Jo Nova on the impending power price tsunami.

Tsunamis can start small, a barely perceptible ripple offshore, then they break on land and all hell breaks out. One of the ripples of the power price tsunami came a few months ago when a small recycling firm in Adelaide closed with 40 jobs. There were other signs of course and bigger ones but this one got a bit of news cover and it had human scale.

The silence of the business community is surprising, or have I missed it? I don’t mean the firms that are making money out of the scam, but the myriad of places with ovens and freezers like the baker who Judith met in Queensland. The one whose power bill went from 30K to 120K.

At last it seems that a leader in small business has roused from his torpor and said something.

“This is the biggest business crisis I’ve seen in my lifetime,” said Peter Strong, chief executive of the Council of Small Business Australia. “The GFC was managed and it affected everybody, but this is only Australia and we cannot see a solution.

“What we’re hearing is terrible. We’re seeing closures have already started, I fully expect there will be more closures and staff put off. When you’re running a small supermarket, where do you find an extra $70,000?”
Well said Peter Strong. But be careful what you wish for. He seems to admire the Finkel proposals. And he blames Tony Abbott and the pesky backbenchers for the painful and protracted paralysis of power policy. Better to blame the RET Peter!

Reflexively abusing Tony Abbott is a bit like blaming Trump or GW Bush or John Howard every time something goes wrong.

But wait, who launched the RET?

PS. Some other things that I can’t allow to pass without comment. He seems to think that the GFC was managed, is he referring to the needless plunge into serious debt that Kevin and Ken engineered? Does he really think it is only Australia with power price problems. Has he never heard of Germany and all the other places with RETs?

Be strong Peter, be prepared to mobilise your membership and their employees to generate serious concern and political clout and above all be prepared to find out what is the real root of the problem.

PPS. Tell them that Daniel Andrews deliberately closed Hazelwood and tell them before they vote in the Victorian election!

UPDATE. Calling out Clive Palmer, a nice comment by a Jo Nova threadster.

Ted O’Brien November 11, 2018 at 2:19 pm

John, from this site we saw the AGW world wide propaganda machine double its effort after Abbott’s landslide election win in 2013. But a protest vote had denied Abbott a majority in our upper house. Al Gore spotted the opportunity this presented, and somehow persuaded Clive Palmer to “protect” the RET from Abbott’s landslide mandate.

So Abbott was not allowed to abolish the RET. He reduced it by as much as Clive Palmer would allow. Then the Abbott haters blamed Abbott for the RET. This Peter Strong seems to have fallen for that lie, along with many others.

This entry was posted in Global warming and climate change policy, Rafe. Bookmark the permalink.

53 Responses to Jo Nova on the impending power price tsunami.

  1. It’s taken them a while.
    I’ve been watching small businesses contract and fall over for the last 18 months (or more).

  2. Confused Old Misfit

    I’ve sent this article to ALL my government reps, from local to federal.

  3. min

    Liberals are just sitting ducks . ALP ads demonise them and they run p##s weak ads asking people to go on website for more information . can you think i of more stupid when they could be attacking on prices since Hazelwood sold, throwing away billions , red shirt rort and Chicom deal . I have been pushing them to do another guilty ad or who do you trust with your money.
    I was told that something was happening last night . anyway my source is hitting on Kroger. Re this

  4. It seems that the leaders of every organisation supposedly supporting business et al is in thrall of renewable energy. How can supposedly intelligent people keep believing that renewables are the panacea to every problem in the world? How can they keep believing that climate change is an issue when nothing has eventuated in over 30 years of constant doom mongering?

  5. John Constantine

    Business will vote cronyism.

    All in the hope of being paid Big dollars to shut down when the power gets tight.

    Economic genocide is fully intended to cause the cultural genocide of the Nazi settler colonialist injustice outpost countries.

    The transnational looting cartels have paid the bribe money to quisling elites to deindustrialise Australia, and provide the propaganda talking points to their mentally ill activists to progress dystopia.

    Comrade maaaaates.

