Peter, there is no need to be pompous about it. Your suggestion that I don't understand just shows an abject ignorance. There is no reason why carbon pricing should cost anything as the tax raised could be used to reduce other taxes so that the net transfer of money to the government is zero. Renewables have not achieved stellar results because there is a lack of investment not despite it. In any case, there is no great reason to kill off all fossil fuels. Carbon effluents only need to be reduced to sustainable levels, not eliminated.

It will continue to get worse no matter how low interest rates become. When we sold off all our Govt banks, we lost monetary sovereignty. Now even our inflationary money gets created as debt by private banks here and OS. So our currency gets depreciated and we have to pay back principal + interest on a loss. How insane!

Who are the major shareholders in all our banks ? JP Morgan, HSBC, Citbank and NAB own up to 40% of all our bank,so the profits go OS.

At the last G20 China gave the USA a serve about money printing and living off the fumes of a false economy. They were right. The west has totally lost the plot letting big private central banking cartels dictate the money supply and what country we will invade next to shore up their profits.

Croc099,

>”There is no reason why carbon pricing should cost anything as the tax raised could be used to reduce other taxes so that the net transfer of money to the government is zero.”

Sorry. That statement is nonsense. It’s been discussed to death for 20 years, and know one seriously suggests you can have a carbon price regime with no economic repercussions. The repercussions of damaging our economy relative to others is huge. If you’d take the time to read the link, you might begin to understand. Carbon pricing cannot succeed.

“Renewables have not achieved stellar results because there is a lack of investment not despite it.”

No. That is not the reason. The reason is that there are physical constraints, such as no viable storage. And wind and solar (PV or CST) for example require about 10x the materials nuclear requires to supply the same energy over a life time. And most important, they are hugely expensive and don’t meet the basic requirements listed in previous comments. You haven’t acknowledged that yet.

>”In any case, there is no great reason to kill off all fossil fuels. Carbon effluents only need to be reduced to sustainable levels, not eliminated.”

What are sustainable levels and how do you reduce emissions to that level without cutting fossil fuels by around 80% be end of century? And how do you think renewables can make any significant dent in the amount of energy we will need by mid century and end of century? Clearly you are not across any of the numbers.

Actually, future carbon constraints don't need to be an impediment to economic growth, but something that actually stimulates it!
We should put a price on carbon, say a million dollars a ton!
There's another component, the cap.
The cap can be current emissions, meaning no sanely operated business will actually pay this tax, unless they fall below a progressively lowered cap!
So, tax credits, could be earned for lower carbon outcomes, such as would occur, if we limited steel production only to direct reduction arc furnaces, and located the smelters, right alongside new cheaper than coal thorium power stations! [Reductions need to be proven, before any credits could be distributed.]
The first outcome, removing transmission line losses,and halving current steel/aluminum smelting carbon emission!
And indeed, make exporting iron ore totally uneconomic, when compared to ready to use metal/products.
After cheap energy, the other component is tax!
I don't believe we can continue to operate any sanely run economy, with a built in structural deficit, compounded, by a shrinking cadre of actual tax payers!
So the second part of sustainable growth, is tax reform and simplification, that removes compliance, and compliance costs, which currently is a huge averaged 7% impost on the averaged bottom line, of Australian based business.
Moreover, sensible reform, would at last, include all those currently avoiding tax, or just a fair share, meaning the rate could be surprisingly low.
The lowest tax component in the world, coupled to the lowest energy costs, would have the high tech industries of the world, and many self funded retirees, queuing to relocate here, and in so doing, actually and massively, increase total tax receipts!
More inland revenue, would allow more infrastructure rollouts, and at a faster but sustainable pace, ahead of demand.
We need to grow, for many multiple and extremely credible reasons?
Rhrosty.

The real issue is the "per capita".

The stock market peaked in November 2007 and its been mostly dark clouds ever since.

In the years since, we've added 1.18 million more immigrants.

More than *three quarters* are from Third World/less-developed countries.
What are these people likely to contribute to our economy?
Unless we stop this ridiculous self-sabotage, no other measures will make a damn difference.

I agree with those who suggest a transaction tax.
But it must replace *all* other taxes.

MORONS please note.You don't need any more taxes if you have Govt banks who create credit debt free.

Govts should never be allowed to borrow and private banks should not be allowed to create and loan out money they do not have.