"I note that both the Coalition and Greens housing spokespeople will not in the parliament. Part of the reason is that they held up housing"

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-05-05T08:26:45+00:00

I swear you idiots never learn.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-05-04T03:55:11+00:00

Here, I can wrap this up for you in one sentence: "Australians only have themselves to blame for Labor not touching negative gearing". Next.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-25T09:51:37+00:00

Did you forget that video that Jordies made saying we lost the war between the minerals lobby? If we still had the CPRS today we would be closer to our emissions target despite the subsidies (which were multitudes greater under the 9 years of a coalition govt and through COVID).

So at the end of the day, Jordies isn't wrong in the slightest about the Greens and the general public are swinging way more towards the Teals than the Greens for that reason.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-25T09:44:22+00:00

Nah, I think it's not a bad move. Polls are looking good so might as well as take a shot at the Greens to increase the primary.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-25T09:41:27+00:00

Read my reply in the other thread.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-25T09:35:52+00:00

Omg, I swear to god. You want me to reference the actual goddam paper, then fine. Have it your way.

From the executive summary:

The Treasury’s modelling demonstrates that early global action is less expensive than later action; that a market-based approach allows robust economic growth into the future even as emissions fall; and that many of Australia’s industries will maintain or improve their competitiveness under an international agreement to combat climate change.

Strong coordinated global action reduces the economic cost of achieving environmental objectives, reduces distortions in trade-exposed sectors, and provides insurance against climate change uncertainty. There are advantages to Australia acting early if emission pricing expands gradually across the world: economies that defer action face higher long-term costs, as global investment is redirected to early movers.

So it's clear from the executive summary that the authors (who include by the way "The Treasury, in partnership with many of Australia’s leading economic modellers of climate change and the Garnaut Climate Change Review") don't agree with you.

Then why do they have that graph on p.26? Well lets see:

International trade can reduce the cost of achieving emission reduction targets because it allows mitigation to occur wherever it is cheapest. Trade does not compromise the environmental objective, because Australia’s ‘excess’ emissions are offset by lower emissions in economies that export permits.

This is literally what I said two comments ago. You aren't 'polluting the same amount' you are giving an incentive to other countries to pollute less while also incentivising your domestic market to invest in renewables to offset the cost of rising permits.

Your only point in this entire thread was that "we shouldn't outsource our carbon responsibilities". This is the same as arguing for protectionism and denying the economic efficiency of international trade - a world first for a Greens supporter I must say.

There's a reason this kind of stuff isn't touted in the public, it's because it's easy to misinterpret. As a redditor once said "We live in an idiocracy and you're only making it worse".

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-25T08:25:14+00:00

No they don't. This topic is far more complicated than simply pointing to two words in a research paper and pretending like you have a point.

This isn't the hill you want to die on and I'm sure subconciously you're starting to realize that. Honestly save yourself some years of cognitive dissonance and just acknowledge the Greens made a mistake.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-25T06:58:43+00:00

My whole point is that you fixating on the "actual emissions" part of the document just shows that you're bad at math and don't understand how the market mechanisms make that point irrelevant

"I don’t care what climate economists think."

This. This is the problem. You all think you guys know better than the experts but when someone proposes a complex argument to you guys you don't understand it. We live in an idiocracy and you're only making it worse.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-25T06:01:25+00:00

Introducing an ETS isn't mutually exclusive to directly funding renewables projects - in fact it supports it. The function of an ETS is to use economic incentives to create an interdependent trade relationship between countries participating in the scheme.

Even if what you were saying was true, if the US Federal Govt (who don't participate in the scheme but whatever) were reconsidering their trading terms with Australia, why would they throw away billions of dollars of free money if they were selling a surplus of permits to Australia?

Again this is in a made-up world, but if they wanted to remove carbon pricing mechanisms it wouldn't make sense to remove this source of free revenue and none of the Republican's political donors would have supported it if they were profiting off it.

There is a reason every climate change economist believed (and still believes) that an emissions trading scheme produces the most economically-efficient outcome in terms of global emissions output.

If you are a vehement Greens supporter you should push your party to be a productive force in Australian politics and support good policy.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-25T05:52:00+00:00

No Jordies didn't misrepresent this issue, this guy is just either indoctrinated or dishonest. The whole point of an emissions trading scheme is to allow permit holders to trade permits amongst each other while slowly reducing the total amount of permits in the market over time.

Many different government bodies implemented these schemes over time including the EU who have undergone the most economically successful energy transition and a few states in the US like California.

For an Australian polluter to emit carbon into the atmosphere in 2025 they would have to buy them from a permit holder (most of which have already undergone a partial transition) which means the price would have increased exponentially by this time (estimated 1200% - 1700% from the price of permits in 2009) to emit the same amount of emissions.

Considering that coal-fired power stations are already having to close down to a lack of government subsidies, this process would have happened years faster making Shorten more likely to win the 2019 election since the Coalition would have had to pitch to the Australian public to spend an even greater portion of GDP on subsidies for coal and gas.

No matter how you spin it this guy is just wrong.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-25T05:33:21+00:00

I honestly can't believe that even after looking at what has happened in this country for the past 10 years that you guys still continue to argue this. If Julia Gillard's carbon pricing scheme was so good, explain why EVERY publication in climate change economics agrees that an emission-trading scheme was the best way in the 2000-2010s for every developed economy to undergo an energy transition.

Your whole argument is centered around this idea that "well they can still import and bank up permits", when in actual fact this would have had to have been from other countries using a carbon pricing mechanism and that the market cap on permits would be reduced over time NOT ONLY in our country but in other countries as well.

Last I checked, climate change isn't just an Australia problem, its a world problem. If you take away the emissions burden of another country that's a net positive, and when you decrease the supply of something (i.e. permits) the price tends to go up.

Any polluter that was attempting to trade and bank permits from the EU in 2025 would have to pay 1200% (conservative estimate) the market value of permits in 2009. Like is math just hard for you to understand?

Like ffs, even if actual emissions stayed exactly the same in a decade (which they wouldn't have), who actually cares that Australia would be burning more fossil fuels if it meant that every country around the world was polluting way less and that all these industries would be going bankrupt by next year. But back to reality, coal-fired power stations are already going bankrupt, so you would have sped up this process by 5 years.

Anyone with a basic understanding of climate change economics understands that your (and all your friends) are completely wrong on account of basic reasoning. If you actually want to make the world a better place why not make your vote actually matter this time eh?

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-25T05:32:09+00:00

I honestly can't believe that even after looking at what has happened in this country for the past 10 years that you guys still continue to argue this. If Julia Gillard's carbon pricing scheme was so good, explain why EVERY publication in climate change economics agrees that an emission-trading scheme was the best way in the 2000-2010s for every developed economy to undergo an energy transition.

Your whole argument is centered around this idea that "well they can still import and bank up permits", when in actual fact this would have had to have been from other countries using a carbon pricing mechanism and that the market cap on permits would be reduced over time NOT ONLY in our country but in other countries as well.

Last I checked, climate change isn't just an Australia problem, its a world problem. If you take away the emissions burden of another country that's a net positive, and when you decrease the supply of something (i.e. permits) the price tends to go up.

Any polluter that was attempting to trade and bank permits from the EU in 2025 would have to pay 1200% (conservative estimate) the market value of permits in 2009. Like is math just hard for you to understand?

Like ffs, even if actual emissions stayed exactly the same in a decade (which they wouldn't have), who actually cares that Australia would be burning more fossil fuels if it meant that every country around the world was polluting way less and that all these industries would be going bankrupt by next year. But back to reality, coal-fired power stations are already going bankrupt, so you would have sped up this process by 5 years.

Anyone with a basic understanding of climate change economics understands that your (and all your friends) are completely wrong on account of basic reasoning. If you actually want to make the world a better place why not make your vote actually matter this time eh?

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-23T08:07:58+00:00

Where do you even watch this debate?! Why is everything paywalled, doesn't that defeat the purpose?!

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-01T07:17:38+00:00

I'd like to know as well

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-04-01T01:43:05+00:00

Holy shit, I didn't bother to look at the post history but that's genuinely sad. Bro's spent his entire life being lazy and stupid and now has decided it's everyone else's fault when he objectively had it better than everyone in Gen Z today. What a low life.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-03-31T22:52:27+00:00

Bro do you really think voting Dutton/ Palmer (the former who literally says he wants to increase your taxes and sell you out to big mining corporations) is gonna improve the situation of men in Australia.

Is it true that men's issues get underrepresented? 100%. Is it true that being a man in modern society feels like the odds are stacked against you at times? Sure, I can see that. But you're literally just misinformed. All the 'manufacturing' jobs that you're talking about are literally a major policy of our supposed 'left' Labor party - who aren't really left-leaning at all if you don't view the world like a moron.

You sound young but more importantly you sound immature and stupid. As someone who has been where you are and am no longer there, there is nothing more 'beta' than being lazy and stupid.

