The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Where the jobs will be in 2023 > Comments

Where the jobs will be in 2023 : Comments

By Ross Elliott, published 7/12/2018

The figures released by the Federal Government show an economy increasingly reliant on jobs growth in two major cities, but not in the city centres of those cities.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All
The Author fails to impress, seems locked into the idea, these 2023 jobs will all be the result of more expansion/compaction of overcrowded gridlocked cities.

Seems unable to consider the huge billions in lost productivity, due to congestion. Seems only able to consider the future from the point of view of the urban re-developer And growth rising ever skyward. To serve the vested interests of foreign debt-laden property developers and or speculation?

When instead it should be focused at our vast empty centre and what change could be wrought with the creation of an inland canal!?

Where will the future jobs e, is, however, an interesting question and relies exclusively on the vision of emboldened future leaders. And needs to include quite massive decentralisation and the drought proofing of food bowl Australia.

Food bowl Australia would create many more new jobs in various deionisation dialysis desalination and as MSR thorium, nuclear-powered projects that physically and progressively reverse centuries of progressive desertification (land management) of inland Australia!

Can we afford this 2st-century snowy mountain type future vision?

Why not, we have 2.5 trillion in our super funds, just begging a government to create a natural investment home for these funds as impossible to lose, thirty year self-terminating, government guaranteed, investment bonds!

The difficulty here is in the fixed mindsets, contemplating only their future or how best to sell a message that allows their side of politics to occupy the treasury benches for yet another term as the major prize!

As opposed to our finest future and prospects as a trading and services not reliant on either coal or gas, as food-producing nation trading goods and services to the world!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Friday, 7 December 2018 11:38:12 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B -

Here you say "When instead it should be focused at our vast empty centre and what change could be wrought with the creation of an inland canal!?"

Replies to you from another thread.
1st by me.
You fail to take into account.
In case you have forgotten most of the population is around the coastline of Australia because of the heat inland and you think quote "our arid interior desert heartland! where if intelligently developed could easily hold a hundred million more"

This may help your thinking.
CLIMATE AND AVERAGE MONTHLY WEATHER IN Alice Springs, Australia
The climate in Alice Springs, Australia is hot. In summer, the average maximum temperature is in the mid 40 degrees Celsius (113 degrees Fahrenheit), whereas in winter the average minimum temperature can be 5.5 degrees Celsius (41.9 °Fahrenheit). Rainfall can vary from year to year and can be described as predictably unpredictable. Overall the climate is dry and arid most of the time. Most people find that day temperatures exceed their comfort level.

AND Posted by Divergence
Facing up to reality isn't the same as being a racist. You need to take a look at the tables on the Web from the World Bank and Index Mundi to get a good idea of our real situation. We are currently feeding around 60 million people in a good year and half that many in a bad drought year. Only 6.2% of Australia is arable, and the average quality of that arable land is very low, since our soils haven't been renewed by glaciation or mountain building. We get around 2 tonnes of grain per hectare in a good year, compared to more than 7 in France. Our current production is completely dependent on imported oil and phosphate, and we have serious problems with land degradation (see the CSIRO's maps), without even considering any problems that climate change might bring. If you can farm the interior of Australia with its poor soils and ferocious evaporation rates, then you can also farm the Sahara, Antarctica, or the surface of the Moon.
Posted by Philip S, Friday, 7 December 2018 12:01:45 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
The Adelaide S4A region is utterly ridiculous!*
The statistics would be far more meaningful if the CBD was grouped with the western suburbs rather than the hills.

*Except of course when compared to things like an inland canal.
Posted by Aidan, Friday, 7 December 2018 12:04:28 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B Quote "Why not, we have 2.5 trillion in our super funds, just begging a government to create a natural investment home for these funds as impossible to lose, thirty year self-terminating, government guaranteed, investment bonds!"

With the likelihood of Labor winning the next election how many people with money in Super would trust Shorten with it? NOT ME.

The national debt of Australian is A$ 595,637,894,202 and the interest to be paid is going up $608 per second.

