[talaniman]

Many immigrants get here and get to thinking they have washed themselves enough, and now feel as you do and seek to slam the door in the face of other immigrants. The sign is still out though many try to obscure it.

My fair land has many clowns here, and not all of them are lawyers.

[paraclete]

Many immigrants get here and get to thinking they have washed themselves enough, and now feel as you do and seek to slam the door in the face of other immigrants. The sign is still out though many try to obscure it.

My fair land has many clowns here, and not all of them are lawyers.

I think you miss the point, we take in about 250,000 immigrants a year, there are limits as to the number an economy our size can take in without crippling our essential services and therefore we have to be a little selective so as to ensure balance. There is no Horace Greely here to say go west young man and no west to go to. People who come here from other places often come with needs requiring vast resources in the helping professions, resources we struggle to provide. Our medical and other professionals would rather run off to a place such as yours where the rewards are high, leaving a vacuum particularly in regional areas. It is difficult these days to find a native born Australian providing medical services, most are of migrant origin and I think the quality suffers as a result. This is due to the very high costs of training.

So personally I would like to see a little less migration, I notice some of our kiwi cousins are starting to go home, but no doubt their places will be taken by people from the Pacific, this is preferable to those from troubled lands who bring their baggage with them such as the lebanese

[talaniman]

This article might interest you,

How many migrants come to Australia each year? | Inside Story

We have the very same argument here about immigration with our travel bans, mass deportations of children, and building big beautiful walls you can see from space.

It's the invasion of the loonies I tell ya!

[paraclete]

This article might interest you,

How many migrants come to Australia each year? | Inside Story

We have the very same argument here about immigration with our travel bans, mass deportations of children, and building big beautiful walls you can see from space.

It's the invasion of the loonies I tell ya!

All the statistics in the world doesn't get us past the policy enunciated so sussinctly by John Howard when Prime Minister, "we will decide who comes here and the circumstances under which they come" in other words sovereign borders, and as far as I am concerned we will not yield to the UN edict that we open our borders. I did not elect those D'heads to rule over me

[talaniman]

Sovereignty, or FEAR MONGERING to justify rape, pillage and plundering your own people by elected leaders? That's the case here Clete, as the DONOR class makes the rules for elected officials!

Methinks the same thing happens there too, maybe not as entrenched, or the same scale, but the fear mongering sounds the same and for the same PURPOSE.

Statistical DATA doesn't lie...PEOPLE do!

[paraclete]

Sovereignty, or FEAR MONGERING to justify rape, pillage and plundering your own people by elected leaders? That's the case here Clete, as the DONOR class makes the rules for elected officials!

Methinks the same thing happens there too, maybe not as entrenched, or the same scale, but the fear mongering sounds the same and for the same PURPOSE.

Statistical DATA doesn't lie...PEOPLE do!

I don't know where you get the idea we might be raped, pillaged or plundered by our leaders. We have no leader who took a billion from the public purse like Mugabe, and billionaires who tried to buy a seat in parliament didn't last very long.

Statistics are the preserve of liars in the political arena. Data can be used for different purposes, graphs drawn on various scales to highlight or hide. As that article said on migration, you can say we have 200,000 a year or 800,000 depending upon what you are counting. It is the same with climate, we can be the worst polluter per head of population or the best at meeting our targets. We have a vast sea of wind generators and solar panels but it doesn't mean we can keep the lights on or the air conditioners running in 40C temperatures

[talaniman]

The Dufus is definitely doing it in America. Sorry about your lights though, maybe you aren't as advanced as I thought. It's no fun being hot and sweaty in the dark. Unless of course you like that sort of thing.

[paraclete]

The Dufus is definitely doing it in America. Sorry about your lights though, maybe you aren't as advanced as I thought. It's no fun being hot and sweaty in the dark. Unless of course you like that sort of thing.

No, the idiot liberals (Labor party) socialists in South Australian shut down the coal fired power stations and wondered why they had no base load power. Tesla stepped in and has built them a battery pack but 100 MW just won't cut it. The idiots socialists in Victoria shut down base load power. We are now supposed to supply them over the interlink while not being able keep our air conditioners on because the idiot Labor Party established something called an electricity market and power goes to the highest bidder.