  6. Local small supermarket basically served the local area for at least 70 years has now closed its doors and owner renter walked out. I assume the electricity bill for lighting fridges freezers pie warmer and air conditioners has reached the stage where costs cannot be recovered. It was up for sale for over 12 months and a buyer could not be found. The same is happening all over Australia with shops vacant in large numbers in every small town. Down and down we go with electricity bill rip offs going to offshore hedge funds to the detriment of every Australian. Unless your name is Alex.

  7. egg_

    Bob Brown’s “price signal” is finally kicking in?

  8. egg_

    Business will vote cronyism.

    All in the hope of being paid Big dollars to shut down when the power gets tight.

    Gupta is already employing voluntary shut down plans last used under Wran/Grenier in the Sydney & Melbourne arc furnaces.

    Bought Zenn Energy as an “offset”.

  9. TBH

    Where the hell have business groups been through this? Absolutely nowhere near the debate. All we’ve been hearing is empty platitudes about social issues that aren’t important to anyone outside of a vocal minority of social media tarts. The business lobby has been either sucking up to lefty groups or silent on the issues that matter to business owners: regulation and onerous costs. Big business love it of course, it eliminates disruptive competition and they can pass on the costs to their shareholders and customers. Their cosy arrangements with the regulatory agencies, unions and political parties remain intact.

  10. TBH

    And I should also add that we now have a generation of subsidy vacuum “businesses” that wouldn’t exist were it not for some taxpayer funded boondoggle.

  11. Ian MacCulloch

    Andrews facilitated the closing of Hazelwood by inserting a 15% gross royalty on feedstock i.e. the browncoal. Imagine if he performed the same trick on solar and wind.

  12. Mark M

    Electricity should cost more in peak periods, Federal Government white paper says

    Air conditioning was singled out as a fairness issue.

    The white paper said large air conditioning consumers were subsidised by people who did not have air conditioning at all.

    https://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-04-08/electricity-should-cost-more-in-peak-periods-white-paper-says/6378368

  13. Howard Hill

    Liberals are just sitting ducks . ALP ads demonise them and they run p##s weak ads asking people to go on website for more information .

    Actually the liberal Guy in Victoria needs to change his pants before appearing on camera. I can see the wet stain just below where his pant zipper is located. Not a good look!

  14. Art Vandelay

    One of the ripples of the power price tsunami came a few months ago when a small recycling firm in Adelaide closed with 40 jobs.

    This also occurred in spite of the company receiving around $70m in taxpayer subsidies (if I recall correctly).

    Where the hell have business groups been through this? Absolutely nowhere near the debate. All we’ve been hearing is empty platitudes about social issues that aren’t important to anyone outside of a vocal minority of social media tarts. The business lobby has been either sucking up to lefty groups or silent on the issues that matter to business owners: regulation and onerous costs.

    Most of the staff in these lobby groups are ex-public servants who have never been anywhere near a real business. They’re useless.

  15. Old School Conservative

    So Abbott was not allowed to abolish the RET. He reduced it by as much as Clive Palmer would allow.

    And now Clive is promoting his Party with “Get out of Paris”!!!!

  16. Peter Campion

    TdeF is on fire over at Jo Nova’s

    As senior physicist Tom Quirk calculated and I agree, the Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 (the RET) is a hidden and illegal carbon tax of $200 a tonne on coal and $400 a tonne on gas.

    If you read the act, it takes great pains to avoid using the words carbon or tax by talking about what isn’t ‘eligible’. Also taxes under the constitution MUST go into General revenue.

    For those who don’t know, it is illegal because it is not a tax. It is a government mandated payment of money from your electricity bills to anyone who can produce non fossil fuel electricity. Governments do not have this power under English tradition since Magna Carta. They cannot enrich third parties. Your electricity retailer is forced to pay cash for certificates (STC, LGCs) from windmill and solar vendors at a ‘market price’. This is not a market at all as you have to buy them and they are worthless. The government supervises this but the money never goes to the government, so it is not a tax. The Act does not mention carbon once, so it is not a Carbon Tax.

    We are being robbed. About $6Billion a year at retail by the time it hits your electricity bills. For that we get absolutely nothing.

    However it is traditional law that governments are not allowed to enrich third parties. They cannot force you to pay anyone else, except when intervening in a dispute under contract law or in fines or orders under criminal law. Forcing you to pay double to your electricity retailer for fund third parties to build windmills, buy and install solar panels is against every Westminster tradition and the prohibition on enrichment.
    I said this to Tony Abbott. He said he had not considered it before.
    I wrote to John Roskam of the IPA but ultimately the IPA argued that modern jurisprudence would allow it.
    In other words, no one cares. The government can do as they please.
    Why is money going to people who have built their windmills and have no debt? At $1million per windmill per year. This is not for electricity. As the Act makes clear, this is a bonus. Sales are extra. No wonder AGL wants to shut coal power stations!
    The Renewable Energy (Electricity) Act 2000 would not stand up to a High Court challenge. What we need is someone like Wilson Transformers (whose electricity bill went up $1Million in a single year) to refuse to pay the RET, challenge the electricity supplier and refer the question of the legality of the Act to the High Court.
    We had Mabo. We need someone to challenge this illegal theft.

  17. John Murphy

    Agree with many others here – it’s cronyism and big business looking after big business and screw everyone else. What else does anyone expect them to do.
    We have known about these tactics for a long, long time and you would have expected politicians to have cottoned on by now – but of course big business has big money.
    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.” Adam Smith

  18. min

    Apologies I cannot put it up here but Jordan Peterson at Cambridge nails it well and truly re the hoax and Money etc spent AGW. On YouTube

  19. Squirrel

    We now have an entire generation of elected and un-elected officials who (in spite of the individual sob stories some might tell) have never managed in tough times, thanks to countless unearned billions in revenue from an epic mining boom and the biggest credit bubble in recorded history – hardly surprising that the majority should have been seduced by the feel-good vanity of “renewables”.

    Amidst all of this, what a shame that we don’t have even a handful of prominent elected officials who can diligently and methodically expose the massive deception that is being perpetrated. Make the renewables proponents explain clearly, and in detail, exactly what is involved – but that never happens, they are always let off the hook.

    The virtue-signally bureaucracies (public and private) should lead by example and switch off their air-conditioning when “peak pricing” kicks in – what a rort to demand that the little people switch off their cooling or heating while the overpaid shiny-bums in the big gleaming buildings waft around in comfort paid for by others!

  20. John Murphy

    min,
    Let me help, go here:
    Peterson video

    It is a truly great video – and the first time I’ve seen Peterson angry.

  21. Tel

    Governments do not have this power under English tradition since Magna Carta. They cannot enrich third parties.

    Shit that narrows things down a bit. Wonder how many governments you would have to go back and explain what they did was illegal?

    Let me see, there’s the Superannuation industry, that would all be illegal. Then there’s shedloads of inspection and compliance industry all over the place … there’s enrichment of third parties if ever there was. Compulsory union membership sounds like third party enrichment to me.

  22. Boambee John

    The white paper said large air conditioning consumers were subsidised by people who did not have air conditioning at all.

    Excellent idea.

    Shut down the airconditioning in all buildings owned or used by governments and government funded organisations.

  23. Iampeter

    But wait, who launched the RET?

    The Conservative Howard Government of which Abbott was a prominent member and this was a policy Abbott supports to this day. Given that Howard is out of the public eye, while Tony was actually the PM relatively recently and still in government, criticizing him on this issue is not “reflexive”, it is spot on.

    Conservatives have a lot to answer for, since they have been further left than Labor on the issue of environmentalism since the 90’s, are largely responsible for creating the green bureaucracy and haven’t even hinted at changing their position.

    Who would you think he should be blaming?

  24. duncanm

    I suspect Mr Strong has a side, check his twat feed: https://twitter.com/PeterStrongSB

  25. Robber Baron

    Australia needs to go bankrupt before it can reset it’s trajectory…but first we need a good dose of 1970’s style stagflation to set us up nicely for insane levels of debt that can’t be repaid.

    Bring it on!

  26. Mark M

    Here is one I found on a comment on Simon Holmes à Court @twitter …

    1989 – LNP
    the climate challenge

    http://environmentvictoria.org.au/wp-content/uploads/2018/11/Coalition-1989-Climate-Policy.pdf

  27. Herodotus

    But wait, who launched the RET?
    Does it matter if one politician started a piss-weak RET to assuage the other tsunami? The tsunami of complicit media crap that demanded Howard & Co. sign Kyoto rather than simply implement some measures which did something but didn’t knobble industries and consumers.

