Doing what the Fibs couldn't do in 12 years

[Jovial Monk]

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 02,00.html

And the ETS will kickstart even more spending:

RENEWABLE energy projects under construction or planned in response to the proposed emissions trading scheme will create 26,000 jobs, according to new research published as the federal Coalition seeks to defer the scheme on the basis that it could be a "jobs killer".

Research commissioned by The Climate Institute shows $31 billion worth of clean energy projects already in the pipeline, many in regional areas, will generate 2500 permanent jobs, 15,000 construction jobs and 8600 associated positions. The research does not include jobs in domestic solar or insulation, or new projects funded through the $1.6 billion solar flagships program announced in the budget, and is based on surveying investors rather than making projections from modelling.

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/st ... 71,00.html

In fact, if Rudd could grow a pair, renewable energy (and mandating efficiency and emission targets for cars, office buildings and the like) could kickstart the recovery from the global recession, and lead to a much cleaner future as well as preventing the buildup of CO2 in the atmosphere.

[boxy]

Wow, there's a shocking revelation. Throwing $31B at a problem will mean that some people get to do the work

The question they're pretending to answer is, will a widespread changeover to renewable energy create more jobs than it will cost.

Of course it wont. Dirty energy is cheap, encouraging production.

Do we need to make the changeover?

Yeah, but stop pretending it wont hurt, Monk.

[Jovial Monk]

Did I pretend that?

As one who is aware of climate change I have argued here and elsewhere for action against it. Of course there will be a cost: polluters will have to either buy lots of permits or invest to reduce their emissions.

But there are some compensations, and I do not believe 24,000 mining jobs will disappear.

[White Indigene]

But there are some compensations, and I do not believe 24,000 mining jobs will disappear.

Are you talking about the ones that already have, or the the ones that are going to?

Apoligising for the ALP serves no basic function Monk.

[Jovial Monk]

Since China doesn't buy much of our dirt and buys what it buys at much lower prices yes a lot of miners are now unemployed. WTF does that have to do with Labor? Would've been the same under the Fibs, and they wouldn't have spent money to sustain the economy and jobs, meaning that the debt & deficit would be MUCH higher under a Fib govt.

[Jubial Priest]

that the debt & deficit would be MUCH higher under a Fib govt.

That has got to be the funniest thing you have ever written JM. You're a real crack up.

[Rainbow Moonlight]

Kinda depends on if the Liberals had done any stimulatory spending and what balance of government and private debt you want Australia to hold. For most of the Libs tienm in office private debt to overseas was high which is why we had such massive trade deficits, and federal government budget's balanced nicely infact surplussed- but obviously at least in large part due to the minerals boom.


Even if the budget bottomline had been better under the Liberals then it would still have had to be bad enough to show the negative effects on taxation revenue of the global recession.

And if the Libs had not spent as much trying to mitigate the effects of the recession here the tax receipts would have been even lower, there would have been less spending by the community and less jobs and less profits to tax and that would spiral. As well if they had not boosted the FHOG then many more jobs and businesses woudl also have been in trouble, again further decreasing taxation receipts. At soem point stimulatory spendign by the governemnt is necessary, and necessary to such a degree that it supports its own revenue base at the vey least, if th eonly concern is the future etc bottomline.

[Jovial Monk]

Simpler answer: the Fib budgets were structurally in deficit, and the tax burden had been shifted to corporate tax payments meaning we were fucking vulnerable to even a mild downturn.

The cash surpluses were illusory, they were all spent at the next election by the Rodent!

[Jovial Monk]

that the debt & deficit would be MUCH higher under a Fib govt.

That has got to be the funniest thing you have ever written JM. You're a real crack up.

Oh dear, having teach economics to the kindergarten again.

Part of the spending comes back to the govt as tax.

Without the 'cash splashes' (the second one a bringing forward of tax cuts but without the continuing drain from ongoing tax cuts) retail would have died over Christmass so thousands of retail workers, and workers in related industries such as transport would have lost their jobs and many retail business would have failed or at least suffered losses. So even more money paid out in unemployment benefits, even less tax revenue coming in.

Now the small infrastructure works are kicking in keeping construction workers and businesses engaged and paying company and personal income tax. And the big infrastructure work to start soon. Without infrastructure spending construction would die, less corporate and personal tax being paid, more unemployment benefits being paid out--by now the dole would be a real drain on the public purse.

So simply not spending on stimulus would not necessarily have reduced the deficit.

The biggest Keynesian pump priming was the rearming of Germany, England and the US etc: got those countries right out of the Great Depression.

Of course all that is too hard for your pretty little head so I expect you will just make some stupid remark commensurate with your LOW_IQ.