While we’ve all had a great time mocking Brendan Nelson’s ridiculous promise of a petrol excise cut, it’s always good to be reminded about what the punters out there think. And, while any tiny movements in the voting intentions are essentially noise, they apparently seem to think that cutting petrol tax is a good idea:
Fifty-six per cent were critical of Mr Rudd’s performance on petrol, with 78% declaring the Government should act. Of those wanting something done, 67% said the Government should cut the fuel tax and only 22% preferred Labor’s controversial proposed price-monitoring FuelWatch scheme.
Dissatisfaction with Mr Rudd’s performance on petrol was highest in Victoria at 60% and lowest in NSW at 53%.
Tim at Blogocracy may well have argued that it’s meaningless, I don’t think it’s quite so meaningless as all that.
What it shows is that the majority of people don’t understand why cutting the petrol tax is a stupid idea, when there are several explanations that can be turned into a snappy soundbite. Maybe I’m just a political nuff-nuff, but it seems to me that the smart thing for the government to do would have been to pick one or two and just keep repeating them until they started registering. Hopefully they’ll learn a lesson from this episode…
UPDATE: Apparently Tim Blair thinks I’m adeluded leftist academic. Always nice to have my dubious credentials as a left-winger boosted 
the fact that 78% of Australian’s would prefer we remain addicted to the dangerous poison we call petrol, rather than beginning the uncomfortable process of weaning ourselves of it – shows how pale green we trully are and how the government has totally mismanaged this entire opportunity
Of course it’s easy being green when it involves putting in a few lightbulbs, weaning ouselves off plastic bags (even then there are howls of outrage) or learning to recycle.
But when reality starts to bite, this poll shows that the majority are unwilling or unable to face this reality.
Perhaps the better question might have been: Which government services would you like to see cut to fund a meaningless decrease in the price of petrol?
You are right RM, this was an opportunity missed by the Rudd government. If you can’t make headway on this issue when you have so much political capital, when?
I would conjecture that a large part of the reason for the poll figures is that the punters believe that there are either large untapped reserves of fat in the big petrol companies (in which case they are better placed than the punters to absorb the pain of higher oil prices through leaner profit margins) or large untapped reserves of potential savings in the Commonwealth budget (in which case the loss of petrol excise revenue can be made up by reduced spending on some “unworthy” cause or other). I have encountered this kind of thinking in many forms over the years (especially as treasurer or equivalent of various organisations!).
I had just such an exchange with a checkout woman last week.
‘They’re (the government) not really trying’ she said.
There are a whole lot of people who feel comfortable in their little bubble, believing that government (whoever they are) can sort things out and if they can’t, well, there’s someone to cop the blame. They don’t want to take too much notice of what’s actually happening and why because they’re not really that interested. That’s their right, of course, but compulsory voting means we do depend on these people’s judgements every so often.
I agree with you Robert, that a few relentless repetitions of some basic facts are really what’s needed to communicate with people who live inside essentially apolitical bubbles.
“…when there are several explanations that can be turned into a snappy soundbite.”
Fire away, Robert and all, I would love to see them.
“Time and again I tell myself
I’ll stay clean tonight
But the little green wheels are following me
Oh no, not again..”
Delivered by Peter Garrett, via Bowie, for starters.
Robert, I know you’ve written about this before, but for the sake of us economic simpletons, would you be kind enough to repeat this explanation, and are you able to come up with a couple of snappy soundbites of your own to get this process started?
It’s simple – you tell people you’d be happy to cut petrol tax if they’re willing to give up their income tax cuts. The money’s gotta come from somewhere.
You could add that it doesn’t much matter anyway cos the price of petrol is only headed one way – up – no matter what anybody does. You can’t create more oil fields, and you can’t stop China growing.
But then that’s probably not wise. Voters are pretty good at messenger shooting; you get elected telling people want they want to hear, not unwanted messages.
To slightly rephrase what Adrian (and others) have said:
The second one is:
That’s an oversimplification, but if petrol taxes were cut uniformly around the world, demand would stay the same and the price of oil would rise to compensate. But compared to the nonsense being spouted on the issue, it’s much closer to the truth than anything else being said.
I don’t say it’s meaningless. In fact, I note that it represents a political victory (of sorts) for the Opposition. I also think that the govt could turn it around by hanging tough on the matter. I think people do realise that something has to give and will eventually reward the party that plays it straight with them. Whoever that might be.