Bearing in mind we have a Liberal Government how many people would trust Morrison with there money, NOT ME.

Like this part "as impossible to lose" If you believe that you have absolutely no credibility.

https://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/australia
Posted by Philip S, Friday, 7 December 2018 12:19:11 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Why is the inland so hot? Because it's not close to a large water source like the coastal regions are. Can we change any of that? Absolutely, and because a lot of our inland like various dried u salt lakes are already below sea level. Add affordable desalinated water and you add additional cooling natural convection/evaporation.

It's not for nothing the coolest place on a hotter than hell summer day is beneath the shade of a mango tree. Imagine that scenario only a millionfold and just by adding desalinated water.

And with any evergreen tree or understory food crop, you like!

I get that some folks don't want development don't want change or the loss of their control/fiefdom that change and development would bring.

We have two stark choices, we change it or have change forced on us as we polish our mandarin and r's licking skills!

If our oldies could imagine then build and pay for an impossible for us Snowy Mountains project?

Why can't we several times bigger and several times larger as an economy and workforce, create our own exceptional, wonder of the world, vision.

What prevents or stops that?

Nothing whatsoever! Just the usual experts like Adian and the very abrasive Mr Phillips, who as always knows all the reasons things can't be done or move from the cave and employ another method of food gathering that no longer relies on running it down with a stone tied to a stick!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:34:20 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Land management that includes annual burns, does a few things, first, it destroys all the non-fire tolerant flora or fauna. Then sends clouds of scarce soil nutrient skyward with each burn to eventually wind up in the ocean where it does nothing but harm. Think, this land was once covered from coast to coast in verdant forest.

Moreover, We regularly flush millions of tons of soil nutrient out to sea annually along with millions and millions of litres of water. And could reverse all that with truly affordable, reliable, carbon-free 24/7 power. And that power should come from MSR thorium, which promises everything fusion did but couldn't ever deliver!

Why?

BECAUSE NOTHING ELSE IN PLAY OR PROSPECT, COMES EVEN CLOSE ON SAFETY, PERFORMANCE, BUILD COSTS, 24/7 RELIABILITY OR AFFORDABILITY!

It would be virtual child's play to build a canal where most of the land is already below sea level and too salt for anything to grow thrive or flourish!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:53:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B On another thread you states we could have another 100 or 200 million people.

Say we have 100 million extra, a ratio of 1 person employed to 3 people not working, PLEASE TELL US where are you going to find jobs for 25,000,000 yes that is 25 million people at around $20 per hour minimum when in Asia and India they would not get that much PER DAY.

Can't wait for your answer to that.

You have still failed to answer this question from above.
"Why not, we have 2.5 trillion in our super funds, just begging a government to create a natural investment home for these funds as impossible to lose, thirty year self-terminating, government guaranteed, investment bonds!"

With the likelihood of Labor winning the next election how many people with money in Super would trust Shorten with it? NOT ME.

The national debt of Australian is A$ 595,637,894,202 and the interest to be paid is going up $608 per second.

Bearing in mind we have a Liberal Government how many people would trust Morrison with there money, NOT ME.

Like this part "as impossible to lose" If you believe that you have absolutely no credibility.

http://www.nationaldebtclocks.org/debtclock/australia

IT IS OBVIOUS YOU MAKE STATEMENTS THEN RUN AWAY WHEN SOMEONE SHOWS THE ERROR IN YOUR WISH LIST RATHER THAN STAND BY WHAT YOU SAY.
Posted by Philip S, Saturday, 8 December 2018 1:22:38 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B.,
>Land management that includes annual burns, does a few things
That much is true: firstly it prevents the bigger fires that would occur if burnoffs were less frequent. Secondly it returns most of the nutrients to the soil.

>first, it destroys all the non-fire tolerant flora or fauna.
Fire tolerance is not boolean. Though burnoffs destroy the least fire tolerant flora and fauna (most of which is likely to be real anyway) it reduces the chance of more severe fires which the flora can't withstand and the fauna can't escape.

