• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

AusPoliGAF |OT| Boats? What Boats?

Status
Not open for further replies.

seldead

Member
I'm late to the party but some of the economics I'm reading here is just wrong. Money is endogenous. When there's an increase in demand for liquid reserves the fed isn't supply constrained, no advanced economy sets the quantity of money, we haven't since monetarism died out. The reserve sets an interest rate and meets the demand at that level of interest. As a lender of last resort it can't deny demand. Therefore the idea that the RBA has to intervene when demand for liquid reserves is greater than supply otherwise interest rates will go up is wrong. Demand is never greater than supply, the interest rates are entirely in control of the reserve.

Only when the interest rate hits the lower bound zero,like it has in USA, does the reserve bank use the bond market to set interest rates and that can only be on longer term bond yield curves. This idea of quantitative easing works because bidding up the price on these longer term assets by buying them up and decreasing supply means the interest on the bonds terms lowers. So you're flattening the yield curve, not shifting its intercept.
 
AusPoliGAF! Came across a good article that seems to round up your election nicely in one of the US blogs I follow.

From The Monkey Cage,
Australia’s conservative Liberal/National Coalition won a landslide victory in the House of Representatives on Saturday, Sept. 7. The Coalition led by Tony Abbott was expected to win; it had been polling 10 percentage points ahead of its main rival, Labor, for more than a year:

figure-1.jpg

Within a half hour of the final polls closing, outgoing Prime Minister Kevin Rudd conceded the Labor Party’s defeat and announced that he would not stand for his party’s leadership in the new parliament. In total, the Coalition secured 90 seats in Australia’s 150-member House of Representatives, while Labor won only 55 seats. Full results from this and the previous election are displayed below. Abbott’s government was sworn in last week.


Abbott is not very popular among the Australian public. Although his party had a clear advantage, more people reported that Rudd would make a better prime minister as late as Aug. 24:


Main issues at stake: The threat of a changing economy, carbon emissions, and immigration

Abbott’s positions are more conservative than those of many members of his own party, and he has a history of making sexist remarks. (Previous Prime Minister Julia Gillard made international headlines last October when she said during a parliamentary address, “if [Abbott] wants to know what misogyny looks like in modern Australia, he doesn’t need a motion in the House of Representatives, he needs a mirror.”) Yet he ran a highly disciplined campaign over the past few months, avoiding any major gaffes. Ultimately, Abbott portrayed himself as a viable prime minister to about half of the voting population, which was sufficient to guarantee victory.

This election should lead to a significant shift in the policies of a country that has managed to sustain sizeable growth while almost every other industrialized democracy has suffered financially. Most of Australia’s recent economic success can be attributed to a boom in commodity prices, particularly iron ore and coal, driven by a steady demand from their largest export partner, China. Yet, sensing a future economic slowdown, voters worried that Labor could lead the country in the wrong direction. One potential concern was that the incumbents pledged to return the budget to a surplus by now – a promise they were unable to keep.

Abbott’s first order of business? Repeal taxes on both the mining industry and carbon emissions. The Labor government instituted a 30 percent “super tax” on companies that mine non-renewable resources and make a profit exceeding $75 million annually. The country has also installed one of the most comprehensive carbon emissions programs in the world by taxing the biggest polluters. Although the government planned to transition from the tax to a cap-and-trade system (linked with Europe’s) by 2015, Abbott has vowed to repeal the tax altogether and start from scratch. Australia is the largest per capita emitter of carbon dioxide on the planet, and an outright repeal would be a major step back for those fighting climate change. However, the carbon emissions tax was widely unpopular, and many voters blamed it for rising electricity and gas prices,

Abbott will need support from members of the Senate to repeal either tax. Final results on Senate seats will not be available for a month, but it appears as though he will have to rely on the support of several Independent and small party candidates – once the Senate is sworn in during July of next year. Until then, Labor and Green party members have vowed to vote against the Coalition’s plan to scrap the carbon pricing scheme. Abbott is already putting pressure on members from both parties to “respect” the people’s “mandate” and abolish both taxes.

Immigration also took up much of the campaign’s focus. Thousands of asylum-seekers from the Middle East and South Asia travel each year to Indonesia, Malaysia or Thailand by plane and then embark on a perilous journey by boat to Christmas Island, a remote Australian territory that is significantly closer to Indonesia than mainland Australia. While the number of immigrants seeking asylum is steadily increasing, the absolute number is still quite small – 16,000 in 2012 – compared to the total number of annual immigrants – 200,000 in 2012. Nonetheless, 52 percent of voters reported that this issue was “very important” to their voting decision – a number higher than climate change, national security or interest rates. Abbott threatened to prevent Indonesian boats from entering Australian waters, and in his victory speech he reiterated his promise to “swiftly implement Operation Sovereign Borders” and turn boats around that can return on their own to Indonesia. During the campaign, Rudd countered with his own hardliner plan to send asylum seekers to refugee camps in Papua New Guinea, where the conditions are, in many cases, reportedly below international standards of living.

