Comments on AAP report “Copenhagen a first step, says Garnaut”, 5/11/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/Copenhagen-a-first-step-says-Garnaut-XGRPF?OpenDocument
“Presenting the annual Hawke lecture in Adelaide on Wednesday, Prof Garnaut described climate change as a diabolical policy problem.”
It is disappointing to see that experts are talking about the need for all countries of substantial size to make major contributions to the solution without mentioning what is a fair deal for all countries.
It is just a strategy for rich countries to take no actions and blame developing countries for rich countries' failures.
Just think that even experts are doing this, what politicians will do?
I am aware that Garnaut has said at sometime in the future there should be a case for equal per capita entitlement of emissions. Maybe he talked about this in this lecture and the media is not interested in reporting that part.
If that is the case, Garnaut is at least thinking about a fair deal, though not for now but for the future.
2009-11-05
Sheridan asks the impossible of the Rudd government
Comments on Greg Sheridan “Let Jakarta take the odium”, 5/11/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26305879-5013460,00.html
Sheridan, are you saying the Indonesia solution is not the problem but the Rudd and his government's spin is the source of the current Rudd government's predicament?
But the problem for Rudd is: what else are his and his government’s strengths except spinning?
So you are asking the Rudd government to do what it is incapable to do! That is an impossible task, isn’t it?
Why do you do this, Sheridan, to just torture Rudd and his ministers?
That is even worse and more inhumane to the Rudd government than the Indonesia solution, isn't it?
Sheridan, are you saying the Indonesia solution is not the problem but the Rudd and his government's spin is the source of the current Rudd government's predicament?
But the problem for Rudd is: what else are his and his government’s strengths except spinning?
So you are asking the Rudd government to do what it is incapable to do! That is an impossible task, isn’t it?
Why do you do this, Sheridan, to just torture Rudd and his ministers?
That is even worse and more inhumane to the Rudd government than the Indonesia solution, isn't it?
Is Tanner kidding on reform?
Comments on Lindsay Tanner “Reforms are micro more than macro”, 5/11/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26305877-5015664,00.html
Mr Tanner, you say:
"The most far-reaching and challenging micro-economic reform process that's under way is of course in telecommunications. The government's national broadband network project is half of a wider reform agenda in telecommunications. The other half is regulatory reform.
The Rudd government inherited a terrible stalemate in telecommunications: a private company that completely dominates the sector through its control of monopoly infrastructure; a complex regulatory regime that encourages gaming and discourages innovation and investment; and broadband outcomes well behind most comparable nations.
Regulatory reform and infrastructure investment are inextricably connected. The government is committed to ensuring Australia has world-class infrastructure that is accessible to all market participants on equal terms. Under the Howard government private monopoly model, this couldn't happen. In the modern economy, telecommunications services are of similar importance to financial services. The notion that we should tolerate third-rate arrangements is unacceptable. Most of the critics of the government's proposals would regard themselves as supporters of the free market, but they are somehow unable to address the need for genuine competition in telecommunications."
Either you have got the fact wrong or the Rudd government has been seriously and deliberately misleading the Australian public.
Hasn't the Rudd government say the NBN Co will be privatised after the net work is built sometime in the future? If it is a private company, isn't it still a monopoly in communication infrastructure in Australia?
Further, you say the current reform is about productivity, skills, education, deregulations etc. Will any reform by government involving a $43 billion infrastructure project without a prior business study and cost benefit analysis necessarily conducive to productivity? Is any investment in education involving asking schools to almost compulsorily guild school halls and libraries with or without the need, or with other more needy and worthy areas left unattended good for enhancing skills or improving the quality of education?
Is what you say "micro" micro-managing?
I beg you to answer these questions before he and the government spin around the country every day.
Mr Tanner, you say:
"The most far-reaching and challenging micro-economic reform process that's under way is of course in telecommunications. The government's national broadband network project is half of a wider reform agenda in telecommunications. The other half is regulatory reform.
The Rudd government inherited a terrible stalemate in telecommunications: a private company that completely dominates the sector through its control of monopoly infrastructure; a complex regulatory regime that encourages gaming and discourages innovation and investment; and broadband outcomes well behind most comparable nations.