>Then sends clouds of scarce soil nutrient skyward with each burn
>to eventually wind up in the ocean where it does nothing but harm.
To say it does nothing but harm is very misleading. Though there are localised problems with marine nutrient overload, the ocean itself is mainly nutrient poor, and increasing the nutrients lead to an increase in marine life.

>Think, this land was once covered from coast to coast in verdant forest.
That was in pre human times when the continent was a lot further south.

>Moreover, We regularly flush millions of tons of soil nutrient out to sea annually along with millions and
>millions of litres of water. And could reverse all that with truly affordable, reliable, carbon-free 24/7 power.
Bit of a non sequiter there: how do you imagine that power would prevent millions of tons of soil nutrient being flushed out to sea?

Nuclear power is simply too expensive; it's more expensive than solar, and by the time they've got those thorium MSRs sufficiently reliable and able to produce power for 2c/kWh (or whatever you're claiming now) solar panels will be able to do the job in Australia for below 1c/kWh.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Philip S,
There's no shortage of things to do. All we have to do is set fiscal and monetary policy to enable the jobs to be created. Renounce the lie that we, or our children or grandchildren, or any generation, has to pay the country's debt off; accept that it can go on increasing for ever.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 8 December 2018 5:44:12 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan Quote "All we have to do is set fiscal and monetary policy to enable the jobs to be created."

I would like to hear where these 25 million jobs will be created, what industries, occupations etc.

Your idea is just to borrow money or print money to make jobs, that will not work, unless you want 25 million public servants who do not generate wealth for anyone.
Posted by Philip S, Saturday, 8 December 2018 7:13:30 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip S,
>I would like to hear where these 25 million jobs will be created, what industries, occupations etc.
Of course you would, but how do you expect me to know? Though I'm better than average at predicting the future, anticipating our need for jobs that haven't even been invented yet is beyond me.

I could of course speculate as to what industries will employ more people in the future. But what would be the point? Would you even believe me anyway? It's all a distraction from my far more important point that the jobs can easily be created whatever industry they're in!

Still, if you want to give yourself some idea of where more jobs can be created, ask yourself four questions:
If you had more money, what would you spend it on?
What could the government spend more money on to improve the economy?
What could the government spend more money on to improve people's quality of life?
What could the government spend more money on to improve the environment?

>Your idea is just to borrow money or print money to make jobs, that will not work,
>unless you want 25 million public servants who do not generate wealth for anyone.

That comment indicates a lack of thinking on your part.

Firstly, the public service is not a stereotype of how the public service was in the 1970s or before. People are capable of doing work of real value whether their employer is public or private.

Secondly, even if the money is coming from the government, contractors can be used.

Thirdly, increased government spending on science produces a huge return.

Fourthly, loosening fiscal and monetary policy doesn't necessarily mean increased government spending. It could instead mean increased private spending.
Posted by Aidan, Saturday, 8 December 2018 11:36:37 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan Quote "That comment indicates a lack of thinking on your part."

Actually it does not, it shows a lack of taking all factors into account by you and others that think we can supply jobs for millions of people.

In your thinking did you consider the following.
What are your real employee costs?

Did you know an employee being paid ($16.30) per hour costs you around ($27) per hour when you consider?:
- Super @ 9%
- Long Service Leave @ 2.5%
- Payroll Tax @ 4.95%
- Workers Compensation (up to 12.5%)
- Sick Leave @ 3% (10 days per year)
- Annual Leave @ 7% (20 days per year)
- Public Holidays @ 4% (11 days per year)
- Payroll Administrative Costs ($4.50 - $21.00 per week)

There are more hidden costs not included like getting the employee first, training, workplace etc.

Also those figures are probably a year or so old, they would be minimum wage there would need to be many more people on higher wages within the organization.

So you come back with who is going to pay that when they can get the same work done in Asia, India or China for a third of that $27 for a whole days work as opposed to $27 per hour

Correct me if I am wrong but didn't even our own Government outsource jobs to Asia, call centers etc.
Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 9 December 2018 12:43:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip S,
Yes it does. Even if it were true, your claim would not invalidate any of the reasons I mentioned.

But it is not true. We're capable of high value work that they're not. They mainly do low value stuff like fabrication.

If the value of their work ever rises to the value of ours, either their wages will rise substantial or their currency will rise substantially against ours (or a combination of both). Either way we will remain competitive.

So what if call centre work and the low value part of the manufacturing process goes overseas? We can do better!
Posted by Aidan, Sunday, 9 December 2018 1:42:52 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan Looks like we will have to disagree, time will tell who was right.

Quote "We're capable of high value work that they're not." Examples please.

Australia used to have the manufacturing capacity and made lots of products, what is made in Australia today, very very little.

The main thing we have are holes in the ground from the minerals we sell, but at a lower rate of tax going to the Government than other countries.

The wages in Asia will not rise to anywhere near ours for a very long time.
Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 9 December 2018 2:11:31 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
My great great granddaddy drove a horse and cart as did his great great granddaddy before him and his before him and his before him.

Just because that's the way we've allus done things doesn't make them superior. "Cool burns" do not return the nutrients to the soil they extracted them from, and as the same ground is burned year on year more and more of those scarce nutrients are lost forever as experienced in the cane industry!

Even as they increased and increased superphosphate applications the recoverable sugar content systematically reduced. Moreover, repeated burns particularly those where a wind whips up from nowhere that turns an allegedly "cool burn" into a raging conflagration, burning all before it and often in country that fire crews can't traverse, Leaves the ground baked like clay pipes and mostly impervious to water.

So the net effect of centuries of burning has been to turn the once verdant forestland into a vast internal desert. And inhabited by folk inculcated from a brainwashed birth to believe that their practice is somehow looking after the land that they also stole from those here before them.

Even as they claim unbroken lineage dating back sixty thousand years, even as the oral record of most of our people would describe it as, closer to fourteen, for today's mainland indigenous population. Just because we've allus done it that way doesn't make it, best practice, or even intelligent care.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 9 December 2018 8:38:42 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Phillip clearly has his knickers in a knot as he wonders who will pay folk to work newly irrigated land?

Well old son, who pays our farming families now? As they EARN their income from the sweat of their brow and bent aching backs.

All that it takes to earn money from land is, just add water.

And then use (intensive very short term) grazing animals, with fattened value on the hoof, to reduce fuel load. And doable even in open unfenced pasture, with watering points that can be turned off as others are turned on, remotely.

Time to get into the technological age and out of the stone age old son!

Adian is on the public record suggesting that we pump treated effluent absolutely loaded with organic plant nutrient way-way inland and use that water to irrigate new farmland production.

And not as impractical as some might suggest, if the huge energy bill that would come with pumping it over hill and dale, could be contained by power prices topping out at 2 cents or less per KwH.

And far better all round for the environment than flushing millions of annual tons into our oceans, where it does nothing but harm!

I'd imagine if Phillip had been around before we built the Snowy mountain scheme, it would have never ever been built?

Because he would have demonstrated with his skill with raw numbers why it couldn't be done and why we couldn't pay for all the folk we'd have to import to build it!

Left up to "experts" like Phillip, we'd still be living in caves, running our food down with a stone tied to a stick!?
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Sunday, 9 December 2018 9:04:47 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B - Quote "Well old son, who pays our farming families now? As they EARN their income from the sweat of their brow and bent aching backs. All that it takes to earn money from land is, just add water."

So you want a few million farmers, first the Government would have to set up the farm as very very very few migrants with over 1 million dollars would even want to be farmers, where are you going to find the people that would be willing to work "from the sweat of their brow and bent aching backs". I can assure you one thing this quote from you is absolutely wrong "All that it takes to earn money from land is, just add water."

I would also guarantee that if the Government was to offer the people on the dole a farm in the middle of nowhere that they had to work on they would be lucky if even 1 in 1,000 took up the offer.

