Arjay, I deny what you claim is reality because there's no real evidence for it! I know the CEC claim there is, but they claim a lot of things (including that Obama works for MI6) so their word counts for nothing.

The CEC have sighted Govt and Banking documents and they are not alone. Put your head back in the sand.

.......Rehctub
The very large mining companies in Australia only employ a very small number of people, yet they have a profound effect on the economy due their influence on the exchange rate.

Warmair that is such a distorted view as to only count those employed by mining companies and disregard those who the mining industry engages by way of contractors, consultants, project managers and their collective staff is a total manipulation of the figures.

As for mining wages, why is it that mining companies are looking to the likes of Singapore to operate their machines remotely, it's because our wages have hit saturation point.

As for the mining tax, like anything you need to put nit into prospective.

My recent butcher shop cost me about $40K to set up yet in it's first full year is likely to earn somewhere in the order of $250 K profit.

If I were a miner, you would have me pay $75,000 in tax, leaving $175,000 then allowing 12% return on investment I could pocket a further $4,800.00, then pay 40% of the balance in tax. You're kidding!

May I suggest that if you want to tax any super profits, you target the banks as they invest very little and would move off shore at a heart beat.

The mining tax was a dumb idea but it has already done irreparable damage.

Rehctub

The problem is this the dollar rose to such a high value in 2011 that all other non mining exports became highly uncompetitive and it became more attractive to import goods rather than make them here, the most obvious example is the car industry which will soon be gone.

The dollar has now come down to more sensible value, but it is too late for many of our exporters and local manufacturers.
It would have been much better for the economy to have curbed the boom in coal and Iron ore, it would have kept the dollar lower and the prices of Iron ore and coal higher over the longer term by reducing the over supply.

The mining industry in Australia is easily competitive with the rest of the world but that does not mean that they won't stop looking for ways to cut costs such as using robotic trucks. Rio Tinto produces high grade ore at a cost of $20 a tonne yet even at the current price of $80 is doing very nicely thank you. The mining tax was originally designed to capture some of the windfall from the sudden spike in prices when Iron hit $120 dollars a tonne.

For example if your butcher shop were suddenly able to increase prices by 50% you would have made $375K profit. Under a super windfall tax your increase in profit would now be reduced to $75K and your total profit $325K. I don't think you would be too unhappy about that. I never minded paying tax so long as I made a decent return myself, I certainly did not whinge when I made an unexpected extra 50%.

Oh Arjay, you have learned nothing while you have been away, have you.

>>World debt is 3 times the GDP of the planet<<

Think about that statement for a moment. If someone is a debtor, then someone else is a creditor. So by any definition, net world debt (debt minus credit) must be zero.

It's pretty much the same mistake you make with derivatives, isn't it.

>>...derivative market is 21 times the GDP of the planet<<

You perpetually ignore the fact that there are two sides to the derivative, the call and the put, leaving the net derivative exposure a tiny fraction of your scary number.

>>Derivatives under the rules must be honoured first,then come share holders and last depositor<<

If you understood the structure of derivatives and bank deposits, you would realize that this statement is meaningless out of context. It is of course entirely possible that if an individual Bank were to find itself in negative territory once it has "unwound" its exposure to derivatives, it might have to find emergency means to stay afloat. But if you were to hang on to your shares on the basis that you were more likely to be paid out than depositors, you clearly understand nothing about shares, or the stock market.

>>The CEC have sighted Govt and Banking documents and they are not alone<<

Maybe they have. But it is clear that their understanding of those documents is at much the same level as yours.

I've said it before. Open a textbook on finance, Arjay, instead of opening hysterical, badly-informed and conspiracy-laden web sites. You may actually learn something, and be able to contribute to these topics from something other than a position of total ignorance.