Tim, I think Rob’s grabbed that from my post where I said the poll questions were “basically meaningless” and linked to you – which was shorthand for your critique of the questions. Apologies if a bit of simplification went on!
Sorry, Tim and Kim, for the misinterpretation.
I think for the Left the biggest issue is it is telling you how little faith the average punter really has in the theories of Climate Change.
If you really believe in Climate Change and you want the changes in society you think are required to solve so called climate change then you people have a lot of work too do. I’m glad it’s your job not mine.
I think for the Left the biggest issue is it is telling you how little faith the average punter really has in the theories of Climate Change.
If you really believe in Climate Change and you want the changes in society you think are required to solve so called climate change then you people have a lot of work too do. I’m glad it’s your job not mine
Here’s the problem. You have celebrities like Al Gore & Tim Flannery flying around the world preaching to the rest of us that we need to change our lifestyles to reduce our carbon emissions.
Why is it that people expect the public to change their lifestyles when those preaching the message (like Al Gore, Tim Flannery… etc) are being blatantly hypocritical. It makes the whole Global Warming message come across as elitists using AGW as a tool to control the masses.
It’s OK for Gore to fly around the world to do his job but your average person must give up their car & catch public transport.
FFS, anyone who doesn’t believe that oil is a finite resource that is going to become increasingly scarce because of rising demand and falling supply, really needs their head read.
Forget global warming and Al Gore if it makes you feel better, this is Economics 101. I thought that was one thing that your average RWDB knew something about.
‘They’re (the government) not really trying’ she said.
Considering the ALP invented the slogan “My name’s Kevin and I’m here to help” small wonder the checkout operator expects the government to … I don’t know … help? This is a whole the ALP has dug for themselves. From day 1 of the campaign they cared more, they shared more, they would do more. I’m sure JWH would say something like “yadda yadda market forces, world prices, excise reduction is a drop in the ocean yadda yadda” and be roundly condemned for his hertlessness. But he’d be right.
What the Australian public has forgotten is that Big Kev will put up petrol prices even higher. I predict there’ll be blood in the streets…
It sure is a different world out there. People actually have to pay the tax on every single transaction.
I’ve yet to see any justification for why government has to be involved in private transactions between motorists and fuel companies.
Why am I getting a feeling this post may have had a link from Bolt/Blair?
Trouble is, when it comes to petrol prices politically Rudd has to do more than watch and listen. He has to DO something to bring petrol prices down appreciably. Same goes for grocery prices.
And yes, this IS a win for the Opposition, and to turn itr into a victory for Labor Rudd will have to do something about petrol and grocery prices that is probably economically stupid or politically painful. And the whole thing will blow up again once we get into the emissions trading debate. But that’s politics. Some of us mightn’t like it. But that’s the way it is.
I love the disingenuousness in his attack on Rob for daring to criticise a stupid approach to the issue, without ACTUALLY going on the record explicitly defending the stupid approach Rob was criticising.
“And yes, this IS a win for the Opposition, and to turn it into a victory for Labor Rudd will have to do something about petrol and grocery prices that is probably economically stupid or politically painful.”
You haven’t mentioned that he could also do something politically popular but economically and environmentally damaging – cut petrol taxes and so prices in a genuflection to the voter’s demands .
It is a tricky business this leading a country – doing the right thing and STAYING in office .
And it would no doubt alienate some of those voters who have wandered into the ALP tent after foregoing a voet for the Greens.
FFS, anyone who doesn’t believe that oil is a finite resource that is going to become increasingly scarce because of rising demand and falling supply, really needs their head read.
Oil is not only not a finite resource but will be in use for at least the next hundred years. Shale oil reserves are enormous and there are vast regions that haven’t even been explored yet. Peak oil is simply more hysteria from the misanthropes of the environMental movement.
Furthermore, research being done on algae to oil conversion (especially when combined with GM technologies that create low water use, hardy plants) is showing what can be done when technology is used to solve energy problems.
No.
The mortgage belt electorate to whom the medieval stuff is being pitched know FULL WELL what it’s all about. They dont think the oil companies have “untapped fat”. They can’t BEAR to think that any of the money they delude themselves into beleiving they are entitled to is used for others less fortunate.
They don’t care.
They don’t care WHERE the money comes from; schools, hospitals, whatever, so long as THEY ( think THEY ) are all right.
