|
Solemn Sloth posted:They'll have to sell to the people they outbid who were just looking for a place to live No the bank might, after they take all 7 properties at once.
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 11:10
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
gay picnic defence posted:I wonder how you'd go about organising some sort of homebuyers strike where no current or would-be owner occupiers bought property for a few months So you'd take people that want to buy a home out of the equation and leave investors to reap some discounts for a bit 
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 11:34
|
|
|
BTW, the bubble popping is the optimistic scenario.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 11:59
|
|
|
The Deadly Hume posted:BTW, the bubble popping is the optimistic scenario. I don't know how a banking meltdown could be an optimistic scenario. I'm assuming you mean that housing affordability surpasses Vancouver and heads into Hong Kong territory.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 12:37
|
|
|
Schlesische posted:I don't know how a banking meltdown could be an optimistic scenario. the bubble popping being optimistic is house prices will get off Mr Bones Wild Ride and revert down to actual worth levels, whereas the less optimistic scenario is that the recorrect results in an economic deflation
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 12:56
|
|
|
Entirely unrelatedquote:Confidence in the housing market has collapsed, with the number of Australians describing property as the wisest place to put their savings falling to its lowest level in more than 40 years.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 13:03
|
|
|
Lid posted:Entirely unrelated Alright but it is still the wisest place to put all my stuff and my fragile mortal body so hopefully that message of better investment spreads
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 15:04
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/TheTodayShow/status/842464804530864128
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
When even the yelling economics guy on morning tv tells you your policy is dumb within 24 hours you really are hosed for ideas
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 21:20
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:When even the yelling economics guy on morning tv tells you your policy is dumb within 24 hours you really are hosed for ideas "there is no way in hell I'm going to go down in history as the one that hosed Australian economics" is the only thing going through mts mind right now
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:06
|
|
|
I'm on the side of those that think this is both a stupid idea and that the government won't go for it. If they are indeed stupid enough to go for it because they are desperate for a solution then everybody here in this thread should NOT use whatever super you have to do all of this and just rent forever because whoever goes for this is going to lose their money one way or another.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 22:24
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/LucyXIV/status/841750535107616768
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:28
|
|
|
Spin, spin, spin! Does "Exclusive poll" in this case mean one they just made up? Then again, I wouldn't be surprised - waiting at the Doctor's yesterday across from me an old couple were talking about it and posited why couldn't Weatherill just turn Pelican Point into a gas powered station. Preeeeeety sure it's a lot more complicated than that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:56
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/842498897951973376
|
|
#
?
Mar 16, 2017 23:58
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:Spin, spin, spin! The poll was taken 2 days before that presser and indicated 39% blame SA and 35 or 36% blame the national energy market. I'm fairly sure that Weatherill knocked that figure into reverse with his appearance alongside Frydenberg.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 00:10
|
|
|
Howdy friends the pills I've seen have been testing the term "energy security" And how we need more coal plants or else our energy is insecure. Also nuclear power is back on the table, multiple tests.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 00:14
|
|
|
Oh and someone check on Foxtel to see if they're okay   Hmm. I think I want to go to Victoria before its too late.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 00:31
|
|
|
JBP posted:The poll was taken 2 days before that presser and indicated 39% blame SA and 35 or 36% blame the national energy market. I'm fairly sure that Weatherill knocked that figure into reverse with his appearance alongside Frydenberg. Ah, fair enough then. Anidav posted:Also nuclear power is back on the table, multiple tests. The nerd boner for nuclear power mystifies me. Chatting to some guys at work about nuclear vs renewables, I raised an article I read ages ago that it would take 20 years for nuclear to be viable in Australia, but renewables are ready now. And they kept saying that nuclear would improve its technology but "there's no guarantee that renewables will get more efficient" and it's like, gently caress, engineers are working on both, what's the difference?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 00:45
|
|
|
Solemn Sloth posted:When even the yelling economics guy on morning tv tells you your policy is dumb within 24 hours you really are hosed for ideas http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/2017/03/17/lets-have-debate-nuclear-power-pm quote:17 MAR 2017 - 3:34AM Let's have debate on nuclear power: PM e;fb BUT I have a source and a quote  So what happened when Dysen Heydon (Head of ABCC Royal commission) spoke at a Liberal party fund raiser? It was free speech and how dare anyone attack such a figure of respect and decency (etc.) and no he didn't step down AND he refused to front a senate committee into fair work legislation. George Brandis vehemently supported him. I did like this : - Julian Burnside QC, has said this morning that he's a man of honour".[33] Burnside said "Heydon is an honourable man. I give him the benefit of the doubt. Maybe he is honourable enough to step down."[33]
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
I am 95% certain that the broader public would not accept a nuclear power solution, particularly post-Fukushima. What we would see if the coalition adopted a nuclear energy policy would be a larger scale version of Roe 8 in WA, or the East-West link in Vic: - Govt scrambles to get poo poo moving despite popular opposition - Incompetence and strong legal and political challenges hold the project up - Labor has a an easy choice between opposing the project, or losing whats left of their chunk of the progressive vote to the Greens - Govt moves into an election year, signs contracts anyway, tries to lock poo poo in and "fast tracks EPA approvals etc", creating further negative publicity for the project - Election happens, govt is loving eviscerated, incoming Labor govt tears up contracts and moves to cheaper renewables.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:15
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:The nerd boner for nuclear power mystifies me. Chatting to some guys at work about nuclear vs renewables, I raised an article I read ages ago that it would take 20 years for nuclear to be viable in Australia, but renewables are ready now. And they kept saying that nuclear would improve its technology but "there's no guarantee that renewables will get more efficient" and it's like, gently caress, engineers are working on both, what's the difference? I support nuclear power but we should have built a rector for NSW at the very least about 15 years ago, so gently caress it just motor through and get some big honking solar farms and energy storage up and running.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:22
|
|
|
Anidav posted:Oh and someone check on Foxtel to see if they're okay Queensland should unironically do this. It would be one of the best things to happen to the country. That wall in the middle picture better be to scale too.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:36
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:The nerd boner for nuclear power mystifies me. Chatting to some guys at work about nuclear vs renewables, I raised an article I read ages ago that it would take 20 years for nuclear to be viable in Australia, but renewables are ready now. And they kept saying that nuclear would improve its technology but "there's no guarantee that renewables will get more efficient" and it's like, gently caress, engineers are working on both, what's the difference? It takes like 20 years to go from site selection, reactor design, plant design, plant construction, first criticality, testing and then finally live power generation. Especially in the post "BUT IT MIGHT BLOW UP" world. And then you have all the neckbeards who will go BUT IN 20 YEARS CHINA WILL HAVE (testing stage) FUSION. Fusion is like 50 years away from Australia.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:44
|
|
|
Schlesische posted:It takes like 20 years to go from site selection, reactor design, plant design, plant construction, first criticality, testing and then finally live power generation. Especially in the post "BUT IT MIGHT BLOW UP" world. Isn't there a whole bunch of other supporting industries that should be built up as well? And education? I don't think this government really digs that kind of project.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:47
|
|
|
We have a 50 something billion dollar defense budget and military dudes are always citing energy as a military issue in the future, as well as global warming. So just cut that by 6 billion for a two year stretch, build 4 loving 800mw Cal style solar farms and not worry about gas and poo poo because you're suddenly good for energy in one or two entire states. By not worry about gas I mean not require as much since all you need it for is to boot up the solar reactor each morning and that only uses a fraction of what a gas plant would for way loving higher output per unit.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:52
|
|
|
nah mate ANSTO has all the nuclear knowhow, why yes we have been cutting ANSTO's budget for years why do you ask
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 01:54
|
|
|
