Tag Archives: treasury modelling

Barnaby Pings Wong On Carbon Tax Impacts

14 Mar

“The government stands by the Treasury modelling … the government stands by the Treasury modelling…” – Penny Wong


Watch it all, and note in particular (a) Wong’s obfuscation, misdirection, and abject failure to answer, and (b) Bob Brown’s intervention, attempting to silence questioning of the Green-Labor CO2 derivatives scam:

Enjoy also Barnaby’s speech to the Senate yesterday:

“‘We are us’ … what exactly, what on earth does that mean? ‘We are us’ … I mean, who else could you be? We are somebody else? Somebody else is us?”

“In the last four weeks the Labor party have borrowed … an extra ten billion dollars, just in the last four weeks … that would buy about 20,000 houses in Brisbane”

“Treasurer Wayne Swan … is the Treasurer of the Millennium … we are so lucky to be blessed with him”

“What’s a Midas Touch backwards? … a Sadim, perhaps”

Shorten Truth

16 Feb

Professor Sinclair Davidson at Catallaxy Files spots a tiny inconsistency:

The newspapers are full of the problems facing the aluminium industry. The basic problem as I see it is that the government has adopted a policy – the carbon tax – that should see the industry closing down (or at least massively reduced in size) but doesn’t want to admit to it. The AFR reports Bill Shorten explaining why the Treasury modelling doesn’t really show the industry collapsing (emphasis added).

Employment Minister Bill Shorten also rebuffed concerns based on the carbon tax modelling.

“It’s how you use that modelling – and that modelling depends upon the rest of the world doing nothing,” Mr Shorten said. “And the reality is the rest of the world is moving to lower emissions, greater carbon efficiency.”

Does Treasury know?

An equilibrium global permit price emerges to clear the global permit market.

The modelling assumes an eventual shift to a lower cost coordinated international policy framework, recognising that this is ultimately in all countries’ best interests. By 2016, a more coordinated international policy regime allows countries to trade either bilaterally or through a common central market. As a result, a harmonised world carbon price emerges in 2016.

That must be the exact opposite to what Shorten is saying.

Indeed. But then again, as regular readers of this blog know, Treasury modelling is a farce anyway. So maybe that is why it does not bother Bill Shorten to blatantly lie about the critical base assumptions used by Treasury in their CO2 derivatives scam modelling … since the predicted outcomes (just like global warmists’ “models”) won’t be anywhere near reality anyway.

This propensity to lie seems to be endemic amongst Labor’s leading politicians.

Perhaps I should have titled today’s earlier post, Labor’s Deficit Of Moral Hygiene”.

Kohler: A Surplus Of Political Stupidity

14 Aug

From Business Spectator:

Yesterday’s weak employment figures confirm what my colleague Robert Gottliebsen has been arguing for months: that the economy – global and domestic – is much weaker than anyone thought. Forcing the budget back into surplus by 2013 by cutting spending or raising taxes is probably a stupid idea, just as raising interest rates must now be off the agenda.

But the Opposition and the media will now ensure that the most important issue is not how the settings should be adjusted for changed circumstances, but whether the government breaks a promise.

Same goes for the carbon tax. If Oliver Marc Hartwich in today’s KGB roundtable is only half right about the dire future of the European Union and the euro, introducing a carbon tax next July would be the silliest idea imaginable.

All three of the economists on the roundtable – Hartwich, Warren Hogan of ANZ and Su-Lin Ong of RBC – are pessimistic about the global economy. They are not alone. The very best that can be hoped for is that the European and American economies muddle through this new debt crisis and they end up with low growth rather than a recession.

In the circumstances, should the government press on with the planned carbon tax next year? Of course not, unless there is some miraculous renaissance of the developed world economy between now and then.

That looks extremely unlikely. Yet at a Town Hall forum in Perth yesterday, the prime minister vowed to press on with the carbon tax, because Treasury has advised that the economy will continue to grow even if it is imposed.

Right. That’ll be the modelling then. That model on the computers in Langton Crescent, Parkes, in Canberra, a million or so miles from the real world.

Well said.

Very pleasant to see that Alan Kohler has about as much faith in Treasury modelling as I do:

Why Would Any Sane Person Believe Treasury’s Carbon Tax Modelling When Their Budget Forecasting Record Is This Bad?

The Pricing Carbon Choir – Why Should *Any* Sane Person Trust Economists After The GFC?

