JC Political Thread - For All Things Political Part 2

[Sabbath']

I think it was @Immortality who commented on the state of the building industry in Aus.

" 2349 construction firms have collapsed in the past year — with fears more may fall soon.

.....of the 8471 business collapses for 2023, almost 28 per cent were in the building and construction industry, according to data put out by the corporate regulator."

And Albo reckons he can more than double the historic rate of new home construction in this country.

Victoria has committed to 800,000 new homes over the next decade. 80,000/year or ~219 new homea/day....7 days a week over that period.


One year in, and new home approvals are at decade low levels as simply one metric of failure to measure it against.


The project was destined to be a flop from the start. Sounds grandiose but like most things governments touch will bloat, overrun and fall apart.


I think the biggest sign it will won't meet it's target is that they've put serial failure, Jerome Weinmar in charge. Have spoken before about his chequered past and also the amount of money the government shovel in his direction. Puts private sector bonuses to shame. Regardless of the results he is continually rewarded for being a good "yes man".

 

[Reaper]

From what I have seen, there is a lot of nuclear waste stored poorly because no-one has come up with a permanent solution or locations so although no known big accidents, plenty of opportunity for leakage/contamination and other nasty things to potentially happen that might not make it into the public domain.

The US and other Western nations have put a lot of effort into the safe transportation of nuclear waste. I've seen tests where they run a locomotive into a nuclear transportation container.

Options are there however they just haven't happened. It's a major failure of the industry/government in the relevant countries. Hard to say else where but I suspect in Australia the plan would need to come from a federal level without any option for lower levels to say no. That will be a big shitfight as it's very emotive and I'd suspect many will have a very uninformed fear of the risks in this and the broader nuclear industry.

Unfortunately the likes of Chernobyl still resonate regardless of the fact it was an ill conceived plant right from the start - that design should never have been built (and the soviet union knew it at the time) plus the massive failure of process that caused the melt down. Put simply, this disaster could not have happened with most other reactors of the day, let alone modern reactors where such melt downs are physically impossible.

No base load is required if there is sufficient storage capacity. It is possible to get there without nuclear and seeing as nuclear is hideously expensive and we’ve left it far to late for nuclear to be part of the equation we should just get on with what needs to be done.

You keep banging on about SMR's not existing yet come out with this tripe. Sufficient battery capacity to run (say) Victoria for 2 days would make the cost of a nuclear plant look like pocket change! Not to mention throwing it away in 15 years or so (assuming it lasts that long) and replacing it!

So what have I said about nuclear power that’s incorrect or misinformation? It is hideously expensive and we’ve left it far too late to make it part of our toolkit to get to net zero by 2050.

The very thing that prompted my post. You deny the existence of reactors that are actually verifiably in service. Cost is a hurdle but there is mounting evidence that it is also over stated at times as well. You are right in running out of time - It really should have started 30 years ago but here we are. Once again, there are many examples of plants taking 10-15 years build time so it's still a possibility but things do need to start moving.

The point is that SMRs aren’t a viable option when the only countries producing them are countries we would never import an SMR from.

That is very different to saying they don't exist. I don't happen to agree with that either but it's more of an opinion thing rather than denying basic fact.

Politics, definitely the problem!

But then so is the reason for having so much waste to begin with.

Politicians (good for nothing).

One good (?) thing about nuclear is the energy density - the actual quantum of waste is around 88,000 tonnes (fair sure that was the figure I read somewhere) but the actual volume it takes is very small.

How much nuclear waste is there?

How much nuclear waste has been made in the USA? If you were to stack it up on a football field, how high would the nuclear waste be?

whatisnuclear.com

That is utter BS, the CEO makes sure **** gets done.
And to your point about paying money back, well you answered your own question, as quite a fair amount of the bonus is usually in stocks, if they fail the stock price will fall.

I'm fine with stock bonus's but IMO the vesting period for most is far too low. It should be min 5years and preferably 10 years to ensure the ceo has a long term prosperity outlook for the company.

Lets look at Qantas, Joyce made something like a 100,000,000 profit, so he got a 22,000,000 bonus from memory. How is that not tied to their performance?

Well that is your opinion. I've known a few CEO's and MD's in my time, I've seen good ones and I've seen **** ones, more off the later unfortunately.

