scale are less than the benefits of added competitive tension which, in the energy sector, generally isn't the case.

Same happened with LPG in Tasmania. The price under a competitive market is around 50% higher in real terms than when the now defunct Gas Corporation of Tas, which was privately owned as an offshoot of Boral and in no way part of government, had a monopoly.

Economic theories, like most things, are valid under some circumstances but not all. Where the "competition drives lower prices" one fails is with things which have high scale of economy aspects and as we both know gas and electricity are the ultimate examples of that hence the issue causing so much angst.

The surest way to stuff anything up is to be wedded to an ideology and to keep going with it when it's clearly not working. :2twocents
There is certainly a role for private enterprise in the electricity sector, but not one so large that we can't afford them to pull out if the going gets tough for them like Hazelwood for instance.

A properly regulated system would not allow that asset to be closed unless an equivalent capacity was already in place. Some may argue that capacity was provided by rooftop solar, but it's not comparable as solar does not provide baseload.

So privates are good for things like batteries, wind farms, gas stations, but not for long term hydro or (shudder) nuclear reactors if we ever get that far. I also can't see any advantage in corporations owning long term assets like the poles and wires instead of State government or even councils. These are basically monopolies and would be better off in public ownership imv..
 
Joined
Feb 14, 2005
Posts
11,109
Reaction score
6,187
There is certainly a role for private enterprise in the electricity sector, but not one so large that we can't afford them to pull out if the going gets tough for them like Hazelwood for instance.
If a single company owned Hazelwood and all the others, and was formally responsible for keeping the lights on and subject to regulatory oversight of reliability and price, then they'd also have taken a very different approach to it all and wouldn't be doing technically silly or unnecessarily expensive things.

Whether such a company is in private hands or government doesn't make a huge difference, apart from the cost of capital perhaps, if it's subject to regulation as to what it must achieve.

30 years ago we had government owned gas in some states and privately owned gas in others both operating on the same model of an integrated utility running the whole show. Apart from the issue of who received the profits it was the same business model beyond that and there was no practical divide between those who were government owned versus private. Eg gas fitters working for AGL in Sydney carried technical manuals written by a government owned gas company in Victoria. Likewise most of them ran the same TV advertising, government and private alike, with the only change being to add the relevant company name at the end. Etc. Private or government they both ran it the same way and took responsibility for everything involved indeed it wasn't unknown for technical staff to be borrowed between the companies to assist with projects or if problems arose and that included between government and private companies.

It's more about the structure and regulations surrounding it than who the ultimate owner is so long as there's only one of them. Once it's all split up, and nobody's actually responsible, well then it's a mess yes. :2twocents
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2018
Posts
1,128
Reaction score
537
Well Rumpy the future fund, which is paying the public servants super bill, comes to mind. Also don't forget, Howard/Costello spent most of their time in office, paying off the debt, the previous Labor Government had racked up.:roflmao:

Then came Rudd.
We got plenty of vision out of two terms of Labor, shame it was all cloudy. :rolleyes:
Pink Batts?
NBN stuff up, start at the least populated places and work in?
School halls?
$1,000 cheques out the window, at least a tax cut is progressive.
Real visionary stuff, sounds great on a napkin.:roflmao:
Visionary lol
Netflix is killing the libs version of the NBN
Hows that for some cut price future proofing
The cost of a one of payment vs
Tax cut forever
Mind boggling
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
14,935
Reaction score
5,872
Looks like the Coalition have finally woken up to the elephant in the room over wage theft.

Well done - it's been pissing me off for years.
Yes there is a lot of weird things that happen in work places, my daughter works permanent part time, Monday, Tuesday, Thursday and one Saturday a month.
When a public holiday falls on her work day, she has to work back the hours at a later date(usually over Christmas).
The other thing I found strange, when she had her last baby, the EBA she works under they had negotiated maternity leave down to two weeks(mostly old women in the work place).
 

PZ99

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Joined
May 13, 2015
Posts
2,599
Reaction score
1,383
EBA looks illegal to me. Employees are entitled to more than 2 weeks of maternity leave ?

It’s up to your employee to apply for Parental Leave Pay through us and negotiate leave arrangements with you. To get Parental Leave Pay, your employee must be on paid or unpaid leave.

We’ll contact you if you’re required to provide Parental Leave Pay to an employee. We’ll also provide the necessary Paid Parental Leave funds to you.

As an employer, you must provide Parental Leave Pay to an eligible employee who:

  • has a newborn or recently adopted child
  • has worked for you for at least 12 months before the expected date of birth or adoption
  • will be your employee until at least the end of their Paid Parental Leave period
  • is Australian based, and
  • is expected to receive at least 8 weeks of Parental Leave Pay.

https://www.humanservices.gov.au/or...employers/what-you-need-know/your-role-scheme
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
14,935
Reaction score
5,872
EBA looks illegal to me. Employees are entitled to more than 2 weeks of maternity leave ?
Yes, it was 4 years ago, I would actually love to find out if the conditions she has are legal, however the daughter doesn't want me to get involved.
 

PZ99

( ͡° ͜ʖ ͡°)
Joined
May 13, 2015
Posts
2,599
Reaction score
1,383
Not really. But 9 months* is a long time in politics. Mark Latham/ALP had a fair lead over the Howard Govt before it all went to dust. The amount of negativity from the ALP will cost them if they don't start presenting an alternative Govt.
11 months later and Albo is reiterating the above.

Impartial partial quote > "The caucus debate came as Albanese used Tuesday’s meeting to tell colleagues the opposition has washed up post-election in a parliamentary position not unlike the position Labor faced in 2004, when Mark Latham lost the election against John Howard, and the Coalition gained control of the Senate."

Tip for Albo - you gotta get it right before the election :)
 

moXJO

menace to society
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
6,326
Reaction score
2,260
11 months later and Albo is reiterating the above.

Impartial partial quote > "The caucus debate came as Albanese used Tuesday’s meeting to tell colleagues the opposition has washed up post-election in a parliamentary position not unlike the position Labor faced in 2004, when Mark Latham lost the election against John Howard, and the Coalition gained control of the Senate."

Tip for Albo - you gotta get it right before the election :)
Labor seems missing in action these days. Albo disappeared after the John Setka blow up. He needs to watch out he doesn't do a Kim Beazley.
 
Joined
Mar 26, 2014
Posts
14,279
Reaction score
4,077
Labor ran a positive election (to their credit) and it cost them.

I wouldn't blame them for going negative, it worked for Abbott for enough time to win him an election.

If the economic manure hits the propellor for the next three years then Labor are a good chance.
 

moXJO

menace to society
Joined
Aug 15, 2006
Posts
6,326
Reaction score
2,260
Labor ran a positive election (to their credit) and it cost them.

I wouldn't blame them for going negative, it worked for Abbott for enough time to win him an election.

If the economic manure hits the propellor for the next three years then Labor are a good chance.
They ran a bad campaign. Positive will win if its not as terrible as what shorten ran with.
His timing of tax hits when people are already doing it tough was just out of touch.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
14,935
Reaction score
5,872
They ran a bad campaign. Positive will win if its not as terrible as what shorten ran with.
His timing of tax hits when people are already doing it tough was just out of touch.
I think this quote from Kim Carr sums it up well.
"Labor failed because its messaging essentially appealed to affluent voters rather than to the blue-collar voters who provide — though not as strongly as was once the case — its core support, and who typically decide federal election outcomes," Mr Carr says.

"We paid insufficient attention to the anxieties and insecurities that working-class families have about the future," he writes.

"We lost the trust of too many of our own people, while paradoxically winning the trust of many voters in seats that have long been Liberal heartland
".

There is nothing the rich like more, than to tell everyone they care and vote Labor, while they smugly sip chardonnay on the balcony and watch the sun set over the water.:D
 

Logique

Investor
Joined
Apr 18, 2007
Posts
4,290
Reaction score
762
The ScoMo government lost some political capital over refusing to increase Newstart, imho. There was no such inertia when it was the pollies turn for a pay increase earlier in the year, and they got '000s.

