These three words AT ANY COST may well be the worst three words many have heard for many years.

Our government is now scrutinizing the likes of 'super' and 'the GST' to name just a couple, searching for ways to fill the void of their il fated promise of a surplus at any cost.

To think all this potential hurt could have been avoided with two simple moves, withdrawal from Afghanistan and stop the waste-fest on illegals. it's still not too late, but time is ticking.

The only comfort I can draw from this fiasco of a government, is that they have achieved their wasteful ways without my support.

I say again and again, if only they were accountable.

No not true, not GST.
Every government has its slash and burn period.
I see you often complain of over spending.
Now you complain about the opposite.
Any action the take you will jump on.

Just stop the NBN!

The Labor Party in particular will come after your super.Watch a great big new tax emerge if they do not get their BS Carbon Tax up.

Not true on both counts Belly.

They are looking at the GST.

As for over spending, that's never been my issue, however, prioritized spending is.

You simply can't go throwing borrowed money at external problems, when you have to first borrow the funds to do it.

I don't think they should have tried to achieve budget surplus in the first place, but remember, it was Mr Swan that said he would achieve surplus, at any cost.

So, given his budget estimates was planned around projections, and little more, I am curious how he intends to achieve his surplus and,What, or who, will be the losers if he goes for his unachievable dream.

BTW, il informed me, along with others said it wouldn't happen, of cause, we, as is usually the case, were dismissed.

I am afraid it's very hard to see what an employer sees, when ones job is created for them. No offense intended.

NBN, yes, I forgot that one. Set to place us in the fast lane of the crumbling global economy.

One can only wonder where we would be had this lot not been handed the cheque book.

Reduce immigration to net zero.

<<Reduce immigration to net zero.>>

That's unfair, but what could be done instead is to have immigrants pay for all their costs, explicit and implicit, so there is net zero economic benefit in coming to Australia. A significant flat fee would do, which should be paid either by the immigrants themselves or by whoever else (employer, family, a church group in the case of refugees, etc.) is willing to.

What’s unfair about it Yuyutsu?

Otherwise I agree with your post. I bet when it is all worked out that the fee per immigrant would be quite substantial.

My point is that if the government wants to achieve a surplus quickly, then one of the most significant things that they could do is reduce immigration to net zero or somewhere near it or put a moratorium on immigration for a few years.

They could then forego the enormous costs of providing all the necessary infrastructure and services for this very large number of new residents, as well as a lot of the costs of maintaining or upgrading current services and infrastructure which are placed under ever more pressure by ever more people.

Dear Ludwig,

<<What’s unfair about it Yuyutsu?>>

To begin with, birds and fish are free to immigrate to Australia and had we not been an island, insects, reptiles and mammals too (perhaps they still can if they catch a floating log). Why should humans be discriminated against?

Also, what right has the state to separate families and friends from their loved ones, preventing them from living together?

The prevailing assumption is that immigrants come to Australia in order to benefit from the social structure and establishment, to suck the existing population and its wealth. Perhaps there are a few like this - and those should receive a big kick to their backside, but this is far from being the general case.

As an immigrant myself, I can testify that I had no interest in what I can get from the Australian people and government. Many years ago, I came to the continent of Australia in order to live a free life, as far away from war as possible. Although formally I had to arrive as a skilled-migrant, at heart I felt as a refugee and many of my friends who were in the same predicament were unable to come because they did not happen to have the skills which the Australian government wanted at the time, but we felt was irrelevant - my friends at the time actually believed that they are going to die as a result. I did not consider the presence of other people and their social structures in this continent as an attraction but rather as a nuisance, I'd rather find the land empty, I was not looking for support - I can take care of myself, thank you very much.

So, the fee should separate the sheep from the goats, eliminating those who come for social benefits and keeping those who have a genuine right to walk the earth. All but those who come to suck Australians should be able to make it - Anyone genuine can either work hard and pay the fee or convince an Australian to grant or lend them that money.

<< To begin with, birds and fish are free to immigrate to Australia and had we not been an island, insects, reptiles and mammals too (perhaps they still can if they catch a floating log). Why should humans be discriminated against? >>

So you are saying that we should have completely open borders and that anyone who wants to move here should be able to do so, uninhibited? Or with some paying fees and others not? Or you are at least saying that our current rate of immigration is fine and should continue forever?

One of the most fundamental duties of government is surely to properly regulate the influx of people, given that this factor is absolutely enormous in terms of economics, environment and quality of life.

It is one of the most easily adjustable big factors. So when our economy is looking a little drab or the books need balancing or we are having trouble providing food and goods both to the existing population and to export markets in order to gain returns for the existing domestic population, then what should we do??

We should gear down immigration, surely!

One of the most amazing things in all of this is the lack of thought about the ever-increasing demand for everything. All we ever hear, from just about all commentators on economics or on environment or social wellbeing, is that we need to increase the supply, ie boost growth, without even a thought about the rapidly increasing demand side of the equation!

This is just completely crackers!

We’ve had the most amazing mining boom for many years now. And yet we still can’t balance the books or significantly increase our quality of life or prevent environmental degradation, etc, etc.

At the same time, we have had absurdly high immigration.

What does this tell you?

How do you think our economy and finances and quality of life and quality of environment would all be looking right now if we’d had net zero or at least a much lower rate of immigration over that period?

I see the great Australian knockers are still at it. Winge about all the wasted money in the system, and when you tidy up around the edges, they scream, like a stuck pig.
12 months to the next election, and 2 more chances to tweak the budget.
No one is a fortune teller.
Job adds up greatly in the last month, unemployment steady, nothing to complain about.
There are those that make their own economy, and others that confuse state issues with federal.

Yuyutsu, Ludwig is right, but to elaborate, the reason that we will
have to stop increasing our population is because we are reaching
the End of Growth.
This means that our now available resources are divided by the number
of people in the country.
Each increase reduces our standard of living.
All nations will face the same problem as it is the world as a whole
that is now facing The End of Growth !

That is the arithmetic of the problem, live with it !

Does the end of growth mean, inventions have come to an end.
Are underdeveloped countries going to stay that way.
Chinese are becoming consumers. Indonesia is set for massive growth.
I would like to see more on the subject before i come to a conclusion that growth can end.
European countries are further depressing their country, it's debatable if that is the right way to go.
The more out of work, the less tax revenue. So how does that pay debt.
We can do that here because, one state is not Australia. The size of qld could house 3 European countries.
If you force people back to the stone age, that is where you will stay.

Dear Ludwig,

<<So you are saying that we should have completely open borders and that anyone who wants to move here should be able to do so, uninhibited?>>

I was simply answering your question: "What's unfair about it".

You can choose to be fair or otherwise, that's a different matter altogether. You can choose to put practical economic considerations ahead of morality - and let us not kid ourselves, most people do so!

Just please, don't excuse yourself saying it is your fundamental duty (or the government's duty, in your name) to do so, please do not roll your eyes to heaven with excuses, but look straight into the eyes of those who want to come to this continent and tell them "piss off, I rather retain my economic standard of living than allow you into MY continent".

You do what you want - in the end you will do so anyway, I simply bring forth the moral argument:

1) You are under absolutely no obligation to allow new people into the society you created and the economic benefits it offers.

2) You have no divine prerogative to deny entry of others into a whole continent.

How to reconcile between the two? Well, you need to distinguish between those who want to come because they want your society and those who want to come to one of God's continents. On a practical level, one way is to deny citizenship and any benefits from newcomers (unless of course you choose to welcome them, it's your right), allowing them to starve if need be; another is to make them pay the above fee in advance, thus ensuring they did not come for economic reasons.

Yuyutsu, you are completely missing the imperative of sustainability, and what it means to not be sustainable.

How immoral is it for our government to keep on driving our whole society towards some sort of enormous crash event or at least a very significant and unevenly distributed decline in quality of life?

We need to make sure that our society doesn’t reach a point of high stress, collapse of the rule of law, civil strife, critical resource-supply issues and a scenario in which the powerful, aggressive and ruthless come to dominate completely.

It is not a matter of denying people from overseas the same lifestyle as we have in this country; it is a matter of sensibly managing that sort of morality with the sustainability morality.

The latter MUST take priority.

By the way, net zero immigration would still be a fairly substantial level of immigration, in which we would have the capacity to double our refugee intake and still have an essential skills category and the family reunion that goes with it.

Dear Ludwig,

<<How immoral is it for our government to keep on driving our whole society towards some sort of enormous crash event>>

Certainly immoral!

I hold that for government to drive society ANYWHERE is immoral, but in this case it is not only immoral, but also stupid.

<<We need to make sure that our society doesn’t reach a point of high stress...>>

We may wish that goal, but in an absolute sense we can't make sure anything, because nature's forces can be stronger and abrupt. Also, though desirable, we shouldn't attempt to achieve even the noblest of goals using immoral means.

Nevertheless, I agree that actively supporting immigration at this time, as opposed to merely and passively allowing it on moral grounds, is totally stupid.