Don't forget you are pumping the water to reclaimed in the middle of Australia, the heat alone would turn most off let alone the isolation,
Did you factor in higher petrol prices and the vast distances to anywhere into you thinking, bet you did not.

** Adian is on the public record suggesting that we pump treated effluent absolutely loaded with organic plant nutrient way-way inland and use that water to irrigate new farmland production. **
Good luck finding people who want to live there, they are on the coastline.

Quote "And not as impractical as some might suggest, if the huge energy bill that would come with pumping it over hill and dale, could be contained by power prices topping out at 2 cents or less per KwH."

Add hundreds of millions of dollars to subsidize them.

Quote "Left up to "experts" like Phillip, we'd still be living in caves, running our food down with a stone tied to a stick!?"
When a person has to resort to something like that they really have nothing to add to a discussion.
Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 9 December 2018 5:36:43 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan just which planet do you live on? It can't be this one or you would have knowledge of what happens with government organised farming. The Chinese commune farms starved millions.

You could also check out USSR industry, & what happened to it. Still dream on, just don't get anything like them going here, our governments can stuff up enough already.

You just may be living on the same planet Alan. Burning green cane had no effect on the soil, & not much on the cane, it was just the trash being burned.

What does effect the nutrient level of cane farms is the entire product of the soil is removed & taken to the sugar mill. Unlike grain, vegetable or fruit, much more of the nutrients that was used to grow the plant are removed.

Today tons of this in the form of mill mud is returned to the farm, on trucks delivering it & spreading at tons to the acre. Sugar is still a very hungry crop, so lots of fertiliser is often added to the mill mud at the mill. There is also some movement to return the bagasse, currently used to power the mill, & generate what is considered "GREEN" energy, at huge cost to the farm land.

Even the Tee tree & Lemon Myrtle oil industry is waking up to fact that removing large quantities of mass from a plantation is actually mining the soil of the nutrients used in it's production. Unfortunately you can't drive a spreading truck over a tree plantation the way you can over a cane field
Posted by Hasbeen, Sunday, 9 December 2018 6:37:56 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip S,
Why settle for disagreement? I'd highlighted some logical flaws you based your argument on - are you really too stupid to admit you were wrong?

>Examples please.
Australia is the world leader in field robotics, and pretty good at biotech as well.

>Australia used to have the manufacturing capacity and made lots of products,
Putting things together used to be valuable, but now it's generally become a low value activity. Nowadays the value has shifted to the intellectual property. Putting things together is hardly worth anything, but knowing how to make them is still worth a lot.

>what is made in Australia today, very very little.
Though the manufacturing sector is much smaller than it used to be, it is still significant. And AIUI parts of it, including food manufacturing, have been growing in recent years. Indeed this year, as our dollar fell, more manufacturing has returned to Australia.

>The wages in Asia will not rise to anywhere near ours for a very long time.
Surely that depends which part of Asia? Japan's not very far behind us.

____________________________________________________________________________________

Alan B.,
>Just because that's the way we've allus done things doesn't make them superior.
Of course.

>"Cool burns" do not return the nutrients to the soil they extracted them from,
Not 100%, but a lot more returns to the ground than goes up in smoke. Meanwhile birds return nutrients from the sea to the land, and farmers can add more nutrients when needed.

Burnoffs became necessary to prevent much bigger bushfires after the megafauna died out (which was at least partly due to humans). But the desertification long predated that.

>Adian is on the public record suggesting that we pump treated effluent absolutely loaded with
>organic plant nutrient way-way inland and use that water to irrigate new farmland production.
That's news to me! Could I see this record?
Recycling our effluent is common sense, but I find it very unlikely that I'd claim it was absolutely loaded with organic plant nutrient!
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 10 December 2018 1:05:41 AM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan

It is evident you lack the capacity for an intelligent discussion.

I posted above 4 points for you to comment about on Sunday, 9 December 2018 2:11:31 AM here they are.
Quote
"We're capable of high value work that they're not." Examples please.

Australia used to have the manufacturing capacity and made lots of products, what is made in Australia today, very very little.

