Hacker News Reader

Hacker News

Comment by drekipus | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

drekipus

What is this comment even meant to convey?

The post is about a person who has foresignt and self-determination, what is Australia meant to do about it?

Further, Australia is a lot more isolated than Norway.

(Australian BTW)

View on HN

I think it's meant to convey grief that Australia has allowed itself to be exploited by foreign miners, and waste the wealth that its natural resources could have generated.

hasn't Australia consistently had uninterrupted economic growth?

Australia has the highest median household wealth of any country in the world. https://www.statista.com/chart/19651/countries-with-highest-...

But its net debt is something like 40% of GDP, whereas Norway's is something like -110%.

https://knoema.com/atlas/Australia/topics/Economy/Financial-... https://knoema.com/atlas/Norway/topics/Economy/Financial-Sec...

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

Australia like Britain, did not use Oil royalties to establish abiding sovereign funds to persist after the oil ran out. Instead, the royalty stream has been used to draw down debt, and to replace taxation as an income stream in the present, but oftentimes has led to wasted spend on vanity projects, or on build out of infrastructure purely for extractive industry (mining, oil, gas) which in turn is hoped to generate revenue, but alas, not until a very long time in the future. Displaced costs in forward income estimates, much as in the movie industry, mean some mines and oilwells basically never pay tax, but generate collossal revenue which disappears into company consolidated debt. Its a huge rort of the model. There are royalties, but they are 'subverted' out of the picture.

"its scotland's oil" was about Maggie Thatcher, and how the revenue was spent. Now scotland has independent tax raising powers, the border with england for sea resources was carefully restruck to favour england (look on a map to the boundaries, they aren't what you might think)

Australia has soverign wealth funds. Just, not made with revenue from this kind of industry. This kind of industry dominates the political landscape and has impeded the uptake of solar and wind, and replacement of coal for power generation. I don't mean silently: this is a quite overt distortion, active, such that major corporates actually have withdrawn from the australian mining and minerals council because its like the NRA, single-issue distorting of the polity.

In the early 2000s an Australian labor government tried to raise a tax analogous to a petrol royalties and revenue tax, and was pretty much de-elected by sectional interests on the strength of industry opposition. (the PRRT exists. the MRRT was voted down)

Mining employs around 40,000 people in a nation of 25 million. Solar and Wind and Tourism would probably employ more people. But, the voting effects of mining establish a lock on our senate (and sometimes, lower house) which make it next to impossible to see change. The industry is running the government, at one remove.

I don't believe for a minute Norway is all peaches and cream, but it probably has a better sense of cohesion around its role in the world, and the benefits of the sovereign fund, and future money, and de-carbonising the economy. Norway was an extremely poor, -to the extent of massive nutritional death in winter-poor economy. It's moved the dial to a different place, and done it quite carefully, economically speaking. (Norwegian settlers in the USA and Canada came because of a potato famine)

We're envious. (well, the Australians who don't derive income directly from mining, oil or gas)

Sounds like Alberta, Canada. Same sickness.

> Now scotland has independent tax raising powers, the border with england for sea resources was carefully restruck to favour england

The maritime border used to be a straight east-west line despite the east coast of England being curved. In 1999 it was changed so that it followed established international maritime border conventions regarding distances from the mainland[0].

[0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Adjacent_Waters_Bound...

You believe the change was motivated purely by geographical norms? It was legal on geographical grounds but was obviously motivated on assets and revenue.

I don't believe anything without evidence. It seems like a reasonable piece of tidying up that settles the legal juristiction of vessels in those waters but I look forward to seeing the evidence that it was a spiteful landgrab (watergrab?) so I can adjust my beliefs.

On balance, the maritime border appears to me to have been restruck to be fair.

Here's a BBC piece from 2013: https://www.bbc.com/news/uk-scotland-scotland-politics-20042...

Here's a 2001 legal review from glasgow Caledonia university which obviously favours Scottish interests: https://academic.oup.com/ejil/article/12/1/77/359040?login=t...

Here's closing remarks from the SNP on a parliamentary debate, that shows the predominant driving factor was fisheries, and (if you read the rest of the debate) suggests a lot of confusion about what was being discussed and why): https://www.theyworkforyou.com/sp/?id=2000-04-26.9.0#g58.1

Here's two extremely partisan takes by a pro Indy scot who claims to have previously negotiated sea boundary changes. What's interesting is the "northward drift" : https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2017/01/scotlands-st...

https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2012/01/scotlandengl...

Thank you for taking the time to do that and I know we are drifting massively off-topic. The blogs posts fail the PROMPT test for me but the Zahraa, 2001 paper is much more interesting and makes a decent case that this isn't a settled issue and it probably should be sooner rather than later.

> The post is about a person who has foresignt and self-determination, what is Australia meant to do about it?

Australia has done the opposite with their (our? I'm an ex-pat) natural resources.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com