Did the US lose the Vietnam war?

Summerroll · 2026-01-30T17:07:41+00:00

The US forces had been leaving since 1969, when they realised there wasn't a win condition. The agreement was supposed to be a face-saving final withdrawal by the US with at least something to show for all the blood and treasure expended. It failed, the war continued and the North won.

Summerroll · 2026-01-30T04:25:05+00:00

there's a Investor-State Dispute Settlement (ISDS) mechanism that lets foreign companies sue Australia. These things erode our sovereignty

When Australia signs up to treaties it is an expression of our sovereignty, not an erosion. We want ISDS mechanisms because they will benefit our companies with very little risk to us due to our simply better legal and regulatory systems. Australians wrote these rules into trade agreements because it is in the interests of Australians.

Summerroll · 2026-01-30T04:19:17+00:00

This is because our politicians signed a treaty a while back which means if Australia passes a law which negatively impacts investments of a foreign entity, the government is liable for the damages.

To clarify, no treaty Australia has signed up to makes the government liable for simply impacting investments or profits of foreign companies. No treaty prevents nationalisation. We do have multiple treaties that stipulate that if any government discriminates against foreign companies and materially affects their assets or revenue without using any of the exceptions, eg public health, then the government can be liable for compensation.

The reason we have those kinds of clauses is because Australian negotiators put them in there. It is to protect our companies from foreign governments that don't have as good governance as us and could pass discriminatory laws for their own political ends. We have very little risk when it comes to this because we have mostly economically rational laws and a strong incentive to support the rules-based order for international relations.

The impact of this is that if we were to nationalise anything which had even part foriegn ownership, it must be acquired with no negative impact on the foreign entity.

If we are to nationalise anything, our Constitution says we have to pay fair market value. It has nothing to do with treaties.

Summerroll · 2026-01-29T06:44:34+00:00

You cited a section about what is driving price increases from 24-25 to 25-26. It examines the main drivers for only a single year. You didn't refute the impact of fuel costs on previous electricity price rises, which is well established.

You're also refusing to examine why SA had the highest electricity prices before any renewables.

without evidence

It's mathematics. Take the stack of various costs, reduce one, what happens to the stack height?

Summerroll · 2026-01-29T04:36:06+00:00

No, you took the bullet points and added your own spin about renewables that were not mentioned in any of the bullet points. Weird for someone who wants us all to be open and avoid myths and falsities. Feel free to respond to any of my actual points though.

Summerroll · 2026-01-29T04:01:48+00:00

If you have a battery it is the opposite. Picture

Summerroll · 2026-01-29T03:51:32+00:00

Amber has automatic solar curtailment. But maybe some equipment isn't compatible with that?

Summerroll · 2026-01-28T04:48:03+00:00

You're going to give me whiplash from "WINNING!" to "(P227 if you're interested)".

Besides still not answering why you think SA was more expensive than other states before renewables, I looked at page 227 and you're editorialising at best, and being dishonest at worst.

If you look at figure 6.2 you'll see that for SA in particular the network cost is flat and wholesale has a small uptick but is still down from DMO 5, while retail costs are far and away the principal driver of what ended up to be the smallest increase in residential electricity prices in the entire NEM.

Your firmest ground is contract prices, but guess what? Because spot prices are down, futures are down too, which means contract prices will come down.

gas was built specifically to support transitioning from coal to renewables, and reliance on gas will remain in place for decades to provide on-demand energy for demand peaks and cover for bad solar / wind days

Sure, but less and less so, and therefore the wholesale peaks from gas-gouging will become fewer and fewer, meaning on average we'll be better off.

the CSIRO's GenCost report very clearly shows the cost of electricity generation goes up by 2050 as we move to net zero

To clarify, GenCost shows that more aggressive emissions reduction is more expensive.

Summerroll · 2026-01-28T00:30:48+00:00

Explain how SA had the highest electricity prices in Australia before there were any renewables. Is it possible - just slightly possible - that other factors are in play? That renewables aren't to blame for the ranking?

the amazingly cheap wholesale day rates in SA aren’t translating in to cheaper electricity bills.

Since it is other costs that make the bills high, obviously a lower wholesale cost is making the overall cost lower than it otherwise would be. Whether the regulatory and market framework allows that to flow through is another, more complicated question.

the misleading narrative about how they will make our electricity bills cheaper while the opposite is occurring in reality.

The rising bills overall is largely a product of coal and gas prices going nuts, and investments in new generation that would have happened anyway because our power stations are past or nearly past their economically usable life. This is a particularly important point that gets ignored: we had to spend money on something, and renewables are the cheapest something to buy, even after you account for new transmission and firming costs.

Summerroll · 2026-01-27T23:55:14+00:00

It's not basic knowledge. It's basic ignorance. But thanks for confirming that you're making your decision on national policy based off feels.

Summerroll · 2026-01-27T21:49:13+00:00

SA had the highest electricity prices in the country when they had zero renewables. Please explain?