Let me reiterate: allowing individuals to immigrate into the continent of Australia does not mean that we have to grant them citizenship or a visa, it does not imply that we must pick them up from their sinking boats, it does not mean that we must give them welfare or medical treatment, or food, or shelter, or education, or anything else. It does not even mean that we don't drive them away from places where they create trouble. All it means is that we respect their freedom to roam the earth in their capacity of living-beings (or animals if you rather see it this way).

A negative net immigration would be nice to have. I agree that we should aim for population reduction rather than increase (however, I do not consider standing everyone in a row and shooting every 3rd person as a valid approach to achieve that).

579, the basic principle is that growth is energy.
Most financial people think that growth is money.
That is why we are seeing various governments issuing pixel money like
there is no tomorrow.

>Does the end of growth mean, inventions have come to an end.
No, but inventions will be much more towards doing more with less
energy and doing things with personal energy.

>Are underdeveloped countries going to stay that way.
In a word yes, but if they reduce their population they will get more
per person out of the energy that they do have.

>Chinese are becoming consumers.
They are already energy limited, which is why their growth is falling.
So far they have had some growth because the "west" has reduced its
energy demand.
They will never be consumers like the west because the resources are not there.

> Indonesia is set for massive growth.
It will not happen, their oil production is in fairly steep decline
about 4% I believe, and they are now an oil importer.
Likewise their coal production is declining, although they still export.
Their physical area cannot support about 200 million people.
One report was that they cannot support 200 million if they have to
use animal power for farming.

Continued

There is another problem, the financial system cannot finance interest
and debt capital repayment out of the low current growth and peak
credit has appeared.
This is not something I had thought of previously but Richard
Heinberg spoke of it at a talk I attended last week.
No one is prepared to issue credit as there is too much outstanding
debt in the world that will be defaulted upon.

Watch how bankers and government treasurers etc complain that they
have not been able to get growth despite their "Quantitative Easing".
Why don't they just call it as it is, money printing or pixel money ?
It is because many in the US & Europe are afraid of it.

There are a number of books on End of Growth, one by that name by
Richard Heinberg and Your World is About to Get a Whole Lot Smaller
by Jeff Rubin.

Google them, plenty of Utubes talks and web info.

Yuyutsu, you're kidding!

I guess if the birds, fish, etc etc were lining up in the centerlink cue, we would have reason to complain about them as well.

While I don't vist centerlink I can't imagine the ques are full of seagulls.

As for us separating families, it is quite obvious the illegals dont care for them, otherwise they would not leave them behind, unless of cause they are certain our bleeding heart government will welcome all with open arms, Harvey Norman vouchers and about four times the cash that our own pensioners receive, despite having paid taxes all their working lives.

I think we need a bleeding hearts fund, where all the bleeding hearts can donate their spare cash, to support the illegals.

Just think, we could get on with looking after our own, and you lot could feel all warm and fuzzy knowing you have helped some apparent lost sole.

It's a win win, don't you think.

Hmmm, 579,
I put a post up here but it seems to have disappeared.

Have a look at this article by Gail Tveberg.
It says it better and a lot more detail than I can muster.

http://ourfiniteworld.com/2012/09/26/high-priced-fuel-syndrome/

While it is US orientated it has very worrying echos of our predicament.
Our big increases in electricity prices will have really big impacts
and may well push us into recession if mining has a big drop.

Dear Rehctub,

I am also an immigrant and I don't visit centerlink.

(that institute should have been abolished long ago, but that's for another topic)

As for separating families, that applies to Australian citizens just as well, even those born in Australia.

Re: bleeding-heart fund - see my post from Thursday, 27 September 2012 9:51:09 PM.

Interesting article Bazz. It certainly makes sense about what is driving prices. Oil and utilities cost.
If people can't afford to bye it, wages goes up, and that causes more price rises.
The last two quarters couldn't have been to bad here as about 1.3% increase on pensions.

579, I would suggest the recent pension rise you refer to would have been to combat the carbon tax, you know, the one we were not meant to have.

In one hand, out the other, and some.

Makes no sense to me.

Butch , you are full of sour grapes. The latest increase was CPI for 2 quarters. The carbon tax done nothing, it was a gigantic fizzer as we expected. The carbon tax added .53 cents to my power bill, other rises added several dollars.
Not only is Abbott working for the lab party, Jones has also joined the parade.

So 579, if the tax was a fizzer, as you say, how then can it possibly reduce emissions as the added costs, as you imply, won't make enough difference for anyone to change their ways.

So why did we go there?

579;
As you found Gail Tverberg's article of interest, you may be
interested in this follow up article on the relationship between oil & GDP.

http://tinyurl.com/9y379dr

Some economists seem to becoming around to the realisation that money
is not as important as they thought.

Looks like he's gone. (579)

Another thread, killed off by facts.