Regulatory reform and infrastructure investment are inextricably connected. The government is committed to ensuring Australia has world-class infrastructure that is accessible to all market participants on equal terms. Under the Howard government private monopoly model, this couldn't happen. In the modern economy, telecommunications services are of similar importance to financial services. The notion that we should tolerate third-rate arrangements is unacceptable. Most of the critics of the government's proposals would regard themselves as supporters of the free market, but they are somehow unable to address the need for genuine competition in telecommunications."
Either you have got the fact wrong or the Rudd government has been seriously and deliberately misleading the Australian public.
Hasn't the Rudd government say the NBN Co will be privatised after the net work is built sometime in the future? If it is a private company, isn't it still a monopoly in communication infrastructure in Australia?
Further, you say the current reform is about productivity, skills, education, deregulations etc. Will any reform by government involving a $43 billion infrastructure project without a prior business study and cost benefit analysis necessarily conducive to productivity? Is any investment in education involving asking schools to almost compulsorily guild school halls and libraries with or without the need, or with other more needy and worthy areas left unattended good for enhancing skills or improving the quality of education?
Is what you say "micro" micro-managing?
I beg you to answer these questions before he and the government spin around the country every day.
2009-11-04
Is climate change another misunderstanding or hoax like the Y2K?
I personally don't have any scientific knowledge to judge whether climate change is happening and will follow those who claim that it would.
The overwhelming view is that it is happening and the consequences can be extremely serious and catastrophic.
But there are a very small minority who re saying otherwise.
Janet Albrechtsen's article presents one professor's view and evidence on sea levels for the last 2000 years that shows no rise in the sea levels over the past decades.
Is that true? I don't know. But if it is, then there are questions that have to be answered for climate change theories.
I would like to keep this article for reference. Here it is:
Janet Albrechtsen "Seeing through hoax of the century", 4/11/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/seeing_through_hoax_of_the_century/
The overwhelming view is that it is happening and the consequences can be extremely serious and catastrophic.
But there are a very small minority who re saying otherwise.
Janet Albrechtsen's article presents one professor's view and evidence on sea levels for the last 2000 years that shows no rise in the sea levels over the past decades.
Is that true? I don't know. But if it is, then there are questions that have to be answered for climate change theories.
I would like to keep this article for reference. Here it is:
Janet Albrechtsen "Seeing through hoax of the century", 4/11/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/seeing_through_hoax_of_the_century/
Housing costs and home ownership in Australia - what is the main reason?
Comments on Robert Gottliebsen “End of the Australian dream”, 4/11/2009, http://www.businessspectator.com.au//bs.nsf/Article/house-prices-RBA-interest-rates-hike-pd20091104-XFQY5?OpenDocument
While there is some truth to the story that the housing price may go up as both the costs of construction and the number of investors may rise, it is a far too one-sided story.
Any builders cannot expect that the interest rate will stay as low as they are now. So the rise of interest rate may increase construction costs, builders should be able to absorb higher interest costs.
The argument by some builders or their representatives are nothing less than a self-interested lobby by a special interest group.
Further, how much of the high prices or costs of housing are due to interest costs in construction in Australia?
Why don't builders put pressure on government, both federal and state to lower the costs of their planning and administration that seem to be one of the main reason of higher housing price and short supply in Australia?
Any knee-jerking reaction by the federal government on the interest cost deductibility is short-sighted. That is policy on the run. It may have an effect to dampen price of housing, but will increase the rentals for many renters.
Government has to treat investment in a fair and equal manner in terms of cost deductibility and taxation. It is a wider issue than just the interest cost deductibility for investors in housing properties.
While there is some truth to the story that the housing price may go up as both the costs of construction and the number of investors may rise, it is a far too one-sided story.
Any builders cannot expect that the interest rate will stay as low as they are now. So the rise of interest rate may increase construction costs, builders should be able to absorb higher interest costs.
The argument by some builders or their representatives are nothing less than a self-interested lobby by a special interest group.
Further, how much of the high prices or costs of housing are due to interest costs in construction in Australia?
Why don't builders put pressure on government, both federal and state to lower the costs of their planning and administration that seem to be one of the main reason of higher housing price and short supply in Australia?
Any knee-jerking reaction by the federal government on the interest cost deductibility is short-sighted. That is policy on the run. It may have an effect to dampen price of housing, but will increase the rentals for many renters.
Government has to treat investment in a fair and equal manner in terms of cost deductibility and taxation. It is a wider issue than just the interest cost deductibility for investors in housing properties.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
