Now Xstrata exposed as liars.

[Hawkamania!]

Actually I think you'll find that I supported the much more simple and sensible proposal put by the greens of a carbon tax.

Great. Lets just create a tax based on a view that isn't supported by actual evidence based on the scientific method. And who will set the price for the carbon tax based on what "evidence"?

I'm sure you are happy to sink the boot in to pensioners, students, unemployed and others with financial pressures based on your warped religious beliefs, but don't expect to be supported by people who actually have at the very least a shred of empathy for other beings.

The greens hierarchy must be laughing at the fact they have a few mindless robots out there doing whatever they say instead of thinking for themselves. Good luck with the propaganda campaign drone #104.

And donuts, your position has been quashed by reasonable arguments based on reality (yet again). At least your masters should be happy with your efforts on the internets.

 

[Eagle87]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

In other words, you're a ****ing idiot.

You don't know which report your quoting and when exposed you say oh sorry not sure about that.
And who commissioned your fan boy report>?

The MCA!!
****wit.

How about addressing the issues raised?

I pointed out the flaws, widely raised in various places, with regards to the original report and it's assumptions. I then pointed out that the new report (both reports were issued under the KPMG banner by the way), which was based on "real world" assumptions. Feel free to find the flaws in the report...?

You calling me names is funny, YOU calling anyone an idiot is hilarious. You and Grin, neck and neck for the most clueless poster on here.

But you keep yelling and screaming and hope it all goes away..

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

How about addressing the issues raised?

I pointed out the flaws, widely raised in various places, with regards to the original report and it's assumptions. I then pointed out that the new report (both reports were issued under the KPMG banner by the way), which was based on "real world" assumptions. Feel free to find the flaws in the report...?

You calling me names is funny, YOU calling anyone an idiot is hilarious. You and Grin, neck and neck for the most clueless poster on here.

But you keep yelling and screaming and hope it all goes away..

You have nothing and you know it.
You talk so much shit but have really nothing.
I expose you're crap about quoting the wrong report and you run a mile.
You cannot quote one INDEPENDENT report about any negative impact of the RSPT can you .
Thought not.
fraud.

 

[Dippers Donuts]

Re: labour fanbois panicking

It was indeed a KPMG report, that specifically addressed the weaknesses in the earlier KPMG Econtech report (starts at page 32). Interestingly Treasuries first assumption that KPMG Econtech had to use was that capital was available (in the sense that capital was infinitely available). The second report uses the notions of scarce capital and competition. Wow, wonder why Treasury chose to ignore scarcity of capital and competition (for investment)??

Your "killer blow" above is a from a left academic economist. Brilliant. I'm convinced.

Interestingly, the original Treasury commissioned KPMG Econtech report was prepared by Economists. The second report for the MCA was prepared by KPMG's Corporate Finance guys.

Now I understand that Treasury and the left like theoretical economic models but most of us here in the real world reckon an analysis by Corporate Finance guys is likely more relevant.

But I'll break this down one issue at a time. Assuming you might actually answer a question for once. 1. Why would the model assume infinite capital and no competition for that capital?

incidentally ********, the economist you dismiss as a "left" academic economist is far from that. Very much a free marketeer.
you on the other hand are a simplistic flog.

 

[Eagle87]

You have nothing and you know it.
You talk so much shit but have really nothing.
I expose you're crap about quoting the wrong report and you run a mile.
You cannot quote one INDEPENDENT report about any negative impact of the RSPT can you .
Thought not.
fraud.

I continue to address issues, you continue to rant and rave.

There are numerous independent "reports" outlining the negative impacts. Many have been referenced on this board.

Again, feel free to address the issues anytime you want.

Do you reckon the KPMG Econtech report that used the notion of "infinite capital" (as requested in the brief from Treasury) is realistic?

incidentally ********, the economist you dismiss as a "left" academic economist is far from that. Very much a free marketeer.
you on the other hand are a simplistic flog.

You sure?

I know it's not your strength but you might want to check his writings, his topics of interest etc ...

Whatever I may be Dip, I am far more informed and coherent than you.

I bet you are one of those guys who screams at the umps in under 10's aren't you?

 

[Grin]

Great. Lets just create a tax based on a view that isn't supported by actual evidence based on the scientific method. And who will set the price for the carbon tax based on what "evidence"?

I'm sure you are happy to sink the boot in to pensioners, students, unemployed and others with financial pressures based on your warped religious beliefs, but don't expect to be supported by people who actually have at the very least a shred of empathy for other beings.

The greens hierarchy must be laughing at the fact they have a few mindless robots out there doing whatever they say instead of thinking for themselves. Good luck with the propaganda campaign drone #104.

And donuts, your position has been quashed by reasonable arguments based on reality (yet again). At least your masters should be happy with your efforts on the internets.

Try slow, deep breathing