The Labor Party; Another reason they are fucked

D

Dän

Guest
Rudd wants to keep and eye on the 'grocery bill' because hes looking out for us hard workin aussie battlers
Rudd wants to increase the price over the consumption of energy to curve global warming; the producer passes the cost onto the consumer, so the price of goods ie/ gorcerys increase, and the price of energy consumption increases, the aussie battler is doubly fucked up the arse.

Did anyone else notice this hypocricy, or were you too busy marvelling at Rudds charm to notice the fast and large problems and flaws with his so called policies?
 
I think you've misinterpreted the "eye on the grocery bill" policy. (Unless I have. I don't really pay all that much attention.) As far as I understand he's proposed monitoring the supermarkets and their mark-ups rather than the cost of production. Like all the beat-ups on ACA and so on. Why does the same food cost different amount in adjoining suburbs and all that.
 
Phloggy's right. I think you're getting your policies mixed up Dan. It's Howard who's saying that the push toward biofuels and green energy will cause prices to rise. But if his government had sunk money into research and development of renewable resources years ago instead of a useless, never-ending war (among other things he's squandered billions on), the pressure would be less. Also, wasn't it Howard who destroyed the Commonwealth dental health scheme back in 1996, a destruction that has now left tens of thousands of people waiting years for dental care? Yes. I believe it was.
 
I reckon this is a great thread to post a picture of the wall in my computer room again :D

beazley.jpg
 
Dan, pray tell how Howard was going to "curb" the greenhouse effect without increasing energy costs ?

As to grocery prices, I don't think you have any idea on how much groceries have increased the last few years
 
Cabbage $6
Cauliflower $5
Beans $9.90/kilo
Milk going up 20%

But it's all offset by cheap consumer goods, which brings the "inflation rate", and more importantly the "underlying inflation rate" (who coined that ?) down to a level where interest rates only go up 0.25%.

I buy meat, fruit and vegetables every day. I buy a T.V. less than every 5-7 years, and mobile phones/ipods never.
 
Shannow said:
Dan, pray tell how Howard was going to "curb" the greenhouse effect without increasing energy costs ?
Click to expand...

Don't worry about it, mate. The market will sort it out. Once we run out of fossil fuels the market will create the value in renewables.

See you in the hills.
 
Too true.

With no fossil fuels there will be no fertilisers, pesticides, agricultural machinery, and most of our synthetic fibres (clothes), and medicines will disappear.

The "grocery bill" won't look pretty at that point.

Pay me now, or pay me later.

Lucky I've read Ragnaar Benson's books.
 
Carbon trading fuckers. The market then will sort it out, unless yoo do what the inept EU did and let the price of carbon fall to $0

Or leave it to Labor, whatever.
 
phlogiston said:
I think you've misinterpreted the "eye on the grocery bill" policy. (Unless I have. I don't really pay all that much attention.) As far as I understand he's proposed monitoring the supermarkets and their mark-ups rather than the cost of production. Like all the beat-ups on ACA and so on. Why does the same food cost different amount in adjoining suburbs and all that.
Click to expand...

Nah you miss interpreted it.

He did propse to momitor their mark ups. But also wants increase the price of energy, which in turn increases the price of production, so firms will increase their mark ups to maintain profits (which is fair) and pass the cost onto the consumer - plus the consumer also pays more for energy.

A tax on prodcuers has the same effect as one on consumers.
 
Excellent, I assume Howard's going to reduce taxes on fuel then to keep production costs and therefore retail prices down?
 
Many industries already get huge subsidies on energy. They pay a lot less for electricity than households. These subsidies are a way of attracting them to do business in a certain area/state/country. I guess the same can be said of the industrial relations changes.

Cheap energy, cheap labour and tax breaks are what attract industry and corporations to set up shop, and then externalise all the social costs.

And carbon trading, geez, that's a good one, because our government is a real leader in that regard. It is just another way of externalising the cost of the way many do business and the way we live.

I do agree that the Kyoto Protocol is not the be all and end all solution, but if it cannot be globally successful among developed nations, then I am not sure what will be when it is time to convince the developing nations to get on board.
 
Dän;6402633 said:
Carbon trading fuckers. The market then will sort it out, unless yoo do what the inept EU did and let the price of carbon fall to $0

Or leave it to Labor, whatever.
Click to expand...

OK, then who's paying the "price of carbon" fuckwit ?

There is no price on carbon at present.

Add a price for carbon, and the price goes up.

Some fucking economist you are.
 
Dän;6402636 said:
Nah you miss interpreted it.

He did propse to momitor their mark ups. But also wants increase the price of energy, which in turn increases the price of production, so firms will increase their mark ups to maintain profits (which is fair) and pass the cost onto the consumer - plus the consumer also pays more for energy.

A tax on prodcuers has the same effect as one on consumers.
Click to expand...

No, after about 30 seconds research I'm pretty sure you've got the wrong end of the stick on this one:

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2007/07/11/1975344.htm

http://www.news.com.au/business/story/0,23636,22060255-462,00.html

(That second one, by the way, is actually an article about how the policy is a bad idea. It still explains what it's about though.)

I agree that increasing the price of energy will increase the price of goods, and I'm pretty sure that they know that too.

But the monitoring is not about keeping prices down.

What the grocery monitoring is about is about transparency in the pricing. If the cost to the producer goes up, then fine, raise the prices at the register. But if the price goes up because there's nowhere else in the area to buy milk and Coles wants an extra 20c per litre, then the people need to know that too.

They're two separate ideas that can co-exist quite comfortably.
 
Shannow said:
OK, then who's paying the "price of carbon" fuckwit ?

There is no price on carbon at present.

Add a price for carbon, and the price goes up.

Some fucking economist you are.
Click to expand...

The fucken firms will pay knob shine, the more you use the more you pay, the market determines the fucken price arse knob
 
Winmar said:
Excellent, I assume Howard's going to reduce taxes on fuel then to keep production costs and therefore retail prices down?
Click to expand...

Probably not, im not omni potent, i dont know fucken everything do I?:kickass:
 
salty said:
I went to buy a lettuce the other day.

It was $4. I didn't eat lettuce that day.

I recall buying lettuce for like, 80c.
Click to expand...

This happened to me tonight.

I was not impressed. I had to buy like some mixed coloured half rocket shit that tasted like leaves from the fucking camelia's out the front.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top Bottom
Back