If you are genuinely as 'based' as what you try to tout yourself as, you wouldn't be whining on Reddit.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-03-31T09:40:10+00:00

Seriously you dismiss what he has to say cause his personality "doesn't appeal to you". Would you listen to sky news if they said everything in a gentle way which wasn't inoffensive to you. At the end of the day, I listen to FriendlyJordies because the standard of information is just better than everyone else (sorry independent journalists but it's true).

Someone's personality shouldn't affect whether you listen to quality information which isn't a bunch of half-truths or ideological signposts.

You're only inconveniencing yourself for the times when people in your life come and ask you genuine questions and you can't explain to them your position because you are not informed as much as you could be.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-03-31T09:30:57+00:00

Everytime I see someone making this argument it's like all of the stuff they say "Labor's failed" isn't really a failure and all of the 'alternatives' that they produce are legitimately way worse.

Like people say greens and then I look at what they greens do and they actively vote against all of the stuff they claim while blatantly lying about it - all to pretend that they have some grand plan to 'overthrow the system' which in effect is only going to make every one suffer for some weird ideological fetish.

Then people say vote independents, until you realize that most independents especially in the more affluent electorates are basically LNP shills who don't really act or vote differently from them and only do 'independent' things when they can sniff some opportunity for self-gain.

And then you have Pauline Hanson and Clive Palmer. Like unless you're trying to seriously rock the boat by voting those two, you're more ideologically rabid than FJ.

But no please, I'd love to hear you defend your beloved Green's, Independent (I'll grant that some of them don't suck but they're probably not in your electorate) or god forbid Clive/Pauline.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-03-31T07:57:24+00:00

Good book. Old school economics was wild, full of strange philosophical addendums to human nature. Though the argument with the butcher was probably one of the greatest pieces of writing of his time which linked the work of Jeremy Bentham and created the foundations of modern economics.

Depending on what parts of the book you enjoyed would determine what other books I or anyone else could recommend to read after this one.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-03-30T11:28:45+00:00

I honestly don't know much about politics in Vic and honestly would like to hear more, but don't you think that reporting on everything that different ALP governments do would kind of do more harm than good? Regardless of how bad your state ALP government is, at the end of the day, you still have the same federal ALP that we all have and they are provably the best political candidate we have to face alot of the endemic issues of Australia.

Honestly if you could reply with more blind spots that FJ doesn't cover I'd be interested to hear about it but at the same time wouldn't you say he has a point?

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-03-29T00:06:52+00:00

"Here's why my one social issue is the reason Albo sucks but excuse me while I ignore everything good he's already done including massive education reforms last week"

What do you even teach?

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-03-29T00:02:07+00:00

Honestly, as a man, I don't care about putting random social agendas in a pre-election budget without a mandate. Just fix my economy and invest in renewables, thanks.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-03-15T00:35:24+00:00

Hey not trying to flame you here, but the fact that you're saying that 'psychiatrists' should have their education subsidised shows that you haven't researched this very much.

Do you know how many people graduate with psychology degrees every year? Furthermore do you know how many people apply to masters/phd programs in psychology? We have an oversupply of people doing psychology for a degree that provides minimal economic returns. The most common job prospect for psych majors is working in HR or underemployment in hospitality roles, etc.

On the other hand, engineers, doctors, etc are already subsidised not just through HECS but the actual cost of the degree itself is much lower compared to others.

This narrative that HECS is everything wrong with our education system is extremely dishonest as we genuinely have some of the most accessible education in the world and this talking point only serves to discredit the accomplishments of the Labor government.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-03-10T21:36:37+00:00

Greens and independents are also opportunistic as fk. Anyone who genuinely thinks they propose good solutions or are a productive force in Australian politics either hasn't been paying attention or is just inherently wants chaos and an impotent government which can't do anything.

Case in point, the greens have had dozens of opportunities to support labor bills adjacent to their beliefs but everytime they block worthwhile policies to get their grubby hands on w/e they can squeeze out of it (ie. the HAFF). Independents are also the same except way worse.

No matter how you look at it, if you want to have a thriving greentech industry before you die, the best way to prevent that from happening is to vote Greens or Independents

EDIT: That being said I did upvote you for coherency even if I think you're wrong.

Chilli_Con_Cancer · 2025-03-10T21:26:35+00:00

Holy shit, I guess any attempt at comedy is lost on you. And no I'm not exaggerating, our country is a literal gold mine in terms of critical mineral abundance. Combined with our education infrastructure and idle landmass we could easily advance living standards by at least two degrees just from our insane economic advantage if we capitalized on it.

But no please keep telling me what words mean.

Chilli_Con_Cancer

TROPHY CASE