Campaign Stickers: Free via Email Request or $1 Donation (Expired) @ Smart Energy Council

1131190

Go to Deal

Korban Dallas on 10/01/2022 - 12:12 smartenergy.org.au (9752 clicks)
Last edited 11/01/2022 - 11:34 by 2 other users

Here here an election is near and what better way to express your thoughts at the current Government or our industrious leader on a bin.

If you want better ones they will cost you

https://www.redbubble.com/shop/scott+morrison+pm+stickers
https://shop.australianunions.org.au/products/scomo-bumper-s…

From the Council. If you want them free Contact Lindsay.

You can bulk order them to a single address for free (just let me know quantities) or people can pay as little as $1 $5 $10 $5 for a pack via the donation link. There's also the option to pay another amount.

Mod - Description edited. Donation minimum is now $5 $10 $5 (custom field) instead of $1. Free stickers are via email only (according to information above). We'll consider the donation part expired due to the minimum price increase, we assume they are still available for free unless told otherwise (please report if so).

---

Mod - This deal meets our posting guidelines & there have been previous similar deals posted. #1 Stop Adani Sticker Pack, #2 Start Adani Sticker Pack, #3 Australian Greens Bumper Sticker, #4 Free Tote Bag Delivered From Sam Hibbins MP.

As always, votes need to be made within the voting guidelines. Any negative vote without an explanation given (e.g. "agree" or "no deal") will be revoked by a moderator as per this list. Neg votes for any other reason won't be removed by a mod. These are verbatim phrases.

Related Stores

Smart Energy Council

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 12

• 8200 on 10/01/2022 - 12:16 Comment score below threshold.
  • bkksam on 10/01/2022 - 12:27 Comment score below threshold.
    • 

      Timboj on 10/01/2022 - 12:36

      +39

      Good thing nothing ever changes! All hail the mighty coal gods.

    • 

      poppingtags on 10/01/2022 - 12:57

      +73

      Horses helped build the economy for hundreds of years - how many horses do you see running around building the economy today?

      • bkksam on 10/01/2022 - 13:06 Comment score below threshold.
        • 

          Korban Dallas on 10/01/2022 - 13:13

          +57

          @bkksam: Um fossil fuel subsidies. Do you know when India is planning on banning coal imports? We have issues with China too.

          https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2021-10-01/india-sna…

          How good was this?

          I'd suggest you do some research.

          I'd suggest we plan for a just transition. Can't pretend coal will be used forever.

          Look at how Germany is doing it.

          The price of new solar plants in India are like 2c per mwhr. No subsides.

          Solar with battery storage is generally the cheapest form of electricity and it is only going to get cheaper.

          Your job won't exist forever.

          • 

            bkksam on 10/01/2022 - 14:02

            -3

            @Korban Dallas: I never commented coal will last for ever but whilst ever countries are still building coal fired power stations there will be a demand for this fuel type,Japan ,China and may more asian countries are building new plants NOW. France is even reconsidering starting back up some coal plants.Coal will be here for decades,thanks for your concern,but I'll be fine.I'd suggest you do some research.
            https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/cop26-aims-banish-co…

            https://www.carbonbrief.org/mapped-worlds-coal-power-plants

            • 

              Korban Dallas on 10/01/2022 - 14:29

              +10

              @bkksam: Here is a hint.

              Look at the amount of planned coal plants v those actually being built / cancelled or have recently been built.

              Also look at how many are stranded assets that don't turn a profit.

              • 

                bkksam on 10/01/2022 - 16:23

                @Korban Dallas: SCAM ALERT $10 instead of $1……

        • 

          justtoreply on 10/01/2022 - 13:36

          +15

          @bkksam: You will need to update your skills or not have a good wage. There's a ton of money to be made in the transition.. If you want to let others make that money instead of you, that's your choice. Instead of whinging, get on it.

          • bkksam on 10/01/2022 - 13:50 Comment score below threshold.
        • 

          poppingtags on 10/01/2022 - 13:45

          +22

          @bkksam: With that level of foresight, you'll be the horse in a few years.

          • 

            ChatCPT on 10/01/2022 - 13:48

            +3

            @poppingtags: AHAHAHAHHA bkksam is probably 50/60+

            • 

              carmar on 10/01/2022 - 14:29

              +9

              @ChatCPT: Hey! Not all of us 50/60+ have this attitude! Don't tar us all with the same brush. Having said that, what Korban said above, the governments need to seriously look at what Germany has been doing to make a just transition. It's certainly not the fault of the coal workers that their industry is on its way out and if we want to accelerate that change, then justice for these workers must be done.

          • 

            bkksam on 10/01/2022 - 14:30

            -2

            @poppingtags: Is that all you got ?You obviously dont research before commenting.

        • 

          [Deactivated] on 10/01/2022 - 14:41

          +18

          @bkksam:

          also pays me a good wage.

          "Since it personally benefits me, I don't care what the downsides are for the rest of the planet"

          • 

            bkksam on 10/01/2022 - 15:30

            -5

            @[Deactivated]: I never made this quote,YOU DID "Since it personally benefits me, I don't care what the downsides are for the rest of the planet".All my posts are just stating facts,coal exports are great contributor to the Australian economy,so with your beliefs you have never used any electricity generated from coal,you obviously wouldnt use any steel products,you must live in a Mud hut and rub two sticks together.Carry on fool.Practice what you preach and turn off the power switch.

            • 

              justtoreply on 10/01/2022 - 15:35

              @bkksam: How do you know s/he doesn't have solar, battery backup and a Tesla?

              'coal is worth xx currently for Australia' is the biggest issue I have with what you're saying. That same money will go into energy.. elsewhere. It doesn't get lost just because it's not in coal. Perhaps if the government is so slow to push it then it might because other, smarter, countries and companies will be so much better at producing things that we'll be lowly importers sending our money overseas.

              • 

                bkksam on 10/01/2022 - 16:44

                +3

                @justtoreply: The biggest issue I have with what you're saying is you don't seem to realise it's revenue coming in,so your comment"That same money will go into energy.. elsewhere"is ridiculous.If your not selling there is no income.WOW… So telsla have no steel components ?,so batteries are not made with any Fossil fuel generated electricity?.Not to mention the enviromental issue with battery disposal.Why would we stop selling coal when the void will be filled by another supplier.Why cant we do both ?,AND WE ARE.

                • 

                  justtoreply on 10/01/2022 - 18:57

                  @bkksam: You're aware we have world-scale lithium deposits, right? Which will eventually need to be transitioned from too, but it's a step in the right direction.

                  And frankly, there are other related goods to export than just raw materials..

                  There will be plenty to sell that is not coal. Unless we're stupid and wait too long to develop renewable industries.

                  The marginal return per dollar in the economy would also skyrocket with the development of new industries but I get that won't make sense without a background in economics/commerce. Frankly it's too hard to explain in an ozbargain comment.

                  FYI you don't need coal to make steel. It's the way we do it because it's easy & that's the gear that was invested in, and thus it's cheaper. But it's absolutely not required.

                  I'm not saying we stop with coal tomorrow. But we should transition away from anything not renewable. Fast. It'll never be 100% of course. But ingenuity knows few boundaries.. hence the industries that will be sparked.

                  • 

                    JownehFixIT on 11/01/2022 - 10:13

                    @justtoreply: Bring on Twiggy's green hydrogen infrastructure, I say.

                    • 

                      JownehFixIT on 14/01/2022 - 11:48

                      @JownehFixIT: Booo censorship, I wanted to read the personal attacks! Were they about Twiggy? The horses? We may never know… 🤔 😂

    • 

      hornbill on 10/01/2022 - 13:32

      +8

      Lol. Lucky, not smart and luck's running out.

    • 

      ihfree on 11/01/2022 - 17:41

      The "lucky country" is continuously misused. It is an indictment of 1960s Australia, though it still applies today.

      To quote the author of the book:

      Australia is a lucky country run mainly by second rate people who share its luck. It lives on other people's ideas, and, although its ordinary people are adaptable, most of its leaders (in all fields) so lack curiosity about the events that surround them that they are often taken by surprise.