Abbott is also opposed to gay marriage, and he campaigned on promises to cut foreign aid. He has questioned the existence of climate change in the past.​

Click on the link for more. I'm a huge fan of The Monkey Cage.
 
A

A More Normal Bird

Unconfirmed Member
I'm late to the party but some of the economics I'm reading here is just wrong. Money is endogenous. When there's an increase in demand for liquid reserves the fed isn't supply constrained, no advanced economy sets the quantity of money, we haven't since monetarism died out. The reserve sets an interest rate and meets the demand at that level of interest. As a lender of last resort it can't deny demand. Therefore the idea that the RBA has to intervene when demand for liquid reserves is greater than supply otherwise interest rates will go up is wrong. Demand is never greater than supply, the interest rates are entirely in control of the reserve.

Only when the interest rate hits the lower bound zero,like it has in USA, does the reserve bank use the bond market to set interest rates and that can only be on longer term bond yield curves. This idea of quantitative easing works because bidding up the price on these longer term assets by buying them up and decreasing supply means the interest on the bonds terms lowers. So you're flattening the yield curve, not shifting its intercept.

I'm guessing you're referring to my post, or more specifically this part:
If the government runs a surplus on any given day, then competition for reserves increases, at which point the central bank (RBA) must intervene in order to keep the interest rate at the desired level. In order to do so, it buys back bonds by simply creating money. OTOH, if the government has credited bank accounts by an amount larger than the quantity of reserves it has withdrawn (tax) then it has created net financial assets (which once again, are backed by debt even though they technically don't have to be, what with being created before the debt itself is issued and all). So whilst in the short term deficits decrease the interest rate by reducing competition for reserves at the end of the day, in the long run the finances they create act like any others.
In which case the only thing that runs counter to what you're saying (as far as I can tell) is the use of the word bonds, which was incorrect, as the open market operations the RBA uses to manage exchange settlement account reserves involves securities such as repos, foreign exchange etc...
 

Dryk

Member
AusPoliGAF! Came across a good article that seems to round up your election nicely in one of the US blogs I follow.
I didn't like that they left it "the public blames the carbon tax for high electricity prices" instead of mentioning that much more of the fault lies in the cost of infrastructure upgrades.
 

Jintor

Member
Strictly speaking they're right though. The lnp banged on about how the carbon tax was the reason behind rising electricity prices and the power companies weren't about to blame themselves.
 

Dead Man

Member
Strictly speaking they're right though. The lnp banged on about how the carbon tax was the reason behind rising electricity prices and the power companies weren't about to blame themselves.

I don't know why people bought that rubbish, electricity prices have been increasing at ridiculous levels for about 10 years now.
 

D.Lo

Member
Strictly speaking they're right though. The lnp banged on about how the carbon tax was the reason behind rising electricity prices and the power companies weren't about to blame themselves.
Yep. The article was good enough to not say 'Carbon tax caused price increases' but said 'people blamed the carbon tax for price increases'.

I guess you could go further and say 'people blamed the carbon tax for electricity price increases because the coalition kept saying it, and even thought it was actually not true the stupid public listened for some reason'.
 
Yep. The article was good enough to not say 'Carbon tax caused price increases' but said 'people blamed the carbon tax for price increases'.

I guess you could go further and say 'people blamed the carbon tax for electricity price increases because the coalition kept saying it, and even thought it was actually not true the stupid public listened for some reason'.

Actually the government was pretty open that the carbon tax would raise electricity prices. This is why there was corresponding compensation.

For example:

http://www.energyaustralia.com.au/about-us/help-centre/faqs/carbon-price

The Australian Government expects the carbon price will increase the average household energy bill between eight to 10 percent in the first year.

And with each electricity bill lately I've got a little brochure explaining why the price has gone up. What annoyed me most about this was the stated carbon tax amount also had GST applied on top of that.

There are other factors as you said and you can argue that an extra 10% isn't significant amongst other big increases. But writing it off as a coalition scare campaign for the "stupid public" isn't really accurate.
 

D.Lo

Member
There are other factors as you said and you can argue that an extra 10% isn't significant amongst other big increases. But writing it off as a coalition scare campaign for the "stupid public" isn't really accurate.
It is totally accurate. Nobody ever hid the small 10% increase, and they literally gave people money back to compensate.
But everyone's bills went through the roof and Abbott was entirely happy to pretend it was all because of the Carbon Tax. Exaggeration past a certain point is the same as lying.
 