    There has been too much scapegoating of the wrong people. The damage done post-2007 is what you have to focus on.
    But like Europe’s intake of unselected migrants, our pollies take-up of idiotic AGW ideology is fatal.

  28. BoyfromTottenham

    Rafe, that article from COSBOA was apparently from 2017. I checked Peter Strong’s COSBOA blog – nothing at all about power costs since then. This guy obviously doesn’t have a clue about what is causing the huge increases in his members’ bills.
    Peter Campion, You make excellent points about the RET potentially being illegal / unconstitutional. I have pointed this out many times, and asked several times on various blogs why no polly wants to reply to my simple question ‘why doesn’t anyone talk about rescinding the LRET?’. No answer – by anyone.

    And by the way, Wilson Transformers cannot ‘refuse to pay the RET’ because the cunning LRET has the energy retailers pay it, and pass the costs on to the end user (us mugs). Take a look at your electricity bill – no mention of the LRET. Its a very clever piece of legislation, but like you I feel that it may be unconstitutional, and I would gladly contribute $500 to help fund a class action to challenge it. I look forward to the day when I write the cheque.

  29. Rafe Champion

    Good point Herodotus, I don’t think it helps much to take the blame game that far back.
    The real damage was done under Rudd and then the great fraud Clive Palmer turned up. He funded half the loonies who got into the Senate as well.

  30. Rafe Champion

    Boy from Tottenham for what it is worth Jim Simpson and the people at Five Dock Climate Realists are hot on the LRET.
    Jim won a battle in his local Liberal branch to pass a motion to withdraw from the Paris Accord.

  31. Iampeter

    The real damage was not done by using a green bureaucracy the only way it can be used, but by creating it in the first place. This was done before 2007 and had nothing to do with Rudd and Gillard.
    The only thing that changed in 2007 was the government and suddenly conservatives decided to oppose policies that their most beloved PM had lead the way on. There’s a lot to explore here around the kind of psychology, the shallow ideology and the total political illiteracy, that can let a whole political movement pull maneuvers like this with a straight face.

  32. Peter Campion

    Iampeter
    #2861922, posted on November 11, 2018 at 9:16 pm

    Well, go on then, 1amp…

    Give us the solutions for a change, instead of the lectures that imply your superior knowledge.

  33. max

    Replay to post of :

    John Murphy
    #2861761, posted on November 11, 2018 at 5:28 pm

    “People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices.”

    “This Adam Smith quote is often used to emphasize the evil and collusive nature of “big business.”  Unfortunately, like so often happens in these instances, everyone forgets the rest of the quote.

    It is impossible indeed to prevent such meetings, by any law which either could be executed, or would be consistent with liberty and justice. But though the law cannot hinder people of the same trade from sometimes assembling together, it ought to do nothing to facilitate such assemblies; much less to render them necessary. A regulation which obliges all those of the same trade in a particular town to enter their names and places of abode in a public register, facilitates such assemblies. . . . A regulation which enables those of the same trade to tax themselves in order to provide for their poor, their sick, their widows, and orphans, by giving them a common interest to manage, renders such assemblies necessary. An incorporation not only renders them necessary, but makes the act of the majority binding upon the whole.

    Smith’s point is that the only way businessmen can succeed in a ‘conspiracy against the public’ is if they are given protection by government regulation. If not, the pressures of competition will ensure that conspiring businesses are quickly undermined by their competitors.

    Smith wasn’t advocating for anti-trust legislation; he thought such laws were unenforceable and inconsistent with liberty and justice.  Rather, Smith cautioned against government mandated collusion.

    As Adam Smith clearly saw, the real danger is not collusion between business men and business men, but collusion between business men and government.  Government is so much more dangerous because it is always done “for our own good.”
    Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies, The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.”

  34. max

    Peter Campion
    #2861930, posted on November 11, 2018 at 9:20 pm

    Well, go on then, 1amp…
    Give us the solutions for a change, instead of the lectures that imply your superior knowledge.