      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Lucky_Country

  • 

    [Deactivated] on 10/01/2022 - 13:40

    Burn baby burn 🔥

    • 

      payless69 on 10/01/2022 - 15:40

      Lie baby lie….

  • 

    8200 on 11/01/2022 - 05:56

    Also ❤️ black coal! 👍❤️💪

  • 

    garage sale on 11/01/2022 - 07:00

    i love chips more than coal.

• SydneySchnorrer on 10/01/2022 - 12:17 Comment score below threshold.
  • 

    ryang on 10/01/2022 - 13:25

    +18

    Is this the same man that routinely reminds people he doesn't run the country…? Its ok, its not in his job description.

  • 

    Lucille Bluth on 10/01/2022 - 18:08

    This is odd. 31 downvotes and negative wasn't revoked. Did the rules change? I am not for or against this deal or against you negging the deal by the way SydneySchnorrer, just genuinely curious here.

    • 

      SydneySchnorrer on 10/01/2022 - 19:20

      +2

      Just like in sport, the deal community like their politics kept far apart. Negative votes speak more for those casting them than me. I own my opinion and put my name to it.

  • 

    druex on 10/01/2022 - 20:47

    -1

    How can people be mad at Morrison? It's not like he's done anything.

• 

  bobbieb on 10/01/2022 - 12:17

  +135

  Is free political advertising material a bargain now?

  • 

    BuyoTheCat on 10/01/2022 - 12:19

    +100

    Free sticker.

    • bobbieb on 10/01/2022 - 12:19 Comment score below threshold.
      • 

        cydia9k on 10/01/2022 - 12:36

        +3

        If you ever manage to score a bargain on a bargain, the initial bargain clearly wasn't a bargain was it?

        • 

          melbstheburn on 10/01/2022 - 13:41

          +11

          @cydia9k: if a bargain appears in the forest and noone is around to see it, was there a bargain?

          • 

            Travelbug on 10/01/2022 - 13:46

            +2

            @melbstheburn: I have the new TESLA HYBRID. Just need to find out how you light the coal in the boot of the car.

          • 

            downbythecreek on 11/01/2022 - 09:17

            +1

            @melbstheburn: What is the sound of one bargain clapping?

        • 

          Skinnerr on 10/01/2022 - 16:09

          +1

          @cydia9k: Bargain-ception.

          • 

            cydia9k on 10/01/2022 - 16:16

            @Skinnerr: That just sounds like consumerism with extra steps

    • 

      chrism238 on 10/01/2022 - 12:20

      +44

      Political donations are not bargains.

      • 

        jabroni on 10/01/2022 - 13:24

        +60

        clive, lendlease, big 4 banks, transurban etc would beg to disagree

        • 

          Juice-Wa on 10/01/2022 - 15:48

          -4

          @jabroni: Some, a result of inefficient government workers, not political affiliation. Lendlease still getting billions of dollars from both labor and liberal state governments. Yet still less expensive and more efficient than hiring government workers. Maybe privatising isn't such a bad idea, privatise the government IT department and you might get better systems than the current broken and bugged crap like vaccine bookings, check in apps, long forgotten covid tracking app and a myGov system that was like 20 years later than it should have been. Imagine a government ran bank, OOF that's a scary thought.

          • 

            jabroni on 10/01/2022 - 16:43

            +8

            @Juice-Wa: I didn't specify a political affiliation?

            but the return on investment is spectacular - see jobkeeper [dividend keeper in some cases] for examples of profit making companies [or even non tax paying entities] receiving millions

            running projects properly is not a government vs private issue - its jobs for boys/mates/donors leading to poor choice of vendors which leads to poor outcomes

            dont forget privatisation would need more money to cover company profits

            Singapore has very little privatisation yet runs very smoothly however government ministers are paid very well and the punishment for corruption is severe jailtime

            • 

              Juice-Wa on 10/01/2022 - 17:20

              @jabroni: Singapore has a very different working culture. If you work in an industry with prominent government and private arms (such as engineering), you would know that the generally lazy, slow and inefficient stereotypes ring true with government workers. That's why company review websites like glassdoor are littered with reviews of government turned private workplaces are full of phrases like "full of council workers", "don't expect to get anything done", "old government org mentality". If you've ever had to work as a contractor for the government you would understand that government vs private working attitudes is the issue (not to paint them all with the same brush but generally speaking).

              Some of the worst run workplaces are either government organisations, which are not affiliated with party and stay long after you vote someone out (funny how people blame these incompetence's on the leader of a party), or workplaces heavily influenced by the union (talk about over paid, under worked and lazy).

              • 

                arcticmonkey on 10/01/2022 - 20:34

                -8

                @Juice-Wa: Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have never ever had a clue about anything at all, ever.

          • 

            martygeeoz on 10/01/2022 - 20:01

            +9

            @Juice-Wa: "Yet still less expensive and more efficient than hiring government workers. Maybe privatising isn't such a bad idea, privatise the government IT department and you might get better systems than the current broken and bugged crap like vaccine bookings, check in apps, long forgotten covid tracking app and a myGov system that was like 20 years later than it should have been."

            Proven to be bullshit.
            https://www.smh.com.au/politics/federal/contractors-cost-dou…
            https://www.michaelwest.com.au/privatisation-of-the-public-s…

            • 

              Juice-Wa on 11/01/2022 - 10:42

              -4

              @martygeeoz: A unionists perspective on contracting, the only argument that can ever be made is higher costs. Union and government workers have never been able to argue from a perspective of outcomes or quality. The broken record that forgets that for every extra dollar that's spent is well worth it since they spend less money on deliverables. Our country is going to be left behind because of old unionist ideals producing nothing but poor working attitudes. Labor can suck it if they think the union is the way forward for Australian workers.

              • 

                martygeeoz on 11/01/2022 - 12:09

                +4

                @Juice-Wa: Completely ignored the facts by spouting more anti-union rhetoric. Well done.

                • 

                  Juice-Wa on 11/01/2022 - 14:41

                  @martygeeoz: The facts are that contracting work costs more, as per your references that's the only fact they present

                  The broken record that forgets that for every extra dollar that's spent is well worth it since they spend less money on deliverables.

                  Seems I have not ignored the facts, well done for your unnecessary emotional defense.

                  • 

                    martygeeoz on 11/01/2022 - 17:42

                    @Juice-Wa: "According to my own bullshit and without providing any evidence or links to back my statement up, the broken record that forgets that for every extra dollar that's spent is well worth it since they spend less money on deliverables."

                    FTFY.

                    • 

                      Juice-Wa on 12/01/2022 - 15:01

                      -1

                      @martygeeoz: Call it an expert observation then, as someone who has worked for companies contracted by government entities and someone who has worked on union sites. Anyone having experienced the union without being in the union (mainly professionals) speak very poorly of this organisation of man child bullies. Even people in the union hate it and are only members because they are bullied to join.

                      And Government, well the proof is in the pudding. Look at all the IT systems, they could be delivered by a second year IT student with access to stack overflow in half the time.

                      • 

                        kevinroast on 15/01/2022 - 09:54

                        -1

                        @Juice-Wa: The "Government IT systems" you're critical of are contractor provided. You're defeating your own argument. Be it public or private sector, the people who yell the loudest about the benefits of outsourcing know the least about the end product.

                        • 

                          Juice-Wa on 17/01/2022 - 08:49

                          @kevinroast: Whether or not that's true, it's still initiated, project managed and approved by government workers. Which means they are the ones who set the expectations with tender documents and are the ones who accept the end product.

                          The people who yell the loudest are usually the ones who aren't satisfied that their own team has the knowledge or expertise to deliver the end product. Lack of knowledge and expertise is one of the main reasons for outsourcing.

            • 

              taki on 11/01/2022 - 16:10

              @martygeeoz: "The outsourcing destroys government accountability"
              Still having 2-party preferential voting Destroys government accountability.

              But if we outsource the Government we can Bin them much quicker instead of voting every 3-4 years & we call that "A MOMENT of democracy". What about the rest of the 3-4 years (repeated many times)?
              Shouldn't we treat them as contractors & renew the contract only if they improve the wellbeing of the majority (not the establishment)?

      • 

        Bidet Mate on 11/01/2022 - 07:38

        agree

      • 

        tm001 on 15/01/2022 - 16:42

        Especially such poor ones. Look elsewhere to see how you end up voting for left… USA, Europe,…

    • 

      Mr Bargain Hunter on 10/01/2022 - 12:40

      +115

      I’d gladly put this free sticker on my bin.

      (Profanity) Scomo.

      Could’ve easily made Rapid Antigen Tests free for everyone, taxpayers would’ve been happy for it. Instead we now have major shortages and vulnerable people have to stand hours in line for it, PCR tests have ridiculous lines of people and cars. Scomo doesn’t care as he sips coconuts with trips to Hawaii from taxpayer money

      • 

        JoBevo on 10/01/2022 - 13:16

        +10

        Instead of buying (profanity) tanks he should have given us RAT tests.

      • 

        [Deactivated] on 10/01/2022 - 13:23

        Shouldn't it be on the RED bin instead of the yellow one?

      • 

        maverickjohn on 10/01/2022 - 13:39

        -8

        They shouldn't make it free.
        You don't understand the financial burden of healthcare.
        We are so lucky in this country to still have free healthcare. But with the amount of entitled people such as yourself. This country will not sustain this approach.
        People of this country should start appreciating just how lucky we are to have the health service we have. We are one of the few remaining countries with free health care.

        • 

          DrScavenger on 10/01/2022 - 13:46

          +14

          @maverickjohn: Few remaining countries with free health care?? My man usa is one of the few remaining countries who doesn't have free health care among developed countries.

          • 

            Yve on 10/01/2022 - 16:45

            +2

            @DrScavenger: I'm not sure if they're referring to healthcare since they're incorrect but I can understand his point.
            A more correct analysis would be that the Australian government has been burdened with the cost of welfare which (I believe) should be paid to people in order to reduce social inequality and much more… Therefore is not 'incorrect' to say that we're privileged to live in a country which offers such welfare (Child care subsidy, Pensions, Disability support, Career Allowance… etc).
            Welfare has a heavy burden on our economic system and it only has been increasing as of recent years. With a 0.1% RBA Interest rate, our country has little left in terms of monetary and fiscal policy to strengthen the economy or to provide for more in terms of welfare.
            That's why those who are aware of the situation of the economy seemingly have no choice but to support the liberal party instead despite its many issues.

            • 

              bchliu on 10/01/2022 - 22:22

              +5

              @Yve: LOLOLOL.. OMG.. American Conservative Capitalist arguments here to privatise the Health care system and become another America where people die every day without healthcare and buying insulin costs 10-20x more than it is today. Because.. "Capitalism is fantastic and perfect".

              Maybe.. the government should stop listening to the Bullshite coming out of America through their "Independent" ASPI "think tank" to spend many billions of dollars on military hardware and useless nuclear Submarines that crash into nothing for no reason. Or start taxing large corporations properly by weeding out their methods of tax havens and making them contribute to Australian society.

              • 

                Yve on 10/01/2022 - 22:49

                +4

                @bchliu: Stop tunneling, I never mentioned anything about privatising healthcare.

                • 

                  bchliu on 10/01/2022 - 22:52

                  +1

                  @Yve: No.. but all your arguments are based on the same arguments as privatising healthcare in US. One thing leads to another (and not slippery slope either in this case).

                  • 

                    Yve on 10/01/2022 - 23:02

                    +1

                    @bchliu: A weakened economy is not correlated with healthcare privatisation or capitalism/democracy. You should really learn more about economics before you make such statements. A socialist country can have a strong economy just like how a capitalist country can have a strong economy.
                    Successful countries are successful because of sound economic policy and that applies to socialist and capitalist countries.
                    It's blanket sentiment like 'your arguments are based on the same arguments as privatising healthcare' is what weakens our labour party.

                    Your argument would be slightly better but still incorrect if you suggested that "American conservative capitalists argue for the usage of laissez faire policies to maximise economic output as a means to strengthen the economy. However the pitfalls of that statement lies in how social inequality is amplified through the privatisation of healthcare." However that it still irrelevant to what I'm saying because fiscal (in this case) and monetary policy is not really related to the privatisation of welfare.

                    • 

                      1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 11:36

                      +2

                      @Yve:

                      A socialist country can have a strong economy

                      Feel free to provide examples….

              • 

                1st-Amendment on 10/01/2022 - 22:55

                +4

                @bchliu:

                LOLOLOL.. OMG..

                Is that what passes for an argument to you?

                Healthcare IS a basic human right.

                Just saying stuff doesn't make it true…

          • 

            1st-Amendment on 10/01/2022 - 22:53

            +2

            @DrScavenger:

            My man usa is one of the few remaining countries who doesn't have free health care

            Australia's healthcare isn't free either. You pay a medicare levy, and if you earn above a certain income you will also pay insurance.

            • 

              DrScavenger on 11/01/2022 - 00:00

              @1st-Amendment: Yes well nothing is free. But it's cheaper this way overall

              • 

                1st-Amendment on 12/01/2022 - 09:13

                @DrScavenger:

                Yes well nothing is free. But it's cheaper this way overall

                So when your life is on the line you prefer the cheap option?
                You get what you pay for, and the US healthcare industry is more expensive because it offers higher quality solution. It might not extend to as many people, but if you are not dirt poor, you get a lot better options than anywhere else in the world.

        • 

          bchliu on 10/01/2022 - 22:26

          +1

          @maverickjohn: Healthcare IS a basic human right. NOT a luxury.

          Simple fact: If a country that doesn't have a healthy population, then how can they "produce" effectively? Especially if only the laziest rich are the only people to be ENTITLED to healthcare, then who's left to actually do the work to "produce"?

          • 

            maverickjohn on 11/01/2022 - 00:12

            +1

            @bchliu: I don't disagree, I'm just saying if we are expecting everything to be for free what is now a right may become a luxury.

      • 

        marbles on 10/01/2022 - 20:03

        +3

        What does your post have to do with this 'bargain'

      • 

        1st-Amendment on 10/01/2022 - 22:32

        +5

        Could’ve easily made Rapid Antigen Tests free for everyone, taxpayers would’ve been happy for it.

        I'm a taxpayer and I'm not happy to pay for it. Why do lefties always think they get to speak for others?

      • 

        garddn on 11/01/2022 - 07:53

        +4

        Nothing is free. Someone end up paying. This time the tax payer.
        Pretty sick of this free mentality that commies love.

      • 

        twjr on 11/01/2022 - 10:00

        +2

        The tests should be provided for free because it makes economic sense to do so. What is the opportunity cost of not providing the tests? I suspect that is is significantly more than providing adequate testing resources would be.

        Given that ANZ's consumer spending data shows that the start of this year has been as slow as any point in the pandemic, there is likely a corresponding drop in consumer confidence. Humans are pretty risk averse when confronted with perceived unknown and uncontrolled dangers. If we test more people then we will feel more comfortable that the risk is known and controlled. One way to improve consumer confidence, and in turn improved spending, would be to provide people with enough testing to assure people that they weren't going to be constantly exposed to a highly infectious virus.

        Assuming you want the economic impacts of the pandemic to be short, the people you want to encourage to spend are those with disposable income. Now you could argue that they could spend that disposable income on getting tested but that's a little pointless as they now no longer have that money to spend elsewhere in the economy. It is even worse if people are avoiding work because they aren't able to access tests as that will be harming productivity in addition to spending.

        Economies of scale also mean governments are capable of buying the tests much more cheaply than you or I can as individuals. Then there's the price inelasticity of healthcare which makes it much more susceptible to price gouging.

        Basically there are no good economic reasons I can think of for the government not to make them free. Sorry, other than lining the pockets of for-profit businesses making a killing on selling the tests; businesses that are likely donors to the LNP.

        That's without discussing the health and ethical reasons to make them free.

        To me, it appears that the government has absolutely cocked up planning and procurement then made a wholly ideological decision not to provide them for free when painted into a corner.

        • 

          loki niflheim on 12/01/2022 - 13:45

          @twjr: Adding to twjr's comment, the PCR/RAT test consumption will be most likely highest for some jobs and not others. Those interfacing with other people would have higher need for the tests as opposed to a WFH programmer. That's also should've been part of the consideration/distribution strategy. These people-facing jobs are not necessarily high-paying jobs (actually most people-facing jobs are not high-paying jobs).

          Making essential items for public good free have also shown to be the better approach historically as otherwise you'll find some selfish individuals hoarding them and selling them online at marked up prices, which defeats the purpose of the item. This was what happened to the vaccine. Consider the situation where the vaccine was not free?

        • 

          1st-Amendment on 13/01/2022 - 11:37

          +3

          @twjr:

          The tests should be provided for free because it makes economic sense to do so.

          Does it? Feel free to show your calculations because just saying something doesn't make it true

          What is the opportunity cost of not providing the tests?

          If you don't know this then how can you claim it to make economic sense? Logic does not compute.

          Mass testing is to support the suppression strategy, which was never going to work. That is slowly starting to sink in now despite many people calling this out 2 years ago.

          Humans are pretty risk averse when confronted with perceived unknown

          The unknown has nothing to with the virus and everything to do with arbitrary restrictions being imposed completely randomly. No amount of extremely costly testing changes this.

          Basically there are no good economic reasons I can think of for the government not to make them free

          Yeah but 'what you think' is not how economics work. You need to show a demonstrable economic benefit for something to make economic sense. So if you have that, let's see it.

          • 

            twjr on 13/01/2022 - 17:24

            @1st-Amendment: Assuming the government buys the tests on the wholesale market and that people test only as required based on current testing recommendations:

            Wholesale cost (less than $3) x number of tests (n) < private cost (more than $10) x number of tests (n)

            What arbitrary restrictions are currently in place now that weren't at the end of last year that would explain the decline in retail spending to the lowest point since the pandemic began?

            • 

              1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 11:26

              +2

              @twjr:

              Wholesale cost (less than $3(news.com.au)) x number of tests (n) < private cost (more than $10) x number of tests (n)

              Currently the cost to me and many people I know is $0. $0 wins.

              What arbitrary restrictions are currently in place now that weren't at the end of last year

              Are you serious?
              Lock down, no lock down, interstate travel, no interstate travel, QR code, no QR code, Mask, no mask, singing, no singing, dancing, no dancing, 14 day isolation, 10 day isolation, 7 day isolation, all close contacts, only contacts you share a house with for more than 4 hours etc etc…

              This shit changes every week on a completely arbitrary basis. Try running a business under that regulatory environment and see how you go.

          • 

            ihfree on 13/01/2022 - 17:55

            +1

            @1st-Amendment: Modelling by Flinders University suggests it would save the government money.

            • 

              1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 11:28

              +2

              @ihfree:

              modelling…

              Lol modelling….
              Is this the same modelling that predicted an October peak? Or the modelling that said we'd have 200,000 deaths? Or the modelling that said the arctic would be ice free in 10 years 40 years ago?

              Models are just best guesses. The media love them because they are all arts school grads who have no idea how scientific models work. Don't fall into that trap.

              • 

                ihfree on 14/01/2022 - 12:03

                -1

                @1st-Amendment:

                Modelling by Flinders University

                Modelling a virus or global temperatures and costs associated with tests is quite different. There is a lot more confidence around the prices of PCR tests and RATs.

                Nice straw man, though.

                • 

                  1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 12:08

                  +2

                  @ihfree:

                  Nice straw man, though.

                  Your argument was based on modelling and I argued against the reliability of modelling. So not only do you not understand how modelling works, you also don't know what a straw man is. Well done…

                  • 

                    ihfree on 14/01/2022 - 12:10

                    @1st-Amendment: You're attacking the modelling for tests by attacking modelling for covid and global warming. Sounds like a straw man to me. They're very different - on scale and known data going into the models.

                    • 

                      1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 12:16

                      +1

                      @ihfree:

                      Sounds like a straw man to me.

                      This is not inconsistent with my claim.

                      Models are still best guesses no matter how you try to spin that… but don't just take my word for it: https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/finance-why-econo…

                      • 

                        ihfree on 14/01/2022 - 12:19

                        @1st-Amendment:

                        Why Economic Models Are Always Wrong

                        An article on the 2008 financial crash. Once again, they're very different - on scale and known data going into the models.

                        • 

                          1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 12:26

                          +1

                          @ihfree:

                          they're very different

                          Sure, because you say so.
                          Cognitive dissonance is a beautiful thing lol…

                          • 

                            ihfree on 14/01/2022 - 12:35

                            @1st-Amendment:

                            Sure, because you say so.

                            Well, to start with, we know the costs of tests:

                            • PCR tests about $150.
                            • RAT - $3/test.

                            Other aspects such as cost to the economy based on additional testing would likely be harder to model accurately. With or without the modelling, there are other reasons to do it - eg: protecting vulnerable people(We live in a society!), preventing supply chain collapse, etc .

                            Cognitive dissonance

                            Yes, yes it is.

                            • 

                              1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 12:44

                              +1

                              @ihfree:

                              Other aspects such as cost to the economy based on additional testing would likely be harder to model accurately.

                              Yet here you are lol…

                              • 

                                ihfree on 14/01/2022 - 15:20

                                -2

                                @1st-Amendment: There are a few issues here:

                                • Media representation of modelling
                                • What is being modelled
                                • The complexity of what is being modelled
                                • Your training by Sky News to distrust science

                                I'm a taxpayer and I'm not happy to pay for it. Why do lefties always think they get to speak for others?

                                If testing is deemed necessary, i'd prefer the government pays less for it. It's good to reevaluate a strategy rather than writing off changes as "lol modelling."

                                Secondly, I'd prefer to not to be subsidising fossil fuels and instead let the market dictate, interfering with markets like news and tech or paying for anything on this list https://www.mdavis.xyz/govlist/

                                • 

                                  UncleRico on 14/01/2022 - 16:08

                                  @ihfree: Only fossil fuels, or you're also against the comparatively larger subsidies for solar and renewables?

                                  • 

                                    ihfree on 14/01/2022 - 16:16

                                    @UncleRico: Got a link to confirm that? IIRC, it's the other way round.

                                • 

                                  1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 17:10

                                  @ihfree:

                                  Your training by Sky News to distrust science

                                  So since you don't understand what a straw man is, this a great example. It's even funnier when you're try to claim I'm anti-science when I'm the one giving the references reputable science websites to support my position and you're only giving media stories that don't even link to the original study. Excellent demonstration

                                  If testing is deemed necessary, i'd prefer the government pays less for it.

                                  Good for you. Now learn to separate your opinion and/or modelling from actual facts.

                                  Secondly, I'd prefer to not to be subsidising fossil fuels…

                                  Cool story, so now you're out of ideas you're changing the subject to an Anti-Liberal party rant?

                                  • 

                                    ihfree on 14/01/2022 - 17:28

                                    @1st-Amendment: Never said I'm above it. Lol your reference is about "economic modelling" but nice try trying to twist it to suit your agenda.

                                    I made the assumption after seeing you use the divisive term "lefty." Besides from showing your simple thinking, it's a fair assumption you're a Rupert fan.

                                    Good for you. Now learn to separate your opinion and/or modelling from actual facts.

                                    Lel.

                                    Anti-Liberal party rant?

                                    Not really anti-liberal unless Liberal means propping up failing markets and corruption. If you can't separate Liberal ideology from corruption, I feel sorry for you.

                                    The Liberals have their hands tied by Beetroot otherwise they'd likely have a greener policy.

                                    • 

                                      1st-Amendment on 14/01/2022 - 20:02

                                      @ihfree:

                                      I made the assumption

                                      Of course you did. Guessing is the same as a fact to you, you've made that abundantly clear.

• 1
• 2
• 3
• 4
• 5
• 6
• …
• 12