And as much as Barnaby Joyce does:

Barnaby Bamboozles Chief Of Climate Change Modelling Unit … Again

Barnaby on SHY – “The Princess Of University Lefty Students”

12 Jul

Media release – Senator Barnaby Joyce, 12 July 2011 (my emphasis added):

The inconvenient truth

Labor’s coalition partner, the Australian Greens, and their leadership aspirant Senator Sarah Hanson-Young have prescribed a dire outcome for regional Australia under the Green-Labor-Independent government.

Senator Hanson-Young, and Greens South Australian MP Mark Parnell, said yesterday that “small towns that are based entirely on fossil fuels probably won’t exist.”

So the Princess of university lefty students has decided that we don’t need small regional towns. I know that comment is a little bit cutting but I also know what she said was totally insulting.

This is the crowd that is currently running the country. These are the things they are saying. Yet they tell us a carbon tax won’t hurt. We can judge them now not only by their actions but also by their words.

Every day that Julia relies on the Greens support, and she does, she endorses the Greens’ statements.

What do we say to people in a small town with a mortgage Sarah Hanson-Young? What do they do, pick up their house and move? Where exactly are these green towns? I have a vision of Nimbin but that is about as far as I get.

Sarah what you really mean by green jobs, is the transfer of people from boilermakers and fitter and turners into national park guides, carbon bureaucrats and Australian Taxation Officials.

The effect of all this, we know from Treasury modelling, is that real wages will fall. A promise the Labor party always seem to be able to deliver on.

In Sarah Hanson-Young’s mythical economy we become a nation of bio-ethical kitchen renovators. We make money apparently because people like us. We put love and good thoughts on the boats that used to export our coal.

I can say that because the Greens really do want to close down the coal industry. It is no good Labor saying that it doesn’t want to shut down the coal industry when your coalition partner says they do.

If you don’t want to do that why did you sign the registry book, witnessed by the Australian people, remember, the shot where Bob had the corsage in his lapel.

If you missed it previously, then you simply must read one of the most popular, most retweeted blogs ever in this site’s history – “Barnaby Bamboozles Chief Of Climate Change Modelling Unit … Again”

Strangely enough, Meghan Quinn – the chief of the (Treasury department’s) Climate Change Modelling Unit – has a remarkably similar, eagerly naive, fresh-faced blind faith look about her as our dear Sarah Hanson-Young (SHY). As you will see, when you click on that link above.

Hold on to your sides, and keep liquids clear of the keyboard first.

Wayne’s Wong: What’s A Billion Or Two Between Friends?

12 Jul

My slaughter of the Treasury sacred cow appears all the more apropos today, after reading Christian Kerr’s article in the Australian this morning (emphasis added):

Swan and crew a billion or two short of budget neutral

Most voters hope their treasurers live by the old saw “look after the pennies and the pounds will look after themselves”.

Not Wayne Swan. He considers billions neither really here nor there. Or so it seems.

On ABC radio yesterday, the Treasurer first tried to avoid answering a question about whether the government’s carbon tax package would be, as promised, budget neutral.

“There always is an upfront cost with these very big reforms,” the Treasurer replied. Or started to.

The interviewer pulled him up. “You’ve promised for a long time that this would be budget neutral, not that there would be an up-front cost,” she said.

Swan caved in. “It is broadly budget neutral over the forward estimates,” he conceded, and added: “We will bring the budget back to surplus in 2012-13.”

Swan was reluctant to discuss the detail, and Finance Minister Penny Wong was simply not across it. Or got it wrong. She stumbled over just how much revenue a carbon tax would raise.

“I think it’s about $18bn from memory,” Senator Wong said on Adelaide radio.

Christopher Pyne was also on the show. “Are you sure it’s not $21bn?” he suggested.

“Twenty-one, he might be right,” the Finance Minister conceded.

“It’s $21bn,” Mr Pyne replied. “I’m not the finance minister but I read the documents.”

It was not a good look for the minister charged with looking after the government’s bottom line. Particularly when she is also the former minister for climate change. But it turns out both Senator Wong and Mr Pyne were wrong. The figure is $25bn.

If you know someone who actually believes that Treasury/Swan/Wong are within a bull’s roar of knowing what their Great Carbon Dioxide Scam will really cost ...”Tell ’em they’re dreaming!”

%d bloggers like this: