Australian Politics Forum - Warren Truss rejects economics 101

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Warren Truss rejects economics 101
Reply #15 - May 20^th, 2011 at 6:13pm

Maqqa wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 5:41pm:

Happy to take you all on

perception and death - no need for you to participate until you learn the alphabet first

perceptions_now wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

Maqqa wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 7:44am:

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:00pm:

Not only does Warren Truss (leader of the nationals) reject economic fundamentals, he claims that economists agree with him.

There seems to be a growing trend from the coalition to misrepresent the views of other people as agreeing with them. First we had Abbott trying to put words into Tim Flannery's mouth. This comment from Truss was made on the same day:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#warren-tr...

Quote:

This is the kind of ‘wonder’ tax that the government wants to impose upon the Australian people. Economists say it will not work. If you give all of the money back to people by way of compensation, they will not try to change their behaviour, so it will make no difference whatsoever to CO2 emissions. Indeed, it will probably make them worse, because one of the things that this tax will do—as we heard today in question time and as we have heard in the media over recent times—is make doing business in this country more costly.

Surprisingly, the media did not pick up on this comment. His reference to economists is especially interesting, as there is a strong economic consensus in favour of pricing mechanisms. Truss' explanation shows an unfamiliarity with basic economic principles that is bewildering for a political leader. If the money is returned to taxpayers (eg via reduced income taxes) there will still be a very strong incentive to reduce emissions. Most items will actually become more affordable, as they incur relatively few emissions and the increase in price will be more than offset by the reductions in income tax. Those few items that incur high greenhouse emissions (think of the 80:20 rule) will become far less affordable. If the compensation was 'perfect' people could theoretically buy the same things and pay more for some and less for others. However, the reality is that unless people will die without an item then they will gradually substitute the now less affordable ones for the more affordable. Even if an item is necessary, there are many ways to obtain it that will have varying levels of emissions associated with them. Upstream of the consumer, suppliers will be faced with similar choices when it comes to their costs. This is the reality that economists refer to when they talk about 'supply and demand'. This is the reality that Warren Truss claims to reject when he says the tax will not work. This is the reality that Warren Truss rejects when he claims that economists share his view.

It's sound economics freediver

I have already explained it and will again if any lefties needs it again

Unlike other lefties who run away after making a statement - I am happy to back it

Still practising to be a comedian, Maqqa?

The truth is, as has been seen on countless ocassions, your understanding of general & Global Economics is "somewhat limited".

In fact, you use "spin phrases" and you don't expain it, because of your knowledge limitations.

And, like some others, you generally run from any in depth discussion, because you lack the knowledge to back up your spin, with real facts!

Still auditioning for the comedians role?

Btw, you never did say why you think increased interest rates & Aus-terity will fix the OZ economy!

And you never will understand why the following are now intertwined, more than at any other time in human history, nor how China fits into the picture, now.

1) Economics 101
2) Politics 101
3) Nature 101

And finally, you have no credible answer to the crucial questions regarding Climate Change -
1) What will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?

2) What are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

But, don't worry, you're not alone, there's quite a few others who also have no idea what they're talking about either!
Including Soren, who also doesn't front up!

Back to top

IP Logged

freediver

Gold Member

Offline

www.ozpolitic.com

Posts: 49458
At my desk.

Re: Warren Truss rejects economics 101
Reply #16 - May 20^th, 2011 at 9:50pm

Maqqa wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 7:44am:

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:00pm:

Not only does Warren Truss (leader of the nationals) reject economic fundamentals, he claims that economists agree with him.

There seems to be a growing trend from the coalition to misrepresent the views of other people as agreeing with them. First we had Abbott trying to put words into Tim Flannery's mouth. This comment from Truss was made on the same day:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#warren-tr...

Quote:

This is the kind of ‘wonder’ tax that the government wants to impose upon the Australian people. Economists say it will not work. If you give all of the money back to people by way of compensation, they will not try to change their behaviour, so it will make no difference whatsoever to CO2 emissions. Indeed, it will probably make them worse, because one of the things that this tax will do—as we heard today in question time and as we have heard in the media over recent times—is make doing business in this country more costly.

Surprisingly, the media did not pick up on this comment. His reference to economists is especially interesting, as there is a strong economic consensus in favour of pricing mechanisms. Truss' explanation shows an unfamiliarity with basic economic principles that is bewildering for a political leader. If the money is returned to taxpayers (eg via reduced income taxes) there will still be a very strong incentive to reduce emissions. Most items will actually become more affordable, as they incur relatively few emissions and the increase in price will be more than offset by the reductions in income tax. Those few items that incur high greenhouse emissions (think of the 80:20 rule) will become far less affordable. If the compensation was 'perfect' people could theoretically buy the same things and pay more for some and less for others. However, the reality is that unless people will die without an item then they will gradually substitute the now less affordable ones for the more affordable. Even if an item is necessary, there are many ways to obtain it that will have varying levels of emissions associated with them. Upstream of the consumer, suppliers will be faced with similar choices when it comes to their costs. This is the reality that economists refer to when they talk about 'supply and demand'. This is the reality that Warren Truss claims to reject when he says the tax will not work. This is the reality that Warren Truss rejects when he claims that economists share his view.

It's sound economics freediver

I have already explained it and will again if any lefties needs it again

Unlike other lefties who run away after making a statement - I am happy to back it

Go ahead. Keep in mind the coalition has their own carbon tax now, so be careful not to stray from the message.

Back to top

People who can't distinguish between etymology and entomology bug me in ways I cannot put into words.

IP Logged

perceptions_now

Gold Member

Offline

Australian Politics

Posts: 11694
Perth WA
Gender: male

Re: Warren Truss rejects economics 101
Reply #17 - May 21^st, 2011 at 12:19pm

perceptions_now wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 6:13pm:

Maqqa wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 5:41pm:

Happy to take you all on

perception and death - no need for you to participate until you learn the alphabet first

perceptions_now wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 11:29am:

Maqqa wrote on May 20^th, 2011 at 7:44am:

freediver wrote on May 18^th, 2011 at 10:00pm:

Not only does Warren Truss (leader of the nationals) reject economic fundamentals, he claims that economists agree with him.

There seems to be a growing trend from the coalition to misrepresent the views of other people as agreeing with them. First we had Abbott trying to put words into Tim Flannery's mouth. This comment from Truss was made on the same day:

http://www.ozpolitic.com/articles/coalition-climate-change-policy.html#warren-tr...

Quote:

This is the kind of ‘wonder’ tax that the government wants to impose upon the Australian people. Economists say it will not work. If you give all of the money back to people by way of compensation, they will not try to change their behaviour, so it will make no difference whatsoever to CO2 emissions. Indeed, it will probably make them worse, because one of the things that this tax will do—as we heard today in question time and as we have heard in the media over recent times—is make doing business in this country more costly.

Surprisingly, the media did not pick up on this comment. His reference to economists is especially interesting, as there is a strong economic consensus in favour of pricing mechanisms. Truss' explanation shows an unfamiliarity with basic economic principles that is bewildering for a political leader. If the money is returned to taxpayers (eg via reduced income taxes) there will still be a very strong incentive to reduce emissions. Most items will actually become more affordable, as they incur relatively few emissions and the increase in price will be more than offset by the reductions in income tax. Those few items that incur high greenhouse emissions (think of the 80:20 rule) will become far less affordable. If the compensation was 'perfect' people could theoretically buy the same things and pay more for some and less for others. However, the reality is that unless people will die without an item then they will gradually substitute the now less affordable ones for the more affordable. Even if an item is necessary, there are many ways to obtain it that will have varying levels of emissions associated with them. Upstream of the consumer, suppliers will be faced with similar choices when it comes to their costs. This is the reality that economists refer to when they talk about 'supply and demand'. This is the reality that Warren Truss claims to reject when he says the tax will not work. This is the reality that Warren Truss rejects when he claims that economists share his view.

It's sound economics freediver

I have already explained it and will again if any lefties needs it again

Unlike other lefties who run away after making a statement - I am happy to back it

Still practising to be a comedian, Maqqa?

The truth is, as has been seen on countless ocassions, your understanding of general & Global Economics is "somewhat limited".

In fact, you use "spin phrases" and you don't expain it, because of your knowledge limitations.

And, like some others, you generally run from any in depth discussion, because you lack the knowledge to back up your spin, with real facts!

Still auditioning for the comedians role?

Btw, you never did say why you think increased interest rates & Aus-terity will fix the OZ economy!

And you never will understand why the following are now intertwined, more than at any other time in human history, nor how China fits into the picture, now.

1) Economics 101
2) Politics 101
3) Nature 101

And finally, you have no credible answer to the crucial questions regarding Climate Change -
1) What will be the cost to us and our children, in the longer term, if we take the Peak Oil line, we are wrong and do not take whatever actions are possible to mitigate the worst effects of the GHG/Climate Change problem?

2) What are the relative costs to humanity, of doing something or doing nothing?

But, don't worry, you're not alone, there's quite a few others who also have no idea what they're talking about either!
Including Soren, who also doesn't front up!

Still doing your usual, Maqqa?
Putting up spin, before running away.

Back to top

IP Logged

BatteriesNotIncluded Gold Member Offline MediocrityNET: because people died for this! Posts: 26966	Re: Warren Truss rejects economics 101 Reply #18 - May 21^st, 2011 at 1:14pm ISN'T SOREN GOING TO TELL US ALL ABOUT THE GENIUS OF TRUSS?
Back to top	Sure....they're anti competitive as any subsidised job is. It wouldn't be there without the tax payer. Very damned difficult for a brainwashed collectivist to understand that I know.... (swaggy) IP Logged