WhiskeyWhiskers posted:

Yeah, he's a shithead. I just separate the touching story from the person involved.

e:Like nothing about that story made him seem like a great person. The most it did was make him more human. Which he is.

BBJoey posted:

hmm. so you are having feelings other than pure hatred towards Enemies of the Revolution, comrade? how fascinating.

SynthOrange posted:

A parliamentary delegation from Denmark will visit the Pacific island of Nauru and gain rare access to Australia’s offshore detention centre to consider whether such controversial immigration policies could be adopted in Europe.

In the next week cross-party group of Danish politicians will visit Australia and Nauru and are seeking access to inspect the detention centre, according to reports by Danish radio station 24syv.

The visit to Nauru was confirmed to the Guardian in a statement from Danish MP Johanne Schmidt-Nielson, who said her party was “highly critical” of Australia’s immigration policies, and would use the visit to closely scrutinise the policy. It has been planned for more than six months by the parliamentary delegation, with six of the 29 member parliamentary committee attending.

https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2016/aug/23/danish-politicians-seek-to-visit-nauru-site-at-heart-of-offshore-detention-outcry

Gunder posted:

Question from a European: What sort of newspaper is the Sydney Morning Herald? Well respected? Serious?

Gunder posted:

Question from a European: What sort of newspaper is the Sydney Morning Herald? Well respected? Serious?

Gunder posted:

Question from a European: What sort of newspaper is the Sydney Morning Herald? Well respected? Serious?

The Peccadillo posted:

This is pretty cool

https://www.scifinow.co.uk/blog/australian-genre-cinema-living-in-the-past-or-a-brave-new-world/

We got a neat and nuts film tradition, and we gotten too ... tame and lovely over the past couple decades. Might be swingin' back around though, to australia havin' a cinematic voice again

Amoeba102 posted:

The SMH is just a vector for real estate ads.

Capt.Whorebags posted:

If you have Netflix and haven't seen Not Quite Hollywood, set aside some time to watch it. It's a fascinating look at the history of Australian genre films. Also nudity.

Seagull posted:

Amoeba102 posted:

The SMH is just a vector for real estate ads.

hooman posted:

News: House prices are going up uP UP!
Money: Buying a house right now is your best bet!
Opinion: This millenial started with nothing, now has a 5 million dollar portfolio, why don't the ones you know do the same, you should harass them about this.
Property: BUY FUKKIN HOUSES YOU PLEBS
Motoring: Drive yourself to a great new home!
Sport: Watch sport from this excellent house!

Recoome posted:

australia for fuckkin aussies, m8

hooman posted:

Black Australia policy now.

V for Vegas posted:

MysticalMachineGun posted:

Are these specific comments or what? I'm not going to Bolt's blog to find out.

hooman posted:

Black lung Australia policy now.

SynthOrange posted:

Lol today's newspaper headlines. 'Allahu akhbar attack'

MysticalMachineGun posted:

"Woah, stop the presses! Get me all the hottest photos of this dead chick for the front page!"

SynthOrange posted:

Lol today's newspaper headlines. 'Allahu akhbar attack'

Endman posted:

The media is garbage. Gulag now.

quote:

https://theconversation.com/taxi-driver-compensation-for-uber-is-unfair-and-poorly-implemented-64354

In all states that have legalised the ride-sharing app Uber, the response has been to offer compensation to taxi drivers. This is a typical move by governments that are liberalising long-standing, regulated monopolies. But the amount of compensation is far from fair and the process has been poorly implemented.

Victoria is the latest of the states and territories in allowing Uber to operate and its compensation package is the most generous.

There’s a A$2 levy on each ride (that will vary according to the operator), proposed to provide compensation in the order of $378 million. There is also a $75 million allocation from the levy for a fund for those hit hardest by the reforms.

By contrast, NSW announced a $1 levy per taxi or Uber ride. Some of the funding goes to taxi operators suffering severe financial hardship as a result of the regulatory changes. The total package for NSW is $250 million.

Taxi industry reform had to happen. But it has been driven by populist policy with state governments bowing to pressure from Uber’s disruptive approach. While states are providing compensation packages for taxi licence owners, the amounts pale in comparison to the investment value that has been lost.

In Sydney, average licence values peaked at about $425,000 in 2011, and have been in decline since. Licence owners can expect to receive $20,000 in compensation per licence, with multiple licence owners receiving a maximum of $40,000.

In Melbourne, recent market values were in the order of $150,000, down from around $500,000 in 2010-11. Victoria’s buy-back scheme will provide for a maximum of two licences with $100k offered for the first licence and $50,000 for the second licence.

Taxi licence owners have been mostly kept in the dark about taxi industry reform in Victoria. As late as August 19, taxi operators in Melbourne had no idea what would be in the reform package announced yesterday.

And Victoria’s comparatively generous package might make Sydney and Brisbane operators wonder why the differences in the compensation packages should be so dramatic.

Uber users may not be happy about the additional levies to fund compensation for the taxi industry, either.

But the bigger issue is that investor and voter confidence in state governments' power to regulate effectively has been diminished for three main reasons.

First, Uber effectively broke the law and used its capital to force the end of the old monopoly, allegedly paying drivers' fines while lobbying governments in unique ways.

Rather than encourage a proper transition strategy, even the Prime Minister applauded Uber for its “agile” business model. Uber made the policy, not the elected representatives.

Second, taxi operators have been bound by the rules of the regulated monopoly. They played by the rules established under the rule of law.

Uber didn’t, and, backed by popular sentiment, has cleverly manipulated the taxi industry. State governments continued to regulate taxis but were powerless to enforce their own laws where Uber was concerned.

Third, state governments have been slow to act and adequately transition the formerly regulated monopolies. Reform of the taxi industry was decades overdue. This has effectively destroyed the value created under the rules of the regulated monopoly. While consumers may be unconcerned, the taxi industry did not create itself – it was created as a regulated monopoly by state governments.

If we consider that Melbourne and Sydney alone are serviced by more than 8,000 taxi licences, once valued at up to $500,000 each, then significant investment value has been destroyed. Not by competition, but by a company that broke the law, by consumers who readily supported cheaper prices, and then by state governments that restructured the market by implementing rapid, populist policies.

Had state governments transitioned the taxi industry appropriately, then licence owners could have had adequate time to prepare. It is not their fault that state governments were slow to act.

Uber has won, and there will be much rejoicing by consumers. But the way the transition has occurred verges on the unethical, and licence owners are footing the bill.

This is inherently unfair. In a regulated monopoly, the regulated players have little impact on the rules.

The damage done by populist policy and poor regulatory oversight in the taxi industry is a far cry from the slow, unnatural death of the Australian automotive manufacturing industry. In fact, automotive manufacturers are still protected by tariffs even though the industry is set to end very soon. It is obvious that the investors in the taxi industry lack the political clout of the automotive industry multinationals.

It is clear that multinationals can manipulate state governments by adopting Uber’s approach. All you need is plenty of money, a plan to introduce cheaper prices for consumers, and the boldness to flaunt the law. As we have seen, state governments will then roll over.

Let’s now hope that your retirement savings are not next in the way of unscheduled reform.

Anidav posted:

It's almost as if now that the mining boom is over Australia has nothing left to do except build empty apartment blocks that nobody can afford to move into.

open24hours posted:

quote:

Michael - it looks like you’ve written this analysis without any regard to the recent history of taxi policy and reform in Victoria.

Only a couple of years ago there was a review of the taxi industry that proposed a staged, modest transition to liberalisation that recognised the fundamental unsustainability of the regulatory monopoly.

Rather than offering a scintilla of cooperation, the taxi industry organised and en masse tantrum, screaming blue murder about how they would all be ruined if they couldn’t keep ripping passengers off and delivering crap, unsafe service.

Your presentation of the taxi industry as innocent naïfs is ridiculous. A highly organised industry has wrapped its lobbying tentacles for years around policy settings in an effort to use the law to channel ridiculous profits into its pockets while running a cosy, uncompetitive racket.

All the while the taxi industry has ruthlessly exploited its workforce. For all that Uber is (justifiably) questioned for its labour practices, the taxi industry has for years been running a byzantine labour system that sees some of the country’s lowest paid workers employed without basic OHS protections, and held liable for damage to their employer’s vehicles.

The taxi industry is anything but a group of cleanskins. They have acted as a cartel and the value of those licences represents the value of the rort they have inflicted at the expense of their customers and workers.

Where is it written that an investor who buys an asset whose value exists only as a contrivance of an antiquated and unfair regulatory apparatus - one which the beneficiaries have long contrived to maintain for no reason beyond avarice - is entitled to compensation when the long, long party finally winds up?

Governments have failed in their sluggish indolence in the face of obvious policy failures, and in their inability to stand up to the faintest resistance from self-evidently self-interested industry groups. I’d rather an orderly regulatory change but the taxi industry has no-one to blame but themselves for declaring war on every previous attempt at reform.

Now reform is inevitable they put their hands out, begging bowl up and a sob story ready for the media about how unfair it all is that their licensed system of theft is finally unravelling.

quote:

Govt insists leak from French company building Australian subs won't affect project Andrew Greene reported this story on Wednesday, August 24, 2016 12:14:00

The Federal Government insists that the leak of secret information from the French company chosen to build Australia's new submarines won't affect the $50 billion project. The French company has been rocked by the leaking of classified material about a similar project it's completing in India. The exposure has raised concerns about the secret data its handling for the Royal Australian Navy, but the Federal Government says the breach has no local implications.

open24hours posted:

https://twitter.com/theboltreport/status/768382226010558468

Latham looking haggard.