He was pretty close on the Hawks tip though! Glad he is running our finances, those Labour muppets would have had Hawks by 50 points I bet. No wonder we are going to hit $300 billion debt by Xmas.
 

mandiller

Member
I'm serious. The Coalition have driven the demonisation of refugees which has lead to the "stop/turn back the boats" frenzy which is going to lead to more of these tragedies. Anyone supporting those parties are complicit in any resulting deaths.

And Labor's policies made coming to Australia by boat more attractive for asylum seekers, and therefore led to more drownings at sea. What does that make them using your logic?
 

Arksy

Member
I'm serious. The Coalition have driven the demonisation of refugees which has lead to the "stop/turn back the boats" frenzy which is going to lead to more of these tragedies. Anyone supporting those parties are complicit in any resulting deaths.

So yeah no one drowned at sea under Labor.
 

Dryk

Member
Expected no less from our new "adult" government. This was the way they acted before the election, now they HAVE power why change?
 
That kind of rhetoric doesn't help anybody, BoB

Yeah, fair enough. Gonna step out of thread, don't think I have anything to contribute in the way of real discussion right now.

Just, at least 22 fucking people dead, could be up to 90, and the shitwheel Prime Minister turns and walks away when asked about it.
 
And Labor's policies made coming to Australia by boat more attractive for asylum seekers, and therefore led to more drownings at sea. What does that make them using your logic?

Except it's been shown time and time again that push factors are far more responsible in causing people to seek asylum than pull factors.
 
What kind of reply are you expecting out of him though? I don't know what he would say except that it was a tragedy and asylum seekers should just stop coming and risking their lives.
 

Jintor

Member
Honestly, even that would have been fine. The statement they just released that they're waiting for more information would have been okay. Even a terse 'no comment' would have been better. He just turned his heels and left. Our Prime Minister.
 

Dead Man

Member
And Labor's policies made coming to Australia by boat more attractive for asylum seekers, and therefore led to more drownings at sea. What does that make them using your logic?

No, they didn't really have any impact on numbers, world events have much more influence than a slight change of the rules between Howard and Rudd, which wouldn't be apparent to the asylum seekers anyway.

Getting rid of family sponsorships will kill more people as they take boat journeys instead of just joining their families via a plane flight. Which is both parties policy I think, so they are both still culpable.

What kind of reply are you expecting out of him though? I don't know what he would say except that it was a tragedy and asylum seekers should just stop coming and risking their lives.

Yeah, any reply. Anyone who claims to lead the country should be able to field a question like that.
 

mandiller

Member
No, they didn't really have any impact on numbers, world events have much more influence than a slight change of the rules between Howard and Rudd, which wouldn't be apparent to the asylum seekers anyway.

Getting rid of family sponsorships will kill more people as they take boat journeys instead of just joining their families via a plane flight. Which is both parties policy I think, so they are both still culpable.

World events influence how many refugees there are seeking asylum in the world, not where they go to seek asylum. Under Labor they got family reunification which I'm sure would be attractive as they'd only have to risk/pay for one family member to come to Australia and then they could send for their family by plane. I'm sure if Australia's laws toughened up then they would look for more attractive locations to go to. Obviously most asylum seekers don't come to Australia for the proximity and location, they are mostly from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka and travel a long distance, with many other countries along the way.

It's still of course totally legal to seek asylum when you're being persecuted, I'm just making the argument that I believe the Coalition's policies probably will slow the flow of boats. Hell, under Labor towards the end when the message was getting out about Manus Island being open for business again the flow of boats dropped quite dramatically. Abbott can thank Labor for that.
 
What kind of reply are you expecting out of him though? I don't know what he would say except that it was a tragedy and asylum seekers should just stop coming and risking their lives.

A milquetoast comment. I'd still criticize the government for having a shit policy in the first place but at least its better than the shit Abbott pulled today by literally running from the issue.
 

Dead Man

Member
World events influence how many refugees there are seeking asylum in the world, not where they go to seek asylum. Under Labor they got family reunification which I'm sure would be attractive as they'd only have to risk/pay for one family member to come to Australia and then they could send for their family by plane. I'm sure if Australia's laws toughened up then they would look for more attractive locations to go to. Obviously most asylum seekers don't come to Australia for the proximity and location, they are mostly from Afghanistan and Sri Lanka and travel a long distance, with many other countries along the way.

It's still of course totally legal to seek asylum when you're being persecuted, I'm just making the argument that I believe the Coalition's policies probably will slow the flow of boats. Hell, under Labor towards the end when the message was getting out about Manus Island being open for business again the flow of boats dropped quite dramatically. Abbott can thank Labor for that.

