Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Lifestyle

Canberra’s Boutique Real Estate and Property Management

Bullet Train approved for Federal Election

By Barcham 23 May 2013 43

ZOOM!

Australia’s most single minded party, Bullet Train for Australia, have just had their federal party application approved by the Australian Electoral Commission.

To celebrate they’ve sent out a press release that sounds like one of those Charlie Sheen Meme’s from 2011.

Winning!

Today the Australian Electoral Commission has officially approved the Bullet Train for Australia federal party application. Millions of Australians will now have the opportunity to vote for something real that will benefit all people and future generations. Being on millions of ballot papers isn’t our only win. Our other wins are stacking up faster than an intercity express train as our campaign starts to roll:

• Fastest policy – WIN!

• Longest distance policy – WIN!

• Best name of any party – WIN!

• Fewest celebrity candidates – WIN!

• Least annoying party – WIN!

See what I mean?

Still for those of you who like Bullet Trains, this is some rather good news.

[Image from their change.org page]


What’s Your opinion?


Please login to post your comments, or connect with
43 Responses to
Bullet Train approved for Federal Election
Filter
Showing only Website comments
Order
Newest to Oldest
Oldest to Newst
dungfungus 4:24 pm 26 May 13

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

MrPC said :

Here’s a hypothetical scenario.

Hold a plebiscite for everyone who has an enrolled address within 50km of the proposed station sites of any of the stops on the recent $110bn plan. Given this catchment would include Sydney (4.7m), Brisbane (2.2m), Melbourne (4.2m), Canberra-QBN (411k), the Gold Coast (600k), the lower tip of the Sunshine Coast, several NSW North Coast cities, Newcastle (418k), Wagga (53k), Albury-Wodonga (85k) and Shepparton (48k), I would assume that of the 13 million or so people within these cities and surrounding areas, there’d be about 8 million employed, taxpaying adults. Ask the population of this catchment via plebiscite whether they would be prepared to pay a HSR Levy of $1,250 per year ($24/wk) over the next 11 years to fully construct HSR within that timeframe.

You could offer those who pay the full $13,750 (or who skip no more than one year worth of the levy) a lifetime 50% fare concession (in addition to whatever other discounts may apply to their fare) once it’s built. Call it an investor concession.

Split the vote into corridors. If the SYD-CBR-MEL corridor votes yes but the folks north vote no, then build the southern half only. If the southern half plus Newcastle and the Central Coast vote yes, include that section too, and terminate it at Newcastle.

I have some reservations about asking the people of Bathurst or Adelaide or Hobart to pay for this link via their federal taxes, but a targeted levy would still hit a huge number of people, and it’d be the people that would use the service the most.

I suspect that it’d pass, if it were sold properly.

A daily express rail service was recently introduced from Bathurst to Sydney return. It has been judged to be a tremendous success. Not super fast but faster than anything before it.

switch said :

dungfungus said :

A daily express rail service was recently introduced from Bathurst to Sydney return. It has been judged to be a tremendous success. Not super fast but faster than anything before it.

Except that it’s a BUS from Bathurst to Lithgow, then a train. Which neatly sidesteps all the problems of a mostly 1880’s rail track route.

Has the bus been introduced recently then because the media release I read (earlier this year I think) was that a full rail service fom Bathurst had been introduced. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

I have now checked the Countrylink timetable and you are correct as their coach service takes the passengers both ways between Bathurst and Lithgow. I am surprised that the new “all the way” train service introduced in 2012 didn’t last because it was well patronised. Obviously, if RailCorp can’t make any money out of a service like this on existing track then there is no hope for a Very Fast Train anywhere in Australia.

Masquara 12:57 pm 26 May 13

MrPC said :

I suspect that it’d pass, if it were sold properly.

Do you seriously think that anyone will be able to hoik $13,000 in advance (and foregone interest), for a massive subsidising of business travellers, from the good burghers of Tumut, Wombat and Adjungbilly, who might barely use the train a couple of times a year?

dungfungus 11:27 am 26 May 13

dungfungus said :

dungfungus said :

MrPC said :

Here’s a hypothetical scenario.

Hold a plebiscite for everyone who has an enrolled address within 50km of the proposed station sites of any of the stops on the recent $110bn plan. Given this catchment would include Sydney (4.7m), Brisbane (2.2m), Melbourne (4.2m), Canberra-QBN (411k), the Gold Coast (600k), the lower tip of the Sunshine Coast, several NSW North Coast cities, Newcastle (418k), Wagga (53k), Albury-Wodonga (85k) and Shepparton (48k), I would assume that of the 13 million or so people within these cities and surrounding areas, there’d be about 8 million employed, taxpaying adults. Ask the population of this catchment via plebiscite whether they would be prepared to pay a HSR Levy of $1,250 per year ($24/wk) over the next 11 years to fully construct HSR within that timeframe.

You could offer those who pay the full $13,750 (or who skip no more than one year worth of the levy) a lifetime 50% fare concession (in addition to whatever other discounts may apply to their fare) once it’s built. Call it an investor concession.

Split the vote into corridors. If the SYD-CBR-MEL corridor votes yes but the folks north vote no, then build the southern half only. If the southern half plus Newcastle and the Central Coast vote yes, include that section too, and terminate it at Newcastle.

I have some reservations about asking the people of Bathurst or Adelaide or Hobart to pay for this link via their federal taxes, but a targeted levy would still hit a huge number of people, and it’d be the people that would use the service the most.

I suspect that it’d pass, if it were sold properly.

A daily express rail service was recently introduced from Bathurst to Sydney return. It has been judged to be a tremendous success. Not super fast but faster than anything before it.

switch said :

dungfungus said :

A daily express rail service was recently introduced from Bathurst to Sydney return. It has been judged to be a tremendous success. Not super fast but faster than anything before it.

Except that it’s a BUS from Bathurst to Lithgow, then a train. Which neatly sidesteps all the problems of a mostly 1880’s rail track route.

Has the bus been introduced recently then because the media release I read (earlier this year I think) was that a full rail service fom Bathurst had been introduced. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

Hey, it’s called the “Bullet” as well.
http://www.westernadvocate.com.au/story/423688/passengers-line-up-to-try-new-bathurst-bullet-rail-service/

dungfungus 11:23 am 26 May 13

dungfungus said :

MrPC said :

Here’s a hypothetical scenario.

Hold a plebiscite for everyone who has an enrolled address within 50km of the proposed station sites of any of the stops on the recent $110bn plan. Given this catchment would include Sydney (4.7m), Brisbane (2.2m), Melbourne (4.2m), Canberra-QBN (411k), the Gold Coast (600k), the lower tip of the Sunshine Coast, several NSW North Coast cities, Newcastle (418k), Wagga (53k), Albury-Wodonga (85k) and Shepparton (48k), I would assume that of the 13 million or so people within these cities and surrounding areas, there’d be about 8 million employed, taxpaying adults. Ask the population of this catchment via plebiscite whether they would be prepared to pay a HSR Levy of $1,250 per year ($24/wk) over the next 11 years to fully construct HSR within that timeframe.

You could offer those who pay the full $13,750 (or who skip no more than one year worth of the levy) a lifetime 50% fare concession (in addition to whatever other discounts may apply to their fare) once it’s built. Call it an investor concession.

Split the vote into corridors. If the SYD-CBR-MEL corridor votes yes but the folks north vote no, then build the southern half only. If the southern half plus Newcastle and the Central Coast vote yes, include that section too, and terminate it at Newcastle.

I have some reservations about asking the people of Bathurst or Adelaide or Hobart to pay for this link via their federal taxes, but a targeted levy would still hit a huge number of people, and it’d be the people that would use the service the most.

I suspect that it’d pass, if it were sold properly.

A daily express rail service was recently introduced from Bathurst to Sydney return. It has been judged to be a tremendous success. Not super fast but faster than anything before it.

switch said :

dungfungus said :

A daily express rail service was recently introduced from Bathurst to Sydney return. It has been judged to be a tremendous success. Not super fast but faster than anything before it.

Except that it’s a BUS from Bathurst to Lithgow, then a train. Which neatly sidesteps all the problems of a mostly 1880’s rail track route.

Has the bus been introduced recently then because the media release I read (earlier this year I think) was that a full rail service fom Bathurst had been introduced. I am happy to be corrected if I am wrong.

switch 11:16 am 26 May 13

dungfungus said :

A daily express rail service was recently introduced from Bathurst to Sydney return. It has been judged to be a tremendous success. Not super fast but faster than anything before it.

Except that it’s a BUS from Bathurst to Lithgow, then a train. Which neatly sidesteps all the problems of a mostly 1880’s rail track route.

dungfungus 10:54 am 26 May 13

MrPC said :

Here’s a hypothetical scenario.

Hold a plebiscite for everyone who has an enrolled address within 50km of the proposed station sites of any of the stops on the recent $110bn plan. Given this catchment would include Sydney (4.7m), Brisbane (2.2m), Melbourne (4.2m), Canberra-QBN (411k), the Gold Coast (600k), the lower tip of the Sunshine Coast, several NSW North Coast cities, Newcastle (418k), Wagga (53k), Albury-Wodonga (85k) and Shepparton (48k), I would assume that of the 13 million or so people within these cities and surrounding areas, there’d be about 8 million employed, taxpaying adults. Ask the population of this catchment via plebiscite whether they would be prepared to pay a HSR Levy of $1,250 per year ($24/wk) over the next 11 years to fully construct HSR within that timeframe.

You could offer those who pay the full $13,750 (or who skip no more than one year worth of the levy) a lifetime 50% fare concession (in addition to whatever other discounts may apply to their fare) once it’s built. Call it an investor concession.

Split the vote into corridors. If the SYD-CBR-MEL corridor votes yes but the folks north vote no, then build the southern half only. If the southern half plus Newcastle and the Central Coast vote yes, include that section too, and terminate it at Newcastle.

I have some reservations about asking the people of Bathurst or Adelaide or Hobart to pay for this link via their federal taxes, but a targeted levy would still hit a huge number of people, and it’d be the people that would use the service the most.

I suspect that it’d pass, if it were sold properly.

A daily express rail service was recently introduced from Bathurst to Sydney return. It has been judged to be a tremendous success. Not super fast but faster than anything before it.

dungfungus 10:51 am 26 May 13

Deckard said :

dungfungus said :

There has been a lot of bad economic news this week and the market and dollar are falling.

I would say most economists think that the falling Australian Dollar is good for the economy.

Most economists did not see the GFC coming either, not that the GFC really affected Australia.
A falling Australian dollar is good news for me as I recently bought US dollars as an investment strategy.
Its fall is too late to help the economy through saving our manufacturing and primary production sectors and it will be bad news for consumers as prices will rise sharply starting with petrol and diesel which will feed into transport costs etc. so inflation will feed on itself.
If the dollars falls too fast the RBA may have to increase interest rates to defend it. Then comes unemployment. So, it looks like a “lose, lose lose” for our economy.

HiddenDragon 10:38 pm 25 May 13

Tetranitrate said :

HiddenDragon said :

Tetranitrate said :

HiddenDragon said :

If it’s worth doing, it will be paid for by some of those billions sloshing around in super funds (and currently pushing bank shares to ever dizzying heights) and if it’s not (as I sadly suspect is the case) I’d rather not see the tens and tens of billions involved in building it, and the ongoing subsidies to run it, be added to Commonwealth liabilities.

How? A project like this isn’t going to spring up out of nowhere – if I wanted to put money into something like this what presently issued shares/bonds should I buy?
A massive project like this is always going to be overseen and lead by government – there’s plenty of money sloshing around that could fund it of course – and governments could always look into ‘infrastructure bonds’ and the like, which would no doubt be snapped up by super funds.

Due to the scale of this concept, and the many challenges involved, I think it should face true market tests. It is one thing to build a north-south railway in the middle of the continent because it might, one day, have a defence use, it is another thing to spend many, many times as much on a railway on the east coast which might be nice, and fun, and a bit mor convenient than current options, for some, but a giant financial lemon for the nation.

Right now, the sloshing billions would be better directed towards the internal infrastructure needs of the major cities which this railway would link. That would likely produce surer and greater economic benefits, improve the daily lives of many more people, and provide a more immediate source of employment for those with relevant skills who have, or are likely in the near future, to lose their jobs due to the slowing of the economy.

I can’t disagree with any of this really. You’re absolutely right on that.
My main point had been that a weaker economy is exactly the sort of time we should be looking at doing this sort of thing and that we shouldn’t be worried about financing it with deficits.

As gungsuperstar pithily puts it “If only the Howard Government had’ve had the foresight to see that the future was more important than lining the pockets of individual citizens so they can buy more crap they don’t need”…..we might have had a truly substantial sovereign wealth fund which could now be used for these things. Doing it in the boom years might not, as you point out, have been smart economically, but I sometimes think that had Latham spent less time talking about reading to your kids, and more talking about the infrastructure needs of his home town, and the other big cities, and how they could have been substantially fixed with the proceeds of the boom , he might have made it to the Lodge – which probably just underlines that timing is everything!

gooterz 10:28 pm 25 May 13

Australia doesn’t have the people capable of designing our own super awesome lightning speed train…..

How can everything be too expensive to produce in Australia? Yet Australia pretty much makes nothing….

If we did make things wouldn’t it be better because the money would stay in Australia. Everything we buy from overseas because its ‘cheap’ is just money we wont get back and makes our money worth less.

Deckard 6:10 pm 25 May 13

dungfungus said :

There has been a lot of bad economic news this week and the market and dollar are falling.

I would say most economists think that the falling Australian Dollar is good for the economy.

MrPC 5:24 pm 25 May 13

Here’s a hypothetical scenario.

Hold a plebiscite for everyone who has an enrolled address within 50km of the proposed station sites of any of the stops on the recent $110bn plan. Given this catchment would include Sydney (4.7m), Brisbane (2.2m), Melbourne (4.2m), Canberra-QBN (411k), the Gold Coast (600k), the lower tip of the Sunshine Coast, several NSW North Coast cities, Newcastle (418k), Wagga (53k), Albury-Wodonga (85k) and Shepparton (48k), I would assume that of the 13 million or so people within these cities and surrounding areas, there’d be about 8 million employed, taxpaying adults. Ask the population of this catchment via plebiscite whether they would be prepared to pay a HSR Levy of $1,250 per year ($24/wk) over the next 11 years to fully construct HSR within that timeframe.

You could offer those who pay the full $13,750 (or who skip no more than one year worth of the levy) a lifetime 50% fare concession (in addition to whatever other discounts may apply to their fare) once it’s built. Call it an investor concession.

Split the vote into corridors. If the SYD-CBR-MEL corridor votes yes but the folks north vote no, then build the southern half only. If the southern half plus Newcastle and the Central Coast vote yes, include that section too, and terminate it at Newcastle.

I have some reservations about asking the people of Bathurst or Adelaide or Hobart to pay for this link via their federal taxes, but a targeted levy would still hit a huge number of people, and it’d be the people that would use the service the most.

I suspect that it’d pass, if it were sold properly.

Tetranitrate 5:03 pm 25 May 13

dungfungus said :

Remember what the Lone Ranger said to Tonto once? “well Tonto, this looks like it could be curtains for us because we have run out of bullets and we’re surrounded by Indians”
Tonto replied “what do you mean, we?”
Same applies here. Obviuosly some of you who support this folly have never had to repay a debt.
If you want a test as to who wants to finance a project like this then float a company and see how many shares you sell.
There are municipal light rail networks that have been built in Spain in the last 10 years that are actually closing down because people cannot afford to use them due to the depressed economy and it wasn’t that long ago that Spain was where we are at now.

A comparison with Spain actually makes the opposite point to what you think it does, but I can’t be bothered wasting my time writing much more than that.
Your posts have been repeatedly shredded by multiple people in two different threads. You haven’t bothered to respond to the arguments put forward even once, instead you just keep vomiting up more garbage. Going on with this would be like trying to debate a raving lunatic at who rocks up to a dinner party and proceeds to run around naked smearing feces all over the walls.
“Raah! Muslims! massive debts! duuurrr here’s some folksy wisdom that clearly applies to macroeconomics!”
I do hope you’re merely a persistent troll.

miz 4:48 pm 25 May 13

I travelled on a train to Kobe (Japan) in 1990 while visiting my brother. I can’t remember if it was ‘the’ Bullet train, but it was damn fast as well as clean and with good facilities (food, toilets etc). If we get one of those I would definitely use it in preference to flying or coach where you can’t move about much (and I can’t stand the smell of coaches, I always feel travel sick the minute I get on).
1990 is 23 years ago people – what’s taking us so long??! It is not particularly new technology.
I wish you well, Bullet Train Party.

drfelonious 4:45 pm 25 May 13

switch said :

drfelonious said :

EXCELLENT!

Now I can actually vote for something worthwhile instead having to somehow figure out if one of the political parties is slightly less craven than the others.

Please explain how under Federal preferential voting you can avoid voting for one of the political parties that is “slightly less craven than the others.” Albert Langer’s solution has been outlawed (and remember he was locked up for having the temerity to suggest it). You can put as many single issue minor parties as you like ahead of Labour or Liberal, but eventually preferences will flow to one or other of them.

Except in the extremely unlikely circumstance that Very Fast Train Party actually get a majority of votes. But their showing in the last local government election suggests they wont get anything like that. All you can do is register a “protest” vote ahead of the two major parties.

Chillax there switch..my post had absolutely nothing – zero, nada, nil – to do with preferential voting. I now have an option that I like to put as my first preference – before this announcement I did not even have that.

That is all (I, and my Bullet Train voting colleagues will now resume being chill. If you vote with us maybe you can be too!).

dungfungus 3:34 pm 25 May 13

Tetranitrate said :

HiddenDragon said :

Tetranitrate said :

HiddenDragon said :

If it’s worth doing, it will be paid for by some of those billions sloshing around in super funds (and currently pushing bank shares to ever dizzying heights) and if it’s not (as I sadly suspect is the case) I’d rather not see the tens and tens of billions involved in building it, and the ongoing subsidies to run it, be added to Commonwealth liabilities.

How? A project like this isn’t going to spring up out of nowhere – if I wanted to put money into something like this what presently issued shares/bonds should I buy?
A massive project like this is always going to be overseen and lead by government – there’s plenty of money sloshing around that could fund it of course – and governments could always look into ‘infrastructure bonds’ and the like, which would no doubt be snapped up by super funds.

Due to the scale of this concept, and the many challenges involved, I think it should face true market tests. It is one thing to build a north-south railway in the middle of the continent because it might, one day, have a defence use, it is another thing to spend many, many times as much on a railway on the east coast which might be nice, and fun, and a bit mor convenient than current options, for some, but a giant financial lemon for the nation.

Right now, the sloshing billions would be better directed towards the internal infrastructure needs of the major cities which this railway would link. That would likely produce surer and greater economic benefits, improve the daily lives of many more people, and provide a more immediate source of employment for those with relevant skills who have, or are likely in the near future, to lose their jobs due to the slowing of the economy.

I can’t disagree with any of this really. You’re absolutely right on that.
My main point had been that a weaker economy is exactly the sort of time we should be looking at doing this sort of thing and that we shouldn’t be worried about financing it with deficits.

Remember what the Lone Ranger said to Tonto once? “well Tonto, this looks like it could be curtains for us because we have run out of bullets and we’re surrounded by Indians”
Tonto replied “what do you mean, we?”
Same applies here. Obviuosly some of you who support this folly have never had to repay a debt.
If you want a test as to who wants to finance a project like this then float a company and see how many shares you sell.
There are municipal light rail networks that have been built in Spain in the last 10 years that are actually closing down because people cannot afford to use them due to the depressed economy and it wasn’t that long ago that Spain was where we are at now.

Tetranitrate 3:01 pm 25 May 13

HiddenDragon said :

Tetranitrate said :

HiddenDragon said :

If it’s worth doing, it will be paid for by some of those billions sloshing around in super funds (and currently pushing bank shares to ever dizzying heights) and if it’s not (as I sadly suspect is the case) I’d rather not see the tens and tens of billions involved in building it, and the ongoing subsidies to run it, be added to Commonwealth liabilities.

How? A project like this isn’t going to spring up out of nowhere – if I wanted to put money into something like this what presently issued shares/bonds should I buy?
A massive project like this is always going to be overseen and lead by government – there’s plenty of money sloshing around that could fund it of course – and governments could always look into ‘infrastructure bonds’ and the like, which would no doubt be snapped up by super funds.

Due to the scale of this concept, and the many challenges involved, I think it should face true market tests. It is one thing to build a north-south railway in the middle of the continent because it might, one day, have a defence use, it is another thing to spend many, many times as much on a railway on the east coast which might be nice, and fun, and a bit mor convenient than current options, for some, but a giant financial lemon for the nation.

Right now, the sloshing billions would be better directed towards the internal infrastructure needs of the major cities which this railway would link. That would likely produce surer and greater economic benefits, improve the daily lives of many more people, and provide a more immediate source of employment for those with relevant skills who have, or are likely in the near future, to lose their jobs due to the slowing of the economy.

I can’t disagree with any of this really. You’re absolutely right on that.
My main point had been that a weaker economy is exactly the sort of time we should be looking at doing this sort of thing and that we shouldn’t be worried about financing it with deficits.

HiddenDragon 1:32 pm 25 May 13

Tetranitrate said :

HiddenDragon said :

If it’s worth doing, it will be paid for by some of those billions sloshing around in super funds (and currently pushing bank shares to ever dizzying heights) and if it’s not (as I sadly suspect is the case) I’d rather not see the tens and tens of billions involved in building it, and the ongoing subsidies to run it, be added to Commonwealth liabilities.

How? A project like this isn’t going to spring up out of nowhere – if I wanted to put money into something like this what presently issued shares/bonds should I buy?
A massive project like this is always going to be overseen and lead by government – there’s plenty of money sloshing around that could fund it of course – and governments could always look into ‘infrastructure bonds’ and the like, which would no doubt be snapped up by super funds.

Due to the scale of this concept, and the many challenges involved, I think it should face true market tests. It is one thing to build a north-south railway in the middle of the continent because it might, one day, have a defence use, it is another thing to spend many, many times as much on a railway on the east coast which might be nice, and fun, and a bit mor convenient than current options, for some, but a giant financial lemon for the nation.

Right now, the sloshing billions would be better directed towards the internal infrastructure needs of the major cities which this railway would link. That would likely produce surer and greater economic benefits, improve the daily lives of many more people, and provide a more immediate source of employment for those with relevant skills who have, or are likely in the near future, to lose their jobs due to the slowing of the economy.

Tetranitrate 12:54 pm 25 May 13

HiddenDragon said :

If it’s worth doing, it will be paid for by some of those billions sloshing around in super funds (and currently pushing bank shares to ever dizzying heights) and if it’s not (as I sadly suspect is the case) I’d rather not see the tens and tens of billions involved in building it, and the ongoing subsidies to run it, be added to Commonwealth liabilities.

How? A project like this isn’t going to spring up out of nowhere – if I wanted to put money into something like this what presently issued shares/bonds should I buy?
A massive project like this is always going to be overseen and lead by government – there’s plenty of money sloshing around that could fund it of course – and governments could always look into ‘infrastructure bonds’ and the like, which would no doubt be snapped up by super funds.

gungsuperstar 1:12 am 24 May 13

dungfungus said :

milkman said :

allyroger said :

A_Cog said :

Canberra does not need a VERY Fast Train. A COMPARABLY Fast Train would do.

The bus to/from Sydney takes 3hrs 15 mins, and this even includes trawling through the Sydney CBD etc for the terminus at Central Station. But the current trains to/from Sydney take 4hrs 20mins.

Hmmm.

I bet you love the Coalition NBN plan too

I bet you love the way Labor spends more than we can afford.

deficits = good
surpluses = bad

You are The Riot Act’s worst poster. For those counting, this is now foreign policy, drug policy and economic policy that you’ve proven conclusively to have no clue about whatsoever.

It’s not even possible to argue politics or policy with you – cos you’ll just make something up to support your claim. French students, of whom 80% are Muslim can’t be wrong! Neither can the scores of potheads abusing ice… can they?

It’s funny how the legacies of politicians age. A hated PM at the time, Keating’s legacy has aged particularly well, with his restructuring of the Australian economy in anticipation of the Asian boom setting us up for a generation.

On the flip side of that, many considered Howard one of Australia’s best ever PMs. As time has gone on, his legacy has aged particularly poorly, because with the benefit of hindsight he sold every asset he could get his hands on and left us with a complete dearth of infrastructure to show for it.

The current government is in deficit because there is nothing left to spend – but that deficit is absolutely a good thing when it is used to create wealth and maintain Australia as a strong first-world country. And investment in schools (not just through Gonski, but through other programs like trade centres) and in nation building infrastructure like the NBN not only pay for themselves in the long run, but create additional wealth by generating productivity.

If only the Howard Government had’ve had the foresight to see that the future was more important than lining the pockets of individual citizens so they can buy more crap they don’t need. Sydney would already have its second airport. Brisbane, Newcastle, Sydney, Canberra, Albury and Melbourne would already have had their bullet train.

And if we wanted, we could’ve had a hospital on every friggen corner. That’s how much money they squandered so the rich could get richer and the poor (or even the middle income earners) could continue to be screwed by things like rich baby boomers keeping us out of the property market… all the while knowing that we had to continue working for these rich baby boomer pricks just so we could pay our exorbitant rent.

HiddenDragon 10:41 pm 23 May 13

Tetranitrate said :

HiddenDragon said :

• Fading China boom – LOSE!

Unless we have an India boom at least equal to the China boom, no federal government is going to have the money to pay for this. Grand projects like this, which might have been, are another reminder of how we squandered the boom – we are going to have a lot of time to reflect on that sad reality.

Canberra’s Very Fast Tram is OK though, we have the ongoing rates and taxes boom to pay for that – Toot! Toot! – here comes the taxman!

You have it completely backwards.
Now is the perfect time to engage in this sorts of projects – if the government had gone full steam ahead at the peak of the boom in 06-08 it would have been competing with private industry for the skilled labour to build it, and more generally driven up inflation through adding more demand to an economy that was already heating up quite well on its own.
If you demand that such projects not be funded through deficits, there will NEVER be a good time to build them. Either you’re engaging in ‘irresponsible’ borrowing or you’re stoking inflation.

dungfungus said :

deficits = good
surpluses = bad

Why don’t you tell us all some more about how the muslims are taking over?

Deficits can be great. Super funds and investors buy government bonds, government builds infrastructure that enhances productivity and eases constraints/bottlenecks for the next boom.
Bullet train probably isn’t the best example, but if there’d been significant investment in regional rail and port infrastructure in the late 90s and early 00s we’d have made much more of a killing during the ‘first’ mining boom than we did, particularly on coal.

Surpluses aren’t normal, governments ripping money out of businesses and households for no reason beyond demented ideology isn’t desirable or necessary. Every extra $ in government coffers is a $ of private saving or spending that can’t occur. What’s more, unless the country is running a trade surplus, net saving by the government sector can only come about through net dis-saving by households and business (eg: the massive and unsustainable credit boom that started heating up in the late 90s and ended when the GFC hit). This isn’t a matter of conjecture, it’s just a mathematical fact that arises out of the composition of GDP. see:
http://mmtwiki.org/wiki/National_accounting_identities_and_the_sectoral_balance_approach

If it’s worth doing, it will be paid for by some of those billions sloshing around in super funds (and currently pushing bank shares to ever dizzying heights) and if it’s not (as I sadly suspect is the case) I’d rather not see the tens and tens of billions involved in building it, and the ongoing subsidies to run it, be added to Commonwealth liabilities.

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2018 Region Group Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
the-riotact.com | aboutregional.com.au | b2bmagazine.com.au | thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site