5 ms·

Alternative Title: Chinese (amongst others) companies make money on Australian soil. Also known as "Multinationals multinationing"

by barredo 16y ago

ww520 16y ago
Alternative Title: Capitalism at work, trade instead of war, each got what they want.
- Estragon 16y ago
  I don't think it's that simple. Consider, for example, that the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, lost his leadership largely because mining companies were upset by his plan to tax them further. From the article: Economic and diplomatic advances, however, have not fueled a warm national glow. Australia's proposal to increase taxes on mining became a national issue, precipitating a three-month barrage of anti-government campaigns paid for by the mining industry, which in part led to the removal in June of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a Chinese-speaking former diplomat. In the August federal election, the ruling center-left Australian Labor Party lost its majority due in large part to massive swings against it in the resource-rich states of Western Australia and Queensland. Supporters of the tax argue that the resources are not coming back and that Australia should participate more fully in the outsize profits. Those against include the mine operators and the many who work in the mines; mining salaries are, on average, Australia's highest, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
  - brc 16y ago
    There were other factors at work with Rudd's removal. The mining tax was the last act in a long play of dropping promises, reneging on commitments and policy backflips. The mining tax was a disaster and, in it's original form, was reverse nationalism by stealth. The government was going to tax profits above 6% with a 40% 'super tax' - terminology straight from a Marxist script. They were then going to reimburse Miners for losses on projects. In reality, with the government participating in 40% of the profits and 40% of the losses, it was a part-nationalisation by stealth. The reason the mining tax was so rejected, particularly by the mining states, was that it was to replace state-based mining royalties with a Federal mining tax. So instead of individual states receiving royalties for mineral wealth - as per the constitution, the tax money would be funnelled to the Federal government, which would then have power over where it was spent. The mineral states stood to lose power over their own revenues, and the non-mining states stood to gain income from activities that took place entirely outside their borders. The tax was beloved by pro-government tax-raising types and lovers of economic theory and hated by pretty much everyone else.
    - teyc 16y ago
      Not quite. Given the price rises, the shareholders would be better off if they just sat on their leases and paid a capital gain. However, there are laws against that too. I believe government policy needs to consider resources are finite. The tragedy of the commons that is being played out at the moment prices the resouces at $0 for the future generation. Just like the way we are pricing fisheries. It is insane.
    - nl 16y ago
      There were other factors at work with Rudd's removal. The mining tax was the last act in a long play of dropping promises, reneging on commitments and policy backflips. I agree with this The mining tax was a disaster and, in it's original form, was reverse nationalism by stealth. The government was going to tax profits above 6% with a 40% 'super tax' - terminology straight from a Marxist script. They were then going to reimburse Miners for losses on projects. In reality, with the government participating in 40% of the profits and 40% of the losses, it was a part-nationalisation by stealth. I agree the mining tax was a disaster, but it wasn't as bad as you are making out. The 40% thing was always something that got the headlines, but as you point out it isn't as simple as that because it would have reduced state based royalties. The reason the mining tax was so rejected, particularly by the mining states, was that it was to replace state-based mining royalties with a Federal mining tax. This is true. The mineral states stood to lose power over their own revenues, and the non-mining states stood to gain income from activities that took place entirely outside their borders. This is also true, but not necessarily a bad thing. Australian urban centres are a long, long way from the mines and some form of distribution probably makes sense. The tax was beloved by pro-government tax-raising types and lovers of economic theory and hated by pretty much everyone else. I don't think the tax was loved by anyone except Rudd's kitchen cabinet (and possibly only by 3 out of them too, judging from how quickly Gillard backed off it). But the goals of the tax are perhaps more broadly backed. The original article touched on the fact that many mining companies avoid investing in the communities (as you'd expect from a profit making entity), and this has caused some issues. From the article: One of the local councils in the Pilbara, Shire of Ashburton, recently refused permission to Rio Tinto to expand its camp around the Tom Price mine. Instead the company has been asked to invest in facilities that will remain after the mine is closed, to spend $247 million on housing, an air strip, and other infrastructure at the town of Pannawonica. This kind of investment, and the employing of locals, is the only move that is going to convince skeptics like Tony Wiltshire. "We were at a town meeting the other day when a representative from a mining company said, 'Come on, we're all up here to make a dollar.' The locals in the room looked at each other and thought, 'What?' We live here. We can cope with the hot summers. We're here for the long term. We are actually better for the multinationals than the contractors they fly in and fly out. We just need them to wake up to the fact that they, and we, are all in it for the long haul." The idea of the tax was to formalize this kind of investment. The way they went about it was probably the worst planned example of domestic politics in Australia since WW2, though!
  - nl 16y ago
    It pretty much is that simple. The way the tax was presented it made it look like a punitive grab for mining companies profits. In the mining-rich states people started worrying about their jobs, and so the government changed Prime Minister and policy to try and head off the issue. The fact that the Labor party screwed up pretty badly is kind of irrelevant to the idea that this is pretty straight forward international trade. There are questions about how and how much of those profits should be spread around the country but I think that's pretty standard when there is an economic boom.
  - ww520 16y ago
    That's run-of-the-mill politics, corporatism, and special interests. It just means everyone is fighting to dip into profit from China. Prime minister Rudd was the casualty of socialism (sharing the profit wider) vs. corporatism (mining companies wanting to keep more). Replacing the profit from China with another source would have the same argument and same political fight.
- stretchwithme 16y ago
  The only 2 options, really. We can trade with our fellows and produce total results that exceed our wildest dreams. Or we can take what we want and eventually be reduced to fighting over scraps.
metamemetics 16y ago
The original title is best. It conveys the point that China is literally and physically getting Australia. The country of Australia is an object decreasing in size and mass, due to the super-barge-2mile-long-train-robo-dumpster IV China has paid to stick in it.

Alternative Title: Chinese (amongst others) companies make money on Australian soil. Also known as "Multinationals multinationing"

by barredo 16y ago

Alternative Title: Chinese (amongst others) companies make money on Australian soil. Also known as "Multinationals multinationing"

ww520 16y ago

Alternative Title: Capitalism at work, trade instead of war, each got what they want.

Estragon 16y ago
I don't think it's that simple. Consider, for example, that the Australian Prime Minister, Kevin Rudd, lost his leadership largely because mining companies were upset by his plan to tax them further. From the article: Economic and diplomatic advances, however, have not fueled a warm national glow. Australia's proposal to increase taxes on mining became a national issue, precipitating a three-month barrage of anti-government campaigns paid for by the mining industry, which in part led to the removal in June of Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, a Chinese-speaking former diplomat. In the August federal election, the ruling center-left Australian Labor Party lost its majority due in large part to massive swings against it in the resource-rich states of Western Australia and Queensland. Supporters of the tax argue that the resources are not coming back and that Australia should participate more fully in the outsize profits. Those against include the mine operators and the many who work in the mines; mining salaries are, on average, Australia's highest, according to the Australian Bureau of Statistics.
- brc 16y ago
  There were other factors at work with Rudd's removal. The mining tax was the last act in a long play of dropping promises, reneging on commitments and policy backflips. The mining tax was a disaster and, in it's original form, was reverse nationalism by stealth. The government was going to tax profits above 6% with a 40% 'super tax' - terminology straight from a Marxist script. They were then going to reimburse Miners for losses on projects. In reality, with the government participating in 40% of the profits and 40% of the losses, it was a part-nationalisation by stealth. The reason the mining tax was so rejected, particularly by the mining states, was that it was to replace state-based mining royalties with a Federal mining tax. So instead of individual states receiving royalties for mineral wealth - as per the constitution, the tax money would be funnelled to the Federal government, which would then have power over where it was spent. The mineral states stood to lose power over their own revenues, and the non-mining states stood to gain income from activities that took place entirely outside their borders. The tax was beloved by pro-government tax-raising types and lovers of economic theory and hated by pretty much everyone else.
  - teyc 16y ago
    Not quite. Given the price rises, the shareholders would be better off if they just sat on their leases and paid a capital gain. However, there are laws against that too. I believe government policy needs to consider resources are finite. The tragedy of the commons that is being played out at the moment prices the resouces at $0 for the future generation. Just like the way we are pricing fisheries. It is insane.
  - nl 16y ago
    There were other factors at work with Rudd's removal. The mining tax was the last act in a long play of dropping promises, reneging on commitments and policy backflips. I agree with this The mining tax was a disaster and, in it's original form, was reverse nationalism by stealth. The government was going to tax profits above 6% with a 40% 'super tax' - terminology straight from a Marxist script. They were then going to reimburse Miners for losses on projects. In reality, with the government participating in 40% of the profits and 40% of the losses, it was a part-nationalisation by stealth. I agree the mining tax was a disaster, but it wasn't as bad as you are making out. The 40% thing was always something that got the headlines, but as you point out it isn't as simple as that because it would have reduced state based royalties. The reason the mining tax was so rejected, particularly by the mining states, was that it was to replace state-based mining royalties with a Federal mining tax. This is true. The mineral states stood to lose power over their own revenues, and the non-mining states stood to gain income from activities that took place entirely outside their borders. This is also true, but not necessarily a bad thing. Australian urban centres are a long, long way from the mines and some form of distribution probably makes sense. The tax was beloved by pro-government tax-raising types and lovers of economic theory and hated by pretty much everyone else. I don't think the tax was loved by anyone except Rudd's kitchen cabinet (and possibly only by 3 out of them too, judging from how quickly Gillard backed off it). But the goals of the tax are perhaps more broadly backed. The original article touched on the fact that many mining companies avoid investing in the communities (as you'd expect from a profit making entity), and this has caused some issues. From the article: One of the local councils in the Pilbara, Shire of Ashburton, recently refused permission to Rio Tinto to expand its camp around the Tom Price mine. Instead the company has been asked to invest in facilities that will remain after the mine is closed, to spend $247 million on housing, an air strip, and other infrastructure at the town of Pannawonica. This kind of investment, and the employing of locals, is the only move that is going to convince skeptics like Tony Wiltshire. "We were at a town meeting the other day when a representative from a mining company said, 'Come on, we're all up here to make a dollar.' The locals in the room looked at each other and thought, 'What?' We live here. We can cope with the hot summers. We're here for the long term. We are actually better for the multinationals than the contractors they fly in and fly out. We just need them to wake up to the fact that they, and we, are all in it for the long haul." The idea of the tax was to formalize this kind of investment. The way they went about it was probably the worst planned example of domestic politics in Australia since WW2, though!
- nl 16y ago
  It pretty much is that simple. The way the tax was presented it made it look like a punitive grab for mining companies profits. In the mining-rich states people started worrying about their jobs, and so the government changed Prime Minister and policy to try and head off the issue. The fact that the Labor party screwed up pretty badly is kind of irrelevant to the idea that this is pretty straight forward international trade. There are questions about how and how much of those profits should be spread around the country but I think that's pretty standard when there is an economic boom.
- ww520 16y ago
  That's run-of-the-mill politics, corporatism, and special interests. It just means everyone is fighting to dip into profit from China. Prime minister Rudd was the casualty of socialism (sharing the profit wider) vs. corporatism (mining companies wanting to keep more). Replacing the profit from China with another source would have the same argument and same political fight.
stretchwithme 16y ago
The only 2 options, really. We can trade with our fellows and produce total results that exceed our wildest dreams. Or we can take what we want and eventually be reduced to fighting over scraps.

metamemetics 16y ago

The original title is best. It conveys the point that China is literally and physically getting Australia. The country of Australia is an object decreasing in size and mass, due to the super-barge-2mile-long-train-robo-dumpster IV China has paid to stick in it.