The coalition policies may eventually slow the number of boats, the increase in asylum seekers coming to Australia correlates almost perfectly with world asylum seeker numbers. It was not really more attractive to them, in fact the family reunification can reduce the number of boat arrivals since you don't get 20 separate boat journeys to get a family back together.

The increases indicate worldwide trends, Australia is not an outlier in regards increased asylum seeker applications.
 
You have to sympathise with Abbott here.

If he's asked a tough question, he answers something stupid and ridiculous.

If he's asked a tough question, he simply nods his head like a bobblehead for 5 minutes and then claims to have answered the question.

Running away is the best thing he could have done. Expect to see more of it in the next 3 years.
 

mandiller

Member
The coalition policies may eventually slow the number of boats, the increase in asylum seekers coming to Australia correlates almost perfectly with world asylum seeker numbers. It was not really more attractive to them, in fact the family reunification can reduce the number of boat arrivals since you don't get 20 separate boat journeys to get a family back together.

The increases indicate worldwide trends, Australia is not an outlier in regards increased asylum seeker applications.

Family reunification may draw more people than if they didn't have that though. If it's going to cost many thousands of dollars to pay people smugglers to smuggle one person by boat, they might not be able to afford that cost for their whole family. Also, there are a disproportionate amount of unaccompanied men coming to Australia by boat - people who've left family behind or might send for their relatives.

The Coalition's strict temporary protection visas might also have a big effect. People are probably less likely to come to Australia if they understand it is only a temporary stay and they will be sent back when Australia deems it is OK in their home country. Of course, all this is a bit moot now because of Labor's policy that all asylum seekers arriving by boat will not be processed or settled here.
 

Arksy

Member
Family reunification may draw more people than if they didn't have that though. If it's going to cost many thousands of dollars to pay people smugglers to smuggle one person by boat, they might not be able to afford that cost for their whole family. Also, there are a disproportionate amount of unaccompanied men coming to Australia by boat - people who've left family behind or might send for their relatives.

The Coalition's strict temporary protection visas might also have a big effect. People are probably less likely to come to Australia if they understand it is only a temporary stay and they will be sent back when Australia deems it is OK in their home country. Of course, all this is a bit moot now because of Labor's policy that all asylum seekers arriving by boat will not be processed or settled here.

I missed the campaign, is that also LNP policy? I'm pretty sure no eventual settlement in Australia breaches our international obligations. I was shocked to hear that policy come from Rudd to be honest, not even Howard stooped that low.
 
Survivors of capsized asylum boat say they were told Australian help was on its way

4987228-3x2-940x627.jpg


Survivors of an asylum seeker boat that sank off Indonesia say Australian rescue authorities told them help was on the way, but it never came.

At least 28 asylum seekers have been found alive after the boat sank off Argabinta, a remote area of the coast off the Cianjur region of west Java. Local authorities say about 80 people were on the boat, which got into trouble in rough seas off the coast on Thursday.

The beach is littered with broken pieces of the boat and the bodies of about 21 people, including many children, have washed ashore. Thirty more are missing, feared dead.

Survivors say they rang the Australian rescue authorities but nobody came to help them.
 
I missed the campaign, is that also LNP policy? I'm pretty sure no eventual settlement in Australia breaches our international obligations. I was shocked to hear that policy come from Rudd to be honest, not even Howard stooped that low.

The UN has pretty much said that both parties policies breach our human rights obligations (since we're denying asylum to genuine asylum seekers). They were promptly ignored.
 

Dryk

Member
The UN has pretty much said that both parties policies breach our human rights obligations (since we're denying asylum to genuine asylum seekers). They were promptly ignored.
There's a small part of me that wishes we just started executing asylum seekers on the spot. It will cause less suffering in the long run if we force other countries to get involved.
 
Contextual reading fail.
Yeah no. How about you think about context before you start up again with your "I voted liberal and everyone hates me" schtick? There was some truth in what BoB said, and your responses were in my opinion incredibly insensitive.
 

Arksy

Member
Yeah no. How about you think about context before you start up again with your "I voted liberal and everyone hates me" schtick? There was some truth in what BoB said, and your responses were in my opinion incredibly insensitive.

More unintentionally hilarious bigotry and nonsense.

I will continue laughing when people make stupid asinine remarks aimed at nothing more than demonising their opponent as opposed to genuine debate. Not being able to understand that my comments were directed at someone's ridiculous remarks as opposed to laughing at the plight of suffering innocent people is not something I can help you with.
 
More unintentionally hilarious bigotry and nonsense.

I will continue laughing when people make stupid asinine remarks aimed at nothing more than demonising their opponent as opposed to genuine debate. Not being able to understand that my comments were directed at someone's ridiculous remarks as opposed to laughing at the plight of suffering innocent people is not something I can help you with.

Bigotry? What, where?

I know What the context was, you're still an insensitive asshat.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom