Skip to content Skip to main navigation

Opinion

Canberra’s Leading
Relationship Lawyers

Kate Lundy is my new best friend …

By I-filed - 17 July 2011 13

… or hopes she is, as she has written to me asking me for favours.

Suddenly I’ve received -personally addressed – a request to submit a bit of a skills audit on myself and what I’d like to do to support Kate’s own support role in the federal government’s carbon tax $12 million ad campaign.

I vaguely remember having received a letter years ago from Kate Lundy celebrating some feminist milestone – so clearly I’ve been on an inactive mailing list for some time.

Does this mean that Labor are even worried in their safest of safe seats, and are combing through the most marginal of their lists? Are rusted-on Canberra Labor voters turning? Would love to see the local research polling that’s driving this.

I responded with a polite call to Lundy’s office explaining that I’m not happy with the “overcompensation” angle to the tax – at my (middle income) expense. Happy to wear a carbon tax on an equitable basis, and pay my share – but not keen on overcompensation that will mean low-income-earners aren’t encouraged to change their carbon consumption behaviours. Oh, and definitely not happy about a $12 million ad campaign at my expense …

What’s Your opinion?


Post a comment
Please login to post your comments, or connect with
13 Responses to
Kate Lundy is my new best friend …
p5235 10:31 pm 19 Jul 11

Thumper said :

Sometimes the simpler explanation makes more sense than the conspiracy theory

No man. I wasn’t suggesting a conspiracy theory. However, it wouldn’t be the first time RA has been hijacked by, well, let’s say, ‘people with an agenda’, both from the left and the right (probably more from the left, but I couldn’t be sure on that score).

Well no conspiracy here 🙂 (although I suppose I would say that, wouldn’t I? :P)

Thumper 7:12 pm 19 Jul 11

Sometimes the simpler explanation makes more sense than the conspiracy theory

No man. I wasn’t suggesting a conspiracy theory. However, it wouldn’t be the first time RA has been hijacked by, well, let’s say, ‘people with an agenda’, both from the left and the right (probably more from the left, but I couldn’t be sure on that score).

p5235 6:29 pm 19 Jul 11

Skidbladnir said :

p5235 said :

…basic economics…

That’s now the second time you’ve said that.

You’re claiming to know the microeconomic effect of, and the market dynamic of, an entirely new macro-level policy.
And you’re claiming to know it in advance.

You haven’t provided _any_ empirical data, haven’t provided caveats for _any_ of your assumptions, haven’t provided context for _any_ of your givens, and stated _all_ of your conclusions as fact.
That’s neither simple nor basic, and it doesn’t really resemble an economic theory .

Thumper and I are fairly cynical people with large internet calluses, but I’ll go so far as to call your reasoning an advanced ideological belief until you clarify some things.

I think you’ve got the wrong idea about the scope of what I was saying. I wasn’t making any predictions about the carbon tax in general. I don’t know what the impact of the tax will be overall, and I wasn’t pretending to. All I was saying was that overcompensation doesn’t mean that there aren’t incentives to change behaviour. It’s a small point and – yes – a basic one.

If we want to debate the carbon tax (which I don’t particularly, as productive as internet forum debates usually are) we should debate the carbon tax, not split hairs over what is really a very minor aspect of it… 🙂

p5235 6:17 pm 19 Jul 11

Thumper said :

After all, it’s not as if you are a regular commenter on RA which would suggest that the only interest you have here is trying to debunk any negative posts about the carbon tax.

Of course, I may be wrong.

I could just be new to Canberra… Sometimes the simpler explanation makes more sense than the conspiracy theory… Apologies for insulting your intelligence, though, it was a low blow (although, for the record, definitely not the sort of thing a paid ALP goon would do! 😉 )

Lookout Smithers 10:27 am 19 Jul 11

Kate Lundy was a total babe in her day.

Skidbladnir 8:31 pm 18 Jul 11

p5235 said :

…basic economics…

That’s now the second time you’ve said that.

You’re claiming to know the microeconomic effect of, and the market dynamic of, an entirely new macro-level policy.
And you’re claiming to know it in advance.

You haven’t provided _any_ empirical data, haven’t provided caveats for _any_ of your assumptions, haven’t provided context for _any_ of your givens, and stated _all_ of your conclusions as fact.
That’s neither simple nor basic, and it doesn’t really resemble an economic theory .

Thumper and I are fairly cynical people with large internet calluses, but I’ll go so far as to call your reasoning an advanced ideological belief until you clarify some things.

@I-filed:
Re: Labor Party ‘inactive’ mailing lists:
You wouldn’t believe what they keep on file in Eleczilla.

Thumper 6:57 pm 18 Jul 11

Hahaha… I assure you that I am no one’s lackey, just someone that understands a little bit of economic theory. If you think using a bit of basic economics makes me sound like a lefty (unlike a supporter of markets and competition, which I am), I really worry about the intellectual basis for whatever wing of the conservative movement you come from…

So the best you can do is cast doubts upon my intelligence? Excellent. But I still stand by my premise that it sounds like a paid political announcement.

After all, it’s not as if you are a regular commenter on RA which would suggest that the only interest you have here is trying to debunk any negative posts about the carbon tax.

Of course, I may be wrong.

p5235 6:09 pm 18 Jul 11

Thumper said :

It still sounds as if it is a form letter written by an ALP lackey.

Hahaha… I assure you that I am no one’s lackey, just someone that understands a little bit of economic theory. If you think using a bit of basic economics makes me sound like a lefty (unlike a supporter of markets and competition, which I am), I really worry about the intellectual basis for whatever wing of the conservative movement you come from…

Thumper 10:32 am 18 Jul 11

Unlike all the crap headlining Murdoch’s News Ltd papers? Every peak body and lobby group supporting the top 500 polluters get a go in the advertorials on page 1 in the Telegraph and Herald Sun as if their ‘research’ on the impacts of a carbon price are news.

Oh yeah, the ‘hate’ media. Shut them down, they are biased!

It still sounds as if it is a form letter written by an ALP lackey.

Chop71 1:56 am 18 Jul 11

I am personally against any new taxes, especially the Carbon Tax!!!

looking outside the box and always after a positive, the extra jobs for the ACT Pubes in managing the cash and distributing government revenue and then the allocation of compensation. Surely that must be an extra 200+ highly prodictive jobs for canberra. 🙂

artuoui 10:49 pm 17 Jul 11

Thumper said :

Compensation would only have an impact on incentives to change consumption if the compensation was on a per unit of carbon, rather than per person or household, basis. Even overcompensated households are still going to face the same incentives (higher prices for carbon-intensive goods and services) that everyone else does. They’ll have the same incentives to switch their consumption from highly carbon intensive to lower carbon intensive products. They’ll just have more money with which to do it. Basic economics.

One could almost think that this is a paid political announcement.

Unlike all the crap headlining Murdoch’s News Ltd papers? Every peak body and lobby group supporting the top 500 polluters get a go in the advertorials on page 1 in the Telegraph and Herald Sun as if their ‘research’ on the impacts of a carbon price are news.

Thumper 9:13 pm 17 Jul 11

Compensation would only have an impact on incentives to change consumption if the compensation was on a per unit of carbon, rather than per person or household, basis. Even overcompensated households are still going to face the same incentives (higher prices for carbon-intensive goods and services) that everyone else does. They’ll have the same incentives to switch their consumption from highly carbon intensive to lower carbon intensive products. They’ll just have more money with which to do it. Basic economics.

One could almost think that this is a paid political announcement.

p5235 4:16 pm 17 Jul 11

“but not keen on overcompensation that will mean low-income-earners aren’t encouraged to change their carbon consumption behaviours” –> unfortunately this belies your ignorance. Compensation will have no impact on whether householders are encouraged to change their carbon consumption behaviours.

Compensation would only have an impact on incentives to change consumption if the compensation was on a per unit of carbon, rather than per person or household, basis. Even overcompensated households are still going to face the same incentives (higher prices for carbon-intensive goods and services) that everyone else does. They’ll have the same incentives to switch their consumption from highly carbon intensive to lower carbon intensive products. They’ll just have more money with which to do it. Basic economics.

Regards, Pete

Related Articles

CBR Tweets

Sign up to our newsletter

Top
Copyright © 2017 Riot ACT Holdings Pty Ltd. All rights reserved.
www.the-riotact.com | www.b2bmagazine.com.au | www.thisiscanberra.com

Search across the site