Game of Thrones Daily
Color Me Curious
No title available
Kiana Khansmith
noise dept.
gracie abrams
🪼
h
No title available
KIROKAZE
sheepfilms
blake kathryn
Sade Olutola
Monterey Bay Aquarium
Not today Justin
NASA
YOU ARE THE REASON
Xuebing Du
tumblr dot com
izzy's playlists!
seen from Singapore
seen from Brazil
seen from United States
seen from United Kingdom
seen from Russia
seen from Iraq
seen from United States
seen from Singapore
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from South Korea
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from United States
seen from Costa Rica
@jh-econs-blog
elomis:
At the moment in the US there is a collection of affiliated protests, centred on New York city. As with all “grass roots” protest movements, some of the protesters are unemployed or students who enjoy shows of unity and demands for change as a recreational sport. Some of them are people who have...
Budget 2011 - Tough Spin
So after talking up the promise of a "tough" budget, which was apparently going to reduce Government expenditure in order to return the budget to the black by 2012-13, the actual Budget was delivered tonight and calling it underwhelming based on expectations would be a good starting point.
It is hardly surprising that a minority government would attempt to deliver a populist Budget, it would be naive to think otherwise and this Budget fits the mould.
Much of the vaunted "22 Billion" in savings are in measures which will have no impact until long after the next election so are extremely hard to judge the effectiveness of.
Overall this budget introduces a real increase in government spending of around 2billion dollars, whilst relying on some very ambitious projections on government revenue increasing 24% over the next 2 years (an increase of 73 billion). Even the most optimistic would have trouble believing that level of growth in revenue.
There was a similar optimistic assessment of growth at the last Budget, which has resulted in this years deficit being 10 billion more than predicted.
That's not to say that the Budget is necessarily good or bad, It simply doesn't match the rhetoric that the Government was using in the leadup to the budget, one can only think that they expected to use to spin to convince the general public of their Economic responsibility.
However having said that, the budget does introduce a number of welfare reforms which are likely overdue, increasing the onus to find work for those on centrelink can only be seen as a good move with unemployment expected to fall to 4.5%
Likewise the focus on skills to meet the coming re-ramping up of the mining boom has to be seen as an important measure along with the extra working visa's being available for industry to deal with labour shortages.
The spending on mental health (2 billion) and regional health (1.7 billion) is sure to be welcomed, is a great headline for the budget, and is certainly something the government has gotten right.
The biggest criticism of the Budget has to be in how it applies its forecasting for the upcoming years. Despite having overestimated this years result, (by as much as 10%) and hence having a lower base to start from, the treasury believes that 2010's estimates on 2012-13 will be correct and has not bothered to revise them downward after being sofar wrong in 2011.
This is best summed up in the words of ABC Business commentator Alan Kohler
In other words, it's a wing and a prayer budget - keep spending, let the deficit blow out, and predict with a straight face that the commodities boom will bail us out eventually.
I don't necessarily see it as a problem that the government has taken this approach, the race to return the Budget to the black is very much a political issue whether we return from deficit in 2013 or 2015, it is more important, in my opinion that we ensure that our spending on infrastructure is maintained at a level that will allow us to make the most out of the boom.
All in all its probably a solid bet that the commodities boom will bring the Budget back into the black no matter what, however it should be aknowledged by all, that this Budget is gambling on the China growth continuing, and as with all bets there is a chance of losing.
An increase in the terms of trade may completely erode the increase in consumer expenditure that the Government are banking on with the expectation of increasing incomes off the back of the mining boom.
This budget will certainly require further analysis, as there are a great many factors which could render large parts of this budget essentially worthless, the primary threat to this being a Carbon Tax, which would throw all projections off and create an entirely new set of figures to be looked at.
Kuznets Curve - Green Politics
Demographically speaking Green party voters fit a very specific profile, they are usually upper middle class and inner suburban. This profile fits in with the Kuznets curve, which has been witnessed in many (although not all) environmental problems. The Kuznets curve essentially proposes that as incomes rise, people care more for their environment.
The implication we can take from this is as Australia's economy grows we are likely to see an increase in the number of voters who ideologically are Green aligned.
Unfortunately often those who will feel the greatest impact as a result of Environmental policies are low income earners. Australia's current proposed scheme seeks to minimise this impact by returning money to low income earners. However even a basic Slutsky decomposition shows us that even if 100% of tax taken was to be returned to low income earners their disposable income would be reduced. Whilst upper middle class people may be able to afford a slight change in their usable income, those hardest hit would almost certainly be those who were already worse off.
How the Greens can have objections to the GST on the basis that it is a regressive tax, yet support a Carbon Tax is a valid query.
It is important to remember that at this point in time the Greens are still very much a minority party in a democratic country, and that despite having very vocal supporters, they are certainly not a Majority.
After the mess that was my last post. - Carbon Tax - Myths and Greens
Time for a more serious post.
Read an article today in The Australian by Tony Sheppard, titled Eight myths of a Carbon Tax which pretty much sums up how I feel about the whole Carbon Tax, and how unfortunately a vocal minority group in the Greens have somehow managed to override the wishes of the silent majority.
The Myths are as follows.
1. The greatest myth is that if we lead the world in carbon pricing the rest of the world will follow. We produce 1.5 per cent of the world's CO2; China and America account for 40 per cent. A 5 per cent reduction in Australia's emissions would be cancelled out by as little as a 0.3 per cent increase in China's emissions.
Tony leaves the figures there, but the facts are both China and India are increasing emissions are much larger rates than 0.3%, as will every other developing economy in the goal of Economic growth.
2. Another myth is that we have to lead the world because we are a carbon-based economy and will be more affected when and if the world introduces carbon pricing.
The fact is that any price put on carbon is going be passed on to the end consumer, given we have a natural advantage currently for these resources, if we introduce a tax unilaterally (especially at the price levels some greens are supporting) companies will simply look towards other sources.
Once you add in the factor of how such a policy would work in regards to dealing with imports from countries without such a tax, it becomes an even more unworkable idea.
3. Another myth says if we introduce the tax now it will give industry time to adapt.
Anyone who thinks companies only plan 1 year in advance is kidding themselves.
4. Another myth is that Big Business should have known a carbon tax was coming and should have been prepared. Most of our coal-fired power stations were built and owned by state governments. The taxpayer is the largest single owner with 36 per cent capacity overall, 54 per cent in NSW and 67 per cent in Queensland.
I think 4 speaks for itself.
5. Then there is the myth that we are morally obliged to lead the way because we generate a larger proportion of carbon dioxide a head of population. Yes we do, but there are good reasons for this. We are rich in resources such as coal, iron ore, bauxite and uranium. It gives us one of our few competitive advantages.
In addition to the argument of our natural resources being conductive to higher emissions per capita, we should also be taking into account emissions per square kilometer, as truly it is the concentration of co2 that is being blamed for global temperature changes, one would think that having a larger landmass to spread it over is rather important as well.
6. Closer to home is the myth that the carbon tax will hit the so called 1000 big polluters and consumers will be protected. In the end the consumer, whether local or overseas, will always pay. If the cost is not passed on, trade exposed industry in particular will either fail to survive (and jobs will be lost), or move elsewhere (loss of jobs again).
This arguement just reeks of a lack of economic understanding, businesses will pass on costs to consumers in this situation every time, even if you apply a slutsky decomposition in assuming consumers are creditted back fully, however the lack of that money initially lowers the level of consumption, in the end it is still Consumers who are impacted.
7. Then there is the myth that renewable energy can replace coal and gas-fired energy production without a substantial cost to the consumer or business.
I don't necessarily agree that it is a myth that renewables can replace coal, they can if everyone if willing to front the cost, however frankly there are definitely some serious cost of living issues associated with this idea, and the impact it would have on the already disadvantaged.
8. And then there is the myth that a carbon tax or ETS will force the same big polluters to invest in alternative technologies that will create jobs. The expectation that investors who have seen their investment seriously impaired by a carbon tax will race to invest in new high-cost technologies is illogical. Banks won't lend to the impaired incumbents.
Tony goes on to introduce a number of real life examples where carbon pricing has been introduced, and the so called "green jobs" talked up simply do not exist.
However you wish to look at it, the Greens are a minority party, and are not representative of the majority of Australians wishes.
It is also telling that the seats the Greens poll best in, are always inner city upper-middle class, ie those who have jobs and money.
Sure they may get some left wing student / youth vote as well however the majority of Australians recognise that whilst you may applaud the Greens idealism on some issues, allowing the greens too much say in Australia's political direction can only spell disaster for the country.
Current Awake Time = 32hrs = Sleeeeeeepy
I am waiting in Sydney Airport for checkin, after an awesome interview (I nailed it, like a pro).
Disclaimer before i go any further, any typos are only here to allow usher to have something to correct.
So yeah Sydney airport, or their free wireless <3, I love free things, like aiirport wireless, or your neighbours wireless.
Pretty devo Selwood didnt come good for the weekends game, lucky this AWESOME FREE WIRELESS let me login to dreamteam and sub him off.
Oh and I dropped my laptop before, cause i fell asleep with it one my lap :(
Anyway, hopefully I get to appt hunt in Sydney soon :D YAY
futurejournalismproject:
Econ wonks rejoice.
Via Freakonomics:
Here’s a test of basic economic literacy: What is the socially optimal price of online access to economics journal articles?
If my students learn only one thing, it’s this: Price equals marginal cost. And the marginal cost of accessing a journal article is pretty much zero. The research has been written, the type has been set, and the salaries have already been paid — usually thanks to a university, think tank, or government grant. So the socially optimal price is: free. Every time we charge a price higher than this, we risk pricing out someone who might benefit from the insights of an academic scribbler.
The Brookings Papers on Economic Activity – the journal that David Romer and I edit — has decided to take this piece of economic wisdom seriously. The Brookings Papers are now entirely open access. Yep, we’re charging zero; nada; nothing; zip.
Perusal begins here.
Can't Sleep, Time to Write - Job Hunt pt1
I typically think I should update this page more often atleast once a week, as most people who know me would say I am fair opinionated, and there is nothing I like more than sharing those opinions.
So if you are reading this, it is going to be my first serious post of which I hope more will follow.
Recently I have been doing a number of Job applications, mainly for graduate roles, having recently completed an Honour Thesis in Economics. My overall experience with the process for most of these applications has been positive, despite my growing hatred for cover letters, I recognise their importance in that employers need some way to try thin out the number of applicants.
What I have concerns about are the increasing number, of especially government agencies more than anything, which as part of the application process, spend just as much time asking about your hobbies, or how you like to relax, or other interests as they do in looking at actual work related questions. For example one of my most recent applications had 5, 200 word answer questions 3 of those questions related almost specifically to my hobbies, outside interests, and volunteer work, with numerous other examples of 2/5 questions relating to these areas.
Now don't get me wrong sure asking about someone's hobbies or interests may help with integration into corporate culture, and picking the right candidate for the position, but really, are my hobbies and outside interests really that important to the role I am applying for. Does the fact that I like to relax by playing computer games make me any less capable of performing a job to high standards? (admittedly there have been a few times where I've pulled an all nighter playing a mmo)
It just seems to me like the emphasis should be on the quality of work you produce during your work hours, not how you spend your leisure time.
Now this may have more ramifications for me than most because if you know me, which you likely do if you're reading this, then you'd know I'm fairly lazy in my personal life, a day spent lounging around, playing computer games maybe watching some TV is a good day for me. However I'm completely the opposite when it comes to my work life, I've always taken pride in my work, and from every employer I've had, have always had great feedback regarding work ethic and quality.
So obviously the emphasis being placed on what you like to do in your spare time worries me.
On the other hand as mentioned earlier I have had some very positive experiences, mainly from private sector recruitment, receiving feedback on applications very promptly. In the best example the day after sending through my resume I was contacted to organise a phone interview and a week after that a 2nd more specific phone interview with the result being for me to fly to Sydney for a face to face meeting, all organised in a time span shorter than many graduates programs are even open for. (although admittedly there were likely less applicants)
Having said that I have also had some very positive interactions with a couple of federal government department recruitment staff, 2 of which provided me with their personal contact details regarding some positions which were not necessarily open for graduates that they thought I'd be suitable for which were opening later in the year.
All in all I'm fairly happy with how the job hunt is going so far.
Apologies if you actually read all that, if it makes any difference my next post will likely be about dreamteam?
James
Awesome cover, by lissie
KOTOR2 <3 completely worth the screwing around on win7 needed to get it working
Who doesn't love card magic, dude has awesomely fast hands.
Economics, with cows
Time makes a mockery of us all
Well after completing forgetting about this page, I've found myself with some spare time (in between massive amounts of gaming) so might take some of that time to get this page underway.
Thesis down
So the end of a years labour and you can't help but feel nervous
relooking at all the work done and wondering if it is going to achieve the result you desire
at this stage however despite doubts there not much you can do but wait and enjoy the relaxation of it being over.
Oh Reminiscence
Indifference
When you need to make a choice between two options, each of which will result in similar outcomes, often it is possible to feel more than a little indifferent about the whole situation.
It is in this mindset that I find myself looking towards the next election, when our two parties are so much alike across multiple issues, the election will come down as it always does to who best sells the areas that they differ on.
Whilst this is not necessarily a bad thing, the ability to pick and choose would be greatly appreciated by this punter, because it appears that both parties have committed to policies in different areas that I can't in my right mind support.
Unfortunately in situations such as this it is easy to not care and decide to donkey vote, or become indifferent, however it is important to remember that it is in the act of making the choice that you maintain some semblance of power.