The main thing we have are holes in the ground from the minerals we sell, but at a lower rate of tax going to the Government than other countries.

The wages in Asia will not rise to anywhere near ours for a very long time." Posted by Philip S, Sunday, 9 December 2018 2:11:31 AM

You have not been on this thread since I posted those 4 points, now Monday, 10 December 2018 1:05:41 AM you come on here and post this comment.

Quote "Why settle for disagreement? I'd highlighted some logical flaws you based your argument on - are you really too stupid to admit you were wrong?"
Followed by your reply to what I asked you.

So you have called me stupid before I have even seen your comment and had a chance to reply, that makes you not very intelligent.

Just a little warning the next time you call anyone stupid or any other derogatory term I will hit the little red X on the bottom of your comment as per the rules "Do not flame".

People do not come to this forum to be subjected to your abuse, if you can't say something nice don't say anything.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 10 December 2018 2:04:19 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan
Quote "Australia is the world leader in field robotics, and pretty good at biotech as well."
1st Not sure why you put the word field in?
2nd A quick internet search = Top 21 Industrial Robotics Companies in the World 2018 5 Jul 2018 ** Not one Australian company there. **
CSIRO is very good but woefully underfunded.

http://www.technavio.com/blog/top-21-companies-in-the-industrial-robotics-market

Quote "Putting things together used to be valuable, but now it's generally become a low value activity. Nowadays the value has shifted to the intellectual property. Putting things together is hardly worth anything, but knowing how to make them is still worth a lot."

Correct but where is your evidence that a lot of Australian companies are involved in innovation.

Quote "Though the manufacturing sector is much smaller than it used to be, it is still significant. And AIUI parts of it, including food manufacturing, have been growing in recent years. Indeed this year, as our dollar fell, more manufacturing has returned to Australia."

Possibly right, but what if the dollar goes up will they leave, but we are only talking small numbers not lots of jobs.

Quote "Surely that depends which part of Asia? Japan's not very far behind us."

No as all Asian, Indian, Chinese etc Governments need to keep manufacturing wages at a relatively low rate or the companies will just pack up and move to a cheaper country.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 10 December 2018 2:33:54 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen like your idea of myrtle, tea tree and other tree crops or industry and used as they could be as mop crops for treated effluent piped to them at the root level via taped irrigation. With millions of tons of currently wasted plant nutrients

Adian, stand by my comments about you being on public record and right here on OLO. You may need to go back several years to find it and around the same time when you were in fierce disagreement with your selves over whether or not one could use methane to run ceramic fuel cells.

When you do that old son get back to me and admit, nothing much wrong with my memory or conversely, resort to your usual tactic of elder abuse. to get you past the loss of face this creates for you?

Philip, Yes it was further south, so what? The thing that changed it was repeated burns. Take away the burning for even just a few years and the country responds with the regrowth of some non-fire tolerant species as seen up north.

Yes, the interior is arid and hot and remains that way for lack of water. A dual lane inland canal would allow shipping to go more directly over a much shorter distance to a point reasonably accessible to the southern half of the continent! Given a dual lane, able to use simple floodgates to ensure northern flood tides completely flush and refill entire system at least every 24 hours. With billions of trillions of litres of, recoverable via space-age desalination, potable water. And it's all one needs to turn an arid inland into a veritable garden of Eden.

No not millions of farmers just a few hundred thousand to begin with and as the place is terraformed via the most ambitious engineering project on the planet, allow all the other associated industries and entrepreneurs to follow suit, build the new towns and villages that would be required to support all the associated service industries. Some of which would be filled by the more ambitious Australians.
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 10 December 2018 11:03:39 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Not proposing subsidised power for anything, be it pumping effluent uphill and then using the most convenient downhill as a pumped hydro, that then returns some of the off-peak power output for the initial pumping to storage with reusable treat effluent.

Not all nuclear power is twice as expensive as coal.

Ivy League Professor and economist, Robert Hargreaves claims in his book, Thorium, cheaper than coal. It could be done using MSR thorium for less than 2 cents per KwH.

Not against coal for this purpose, just current method.

Future and global warming require to rethink on coal which should be to cook it in a facility created for that purpose and after it's washed and the iron sulphides removed. Then in purpose-built ovens, the gas pumped directly to the end user or household, without any sizeable loss!

where it can be used as is or better yet, in ceramic fuel cells right there on the premises. To create on demand 24/7 electricity.

The exhaust product from this particular combination would be mostly pristine water vapour and the energy coefficient would be nudging 80% with little if any transmission losses!

Yes, it would cost a pretty penny, force our steel industry to not just rise again, but into a couple of decades of overdrive. Plus, several brand new startup high tech industries forced into being as probably government funded and facilitated co-ops?

Given that would be the smartest way we could do it and without selling the nation or our kid's heritage to this or that debt-laden foreign speculator!
Alan B.
Posted by Alan B., Monday, 10 December 2018 11:37:09 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Alan B - I am not a climate expert but I believe even if you built your garden of Eden, the weather would still be too hot because the offshore winds don't get there now so your turning it green will not change that.

Quote "No not millions of farmers just a few hundred thousand to begin with"
You originally said on another thread
"This cannot be done by crowing ever more folk into overcrowed gridlocked cities. And can only be done by developing our arid interior desert heartland! where if intelligently developed could easily hold a hundred million more, without ever placing any strain on our stack em and rack em cities! "

No way are you going to get a hundred million people to move there.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 10 December 2018 11:57:48 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Philip S,
>It is evident you lack the capacity for an intelligent discussion.
That intellectually dishonest claim, and the out of context quotes you use to justify it, strongly suggest that you do - though I suspect you have the capacity but are just too lazy to use it.

You posted FIVE comments; in my reply less than a day later I responded to three of the four you've repeated this time. If you want a response to the other one, would you mind supplying some evidence of our "lower rate of tax going to the Government than other countries"?

Look at the context of the thread: You'd previously said:
>Your idea is just to borrow money or print money to make jobs, that will not work,
>unless you want 25 million public servants who do not generate wealth for anyone.
My reply included several reasons why that statement was false.
But you responded to that with a load of irrelevant stuff about the costs of employment, as if they somehow invalidated my claim. When I called you out on it, you responded with the first of your five comments:
>Looks like we will have to disagree, time will tell who was right.

Hence my response:
| Why settle for disagreement? I'd highlighted some logical flaws you based your
| argument on - are you really too stupid to admit you were wrong?
I was careful to use the past tense (I'd) to indicate that I was referring to what had already been posted, NOT what I was posting that time.
So, far from calling you stupid before you'd even seen my comment and had a chance to reply, I ASKED IF you were stupid because you still wanted to disagree AFTER I'd refuted a ridiculous statement you made.

As to the rest of your comment:
>1st Not sure why you put the word field in?
Because field robotics is where Australia is the world leader. We're not so good at military robotics (where the USA's way in front), or factory (aka industrial) robotics as your link shows.

(TBC later)
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 10 December 2018 2:01:50 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Hasbeen,
What planet do you think you live on?
I'm quite puzzled because not only did I not advocate government organised farming, but I didn't even mention it in this thread!
Posted by Aidan, Monday, 10 December 2018 2:10:00 PM
Find out more about this user Visit this user's webpage Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan This one is from 2014, there is a more recent one that compares more countries, when I can relocate it.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/feb/19/mining-tax-its-time-for-all-australians-to-realise-they-are-being-ripped-off

The mining boom has resulted in a huge extraction of wealth. Norway has been turning its resource bounty into a fund for future generations, while Australia is dangerously careless with it.

Australians are routinely being told that hefty mining taxes would hinder the country’s largest exports of coal and iron ore. This concern about the competitiveness of the industry has been the basis of the Abbott government’s drive to abolish the mining tax. However, it is hard to reconcile this view (key player Gina Rinehart, for example, claimed that Australia was “too expensive to do export orientated business”) with news this week that mining giant BHP Billiton recently increased its profits by 83% to US$8.1bn.