Our wonderful politicians and big thinkers have a solution it is called pump hydro, in a nation that suffers frequent droughts. I wonder where all this giddy water is going to be used, Have they thought about evaporation or turning the rivers backwards? I visited the Snowy Hydro 25 years ago and even then their capacity was down because of low snowfall

This is where all this idiot thinking gets you, we had the cheapest power in the world and now we have the most expensive

[talaniman]

You mean this?

SA power outage: What’s going on with South Australia’s electricity?

Or this?

https://www.themandarin.com.au/86240...nergy-storage/

[paraclete]

Maybe I mean both, what I really mean is that aging coal fired base load needs to be replaced before it reaches its used by date, various generators have signalled shutdown of old plant without any plans for replacement, this is because in the electricity market there is no way to guarantee dispatch of expensive assets requiring a commercial rate of return. Our seesawing energy policies have seen no one willing to make new investment in conventional generation. Our stupid politicians won't allow nuclear, leftist wankers again, want coal shut down and offer no alternative, we are expected to turn off the lights. Meanwhile both South Australia and Victoria will suffer blackouts and shutdown scheduling at peak times, meaning industry will be unwilling to invest there without power supply certainty. other nations buy our coal and use it to generate electricity, it is ridiculous that we should not

I don't like Trump but his put america first policy is right, and we should follow with put Australia first. I say no to the UN wankers, we will not bear the brunt of a northern hemisphere problem

[talaniman]

Renewables are the alternative to coal based energy production, and Australia sells a lot of energy around the world. You should visit the places that you sell dirt to before you decide on changing your course back to those days when King Coal was the only way to get power to your homes and cities.

But lets look at what you just said starting with your own government policy of energy TRANSFORMATION, taking climate change as the goal to structure POLICY and regulatory reforms as investment incentives.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Carbon...g_in_Australia

The bottom line here seems to be the politicians keep putting their fingers on the scales by offsetting your carbon based producers liability which actually slowed the investment on renewable technologies for domestic consumers with delaying and repealing implementation of those proposed policies.

I think you are finally getting on the ball somewhat, to the path of innovative technology which might give you the investments needed for energy grid upgrades and transmission, but just as we here are finding out, a complete reliance on market based solutions hinders rather than expands those investment opportunities. Think about it this way, why would you not just replace your old carbon based power plants with newer ones that meet the targets for reduced emissions? How would that be paid for, and what would be the ROI, and how long would it take to achieve it?The technology is certainly there and investors have done the math so what's stopping them?

I don't like Trump but his put america first policy is right, and we should follow with put Australia first. I say no to the UN wankers, we will not bear the brunt of a northern hemisphere problem

That's just the right policy to stifle new technology and growth, while insulating ones self from economic opportunity. It's great for a few to get rich in the short term though, but I guess that's the whole point. Contraction and NO expansion. Do the math before you take the side of The Dufus. Makes no sense to GO BACK to what works for the FEW at the expense of the MANY, but you seem like a supply sider to me.

We know from EXPERIENCE that it doesn't work.

[paraclete]

I think you are finally getting on the ball somewhat, to the path of innovative technology which might give you the investments needed for energy grid upgrades and transmission, but just as we here are finding out, a complete reliance on market based solutions hinders rather than expands those investment opportunities. Think about it this way, why would you not just replace your old carbon based power plants with newer ones that meet the targets for reduced emissions? How would that be paid for, and what would be the ROI, and how long would it take to achieve it?The technology is certainly there and investors have done the math so what's stopping them?

Such investments will not be made because the seesawing political environment doesn't bring long term investment certainty. Coal or gas fired producers want to know they won't be slapped with a carbon tax by a leftist government with an agenda to reduce emissions to zero over the century, Any investment begun today will be with us for the century. The old power stations are already being driven out of business. I know of four that have closed in recent years and there may be more, with no replacement investment

[talaniman]

I don't like Trump but his put america first policy is right, and we should follow with put Australia first. I say no to the UN wankers, we will not bear the brunt of a northern hemisphere problem

That's just the right policy to stifle new technology and growth, while insulating ones self from economic opportunity. It's great for a few to get rich in the short term though, but I guess that's the whole point. Contraction and NO expansion. Do the math before you take the side of The Dufus. Makes no sense to GO BACK to what works for the FEW at the expense of the many, but you seem like a supply sider to me.