The thing with stock options is, you take them up when stocks are up. You don't sell when stocks are down. So no, a temporary drop in share price because of a bad yearly result does not result in a loss of income for a CEO. The other problem with stock options is that CEO's will favour higher dividends instead of re-investing into the company or staff because all those shares means more dividends for themselves.

Just look at Musk and Tesla, he doesn't earn a salary, he just gets stock options when the company hits certain targets. Billions of dollars worth and because he's not taken them all up yet and or sold them he's not paid tax on those options/shares.

He didn’t make that profit, the employees did. I’ve only seen the MD for the company I work for once in the over 20 years I’ve been working for the company.

I’m sure he does a lot of important stuff but he’s not the one making the money from the day to day running of the business, the employees are.

Both are vital. Miss out on either and you will likely have nothing.

 

[vc commodore]

Yep, that is why I left my last job, the CEO lost all interest in the place.
He started the business, but he also had others, so where I used to work was a group, so the CEO only got a fraction compared to his other endeavours.
The place turned to ****.

His idea was to put some uni educated idiots in charge, but nothing changed, because they don't actually know how the money is made, just that is being made or not.

Citroen in the early 1900's maybe circa 35 had an issue with money.
So they promoted a guy from down low, he sacked all the office idiots and moved all the floor managers to the office.
They went back into the black in 2 years if memory serves me correct.

That is a perfect example of how a CEO can make a difference.

So when are you moving to be the CEO?

You're getting on here making out you're so intelligent, you should be a shoe in

Or will it interrupt your youtube time?

 

[J_D 2.0]

For a business to be successful it takes the combined efforts from all levels.

Correct, it’s a team effort. It’s not just the CEO/MD that’s making all the profits.

 

[J_D 2.0]

But you have been conditioned to this Australian attitude.

You do realise that in other countries smoking is the norm.

That may be so but I’m kind of glad the constantly increasing excise pushed me to quit. If cigarettes were still around the $8 a packet they were when I started smoking I’d probably still be smoking, and my health would be worse off for it.

 

[J_D 2.0]

Citroen in the early 1900's maybe circa 35 had an issue with money.
So they promoted a guy from down low, he sacked all the office idiots and moved all the floor managers to the office.
They went back into the black in 2 years if memory serves me correct.

That is a perfect example of how a CEO can make a difference.

No, that’s a perfect example of how a worker can run the show! Exactly what you were deriding the possibility of earlier!

A CEO isn’t some mythical beast who stops the company falling apart and nothing would happen without thier firm hand guiding everyone and everything.

They are just a person with a job to do like everyone else and if everyone in the team does their jobs properly then hopefully there’s profit at the end of the year.

The CEO shouldn’t walk away with the absolute lions share of that profit vs the workers. Yes they deserve more as they do have a difficult job but not over nearly 400 times more than the average employee, which is where CEO pay currently is on average.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/

You keep banging on about SMR's not existing yet come out with this tripe. Sufficient battery capacity to run (say) Victoria for 2 days would make the cost of a nuclear plant look like pocket change! Not to mention throwing it away in 15 years or so (assuming it lasts that long) and replacing it!

No one is saying it all has to be lithium ion batteries. Snowy 2.0 is being built to be a battery. There are various types of redox flow batteries, compressed air setups, one of which is currently being built in Broken Hill.

Also let’s not forget that if we get on with using hydrogen this is also a battery which could be converted back to electricity through either burning it or putting it through a hydrogen fuel cell. Although admittedly that would probably be a last resort as the round trip efficiency is quite low.

The very thing that prompted my post. You deny the existence of reactors that are actually verifiably in service. Cost is a hurdle but there is mounting evidence that it is also over stated at times as well. You are right in running out of time - It really should have started 30 years ago but here we are. Once again, there are many examples of plants taking 10-15 years build time so it's still a possibility but things do need to start moving.

Why should we go for the highest cost option just because your mates in the LNP and Sky After Dark say so? Like I’ve said previously I find it funny how this was never proposed as an option until five minutes after Labor are in power.

A cynical person would suggest it’s not a serious proposal at all but just a wedge to use against Labor and keep the fossil fuels flowing for as long as possible.

That is very different to saying they don't exist. I don't happen to agree with that either but it's more of an opinion thing rather than denying basic fact.

