Infrastructure as a legacy

Leftists are notoriously interested only in the distribution of goods and services. They virtually ignore the process of producing goods and services.  They seem to think that goods and services drop down upon us like manna from heaven.  It is precisely that insouciance that makes socialist countries poor.  They just don't know how to arrange wealth creation efficiently so hamper it rather than fostering it.

And they seem to think the same about infrastructure such as roads, hospitals and schools  They give no thought to how those things come to be so and are very poor at providing them.  People who need the latest medical procedures don't go to Russia.  They go to the USA.

I think however that it is highly relevant to think about the origins of our infrastructure.  It didn't get there by accident and its distribution is not random.  Some countries have better infrastructure than others. So who provided that infrastructure and who owns it? 

A very large part of our infrastructure was put there by our ancestors.  They built the roads and buildings which we use today.  And the ownership varies.  Some is in private hands and some in government hands. But in an important sense it is a legacy to all of us today bequeathed to us by our ancestors.  Some of it is best in private and and some is regarded as best in government hands but we all benefit from it enormously.  Our entire modern life depends heavily on what we have collectively inherited from the past.  We didn't build the road we drive on or the hospitals and schools that we use.  We come into the world with most of what we use already laid out for us by our ancestors

Not all that we use will be inherited of course. But it will be the development of an inheritance. It might be a new road we drive on and a new school we attend.  But the building of that road and that school will have depended on all sorts of things from the past -- tools, techniques, machinery and the product of blast furnaces -- that have steadily evolved first in the hands of our ancestors and then in our hands.

So it seems to me that the physical facilities of our country that we use are just as much a legacy as is money left to us in a relative's will.  They were not produced by accident but were the product of work and ingenuity -- and we ourselves continue to build on those foundations.  We too enable the provision of infrastructure -- mainly through our taxes in the modern world but sometimes directly

I for instance have had a considerable presence in the real estate industry. I often took on semi-derelict buildings and organized their renovation.  Since I live in a capitalist country I did it entirely for my own private profit and did indeed earn significant income from my activities.  I have long ago sold the properties concerned and have money in the bank instead.  But the important point is that the properties I took on are now upgraded and will  be in that upgraded state when I die. I took existing things from the past and built on them to make them into better things.  That will be a legacy I leave when I die.  I will have left the infrastructure better than I found it and others will benefit from that.

I am aware that what I have just been saying sounds very much  like Obama's famous claim, "You didn't build that", so I think I had better do a little bit of differentiation.  He was of course right in pointing out that all we do depends in many ways on the work, past and present, that others do or have done. But what significance he saw in that is a bit mysterious. The most I can make of it was that he thought businesses should be thankful to the government and be humbled by its wise provisions.  By contrast, I would argue that the government is just another tool we have set up for achieving desired results. And I would argue that it is largely our ancestors we should thank for the infrastructure we daily rely on.

But what about immigrants?  Do they have any right to what is in fact our legacy?  They have not inherited anything  from our country or brought much, if anything, to it.  I think it is clear that they do to an extent steal our legacy. 

That is particularly clear in the case of Australia.  Recent governments have allowed a large "refugee" influx and that does harm us.  Our roads are now more congested, our public hospitals can barely cope and our schools are overcrowded and short of good teachers.  Such is the demand for teachers created by the active wombs of refugees that teacher standards have had to be lowered to near oblivion. Students with almost any High School pass are being accepted into teachers' colleges.  And on top of that we have to feed the "refugees".  Only a minority find employment and become self supporting.

But for various reasons good and bad our governments keep letting the refugees in and in so doing dilute that assets we all have to work with. With not a care in the world our governments have given away a significant part of our inheritance.  I think it should stop.  I don't think our government should give away what is the right of those of us who were born here.

So what do I propose?  A just policy would be to allow into our country only those who have paid for the privilege.  Citizenship could be bought.  And the proceeds would go to the construction of new infrastructure that would cope with the expanded population.

That's not going to happen, of course, but greater selectivity of some sort would certainly be fairer than the present system.  The less our inherited assets are handed to others the better.  I personally would be selective by allowing in only outsiders who are similar to the majority population  -- essentially other people of European origin.  They at least had ancestors who worked hard and effectively to improve their given environment so could help continue our work of ongoing development -- JR





Dozens of cyclists take up a whole lane as they slow down drivers trying to get by - but can you see what's REALLY infuriating motorists?

In my opinion, someone needs to drive at high speed right through a group of them so they all get the idea that it is best not to be obstructive.  Not much else seems to work

Dozens of cyclists have been caught fueling their war with motorists by disobeying road rules.

An image shared to Facebook shows numerous cyclists dominate the left lane of traffic, despite there being an empty designated bicycle lane next to the road in Perth.

The move by the cyclists left vehicles backed up in the right lane as drivers wait to overtake the riders.

The picture was posted to the Perth - Have A Whinge Facebook page where frustrated social media users reacted to the incident.

'Yell at them! Hit the horn! Don't stand for that s**t !' one person commented.

'Don't even get me started ! This really p***es me off,' commented another.

Others were quick to connect the incident to the long-standing battle between cyclists and motorists about who owns the road.  

'And they wonder why drivers have issues with them... How does the 1 mtr rule work when they are riding like that....' one social media user wrote

'They do it just to p*** off the motorist, because they know there's nothing you can do about it!!!' another person commented.

While most social media users were disapproving of the cyclists, one woman argued the bicycle path was not always the safest option.

'Cyclists are also car and truck drivers. We pay our licence fees. The cycle path is not safe because cars/trucks often drive over it,' one woman argued. 'The safest place to be is smack in the middle of the road. Get used to it. What's the damn hurry.'

A Ford Australia ‘Road Safety Survey’ released in September revealed that almost half (49 per cent) of the 2,000 participants did not feel confident driving along cyclists.

One in five participants (18 per cent) admitted they experienced road rage or were actively aggressive towards towards cyclists, highlighting significant tensions between the road users. 

SOURCE 






Campaign to replace Labour Day with an Aboriginal celebration - after Scott Morrison called for new Indigenous Day

A Liberal Party powerbroker is leading a campaign to replace Labour Day with a new public holiday celebrating indigenous achievements [Which ones?]

A week after Prime Minister Scott Morrison proposed a new Indigenous Day to settle the debate about Australia Day, New South Wales minister David Elliott has suggested replacing state Labour Day with a new 'Corroboree Day'.

Mr Elliott, a leader of the Liberal Party's centre-right faction which was instrumental in making Mr Morrison PM in August, said his public holiday idea was 'about celebrating success and achievement for indigenous Australians who in the past have had to face adversity'.

'Instead of focusing on the negative over indigenous affairs over the last 200 years, it would be a day we'd focus on the positives,' he told Sydney radio 2GB broadcaster Steve Price on Monday.

Mr Elliott, who holds the Veterans Affairs and Corrections portfolios, insisted his proposal was 'about trying to bring people together' and claimed Labour Day on October 1 had lost relevance.  'I don't think there's anything on today at all which says to the Australian community this is a day for commemoration,' he said.

Price shot back, asking why Mr Elliott and the Prime Minister were seeking to 'divide the country rather than join it?'.

The minister suggested remembering greats from tennis to indigenous leaders who interacted with the first British settlers during the late 18th century. 'We would focus on the Evonne Goolagongs and the Bennelongs and the Pemulwuys,' he said.

The 2GB presenter was unconvinced, with Price pointing out Australia already had Sorry Day and NAIDOC (National Aboriginal and Islanders Day Observance Committee) Week, which aren't public holidays. 'But David, we're all Australians. We don't need more than one day,' he said.

Mr Morrison last week suggested creating a new day to celebrate 60,000 years of Australia's indigenous heritage as a way of keeping Australia Day on January 26, the day in 1788 when the British First Fleet arrived in Sydney Cove.

Left-wing activists, indigenous rights protesters and local councils in Melbourne and Byron Bay in northern New South Wales are campaigning to change the date of Australia Day.

With only nine per cent of private sector workers belonging to a trade union in Australia, Mr Elliott said Labour Day was less relevant than it was in previous generations, when people like his grandfather went on picnics to commemorate the eight-hour working day.

He clashed with Price's suggestion that not everyone who took a day off during Easter and Christmas were necessarily Christians.  'That's ridiculous,' Mr Elliott said.

The conservative minister also pointed out that indigenous first and second World War veterans were denied the right to drink in a pub with their army comrades.

Labour Day is held on the first Monday of October in NSW, the Australian Capital Territory and South Australia.

SOURCE 





A shower of cold facts may counter coal phobia

Better to understand just what climate alarmists and anti-coal activists are demanding, a closer look at Australia’s economic reliance on coal is useful.

Apart from the contention that renewable energy is necessary to lower carbon-dioxide emissions, climate alarmists often speak of the boost to the economy that renewable energy will bring. According to the Clean Energy Council, the number of jobs from 39 renewable energy projects under construction or being completed this year is 4,400.

These projects have begun as a result of the billions of dollars of taxpayer money being appropriated by government to subsidise renewable energy. Conversely, the Minerals Council of Australia claims that 51,500 direct jobs and 120,000 indirect jobs are created through the coal industry. In 2017, this led to $57 billion of export revenue (a new record), $6 billion in wages and $5 billion in royalties.

Coal still provides 75 per cent of the energy generated in the national electricity market. No other large-scale source of base-load energy is as low cost. After iron ore, coal generated the largest export revenue, eclipsing agriculture, manufacturing, other services, base metals and gold. The total value of coal exports has nearly tripled in the last decade.

Despite renewable-energy spruikers claiming that Japan is getting out of coal, Japan remains our biggest export market for thermal coal (coal burnt in coal-fired power stations), earning Australia nearly $8.5 billion in 2016–17. South Korea, China and Taiwan are the next largest buyers of Australian thermal coal.

When it comes to metallurgical coal (used to make steel), India, China and Japan are our biggest export markets.

The International Energy Agency (IEA) forecast shows coal consumption in Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) countries declining in the period till 2040, while in non-OECD countries coal consumption will increase, with projected coal-fired electricity generation being four times greater than in OECD countries in 2040.

Affluent nations’ governments would close down a low-cost, reliable form of electricity generation because of climate alarmism while at the same time exporting coal to developing nations so they can literally power ahead in building their economies.

Prime Minister Scott Morrison said that pulling out of the Paris Climate Agreement won’t “make any difference” to electricity prices and that Australia’s national security would be compromised by doing so because climate change is a concern of Pacific nations. This is false.

The federal renewable energy target (RET) of 23.5 per cent renewable-energy generation by 2020 aims to comply with the Paris Agreement of a 26–28 per cent reduction in carbon-dioxide emissions by 2030. That has resulted in the $3.6 billion of taxpayer subsidies this year that have been funnelled into creating otherwise unviable renewable energy projects. And electricity consumers are still paying higher power bills.

Abandon the Paris Agreement and the RET trying to achieve it and you remove the legislative compulsion for electricity retailers to purchase costly renewable-energy certificates, which will bring down power prices and allow low-cost base-load power to flourish once again.

A Bill Shorten ALP government would legislate a 50 per cent RET by 2030, which would see power prices skyrocket and reliability in the electricity grid plummet. Industry and business would shut down or go offshore in search of lower costs of doing business.

The ALP is pursuing an energy policy that prioritises emissions targets without any regard to affordability and reliability. In the process, it has abandoned any semblance of protecting workers’ livelihoods and economic security.

The only political parties in Australia that seem to be advocating for the most low-cost form of energy (coal) are minor parties such as Labour DLP, One Nation and Australian Conservatives. This is one of the reasons that the major parties are haemorrhaging votes to these minor parties.

Coal is the lifeblood of Australia’s economy. It saved us from disaster during the global financial crisis and is largely responsible for saving us from ongoing levels of calamitous government debt. If governments capitulate to anti-coal campaigners and climate alarmists, Australia’s economy will be irrevocably destroyed.

SOURCE 

Posted by John J. Ray (M.A.; Ph.D.).    For a daily critique of Leftist activities,  see DISSECTING LEFTISM.  To keep up with attacks on free speech see Tongue Tied. Also, don't forget your daily roundup  of pro-environment but anti-Greenie  news and commentary at GREENIE WATCH .  Email me  here