Sam Berridge

More insightful GenCost commentary from @FootnotesGuy - GenCost remains a handbrake on Australia productivity, and therefore prosperity

Yesterday I read @CSIRO's latest GenCost. This is a turning point. For the first time, the report contains clear concessions that pushing to net-zero has a cost. Renewables are more expensive than coal. And yet, some of the headlines still say otherwise. Quick 🧵. 1.

The crime they see: 15,415 litres of water to produce one kilogram of beef. Every campaign, every documentary, every leaflet through the door since about 2012. The crime they do: not reading the paper. The figure is real. It comes from Mekonnen and Hoekstra at the University of Twente, and it is careful, peer-reviewed work. What the campaigns strip out is that the same authors split that number into three parts, because the three parts are not the same thing at all. Green water is rain. It falls on the grass. The cow eats the grass. For beef, green water is about 94 per cent of that headline. Blue water is the stuff that matters. Rivers, lakes, aquifers. The stuff that gets pumped, metered, fought over in court, and does not come back. So here is the blue water, in litres per kilogram, from the same authors, same method, same units. - Pistachios: 7,602 - Almonds: 3,816 - Walnuts: 2,451 - Dates: 1,250 - Cashews: 921 - Beef: 550 Read that last line again, then go and look at what is in your granola. The 15,415 counts rain that fell on a Welsh hillside as a cost, against an animal that was standing in it, on land where nothing else grows, in a country where rain is the one thing we have never once been short of. The pistachio is drinking fourteen times more of the water that actually runs out. She is outside in the rain right now, getting blamed for it.

Not a tax problem? How can federal minister of a Gov’t not understand that cash paid for illegal cigarettes ends up in shipping containers that more cigs are arriving in, then leaves the country for ever, with no tax at all ever paid. Billions and Billions and Billions every year. What was 12 percent 8 yrs ago is now over 80%. All done in full view in tobacconists, which have multiplied like rabbits and are now on every shopping street and centre in the country. “It’s not a tax problem”. What do they do all day?

Pretty much 😂

George Orwell, reviewing The Road to Serfdom in 1944: “Professor Hayek’s thesis is that Socialism inevitably leads to despotism, and that in Germany the Nazis were able to succeed because the Socialists had already done most of their work for them, especially the intellectual work of weakening the desire for liberty. By bringing the whole of life under the control of the State, Socialism necessarily gives power to an inner ring of bureaucrats, who in almost every case will be men who want power for its own sake and will stick at nothing in order to retain it. Britain, he says, is now going the same road as Germany, with the left-wing intelligentsia in the van and the Tory Party a good second. The only salvation lies in returning to an unplanned economy, free competition, and emphasis on liberty rather than on security.”

@88888sAccount Hamilton Island?

It’s not a huge amount of money but $528,000 in tax payer funds to study aboriginal connections to, and environmental best practice for outer space, is the sort of thing that irritates tax payers, and does nothing for aboriginal people.

I joined the AEMO ISP 2016 webinar and had a couple of question upvoted that were ‘answered’, thanks AEMO. Q1: how does AEMO model BESS revenue, when BESS need increased price spread but BESS reduce price spread. A1: AEMO don’t consider developer revenue Q2: is it realistic to expect 5 GW of coal to retire in 2029 A2: AEMO use advised retirement dates, VRE will cover it no problem My interpretation: AEMO are not interested in modelling reality, they are only interested in justifying new transmission projects in order to meet targets.

@EnergyWrapAU Are those answers on record?

@EnergyWrapAU That’s astounding

The Baseload Podcast Episode 39 Interview: @strikeextent (Sam Berridge) @LawleyEnergy (Sarah Lawley) Great guests, very knowledgeable, way more polite then me about the dire traits of our energy policies...😀 open.substack.com/pub/benbeattie…

We tax cigarettes to reduce smoking. We tax alcohol to reduce drinking. We tax fuel to reduce driving. What do you think happens when you tax employing people and running a business?

Just what we need during a productivity crisis 😑

@RennickGBR @clairlemon @JEChalmers @clairlemon is no slouch when it comes to debate @RennickGBR, and she raises a legitimate point which your rant doesn't counter. Resorting to insults only undermines your own position.

You have absolutely no idea what you’re talking about. The value of an asset is a function of its future income streams. If you tax income at a higher rate then the asset is worth less. The whole point of productivity is to derive as much income from an income through the production of a good or a service not drive up asset prices through speculation. If you create an arbitrage between income and capital as we have now you will drive up asset prices with no corresponding increase in income. This makes it difficult for new entrants especially young people to purchase assets as it’s more likely they will have to use debt not equity. If the asset is only generating a low return of 2-3% because of tax incentives then it will make it harder for people to buy an asset as the cost of debt will be higher than the return from the asset. This then gives an advantage to organisations with access to large pools of cheap capital such as superannuation funds or foreign investment funds to acquire assets thus centralising the means of production. The will increase the investor class or passive investor and remove capital from the owners of it. This will drive further suboptimal outcomes. As per my maiden speech in which I quote Adam Smith: “The directors of … companies … being the managers … of other people’s money … it cannot well be expected that they should watch over it with the same anxious vigilance with which … partners … watch over their own … Negligence … must always prevail …” Finally your contempt towards workers is palpable. Do you not understand that Labor is human capital and that millions of workers actually risk their lives when they go to work. Soldiers, policemen, builders, jackaroos and many other risk serious injury. The risk/reward paragon is what matters and investment property owners (of which I’m one) take very little risk compared to millions of others. Given then receive rental income the capital gain they derive is a second form of income. Unlike houses in Australia, the human body depreciates with age. We must always protect our workers first and foremost by cutting taxes to ensure they can afford the food, shelter and health services they need to keep turning up to work every day. The words of our National Anthem is wealth for toil not asset appreciation based on high immigration. I suggest you refrain further from speaking up about capitals or taxation

Help me understand why capital should be taxed at the same rate as labour (@JEChalmers's goal). If you are a worker, you will never earn a negative salary. If you invest capital, you can (and often will) lose it all. How are these two scenarios remotely the same?

He doth protest too much… Albanese’s reaction suggests Dai Lee is on to something.

@sweetparadigm88 @moneyofminepod Looks like it's getting bigger.

@strikeextent @moneyofminepod Great update. They mentioned Solstice briefly but you didn't touch on it. What are your thoughts?

Great to join the @moneyofminepod fellas to chat all things resource investing. Was three coffees deep, so covered some ground at a rate of knots.