Within the last year alone, there has been a 20% increase in BHP Billiton’s Western Australian iron ore exports. In spite of this enormous growth, the company only paid US$29m in minerals resource rent tax (MRRT). As it stands, the tax is in no way making BHP uncompetitive – its bumper profits are a testament to that.

While mining companies such as BHP Billiton are making a motza, we need to be reminded that 83% of Australian mining operations are foreign owned. The net income balance – the difference between the profits of Australian investing overseas, and profits made by foreign companies in Australia – has suffered as a result of mining companies extracting greater amounts of Australian mineral wealth for foreign owners.

Unlike Australia, Norway has kept their resource extraction wealth in their control without it fattening up a capitalist exploiting of finite mineral resources. Norway has a 78% tax on oil and gas revenues – unlike Australia, where the effective tax rate is a mere 13%. $60bn from gas sales to continental Europe is annually deposited in the Norwegian sovereign wealth fund. The fund has 5.11 trillion Krone (AU$930bn), or twice Norway’s GDP.
Posted by Philip S, Monday, 10 December 2018 5:45:04 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan
Australia is set to become the world's largest exporter of gas, but a new global report has found, the country forfeits billions of dollars in tax to multinational mining giants.

A Senate hearing into the Callaghan review of the petroleum resource rent tax this week heard just how murky our tax data is, with only opaque disclosures from the companies themselves giving us an indication of how much tax they pay.

Australia is set to eclipse Qatar as the largest exporter of gas in the world by 2020 but will receive just a fraction of the revenue, $800 million compared to Qatar's $26.6 billion.

Jessie Cato, the national co-ordinator for Publish What You Pay Australia, a tax transparency network. "We have poor systematic data collection, it is often private, published in a closed data format like PDF, and located across numerous agencies."

Behind Canada, Australia has the second largest number of publicly listed companies operating in the mining sector, but it has no requirement to publish tax payments or more granular levels of production and exports.

**

Just five per cent of oil and gas projects operating in Australia are paying anything towards the Federal Government's royalty-like scheme designed to share the wealth generated by the nation's resources with the public that owns them.

Fairfax Media can reveal that just eight out of 149 resource projects currently generating revenue contributed a cent in PRRT in 2014-15.

ATO data shows the oil and gas industry, which is now dominated by multinational-operated LNG projects off the Western Australian coast and Queensland's coal seam gas sector, had revenues of $25 billion last year.

But the design of the PRRT, which is a rent based on super-profits rather than a flat royalty, allows companies to write off exploration and other capital costs against revenue before being forced to pay any PRRT.

The ATO figures shows the total "carry-forward expenditure" of the industry has risen to $187 billion. Effectively, that means the sector can pocket sales of $187 billion before being forced to pay any PRRT.
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 11 December 2018 2:21:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Aidan - This one is in support of something you wrote, in business money talks.

GoPro moving production of U.S.-bound action cameras out of China, cites concerns over tariffs

GoPro announced today it will be moving camera production out of China for cameras destined for the U.S. market.

In a press release shared this morning, GoPro stated that while its cameras bound for the international market will continue to be made in China, gear destined for the United States will be moved elsewhere by summer 2019, citing concern over the recent tariffs put in place as a part of the trade war that's been brewing between the U.S. and China.

'Today's geopolitical business environment requires agility, and we're proactively addressing tariff concerns by moving most of our US-bound camera production out of China,' says Brian McGee, executive vice president and CFO of GoPro in the press release. 'We believe this diversified approach to production can benefit our business regardless of tariff implications.'

McGee assured consumers and investors alike the move will have little impact on GoPro's financials, saying 'It’s important to note that we own our own production equipment while our manufacturing partner provides the facilities, so we expect to make this move at a relatively low cost.'

As of writing this article at 10:10am on Monday, December 10th, 2018, GoPro is priced at $4.82 USD per share, down 2.82% on the day on the NASDAQ stock exchange.
Posted by Philip S, Tuesday, 11 December 2018 6:01:52 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. 4
  6. 5
  7. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy