HalfEarthMedic

joined 2 months ago
[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 1 points 6 hours ago (1 children)

It feels lime we agree on the impact but disagree on whether it is bad or good. Treating the most vulnerable people in our society like criminals and further alienating them while pushing them further into poverty is the design and the effect. It is immoral. Did I misread you?

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 9 hours ago (1 children)

Sorry for not being clear.

We have 5 positions to fill, we elect 15 people. From those 15 we select 5 at random.

This way everyone who eds up in a position wants it and has been elected but no amount of influence or money can guarantee a certain result

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 1 day ago (3 children)

More likely the other way a round, elect 15 members for 5 positions for example, every candidate has been endorsed in an election but no amount of party influence, marketing, or corruption can ever guarantee a result.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 26 points 2 days ago (4 children)

“Our social security system is designed to be there for Australians when they fall on hard times, which is why it’s important debt recovery processes must be fair and transparent,” Plibersek said.

Anyone who has actually had to rely on centrelink knows this to be untrue. The intent may be to help those who need it but the structural design assumes everyone is a welfare cheat until proven otherwise. If you do manage to prove that you're not a bludger you can get below poverty level amounts of money and if centrelink makes a mistake you're on the hook.

This is a small positive step but remember the context.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 2 days ago (5 children)

I 100% agree. If I were all powerful god emperor I would have local councils selected by a combination of sortition and election checked by regular public meetings. But within the limited Overton window of liberal democracy I'd settle for compulsory voting as a baby step in the right direction.

 

I found this section interesting

Ms Hayward[Port Hedland resident] believed compulsory voting would "absolutely" enhance the quality of local councils. "I think that if it's compulsory, then people are going to take more of an interest and possibly give them the opportunity to have a voice, whereas before they might not have wanted to do that," she said.


According to the Western Australian Electoral Commission, local government elections in 2023 achieved a voter turnout rate of 31.6 per cent, up from 30.2 per cent in 2021 and 29.07 per cent in 2019.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 days ago

There's a reason Australia is know for dangerous animals.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago (1 children)

I'm ideologically predisposed to favour local government over state government so I'm immediately suspicious with any attempt to overrule a local council.

I really need to sit down and go through this Coolgardie situation. My understanding of the bare bones is that the mining industry was screaming out for for more accommodation for miners. Coolgardie council responded by releasing some land for mining companies to build on and built their own "village". The building project was mismanaged and over budget and hasn't returned the revenue expected. Council tried to cover the shortfall by heavily increasing rates on miners which was overruled by the state govt. They have now been accused of doing nothing to get themselves out of this mess.

At a glance it looks to me like an underresourced council doing its best and overeaching and when it fell apart made a hard decision to tax higher to regain financial stability. It looks a lot like Perth wants to amalgamate Coolgardie into Kalgoorlie-Boulder and this is pretext.

But as I say, I need to be guarded with my judgement because of my ideological predisposition.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago (3 children)

3 weeks to respond then its only a few weeks to the election. What is the point of this?

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 5 points 3 days ago (3 children)

the number of guns each licence holder has is going up – gun owners now average more than four firearms for each licence.

So on our farm we have

  1. A shotgun(foxes and rabbits)
  2. A .22(never got rid of it)
  3. A .22 Magnum (kangaroos and sheep)
  4. An air rifle(fun)
  5. A .303(cows and wild pigs)

3 guns is close to an irreducible minimum for a large farm or a serious hunter. I imagine club shooters similarly 'need' around 3-4 guns for different events. An average of more than four on each license is not a shocking figure.

With the exception of illegally acquired guns there is very little in here that is concerning. The absence of semi automatic and pump action guns combined with registration tied to valid uses remains firm.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 2 points 3 days ago

I wonder - and I do mean wonder, I'm not putting this forward as a firm theory - if the kids pick up on contempt for teachers from their parents. Certainly a lot of people either look down on teachers as lesser or alternatively see them as invalid authority figures.

I also think that there is a drift away from community and family raising children towards the parent being the only valid authority. This has been a century long drift and again I don't know how much this factors in.

 

Shockingly Trump is showing no commitment to using soft power to maintain alliances. This administration can only accelerate the loss of the US status as global hegemon as living under the US umbrella no longer feels secure if it can plausibly be whipped away for short term transactional gain

Recently in Adelaide, the Australia-US leadership “dialogue” between the business, bureaucratic and media elite of the two countries met for the 33rd time since its inception in 1992 ... But this year, no-one from the Trump administration attended the “dialogue”. Americans were thin on the ground ... The “dialogue” appears to be dead, at least for the Trump years.


A recent visit from an American official advised Canberra that the Pentagon had told Seoul that it did not regard Kim as a problem for the United States!


In his undoubted zeal for a summit with Xi and an apparent win in his trade war with China, it is reasonable to surmise that Trump surely may make Putin-like concessions to China even if it undermines the security of Taiwan.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

This is the answer, plastic recycling has always been a scam. Waxed paper, cardboard, glass, anything else.

[–] HalfEarthMedic@slrpnk.net 9 points 6 days ago (4 children)

Idealistic teachers don't last because they aren't treated like professionals with judgement and autonomy. In my opinion this is a bigger problem than pay, although better pay would help and be the morally correct thing to do for such a vital profession.

 

Article suggests gender quotas and scholarships. Has anyone considered treating, and paying, teachers like the vital professionals they are?

 

An interesting take on Albo's leadership.

I would tend to think he has been over cautious since the referendum, glacial movement on the middle east and a failure to so anything meaningful on housing.

Maybe slow and cautious is the way we get real reform. Infuriating but effective?

 

A specific road use tax on EVs and hybrids makes no sense.

Given the harms caused by traditional vehicles, society should welcome the decline in fuel excise revenue caused by the transition to EVs – in the same way we should welcome declining revenue from cigarette taxes.

Vehicle registration fees make only a modest contribution to road costs. That’s why all motorists should pay a road-user charge. The payment should be based on a combination of vehicle mass and distance travelled

 

[T] he poor design of the resource rent tax has meant little or no money has been collected. According to Treasury, “to date not a single LNG plant has paid any petroleum resource rent tax and many are not expected to pay any significant amounts until the 2030s.

Nor do the big multinational exporters of gas — including Exxon, Shell and Chevron — seem to pay much company tax. The Australian Taxation Office has labelled the oil and gas industry “systematic non-payers” of tax.

 

In brief

Be sure your dodgy modelling will find you out. I’m starting to think economists have become so used to pretending to know more about the economy than they really do that they don’t notice the way they mislead the rest of us.


The Productivity Commission has proposed a radical change in the way companies are taxed which, it tells us, would improve the economy’s productivity and leave us better off. It has commissioned modelling that, it implies, supports its case for change.


Its modelling shows the benefit from cutting the rate of company tax would take years to materialise, and still be trivial, but the commission thinks we should do it anyway.

 

As pressure mounts on the Australian Government over Palestine, a group of highly respected Australians, who have represented our nation overseas, have gone straight to the top with a letter to the prime minister.

 

The productivity comission propses to reduce the tax paid by all companies bar the top 500, they’d get no cut in conventional company tax, but would pay the new 5 per cent cash flow tax.

On paper, the commission’s partial switch from conventional company tax to a tax on companies’ net cash flow – which allows them to write off the full cost of new assets immediately – ought to improve productivity.

The join statement by 24 business lobby groups says that “while some businesses may benefit under the proposal, it risks all Australian consumers and businesses paying more for the things they buy every day – groceries, fuel and other daily essentials”. Get it? This is the lobbyists’ oldest trick: “We’re not concerned about what the tax change would do to our profits, dear reader, we’re just worried about what it would do you and your pocket. It’s not us we worry about, it’s our customers.” Suddenly, their professed concern about the lack of productivity improvement and slow growth is out the window, and now it’s the cost of living they’re deeply worried about. They’ve been urging governments to increase the GST for years, but now they don’t want higher prices.

 

The US geopolitical objective is to destroy China’s power. This is being pursued variously. China’s economy depends on Asian sea traffic. The US military strategy is to sever those sea lanes. Thereby China’s economy is imperilled.

However, as the US itself has claimed (from Obama on) it lacks the resources to achieve its objective. It says it must rely on allies’ support.

Unsaid by US planners is that those same sea lanes upon which China depends are critical also for Japan and Australia. Any pedant can see that the natural allies here are China, Japan and Australia.

view more: next ›