Howard milked this collusion thing with them beautifully for twelve years and after the intial Rudd slide the usual suspects in press and media are back to their old black propaganda tricks, wheedling the mortgage belt into resentment and complicity, in the hope of a quick change of government in a couple of years.
I smell flying monkeys
Whilst still a dissapointing large amount, two thirds whom think excise should be cut are out of the 78% of people who want more done. This comes out at 46% of the total population.
Which leaves at least 56% of “punters” whom either reject outright, or don’t yet support the excise cut.
Which means even without the government countering the policy, the median punter hasn’t fallen for it.
Robert M in comments:
Robert, I agree with your main argument but I don’t think this is right. Demand for petrol’s fairly inelastic, so when you tax it the quantity demanded doesn’t fall much and so suppliers can pass most of the price rise onto the punters.
So it’s the reverse if you take the tax back off again: because demand is pretty inelastic, quantity demanded doesn’t rise much despite the tax reduction and so the punters capture most of the tax reduction.
It doesn’t make sense to say that if you raise tax it just gets put into the price but if you lower tax it doesn’t get taken out of the price but instead goes to Saudi Arabia.
Robert, I suspect things are different ‘out there’ from ‘in here’ at LP. ‘In here’ is not the real world.
I think that you’d agree that much of the present fuel price situation is the result of factors we know well.
But there are other drivers. For example, there are large and untapped supplies of heavy sour crude, but no government has permitted the construction of the extremely expensive conversion refineries to crack this type of crude in over 30 years. And basic refineries produce 15-30% low value products (asphalt, bitumen) from the light sweet crudes. The heavy sour refineries use a little light sweet for viscosity reduction, but produce only about 1% of input as ‘waste’ (which in their case is a very valuable, pure coke).
Want to decrease fuel prices? Build refineries to handle heavy sour crude.
Mean while, the really big (national) oil companies (Petronas, Pertamina, Aramco etc) continue their extremely wasteful and corrupt paths, leaving small companies – and Exxon, at $US550Bn is vastly smaller than the nationals) work on small profit margins (about 8% of investment) in increasingly remote field that take a lot of investment to exploit.
There is, of course, no shortage of oil at all in absolute terms. There is a shortage of easily extracted, cheap, light sweet crude.
The present tax system on fuel was put in place in a time of cheap, readily available, light sweet crude using basic refineries. Those days are gone. Time for that era’s tax system to go, too.
MarkL
Canberra
Here’s the Blair post:
http://blogs.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/timblair/index.php/dailytelegraph/comments/strange_culture_examined/
David: if Australia cuts petrol taxes and no other countries do, sure, the price will drop here.
But everybody from John McCain to Nikolas Sarkozy’s been calling for tax cuts on fuel. If everyone cuts fuel taxes, we’ve got more money chasing the same amount of fuel – as you’ve correctly noted, short-run demand is fairly inelastic. So the net result would be a rise in the price to match the tax cuts.
Kim: I’ve dared to reply to Blair….
I’ll be curious to see whether he’s prepared to post it
Climate Change??? Bwa Haa Haa! While ANYONE continues to use that expression I is gonna laugh heartily. What stupid, stupid thing to either believe in or not to believe in. Let’s all fight Climate CHANGE! Have the guts to say what you mean. You believe that we’re responsible for glowball warming. Dang you, I want it to be warmer. How dare you decide for me what temperature to make this planet! And plastic bags?! More Bwa Haa Haa. Just google plastic bag myth and cringe. It’s all based on a typo! A TYPO!!!! Bwa Haa Haa. Get your thermomenters out of my face. I mean it. I’m sick of you. You’re causing poverty and misery on this planet with your stupidity.
Heh! Good one, Rob. We’ll see if the boot isn’t on the other foot now that the flying monkeys don’t have Andrea plus “we are not accepting new accounts at this time” factors to keep their little sandpit pristine and leftie-free.
Never trust anyone who refers to your fellow citizens as “punters”. I live in a marginal seat and I’m not a punter.
There are few snappier soundbites than “the recession we had to have, which took six years to bite but bit hard. Of all the criticisms you can make of the Coalition in 2007, nobody believes they lost because of a dearth of snappy soundbites.
If you seriously overestimate the power of the MSM, you’d believe the Snappy Soundbites has the same power as the Piranha Brothers’ use of sarcasm
Rob, what could possibly be wrong about returning people’s money to them? You do not adequately explain why this is a problem.