It really is splitting hairs though. I do concede that they do exist but it’s not in any meaningful way. It’s the same as saying everyone should have solar panels on their roof that have over 47% efficiency when that efficiency has only been achieved in a laboratory.

Can we at least deal with technology that is actually here right now in a meaningful and commercial sense instead of things that barely exist.

 

[Immortality]

One good (?) thing about nuclear is the energy density - the actual quantum of waste is around 88,000 tonnes (fair sure that was the figure I read somewhere) but the actual volume it takes is very small.

How much nuclear waste is there?

How much nuclear waste has been made in the USA? If you were to stack it up on a football field, how high would the nuclear waste be?

whatisnuclear.com

This goes to my point, waste nuclear fuel needs to be re-cycled. The total amount could me much less if we had politicians that made good decisions.

 

[UTE042_NZ]

View attachment 265939

A "paper fortune" that he can't immediately realise. Non of the presumed value in his portion of DJT stock can be sold or used for collateral for six months. Nor does the New York appeals court lifeline, cutting the size of the required bond to $175 million and giving him 10 more days to post it change the judgment in the case. It simply puts the execution of that judgment on hold as Trump appeals it, which he still must do on time. Trump still has to front up with 175 million, in cash or bonds.

Meanwhile, on the same day in another court, a different judge rejected further delaying tactics by Trump’s lawyers and set April 15 as the date for jury selection in the criminal case of election interference. That's the case in which Trump is charged with 34 counts of falsifying business records to hide payments to people with damaging information about him before the 2016 election.

Trump appeared angry at a press conference after Judge Merchan set a date for the start of the election interference case. He blamed President Joe Biden for his legal troubles, although the case is in New York. He insisted that holding him accountable for his behavior is itself “election interference.”
The Biden camp replied: “Donald Trump is weak and desperate—both as a man and a candidate for President…. His campaign can’t raise money, he is uninterested in campaigning outside his country club, and every time he opens his mouth, he pushes moderate and suburban voters away with his dangerous agenda.
“America deserves better than a feeble, confused, and tired Donald Trump.”

So, Trump will be in court for a criminal trial middle of next month. Unlike with civil cases, appearing in person is mandatory.

 

[OldBomb]

Builders are collapsing because of their own stupidity & greed. they accept the work, along with people's money, without having the resources or skills to complete a job. project management requires years of experience & training, but of course idiots with a year 10 education think they can save some money & do it themselves.

 

[shane_3800]

No, that’s a perfect example of how a worker can run the show! Exactly what you were deriding the possibility of earlier!

A CEO isn’t some mythical beast who stops the company falling apart and nothing would happen without thier firm hand guiding everyone and everything.

They are just a person with a job to do like everyone else and if everyone in the team does their jobs properly then hopefully there’s profit at the end of the year.

The CEO shouldn’t walk away with the absolute lions share of that profit vs the workers. Yes they deserve more as they do have a difficult job but not over nearly 400 times more than the average employee, which is where CEO pay currently is on average.

https://www.epi.org/publication/ceo-pay-in-2021/




No one is saying it all has to be lithium ion batteries. Snowy 2.0 is being built to be a battery. There are various types of redox flow batteries, compressed air setups, one of which is currently being built in Broken Hill.

Also let’s not forget that if we get on with using hydrogen this is also a battery which could be converted back to electricity through either burning it or putting it through a hydrogen fuel cell. Although admittedly that would probably be a last resort as the round trip efficiency is quite low.



Why should we go for the highest cost option just because your mates in the LNP and Sky After Dark say so? Like I’ve said previously I find it funny how this was never proposed as an option until five minutes after Labor are in power.

A cynical person would suggest it’s not a serious proposal at all but just a wedge to use against Labor and keep the fossil fuels flowing for as long as possible.



It really is splitting hairs though. I do concede that they do exist but it’s not in any meaningful way. It’s the same as saying everyone should have solar panels on their roof that have over 47% efficiency when that efficiency has only been achieved in a laboratory.

Can we at least deal with technology that is actually here right now in a meaningful and commercial sense instead of things that barely exist.

Maybe you should send an email to the JC idol, the elctric Jesus, The one and only, Elon Musk.

He was trying to get a 50 billion with a B bonus.