Would Australia be better off without State Governments, and hence without the states? Of course they were needed to get Federation over the line, but now, why not get rid of them and split their responsibilities between the Federal and local governments?
I can think of many good reasons for getting rid of them.
Are there any good reasons for keeping them? Do they undertake useful policy experiments, for instance? Do conditions in different states somehow justify different legislation?
A good question, on which I have some pretty firm views, but would be interested in more discussion
My view: The Australian states are natural socio-economic units. There's no good way to split them up, and Australia is too big for a unitary government. I wrote about this here
Hi John. Last night Saul Griffith shared his Electrify Everything thesis on the Gold Coast, with compelling arguments about how rooftop sola plus EVs and residential/community batteries can advance decarbonisation significantly in the here and now, if incentives are provided given upfront costs.
There is a counter narrative through Nate Hagens (who produces the Great Simplification podcast) and others that the world lacks the critical necessary to electrify everything;
Sauk reckons materials recycling, evolution of a renewables circular economy and energy efficiency make the electrification transition doable, especially if we assume technology improvements also kick in towards more productive wind, solar, battery tech.
Was there a missing word "critical minerals"? Looking at the long lists of critical minerals that are issued these days, I'd say there are plenty of minerals that are important, but none that are indispensable. For example, lithium (preferably hard-rock mined in Australia) is great for batteries, but there are lots of other technologies. As I like to say, any reversible physical process is an energy storage technology.
In any case, I'm very much with Saul on this. There is no fundamental constraint to decarbonizing the electricity system or to electrifying nearly everything. Electric cars, trucks and buses are already here, and I think air transport is soluble. Same for steel, cement etc.
I have a credit card and the bank charges me 18% interest on the total balance including the unpaid interest if I fail to pay it each month. When they charge me interest they debit my loan account and extend my loan but they do not recognise that extending the loan has in fact paid the interest and they require me to pay it again. This means I pay the interest twice. Once by extending the loan and once when i pay it again. They do the same thing with fees on loans. They debit the fees but do not recognise that I have paid the fees. I wrote to them and asked they send me an invoice rather than debiting my account. I have complained to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority and they are still "looking into" my complaint. The bank said they would give me $500 if I withdrew the complaint. Surely their extension of the loan without giving me the use of the money is theft because their debit is income to them as they are allowed to create new money.
Paying interest and fees twice is, at best, deceptive and paying 36% interest is predatory lending.
Credit cards are inherently predatory. They are a great deal for anyone who pays off the balance every month, and rely on people running up balances they can't easily pay off. Same with Buy Now Pay Later.
Would Australia be better off without State Governments, and hence without the states? Of course they were needed to get Federation over the line, but now, why not get rid of them and split their responsibilities between the Federal and local governments?
I can think of many good reasons for getting rid of them.
Are there any good reasons for keeping them? Do they undertake useful policy experiments, for instance? Do conditions in different states somehow justify different legislation?
A good question, on which I have some pretty firm views, but would be interested in more discussion
My view: The Australian states are natural socio-economic units. There's no good way to split them up, and Australia is too big for a unitary government. I wrote about this here
https://theconversation.com/if-we-scrapped-the-states-increasing-canberras-clout-would-be-a-backward-step-71462
Hi John. Last night Saul Griffith shared his Electrify Everything thesis on the Gold Coast, with compelling arguments about how rooftop sola plus EVs and residential/community batteries can advance decarbonisation significantly in the here and now, if incentives are provided given upfront costs.
There is a counter narrative through Nate Hagens (who produces the Great Simplification podcast) and others that the world lacks the critical necessary to electrify everything;
Sauk reckons materials recycling, evolution of a renewables circular economy and energy efficiency make the electrification transition doable, especially if we assume technology improvements also kick in towards more productive wind, solar, battery tech.
What do you reckon between both views?
Was there a missing word "critical minerals"? Looking at the long lists of critical minerals that are issued these days, I'd say there are plenty of minerals that are important, but none that are indispensable. For example, lithium (preferably hard-rock mined in Australia) is great for batteries, but there are lots of other technologies. As I like to say, any reversible physical process is an energy storage technology.
In any case, I'm very much with Saul on this. There is no fundamental constraint to decarbonizing the electricity system or to electrifying nearly everything. Electric cars, trucks and buses are already here, and I think air transport is soluble. Same for steel, cement etc.
I have a credit card and the bank charges me 18% interest on the total balance including the unpaid interest if I fail to pay it each month. When they charge me interest they debit my loan account and extend my loan but they do not recognise that extending the loan has in fact paid the interest and they require me to pay it again. This means I pay the interest twice. Once by extending the loan and once when i pay it again. They do the same thing with fees on loans. They debit the fees but do not recognise that I have paid the fees. I wrote to them and asked they send me an invoice rather than debiting my account. I have complained to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority and they are still "looking into" my complaint. The bank said they would give me $500 if I withdrew the complaint. Surely their extension of the loan without giving me the use of the money is theft because their debit is income to them as they are allowed to create new money.
Paying interest and fees twice is, at best, deceptive and paying 36% interest is predatory lending.
Credit cards are inherently predatory. They are a great deal for anyone who pays off the balance every month, and rely on people running up balances they can't easily pay off. Same with Buy Now Pay Later.