Everyone got a pay rise, one way or another with the tax cuts. Even a (small) reduction the deeming rate. But on the lowest rung Newstart ...No Soup for You!

You could have given them something ScoMo and Josh. Pretty poor effort Coalition, flint-hearted.

Labor's franking credit proposal was wrong. But The Coalition's stingyness on Newstart is equally wrong.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
14,935
Reaction score
5,872
The ScoMo government lost some political capital over refusing to increase Newstart, imho. There was no such inertia when it was the pollies turn for a pay increase earlier in the year, and they got '000s.

Everyone got a pay rise, one way or another with the tax cuts. Even a (small) reduction the deeming rate. But on the lowest rung Newstart ...No Soup for You!

You could have given them something ScoMo and Josh. Pretty poor effort Coalition, flint-hearted.

Labor's franking credit proposal was wrong. But The Coalition's stingyness on Newstart is equally wrong.
It is a shame there isn't a way around giving an allowance, I think it would be better if they somehow could provide accommodation, food and a warm safe place to be where services are provided, that help them gain skills and employment.
To just give people, who are probably depressed, struggling with self esteem and suffering from anxiety, money and expecting them to be able to work their way out of the problem is a bit unrealistic. IMO
It is a bit of a cleft stick at the moment, you give more money and make life more comfortable, the chance of people wanting to find employment may drop.(It isn't as though there are no jobs out there, many can't be filled).
Yet with constantly increasing cost of living, there has to be enough of a payment to be able to survive, I have this discussion with my long term unemployed son all the time.
There isn't an easy answer, that is for sure.
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2012
Posts
442
Reaction score
220
It is a shame there isn't a way around giving an allowance, I think it would be better if they somehow could provide accommodation, food and a warm safe place to be where services are provided, that help them gain skills and employment.
To just give people, who are probably depressed, struggling with self esteem and suffering from anxiety, money and expecting them to be able to work their way out of the problem is a bit unrealistic. IMO
It is a bit of a cleft stick at the moment, you give more money and make life more comfortable, the chance of people wanting to find employment may drop.(It isn't as though there are no jobs out there, many can't be filled).
Yet with constantly increasing cost of living, there has to be enough of a payment to be able to survive, I have this discussion with my long term unemployed son all the time.
There isn't an easy answer, that is for sure.
Although I agree with most of what you say there has to be a living payment-something to survive on.I know Scandinavian countries care more about their citizens.As a rich country we can afford it.Newstart should not be a punishment.
 
Joined
Jul 3, 2009
Posts
14,935
Reaction score
5,872
Although I agree with most of what you say there has to be a living payment-something to survive on.I know Scandinavian countries care more about their citizens.As a rich country we can afford it.Newstart should not be a punishment.
I was lucky enough to visit Norway recently Chiff, check out their tax system, I know you wouldn't be drinking on their welfare, 3 beers and a glass of red $90 Australian.
It will have to sorted one way or another, but no matter how much money you give people, unless they manage it well, they will be just as poor.
I suppose the question is what level should newstart be? The same as the age pension?
Or adequate to live comfortably? Without requiring to work?
If it is enough to rent a house in Sydney, buy food, pay the electricity for cooking and heating, buy clothes run a car. What would that be?
 
Joined
Mar 13, 2018
Posts
1,128
Reaction score
537
It is a shame there isn't a way around giving an allowance, I think it would be better if they somehow could provide accommodation, food and a warm safe place to be where services are provided, that help them gain skills and employment.
To just give people, who are probably depressed, struggling with self esteem and suffering from anxiety, money and expecting them to be able to work their way out of the problem is a bit unrealistic. IMO
It is a bit of a cleft stick at the moment, you give more money and make life more comfortable, the chance of people wanting to find employment may drop.(It isn't as though there are no jobs out there, many can't be filled).
Yet with constantly increasing cost of living, there has to be enough of a payment to be able to survive, I have this discussion with my long term unemployed son all the time.
There isn't an easy answer, that is for sure.
So you were made redundant and retired early due to the fact that there were plenty of jobs out there
Pot and kettle springs to mind
 
Top