Believe it or not, there’s actually a good debate happening on both blogs. A few barbs are getting flung as well, but also some good ideas.
George W. Bush, SOTU Address, Jan., 2006
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/2006/01/20060131-10.html
What the hell’s wrong with an addiction to an inexhaustible resource??
Danged Lefty defeatist!
“Believe it or not, there’s actually a good debate happening on both blogs.”
I am not sure I would go that far, skepticlawyer, but it has been fun to share.
Andrew E: fair call, but I am constantly reminded that there’s a vast gulf (of information, I hasten to add, not anything else) between the minority of people (probably bigger than it ever has been, but still relatively small) who pay close attention to the political issues of the day, and the much larger group of people who have better things to do with their time.
Nic: I assume you’ve come via Blair’s blog. I happen to think that there is a place for government to flatten out relative living standards through tax and welfare policy. Furthermore, some services are better provided by government (notably health). I suspect you probably disagree, and I wouldn’t presume to be able to persuade you otherwise with one blog reply.
But, even so, I suspect that a lot of the people who want their fuel taxes cut don’t really make the connection between tax rates and government services, and don’t appreciate that cutting fuel taxes means that either a) other taxes will have to rise, b) services would have to be cut, or c) the overall budget position will be harmed.
Its not meaningless at all, it really is how people most people think. This may surprise you but 95% population has NFI where petrol comes from, and why it costs what it does. If its too expensive the government should !do something! about it, like lower taxes, or even subsidise it. After all, a man has to fill his tank.
P.S. Robert, you must feel honoured. Blair called you a “leftist”. I am sooooo jealous. Oh well, back to Bolty’s blog for some more sh*t stirring…
or c) the overall budget position will be
harmedaltered.Robert, an immediate reduction in (petrol) taxation and a corresponding reduction in the–unallocated–surplus is not necessarily a harmful budget position.
Lord be praised! We’re saved! Kev’s sending Marn to Jeddah.
I hope Marn’s packed the blowtorch!
According to a recent poll industrial relations and global warming were the biggest vote-changing issues in the last election.
But if you read on, it seems attitudes to climate change were judged by a willingness to sign Kyoto. Voters weren’t all that happy with price hikes, which is not surprising.
Kerry O’Brien had a go at Rudd tonight. I do mean “had a go at”. He really ripped in, talking over and using his hectoring, lecturing tone.
Rudd compared $2.50 per week of fuel bill savings offered by Nelson with $50pw of tax relief from the Govt.
He also stressed the energy review, where of course Marn Ferguson is leading the charge.
Tony of South Yarra, the problem with having a budget surplus which the economics pundits were saying is barely big enough to keep inflation at bay, is that everyone sees a pile of money just waiting to be spent on whatever is front of mind at any particular moment.
Robert,
I have no gripe at all with your central argument that the world will have to adjust to higher petrol prices due to the supply/demand situation and climate change policy — and that politicians should acknowledge this reality rather than adopting the ostrich position.
However, I think your analysis of taxation is not on the mark. Firstly, because you seem to assume that Australia lowering fuel tax would lead to other countries doing likewise — a ‘race to the bottom’ — when the relative (in)significance of the Australian economy vis a vis the US or EU makes it very unlikely they would notice or care what our tax rate was.
Secondly, if there really was a competitive race to the bottom, with higher shares of petrol production going to the countries with the lower tax rates, you would expect this to lead to a harmonisation of world tax rates at a particular level. This isn’t the case: rates range from €1.37/L in Germany to US$0.12/L in the States.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fuel_tax
Is Chancellor Merkel rushing to drop the German tax rate to the US level? She doesn’t seem to be.
Garnaut like Stern in the UK will propose a rational, logical and quite crucial economic rationale for countering climate change. To people like Brendon Nelson it won’t amount to a hill of beans and his cynical petrol excise stunt has spooked Rudd at the first hurdle. It is not a good omen as much as post number 30 and his ilk indicates.
I’m not claiming that Australia’s actions will be taken much notice of by other countries; what I am saying is that the idea that if the same logic is applied worldwide – and it is being – we’ll be back where we started.
And while my namesake hasn’t promised to cut fuel excise, as far as I know, Nicholas Sarkozy certain has been talking about it.
I’m not claiming that Australia’s actions will be taken much notice of by other countries; what I am saying is that the idea that if the same logic is applied worldwide – and it is being – we’ll be back where we started.
And while my namesake hasn’t promised to cut fuel excise, as far as I know, Nicholas Sarkozy certain has been talking about it.
The Greens may have won the intellectual argument. But they have no where near come close to winning the political argument, esp when it comes to the brass tacks of what has to be given up to save the atmosphere.
This does tend to prove the point of many nasty-minded right wingers that the Green philosophy is more of an ideological hood ornamentfor those with an elite aspiration rather than a practical impertative to popular action.
The rationale for the fuel tax is that it pays for government expenditure on roads, my understanding is that government expenditure on roads is higher than the amount of revenue raised from the fuel tax. I wonder what the response would be if people were asked if they wanted the fuel tax removed and there to be no more federal expenditure on roads. I guess the states would take up much of the shortfall and hospitals and educational institutions would suffer.
For a carbon price to be effective its coverage should be as broad as possible. If it did not apply to liquid fuels, it would achieve less mitigation at higher cost. Garnaut has suggested that under an emissions trading scheme, most emission permits should be auctioned and a significant amount of the money raised from permits shouyld be returned to low and middle income households. John Quiggin has suggested that if the proceeds of a carbon price on fuel “were divided equally amoung households in the bottom half of the income distribution”, then they would recieve between $300 and $1500 for a carbon tax between $20 and $100 per tonne of CO2.
In 2005, Australia’s residential sector emissions, including emissions using transport and indirect emissions from electricity use, were 104.4 Mt CO2e, 18.7% of emissions. Therefore a carbon price across most of the economy would lead to transfers of funds from greenhouse gas intensive industries to households, if the majority of permits were auctioned, and the majority of revenue raised was returned to low and middle income households.
Most people don’t understand the fine details of how a carbon price could work. But receiving nice fat cheques would change all of that. And I don’t think that households would like to donate these cheques to aluminum producers and shareholders in brown coal fired power stations.
I think I’ve spotted your problem Paulus.
Robert wasn’t talking about petrol production. He was talking about petrol consumption.
Unless, of course, you believe that there is a negative correlation between the level of tax on petrol and the size of national pertol reserves. I don’t think that there is any evidence to justify this proposition.
As far as I can see, the best correlation between petrol reserves and human choice appears to be the powerful positive correlation between national petrol reserves and Islam.
Maybe, if those much-demeaned punters wish to continue to drive their Pajeros they should convert to Islam, which is much cheaper than converting to ethanol.
Me @ 18,
If the latest Newspoll is any indication, I was wrong in my earlier comment. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And I don’t mind admitting it in the least.
“…is more of an ideological hood ornamentfor those with an elite aspiration rather than a practical impertative to popular action.”
Ever seen the results of recent polling and focus groups involving a cross-section of 18-30 year old Australians? 80% plus say the environment/a sustainable future is their main concern for the future. It’s already an imperative to action for any pollie wanted to surf the new generation of voters. How pratical the pollies get is of course another kettle of diminishing fish stocks.
Katz, at http://www.dictionary.com the truth will set you free. There are several meanings for ‘production’, including:
1. the act of producing; creation; manufacture.
2. something that is produced; a product.
3. Economics. the creation of value; the producing of articles having exchange value.
4. the total amount produced: Production is up this month.
Yes, in sense 1, the act of production comes about in countries that actually have crude oil lurking beneath the ground.
However, in sense 2 or 4, the ‘production’ of petrol is the amount of the commodity produced, which can be shipped anywhere in the world for people to lovingly pour into their Veyrons. That was the way I was using the term.
“A quibble is to Katz what luminous vapours are to the traveller: he follows it at all adventures; it is sure to lead him out of his way and sure to engulf him in the mire.”
Yeah, Nabs, and you know I’d like to test that proposition by offering those 18-30 y.o.’s a choice:
a) individually designed solar panels for your house, car, and skateboard, which ensure you will never again emit CO2; or
b) a universal nightclub pass that gets you past any queue instantly, as well as half-price alcopops all night and a chance to win an iPhone.
I’m predicting about 97% will choose (b).
“by offering those 18-30 y.o.’s a choice:”
c) – both a) and b)
Well that was easy. Got any really challenging “excluded middle” multiple choice quizzes for me?
Nabakov – it’s the weight of the large amount of Boomers – they are the ones that are going to be listened to
Paulus, if you meant that, all other things being equal, nations with lower taxes on petrol consumption could demand effectively a higher proportion of petrol available on the open market, why didn’t you say it?
