That's more your normal spirit dickie dear, a little late night
whiskey in the cuppa tea, seems to work wonders :)

*For instance: Who should acknowledge responsibility for Joe Citizen's dangerous driving? Joe Citizen or the regulator?*

Both bear responsibility. If there were no laws against theft,
rape or murder, or if they were not enforced, do you really
think that they would not increase dramatically? The
responsibility of lawmakers if to create and enforce laws,
under which we as a society can operate.

Human behaviour at all levels, is full of errors of judgement.
That is why we need checks and balances, but separation of the
powers, so that the errors of one source of power are balanced
out by checks and balances of another.

Take a look at our own banking industry, which sailed through
the GFC. Now analyse why. It was not clever Kevie. Go back
a bit and you might remember the HIH fiasco. Costello realised
that there was a problem and installed a new and very forceful
regulator, who enforced those checks and balances.

Now go to the BP fiasco. A regulator was indeed in place,
they approved BPs drilling plan for the hole, but that regulator
became corrupted under the Bush regime and it will take the
new regime some time to sort out the mess.

That regulator also has the expertise to make informed decisions
about these things. Other oil companies are pointing out that
mistakes were made in the design, but there were no checks and
balances in place. Disaster followed.

Checks and balances are indeed required at all levels, for we are
all human and none of us are infallible.

"Minerals Council chief executive Mitch Hooke said the industry did not like the structure of the proposed tax but there had to be a move away from royalties to a profits-based tax.

Twenty leading economists, including Professor Pannell, former Australian Competition and Consumer Commission boss Allan Fels, University of Melbourne economics chair John Freebairn and Queensland University school of economics head Flavio Menezes, signed a letter advocating the new tax.

They said the details were open to debate but the move from royalties to a rent tax made economic sense and should not affect mining investment."

http://au.news.yahoo.com/thewest/a/-/breaking/7300000/experts-back-changes-to-mining-tax/

While the Rudd proposal needs much work and adjustment, Australia is entitled to a dividend from successful mining of non-renewable resources.

Deary me Severin, theoretical economists who seem to be mostly
labour party supporters and you believe every word.

Perhaps you should take a bit of notice what those actually doing
the investing are saying and how the numbers crunch out.

Would you pay 77% of your salary in tax?

http://www.smh.com.au/business/mining-kevs-77-effective-tax-rate-20100617-yhw2.html

Luckily for the big boys like BHP, they don't need to be bullied
by 2 bob politicians, they have enough offshore projects to get on
with, until a more sensible Govt is elected and the rules are
changed.

There is a difference between paying tax and fiscal thuggery. If
you think that you don't already benefit from the 6.3 billion $
tax paid by BHP alone, then you understand even less then I thought.

But learn the hard way.