Comments by "John Woodrow" (@johnwoodrow8769) on "PM announces plan to provide energy relief" video.

I've heard actual economists trying to run this line, that there is a difference in peoples spending power if the bill arrives reduced by say $100, or you give the person $100 to offset the cost of full bill. The person (or business) is in the EXACT same financial position in both cases. They are all idiots.
9
I think this is really the first test for Albanese as Prime Minister. Everything prior has just been 'froth and bubbles'. How would I score him so far in his first real test. About a D-
5
Albanese just stands there and straight out lies. There is ZERO scientific evidence that natural disasters are becoming more frequent or more intense.
3
@HelloWorld-ns7gt If you can't be bothered to explain why its not true, I can't be bothered to think more about it. I have though previously about and there is NO DIFFERENCE. The input cost to a business is EXACTLY the same if an invoice is $120 and they receive a rebate of $20, as receiving a net discount invoice of $100. In both cases the cost of the input is ... $100.
1
@JohnWilson-lz6py Makes perfect sense. Lets assume for simplicity there is only one generator and one customer. If the government gives borrowed money (that's what it is) to either the customer or the generator the government is in debt for the same identical amount, let say $100. Ok so far. If the $100 is given by the government to the generator, the generator reduces the customers bill by that amount. Lets say the bill would have been originally $500. The generator invoices the customer for only $400. Customer pays $400. Together with the $100 from the government the generator has received a total of $500. If the $100 is given by the government to the customer, the generator will be invoicing the customer for the full $500. Customer pays the invoice, generator receives $500. The customer pays the $500 by using $400 of his own money, plus the $100 the government has given him. No matter which method is used the end result is EXACTLY the same. The government owes someone $100, the generator earns $500, and the customer pays $400 out of his own pocket.
1
@HelloWorld-ns7gt I haven't a clue what your comment refers too, likely you don't know either.
1
@JohnWilson-lz6py Nothing announced today will reduce the vast majority of coal used in electricity generation. And regardless coal generation rarely sets the wholesale price (17% of the time). So together todays announcement will have next to zero effect on the wholesale price of electricity. Government borrowing money to subsidise the cost of electricity to business, yet at the very same time implementing policies to will drive up the cost of electricity, borders on the insane.
1
@JohnWilson-lz6py At least my statements say something, your's say nothing.
1