But if that is what you meant, you should also recognise that the supply curve of petrol won’t be symmetrical. Once peak oil is arrived at, as it will inevitably be arrived at, then the downward leg of the supply curve will be much steeper than the upward leg we enjoyed back in the good ol’ days.
That being the case, economies that relied more upon market mechanisms to regulate petrol consumption will face much more abrupt adjustments than those economies that did not.
Question is, when was/is/will be peak production?
My guess is that peak oil is much, much closer than Pajero-driving punters think/hope/wish.
It is the legitimate role of governments to protect punters from the ill-effects of their wishful thinking on such dire issues such as the viability of our material culture.
Robert,
I read this blog regularly, without commenting.
Government provided services are always inefficient. You have to raise a lot more in tax to provide the same level of service. There is also no efficient feedback mechanism – government service providers are employed by the government and can afford to provide poor or inappropriate service to their customers. Likewise I am sure you disagree and so won’t be able to persuade you otherwise.
I think a lot of people do realise that the options you posit are correct, and would be willing to accept cuts in services and/or reduction in the budget surplus. If you ask the majority of people – “would you rather spend your own money the way you want or the way Kevin Rudd thinks it should be spent”, you can be pretty sure what answer you woudl get.
Perhaps, Mr. Merkel, you could pop over to Tim Blair’s site and explain to the majority of people just why expensive petrol is good.
Mr. Wood, you’ll note I have commented on Blair’s site.
And, seeing I’m a deluded leftist academic, perhaps I should be referred to as Dr. Merkel
I’m w/ Tim D. at comment 9 on this one. Hang tuff. I say to the masses
“on yer bike…get rid of those flabby thighs. And if at first you can’t adapt to the sound of petrol hitting new heights thanx to Dick & George’s most unfortunate adventure, well try & try again”.
And drive slower. Convert your engine. Use your chip oil. Use trains to transport cargo. Sell your rig, get a caravan & use your driving skills to find a place to call your own on the outskirts. Or near the coast. Fresher air there anyway.
Spend time adapting rather than complaining. And gambling.
Nobody promised you a prosperity garden & highway to Doshland that would last forever. Johnny boy & SantaGrinch Costello did some OK things…but they also created a facade…w/ a corporate gravy train & election fund refueling pump behind it. And in the process denuded some of the economic hillsides, making them intentionally susceptible to shocks & manufactured earthquakes…some of which find their origins in the stamping feet halls of the Reserve Bank, corporations & White House of the stankin’ American Empire.
My life has taught me you look out the window when driving & see what’s coming…plenty of sign posts over the years & kilometres. Some of your short-sightedness can be explained by playing “busy as a bee” to keep the media in profit & the neighbors envious…& that chest swollen in faux pride…& voice deep as an ocker in bloom…
just feel LUCKY that there is a growing safety net & ladders of opportunities being raised everywhere. Thanx to many who read, research, wear glasses & have higher, sweeter voices than some…:)
I hear a train a comin’…
Well said nasking. It’s this sense of entitlement that really pisses me off.
Speaking of which, what’s your defenition of ‘efficiency’, nic? And ‘feedback mechanism’?
Last time I checked my mobile phone carrier was in private hands and its ‘feedback mecahnism’ sucked big time. Likewise my internet service provider, land-line phone company, bank, place where I buy my petrol and supermarket.
I could go on, but I assume that you get the drift. Seeing as I’m surrounded by all this efficiency, how come it feels so friggin’ inefficient. I guess it must be teh government’s fault.
Or even defInition??
adrian, I reckon nic’s definition of efficiency would be something like “shovels more of your hard-earned into some spiv’s pockets”.
Adrian,
The efficient feedback mechanism is to take your service to another mobile phone provider.
Nasking, your comment is more than a little bit odd. However, if you want to see what is coming while driving, I recommend looking out of the windscreen, not the windows, while driving. You tend to avoid more collisions that way.
Robert,
I’ve actually just read the comments thread at Tim Blair’s blog. I am not the nic who posted the somewhat offensive comment about your name there. I probably should start to use more letters in my id.
Ahh nic, how quaint. I have talked to friends about others and they are all the same. Do you understand? Like the banks. There is no real difference, so competition is an illusion at best.
But you have fun in your make believe world where governments are always bad (inefficient), and the private sector always good (efficient), and the rest of us will get on with trying to negotiate the imperfect world where shades of grey actually exist.
What you have just stated is, essentially, an assumption of Robert’s argument that nations would have to cut fuel taxes if they see other nations doing it.
I was stating this, in my own clumsy phrasing, in order to disagree with it. I don’t think this is what would actually happen, not least because there is already a very wide divergence in tax rates around the globe.
Jeez, then I wonder why we don’t generally ditch market mechanisms and embrace socialism. Doesn’t post-War economic history actually suggest the opposite to your point?
I’m particularly thinking of the way the market responded to the OPEC supply squeeze of 1973. Car makers, particularly European and Japanese, rushed to produce low-consumption small cars, and consumers rushed to buy them — even in the US. If I’m not mistaken, that led to a greater reduction in average petrol consumption than any government-mandated target has ever done.
Or, for a more recent example, notice how Toyota decided off its own bat to produce in Australia its new line of fuel-efficient hybrids, even before Rudd turned up to offer them a wad of cash.
As in driving thru life nic. Windows on the world. But you are RIGHT to point out the inconsistency of the metaphor…;)
BTW, I think you’re full of it on the public service comments nic…I’ve seen plenty of people vote against their own interests but I also recall the somersaults & backflips Howie & co. did when the public thought they’d lose MEDICARE.
King John was a real acrobat sometimes…one gooey acrobat hangin’ all over those polls…but hey, YOU do what you want to do w/ your money. Build a statue to the glory of monopolisation for all I care…I can always take a leak on it on my way back from the publicly-funded clinic, just to show my level of appreciation.
You know THE CLINIC don’t ya nic?…the COMMUNITY ONE built to last & serve the needs of the people, including disadvantaged children…instead of building & serving in another temporary RESOURCE WAR.
Still, you keep your glittering coins to yerself. We know who you SERVE. You don’t run a SELF-service station do ya?
That MONUMENT to MONOPOLISATION of yours might attract a flock of seagulls over time. Plenty of those around thanx to Costello & his cheque book gratis of the taxpayer. Noisy seagulls w/ bonuses shoved under their wings. They don’t stay long tho. Eventually the pigeons takeover & give the statue the coating it deserves.
I’m w/ you on “the sense of entitlement” thing adrian. Amazing how many greedily fed at the trough knowing they were causing a shortage but now the Sugar Daddy has been exiled it’s all “poor me, feed me…bloody Rudd…SNORT”.
Not like the Aussies I used to know. I might go to that clinic once or twice just to get a sense of where my health is…but I avoided health-care cards cause I knew others needed them more…& kept the trip to the Doctor to a minimum…considerin’ my chronic health problems. But now those who FED & FED & FED & blew their own organ walls down are harpin’ on because the well might get drier.
And the petrol to feed the car that is parked 10-20 minutes down the road from the doc’s office & supermarket is gettin’ too expensive to keep up the gorging, bingeing, smoking & gambling.
Like I said, people “get on yer bike!” Or use those legs the way they were meant to be used. As for those who are sadly unable to do so…hopefully the government will see fit to further assist you in your mobility needs.
Tired of the OINK & SNORT & WINGE.
Adapt. That’s how we survived. And w/ a little help from our friends…& government…when REAL NEED arises.
I don’t doubt that you may wonder about this Paulus.
That mindset is not inconsistent with one who thinks that reductio ad absurdum is a telling rhetorical strategy.
I am no socialist, however, I fear that the coming energy crisis is of a similar magnitude to a major war. Waging a major war on the basis of market forces would be foolish — indeed absurd.
The 1973 case is quite different. That fuel shortage was politically created. OPEC demonstrated its political muscle. This time round is different. There is no political fix that will give the world another 35 years of cheap hydrocarbons.
In a major war involuntary sacrifice may be necessary. Similarly, I fear that the coming energy crisis may also require involuntary sacrifice. I hope I’m wrong, but the cautionary principle would appear to apply here.
The involuntary sacrifice of paying taxes to encourage certain modes of behaviour and to discourage others will, I fear, appear to be quite moderate in the shadow of feared coming developments.
“It’s this sense of entitlement that really pisses me off.”
So people feeling entitled to keep more of the money they worked for is pissing you off?
I still don’t see it, Katz, by the way.
I think we’re all going to be amazed at the power of high energy prices to improve energy efficiency.
Robert, it’d be very foolish to be dogmatic about what hasn’t even happened yet.
I hedged my pessimism with many conditional statements.
I pay you the credit of assuming that you may do the same with your optimistic statements.
I merely invoke the cautionary principle to add weight to my pessimism.
No jal, there are plently of people working far harder than many in Australia for far less. Only in a myopic inspired fantasy world does the amount of hard work automatically equate with the reward or remuneration gained.
To make it easier for you to understand it pisses me off that people think that they are automatically entitled to an ever increasing share of the earth’s diminishing resources because they just happen to be born in Australia in the latter half of the twentieth century. And that they don’t have to really actually do anything but whinge when the reality starts to bite.
But hey, I don’t expect you to understand.
Adrian, just because i dont agree doesnt meen i dont understand.
Of course i know that working hard doesnt “automatically” make you more money, it will however almost always guarantee that you make you more then not working hard. Not that money is all that important to me…just trying to make a point.
As to the rest of your post, thats fine if it pisses you off…just dont expect others to change the way they live to please you
jal, if you think the point is to personally please adrian then you clearly don’t understand what adrian is saying at all.
Nasking, I have no idea what you are talking about. Clinic, goo, self service station, you’ve lost me?
Adrian, competition is always good. You probably don’t remember what life was like under Telecom in the 80s, but modern Telstra is a shining paragon of customer service in comparison.
Im not trying to please anyone, i’m just saying that what someone is entitled to is an opinion. I’m not saying he shouldnt have that opinion he just shouldnt expect me or anyone else to agree with it.
And before you say it i am assuming that adrian is talking about the “bigger” picture of what the world can sustain. His opinion is just as valid on this as mine however as though i know oil will run out “one day” no one can say that that day is today and there is every likelihood that an alternantive will arise as humans are pretty adaptive if history is any guide.
“necessity is the mother of invention”. Though this is all still just another opinion!
jal, I can dig what you’re saying, man. How do we ever really KNOW that anything is real, man? It might just be, like, our perceptions.
“I have no idea what you are talking about.”
nic, you’d be better off reading the parliamentary statements delivered by Julie Bishop, Shadow Minister for tabloid humour & distraction it seems, far more simplistic & obvious…right up yer alley going by your comments.
Thou dost protest too much. You & Julie B. might want to think that one thru…particularly going by today’s amateur dramatics.
As for your concern about using money as you see fit…isn’t it handy you’re going to get a tax cut? And the lack of interest rate rises the past few mths. would’ve kept a few more bucks in your pocket rather than filling the coffers of overseas investors…as they did under Howie & co. RIGHT?
klaus, we know lots of things…thats not the problem. The problem as i see it is that these days its irrelevent what you KNOW as long as what we say sounds good, kind and correct.
What worries me is that people seems to think that reality is base on your perception…
Nasking, are you OK? What does Julie Bishop have to do with anything?
“What does Julie Bishop have to do with anything?”
That’s a question I often ask myself.
“are you OK? What does Julie Bishop have to do with anything?”
Thank you for your back-handed concern nic…i’m quite fine in fact, unlike your poor self who seems to be getting themselves in a muddle by the moment. No longer responding to the thread for one. Still, that’s your CHOICE.
As for Julie…her feeble attempts to denigrate Swann & distract today by feeding into a BS campaign in tandem w/ some in the corporate media was somethin’ pathetic to behold. Like the majority of cars today, she is running on problematic fuel & creating unnecessary pollution when there could be CLEANER air.
lol adrian. I’m off before the kindly but forceful moderators arrive….;)
They tinfoil him here, they tinfoil him there…
N’
“You probably don’t remember what life was like under Telecom in the 80s, but modern Telstra is a shining paragon of customer service in comparison.”
I remember well, Nic. When you called up about a fault you spoke to a real person who actually tried to help. They came out and fixed your phone for free. They had employees who did the work and not contractors who could mark your fault as fixed merely because they’d called out and been unable to find your address. They tried to provide the same level of service in Birdsville and Brisbane. They paid their billions in profits into consolidated public revenue here in Australia, not in Singapore.
All the improvements in telecommunications worth having since the 1980s are down to technology, not private competition.
On the more general point of efficiency – which is more efficient, the US private competitive health insurance system, or the public monopoly Medicare? Hint: over a quarter of Americans aren’t covered at all, yet it costs about twice as much per head.
The reality is that some services some of the time can be delivered very efficiently by the private sector, but that the public sector can also deliver some services very efficiently. One major benefit we get from the public sector as citizens, however, is that we actually get a say in how public sector services are delivered.