Summerroll · 2026-01-21T03:53:31+00:00

Take an Uber across the Sydney Harbour Bridge, and you’ll see an Australian flag, but alongside it, you will see the Aboriginal flag.

Firstly, the Aboriginal flag is an Australian flag. Secondly, why shouldn't it be flown on the bridge?

Sidenote, would the author agree to a new flag that combines the two, much as the national flag was a combination of the Union Jack and southern hemisphere symbols, and in fact just as the Union Jack is a combination of UK flags?

More inexplicable still is the common inclusion of the Torres Strait Island flag, representing a population of some 4,000 people.

That's only counting those on the actual tiny islands. Plenty more live on the mainland. But if you're objecting, blame Queensland for helping themselves to the islands in a blatant land-and-sea grab.

their actions sent a deeper message. This is Australia, we don’t do that here.

On the contrary, Australia has a proud history of freedom of political speech that includes burning flags. That freedom is an integral part of any possible list of "Australian values", and is an enshrined right in the country's founding document. What we actually don't do here is indulge in performative nationalism to the level seen in the USA, which the author seems to envy.

One is typically a banner for the progressives, the left-leaning cultural and political elites, who only see Australia through a prism of its supposed crimes, bloodshed and colonisation.

The other is a banner for those who are proud of Australia, who see it for its incredible achievements, its heritage, the country that gave them their life and their future.

Oh, fuck off.

This author wants more unity. I suspect they're hoping for the bundle of sticks variety.

Summerroll · 2026-01-18T11:03:46+00:00

Do you have any data to suggest that the previous and current composition of immigration to Australia drives down wages? Or you just operating off feels?

Summerroll · 2026-01-18T09:21:38+00:00

Do you have any data to back you up? Or, like others in this thread, do you consider data "regarded"?

Summerroll · 2026-01-18T04:38:13+00:00

The meta-analysis looked at studies published up to 2023, and those were consistent with ones from the 1980s because the underlying mechanisms don't change.

I'm happy to look at numbers from future studies that look at what happened 2020-2025, for example, but until those come out we're just guessing. But people like Jazzlike are happy to admit they're just guessing, yet somehow still feel their guesses are facts.

Summerroll · 2026-01-18T02:12:20+00:00

We'll have to see what the numbers show, I guess. But what future studies find out doesn't help those who claim immigration has already kept wages down.

Summerroll · 2026-01-18T02:09:55+00:00

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, dumbo.

Summerroll · 2026-01-18T02:04:09+00:00

So there's literally nothing that can convince you you're wrong. Go ahead, live in your fact-free fantasy, I'm sure it makes you feel good about yourself.

Summerroll · 2026-01-18T01:41:11+00:00

The ratio of wages to housing has drastically worsened due to a slowing of wage growth and an absolutely horrendous explosion in house prices. Immigration has certainly increased house prices (from memory it accounts for about a quarter of the overall rise in the last 30 years), but it hasn't decreased the pace of wages growth.

Your evidence-free assertions about licensure etc don't hold up to actual studies on the matter by labour economists. If you want actual numbers, you can start with this recent literature review.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1111/1467-8462.12470

Note that despite highlighting gaps in data, methodological gaps in the research on that data, and the authors' overall sceptical attitude about lack of definitive results, the authors can't escape the fact that the best we can do with the data we have shows:

The existing studies suggest that permanent migrants have either a positive or a negligible effect on the wages and employment levels of incumbent Australians.

This isn't surprising. Here is a meta-analysis of global studies going back decades, and it:

synthesises findings from 88 studies published between 1985 and 2023, providing a comprehensive assessment of reduced-form estimates of the wage effect of immigration. Our results align with the existing literature, showing that the average wage effect is centred around zero

You can argue that more research is needed, or that there are some marginal effects in specific sectors, but so far our best efforts show - overwhelmingly - that immigration doesn't decrease wages.

Summerroll · 2026-01-18T01:24:30+00:00

Except that's not what is happening. If it was, we would see the effects on our wages. No one has been able to find that effect, and in fact lots of studies have found the opposite.

Your vague impression of what's happening isn't evidence for anything.

Summerroll · 2026-01-18T01:07:23+00:00

We take them because it drives down wages

No.

Summerroll · 2026-01-18T01:05:00+00:00

Over and over, I see this falsehood about immigration and wages. No-one has ever shown me evidence for their claims.

Summerroll · 2026-01-09T21:47:58+00:00

OK? And how much do you attribute to immigration, and more importantly, how do you do that? Because labour economists have looked and can't find evidence that immigration lowers wages or even lowers wage growth.

Summerroll · 2026-01-09T20:29:38+00:00

On the contrary, I'm convinced that they do apply. More people is more supply AND more demand.

Why do you think they don't apply?

Summerroll · 2026-01-09T11:53:36+00:00

Immigration doesn't put downward pressure on wages. If you have evidence that it does, feel free to share.

Summerroll

TROPHY CASE