BBJoey posted:nah mate ANSTO has all the nuclear knowhow, why yes we have been cutting ANSTO's budget for years why do you ask ANSTO's reactors and knowledge base is also relatively unequipped for a large scale modern power generating set up. starkebn posted:Isn't there a whole bunch of other supporting industries that should be built up as well? And education? I don't think this government really digs that kind of project. The cost of Nuclear is enormous. Having said that, you can magically take Sydney or Melbourne out of the "needs more power generation" equation for the next time.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:01
|
|
|
MysticalMachineGun posted:The nerd boner for nuclear power mystifies me. Chatting to some guys at work about nuclear vs renewables, I raised an article I read ages ago that it would take 20 years for nuclear to be viable in Australia, but renewables are ready now. And they kept saying that nuclear would improve its technology but "there's no guarantee that renewables will get more efficient" and it's like, gently caress, engineers are working on both, what's the difference? I think it's because a lot of people who are traditionally against nuclear power were against it for the same idiotic ideological reasons that our current mob are now ideologically devoted to coal. Chernobyl, radioactive waste, etc. Also because if you actually are pro-science and pro-facts then, yeah, on the face of it it seems insane for nuclear to be ruled out in the age of climate change when we desperately need to stop using fossil fuels. France is like 85% carbon neutral because they use so much nuclear. But in Australia, as others have pointed out, the issue is how long it takes to get nuclear up and running. A lot of people who get peeved at the green movement for being kneejerk anti-nuclear don't look into it that deeply, and so become kneejerk pro-nuclear themselves. I think it was Scott Ludlum who did a really good Reddit AMA a while ago (Reddit being filled with the nuclear nerd boners) and patiently explained why nuclear's not the devil, but also not the best option for Australia specifically.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:20
|
|
|
Didn't he put it at 80 years for Australian nuclear to become viable?
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:28
|
|
|
B-b-b-but modular/fast breeder/lftr! Anytime you run into a nuclear fanboy just post the sa royal commission into nukes from a few years back, it lays out the economic problems pretty succinctly and that's for a state with boatloads of uranium
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:44
|
|
|
It looks like the ALP will win 16 seats in WA's upper house, which means they only need the 2 Green votes to pass legislation.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
Brown Paper Bag posted:It looks like the ALP will win 16 seats in WA's upper house, which means they only need the 2 Green votes to pass legislation. This is the best possible outcome
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:50
|
|
|
Meanwhile, lol https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2017/mar/17/disendorsed-one-nation-candidates-may-get-no-public-money-for-campaigns
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
Brown Paper Bag posted:It looks like the ALP will win 16 seats in WA's upper house, which means they only need the 2 Green votes to pass legislation. Wouldn't they need 19 to get the majority in a 36 seat house? Which would make it the greens plus someone else.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 02:57
|
|
|
Why would you design an upper house with the number of seats divisible by 2.  e:Thinking on it a bit, I suppose it's so you have a slight bias towards maintaining status quo.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 03:01
|
|
|
zedar posted:Wouldn't they need 19 to get the majority in a 36 seat house? Which would make it the greens plus someone else. You are correct. They will need to get libdems, shooters and fishers or one nation on board if you took it as a given that the greens will support a bill.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 03:04
|
|
|
WhiskeyWhiskers posted:Didn't he put it at 80 years for Australian nuclear to become viable? Nuclear disasters are easily avoidable but if not avoided they are catastrophic. The historical disasters from Chernoble to Fukushima don't show nuclear power generation as inherently dangerous so much as showing human involvement in the planning, implementation, and operation of any large scale multi-decade operation is going to cause a gently caress up or two. When a wind farm operator fucks up it doesn't irradiate the countryside.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 03:14
|
|
|
Cirofren posted:Nuclear disasters are easily avoidable but if not avoided they are catastrophic. TBF Fukushima happened because profits got in the way of safety. So theoretically it would be safer in public ownership, as long as the current government wasnt hellbent on saving every dollar poss.. oh wait.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 03:15
|
|
|
https://twitter.com/MarkDiStef/status/842556474878447616
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 03:32
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 11, 2024 13:30 |
|
|
JBP posted:You are correct. They will need to get libdems, shooters and fishers or one nation on board if you took it as a given that the greens will support a bill. Ah okay. This ABC article suggests otherwise (right at the end): http://ab.co/2nHlBNQ
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2017 03:38
|
|