We know from EXPERIENCE that it doesn't work.

Don't blame progress on lefties, blame your market place that doesn't encourage competition and keeps a tight control over who can invest. Do your homework on who, and how prices are set, and who gets compensated. I thought you were an accountant by trade.

[paraclete]

That's just the right policy to stifle new technology and growth, while insulating ones self from economic opportunity. It's great for a few to get rich in the short term though, but I guess that's the whole point. Contraction and NO expansion. Do the math before you take the side of The Dufus. Makes no sense to GO BACK to what works for the FEW at the expense of the many, but you seem like a supply sider to me.

We know from EXPERIENCE that it doesn't work.

Don't blame progress on lefties, blame your market place that doesn't encourage competition and keeps a tight control over who can invest. Do your homework on who, and how prices are set, and who gets compensated. I thought you were an accountant by trade.

That's profession Tal, not trade. Our market place is quite competitive with many investors including foreign investors, the problem is sovereign risk, the left side of politics thinks a tax is the way to make environmental decisions, while the right thinks change can be brought by subsidy. A tax is convenient because the revenue can be diverted into the latest pet project. Everyone is hanging out for the government to make big loans/subsidies available to those who follow the desired direction but the only ones who benefit are foreign investors. The last time the left was in power, they taxed mining revenues and carbon with the result that they drove power prices up and mining investment down, meanwhile they allowed gas to be exported at lower than market prices creating shortages and higher prices, the exporters were even allowed access to the local gas market so they could export without producing. We do not need these dunces running things

Our government changes hands about once every ten years but recent experience suggests shorter spans so there is no certainity as to policy

[talaniman]

That's profession Tal, not trade.

What's the difference?

You say sovereign risk, I say sovereign sacrifice. Let's face it, without the proper balance between supply and demand there can be NO certainty, and the leverage goes by the wayside. Even Australian investors trot all over the globe looking for that great return on investment. Look around we are just talking energy here Clete, but it's never about local consumers, who cares about them, when they can rape, pillage, and plunder big gobs of capital with the help of elected policy makers... Left, or right.

So clarify for me what the right has done that you like... and hate. While you are at it, get some more info on those carbon taxes you hate so much, while ignoring the capital they raise to further clean technology (Pet project?) and competition.

I think going to far left or right is inherently dangerous, but voters are so emotionally partisan. TRIBAL is the better word. I'm a left leaning centrist myself and find a lot of common ground with right leaning centrist. What do you consider yourself?

[paraclete]

What's the difference?

You say sovereign risk, I say sovereign sacrifice. Let's face it, without the proper balance between supply and demand there can be NO certainty, and the leverage goes by the wayside. Even Australian investors trot all over the globe looking for that great return on investment. Look around we are just talking energy here Clete, but it's never about local consumers, who cares about them, when they can rape, pillage, and plunder big gobs of capital with the help of elected policy makers... Left, or right.

So clarify for me what the right has done that you like... and hate. While you are at it, get some more info on those carbon taxes you hate so much, while ignoring the capital they raise to further clean technology (Pet project?) and competition.

I think going to far left or right is inherently dangerous, but voters are so emotionally partisan. TRIBAL is the better word. I'm a left leaning centrist myself and find a lot of common ground with right leaning centrist. What do you consider yourself?

I tend to lean to the right but my ideas do line up with the Australian Conservatives.

Sovereign risk is the likelihood and impact of big swings in policy, usually following elections.

What has the right done I like; Abolish the carbon tax, increase the thresholds in individual income tax, allow superannuants to access pensions, intervene in indigenous affairs, turn back the boats, prosecute union officials for fraud and other criminal behaviour, restore military expenditure. What have they done I don't like, changed leaders between elections, increased the costs of tertiary education, attempted to stuff with the health care system, failed to graduate the navy to nuclear power, continued to participate in the F35 program,

What is the difference between a profession and a trade, one is physical and the other is intellectual