    Your job , my job, our job is to tell people truth.
    Honour thy father and thy mother
    Thou shalt not kill
    Thou shalt not commit adultery
    Thou shalt not steal
    You are responsible for yourself and your family not government
    socialism is immoral it is based on Legalized Theft
    central banking is socialism
    fiat money fractional reserve banking is theft
    social security is welfare socialism
    medicare is welfare socialism
    the more socialist programs you have the poorer you get

  35. Nob

    Small business people seldom stick their necks out.

    For a start, they’re working around the clock and don’t have time.

    Especially the time to deal with the consequences of being targeted by activists.

    Anyone remember the cafe owners that complained about penalty rates?

    Corporate climbers are a completely different breed.

  36. Iampeter

    Give us the solutions for a change, instead of the lectures that imply your superior knowledge.

    The solution is opposing green regulations and calling for the dismantling of all environmentalist bureaucracies as these are not legitimate functions of government.
    This requires actually having a theory of government and acknowledging that it was conservatives that created this mess in the first place.

  37. .

    John Howard signed the Kyoto Treaty.

    Nuff’ said.

  38. .

    fiat money fractional reserve banking is theft

    No. Stop lying.

    There will be no lying on this blog.

    You cannot even argue for this claim in your own words. You are just repeating the same crap peddled by an intellectually poor backwater of the right. von Mises, Rothbard nor anyone else of esteem has ever claimed this.

  39. .

    Herodotus
    #2861870, posted on November 11, 2018 at 7:55 pm

    But wait, who launched the RET?
    Does it matter if one politician started a piss-weak RET to assuage the other tsunami?

    Of course it does and you are being wilfully stupid now. Abbott got rid of the carbon tax and the RET remained.

    …and no judging by our power bills, you’re lying. It wasn’t weak as piss at all.

  40. BoyfromTottenham

    A good point, Dot – both parts of the RET are very effective at disrupting our power network by careful application of a combination of inefficient rooftop solar PV system subsidies to consumers, and huge (about 10% at present) hidden subsidies for equally inefficient large scale wind and solar installations, both being paid for by you and me as electricity consumers. The current annual cost of the RET subsidies alone is more than $5 billion and rising, for what outcome? Destabilisation of our electricity grid, and the slow destruction of our essential base load power generation capacity.
    What is not generally appreciated is that the peculiar RET legislation is remarkably similar to that introduced and passed about 20 years ago by many Western countries, including the UK, the EU, and Canada to name a few.
    We should be asking what was the source of this cunning, malignant legislation that has done so much damage to Western economies for so little (or no) measurable benefit. Judging by the poor quality of much recent Federal legislation, the design of the RET is way too sophisticated to be home grown – it appears to me to be a deliberate copy of the precedent UK or EU legislation, with minor variations in nomenclature and exemptions, etc. to hide the fact. Can any readers throw any light on this?
    Finally, regarding Tony Abbott’s part in this, as I understand it he tried to kill the RET, but was only able to temporarily reduce its malignant effects. Other PMs and pollies either did not understand how evil it was, or knew and supported it, otherwise it would surely have been dumped by now as economic vandalism.

  41. max

    “.
    #2862139, posted on November 12, 2018 at 8:31 am

    fiat money fractional reserve banking is theft

    No. Stop lying.

    There will be no lying on this blog.

    You cannot even argue for this claim in your own words. You are just repeating the same crap peddled by an intellectually poor backwater of the right. von Mises, Rothbard nor anyone else of esteem has ever claimed this.”

    Fractional-Reserve Banking Violates Property Rights

    Now let us turn to fractional-reserve banking. It means that a bank lends out money that clients have deposited with it. Fractional-reserve banking thus leads to a situation in which two individuals are made owners of the same thing.3

    Fractional-reserve banking thus creates a legal impossibility: through bank lending, the borrower and the depositor become owners of the same money. Fractional-reserve banking leads to contractual obligations that cannot be fulfilled from the outset.

    As Hoppe, Block, and Hülsmann note, “any contractual agreement that involves presenting two different individuals as simultaneous owners of the same thing (or alternatively, the same thing as simultaneously owned by more than one person) is objectively false and thus fraudulent.”4 A “fractional reserve banking agreement implies no lesser an impossibility and fraud than that involved in the trade of flying elephants or squared circles.”5

    The truth is that fractional-reserve banking amounts to violating the nature of the law of property rights. And so the argument that fractional-reserve banking represents sensible money economizing — an argument that Mr. Wolf brings up against a gold standard — doesn’t hold water.
    “Fractional-reserve banking thus creates a legal impossibility: through bank lending, the borrower and the depositor become owners of the same money.”

    Arguing in favor of fractional-reserve banking would in fact be tantamount to saying that it is legal (or rightful or even lawful) that Mr. A does whatever he wishes with Mr. B’s property — without requiring Mr. B’s consent.

    What, however, if the bank and the depositor both agree voluntarily that money deposits should be used for credit transactions via the issuance of fiduciary media? Even such a voluntary agreement would be in violation of the law of property rights.
    https://mises.org/library/faults-fractional-reserve-banking

    “The moral account of central banking has been overdrawn since 1694: “insufficient funds.”

    “This is the golden rule of fractional reserve banking: Do unto depositors before the depositors do it unto you.”

    “The purchase of government debt by a central bank in a fractional reserve banking system is the basis of an unsuspected transfer of wealth that is inescapable in a world of monetary exchange. Through the purchase of debt by a bank, fiat money is injected into the economy. Wealth then moves to those market participants who gain early access to this newly created fiat money. Who loses? Those who gain access to this fiat money later in the process, after the market effects of the increase of money have rippled through the economy. In a period of price inflation, which is itself the product of prior monetary inflation, this wealth transfer severely penalizes those who trust the integrity–the language of morality again–of the government’s currency and save it in the form of various monetary accounts. Meanwhile, the process benefits those who distrust the currency unit and who immediately buy goods and services before prices rise even further.”
    https://www.garynorth.com/public/8305.cfm

  42. .

    What a load of shit. I am happy to contract with a bank to lend my account out.

    The case you are looking for is Foley v Hill (1848) 2 HLC 28, 9 ER 1002.

    Can you explain how banking ever works without lending depositor’s funds? You can’t.

  43. max

    “SOMETHING FOR NOTHING . . . NOT!

    If the borrower wants to borrow money in a non-fractional reserve banking system, a depositor must sacrifice the use of his money — and therefore the goods that his money would otherwise buy — until the repayment date. In a fractional reserve system, he does not sacrifice. He can withdraw his money at any time.

    The bank account depositor in a non-fiduciary, 100% reserves bank transaction surrenders the use of his money for the duration of the loan: a specified period. He sacrifices his future decision-making ability regarding this money. The borrower gains access to this money, but promises to pay back the loan, plus additional money at the due date. Both the depositor and the borrower suffer a sacrifice in the transaction. The depositor sacrifices the use of the funds; the borrower sacrifices the extra money that must be repaid.”

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/18328.cfm

  44. max

    Banking has a legitimate function. Bankers serve as intermediaries between people with money to lend and people who want to borrow. The bank locates borrowers it believes will repay the money on time, plus a rate of interest. It charges a fee to the borrowers. It pays interest to depositors. It makes money on the difference between what the borrowers pay and what it pays depositors. This activity is not inflationary. No new money is created by the banking system.

    A problem arises when banks make this offer to depositors. “If you deposit your money in our bank, we will pay you a rate of interest. But you can withdraw your money at any time.” This offer is inherently dishonest. If someone earns a rate of interest from money in a bank, then the money has to be lent to a borrower who will pay an even higher rate of interest. But this means that the money will not stay in the bank’s vault. “You can’t get something for nothing.”

    https://www.garynorth.com/public/16782.cfm

  45. John Constantine

    Who was being bribed to push the RET legislation in the form it was supplied to them?.

    Which transnational looting cartels gain the most from the West dynamiting it’s own industry?.

    Follow the money.

    Comrade Maaaaates.

  46. max

    Depositors at bailed-out Cyprus’ largest bank will lose 47.5% of their savings exceeding 100,000 euros ($132,000), the government said Monday.

    The figure comes four months after Cyprus agreed on a 23 billion-euro ($30.5 billion) rescue package with its euro partners and the International Monetary Fund. In exchange for a 10 billion euro loan, deposits worth more than the insured limit of 100,000 euros at the Bank of Cyprus and smaller lender Laiki were raided in a so-called bail-in to prop up the country’s teetering banking sector.

    The savings raid prompted Cypriot authorities to impose restrictions on money withdrawals and transfers for all banks to head off a run.

    Savers with the Bank of Cyprus could lose up to 60% of their savings according to officials from the central bank and the finance ministry.

    The officials said on Saturday that deposits over €100,000 (£84,000) at the country’s largest bank will lose 37.5% of their value after being converted into bank shares.

    If the bank were to need further capitalisation the savers could lose as much as 22.5% more, depending on an assessment by officials who will determine the exact figure needed to restore the troubled bank back to health.

    Cyprus agreed Monday to make depositors contribute in order to secure a €10bn bailout from the eurozone and the International Monetary Fund.

    Banks opened in Cyprus on Thursday for the first time in two weeks, but transactions were subject to new regulations.

    Cash withdrawals from banks have been limited to €300 a day, while only €1,000 in cash can be taken out of the country and there are restrictions on the use of credit cards abroad.

  47. .

    No no, max.

    In your own words, explain how a banking system can work without being fractional at all.

  48. BoyfromTottenham

    No Max, they didn’t ‘lose’ half their savings in the Bank of Cyprus mate, they involuntarily became shareholders! In theory of course they could be better off in future if the bank (ever) becomes profitable again. Fingers crossed for them. Question for economics students: Is this bank ‘bail-in’ strategy better than a traditional ‘bail-out’? Time will tell, I guess… I just hope it doesn’t happen here.

  49. old bloke

    BoyfromTottenham
    #2862157, posted on November 12, 2018 at 9:04 am

    Finally, regarding Tony Abbott’s part in this, as I understand it he tried to kill the RET, but was only able to temporarily reduce its malignant effects.

    That is true. Tony Abbott wanted to kill the carbon tax and the RET, but he needed Clive Palmer’s support to get the numbers in Parliament. Clive Palmer agreed to kill the carbon tax, but he wanted the RET to remain to please he new best friend forever Al Gore.

  50. Iampeter

    Abbott replaced the carbon tax with Direct Action, which is a carbon tax but with extra steps.
    He never wanted to kill the RET, he was part of the government that implemented it and has always supported it.

  51. John Bayley

    If you want to read about clueless – or should it be ‘corrupt’ – businessmen promoting the renewable scam, just have a read of the breathless article in todays The Australian.
    Apparently that proud greenie, incidentally the new record setter in the most expensive house ever sold in Australia at $100M, Mike Cannon-Brooks, is so in love with solar that ‘he is gearing up to campaign for a carbon price and 200 per cent renewables to make Australia a clean-export superpower.’
    He thinks that such a move (to 200% RE) “would get us both a lower cost of power in the country, and also a huge industry in terms of exporting power to the rest of the world,”
    Awesome, hey.
    He does accept that subsidies will need to continue to play a major part in the success of this, but hey, that’s a small price to pay when you’re saving the planet.
    We are so f*cked it’s not funny and the whole scam absolutely HAS TO collapse before anything can be attempted to be recovered out of the ashes.
    Not dissimilar to the modern Liberal party.

  52. Peter Campion

    Give us the solutions for a change, instead of the lectures that imply your superior knowledge.

    The solution is opposing green regulations and calling for the dismantling of all environmentalist bureaucracies as these are not legitimate functions of government.
    This requires actually having a theory of government and acknowledging that it was conservatives that created this mess in the first place.

    Yep, I enact your “solution” every day, via letters in newspapers popular with proles and letters to agencies and polliemuppets, with little evident effect after seven solid years of it.

    Say I accept it was Howard’s or Abbott’s fault, (and it wasn’t, they were bit players), what is this “theory of government” you recommend?

    Be precise, now.

  53. John Bayley:

    Apparently that proud greenie, incidentally the new record setter in the most expensive house ever sold in Australia at $100M, Mike Cannon-Brooks, is so in love with solar that ‘he is gearing up to campaign for a carbon price and 200 per cent renewables to make Australia a clean-export superpower.’

    I wonder how much the house will be worth when the Looting Cartel pull the last coin from the pocket of the twitching corpse of the Australian economy?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.