Thursday 16th of May 2024
Home » Blogs » John Richardson's blog

crying wolf .....

crying wolf .....

from Crikey .....

Clive takes on the RSPT -- and most of his mates in the process

Canberra correspondent Bernard Keane writes:

CLIVE PALMER, MINING EQUITIES, RSPT

Yesterday's debate at the National Press Club between Paul Howes and Clive Palmer over the RSPT wasn't exactly a sell-out. Moreover, there was a curious absence of the many, many mining executives in town for 'Minerals Week', whom one would have thought would have been keen to support the most vociferous opponent of the RSPT.

I asked Palmer about the difference between the rhetoric of the miners and their supporters and what the industry is continuing to do on the ground. I noted that Australian-listed miners had outperformed the S&P/ASX 200 over the last month, had substantially outperformed overseas stock markets in the same period, and had seriously outperformed foreign miners.

Brazil's Vale, for instance, supposedly poised to take advantage of our fiscal foolishness, lost 10.5% of its value in its New York listing in May. Anglo-American lost 13% on the NASDAQ. Freeport-McMoran lost 10%. Our miners only lost 6%.

Ah, replied Professor Palmer, that was because everyone knew the RSPT would never be implemented. Moreover, investment analysts were telling big investors exactly that. He named Credit Suisse.

It was the Peter Dutton defence, used by the member for Dickson to justify why he embarrassed his leader by buying BHP shares after the RSPT announcement, despite his party's line that it was a disaster for the mining sector.

Unfortunately, the good professor's claims are at odds with the views of a wide variety of commentators.

The chairman of Swiss outfit Xstrata, Mick Davis, chipped the Financial Times after it editorialised in favour of the tax. "Australia's reputation as a stable regime for foreign investment has already been damaged and investments in Australian resources are at risk of being delayed or cancelled," Davis said. By the way, Xstrata is listed in London and derives less than 40% of its earnings from Australia, but its stock has tanked 10% in the last month, much more than local miners.

Clive's statement was also at odds with the views of Citigroup, which complained "at the very least, the uncertainty over implementation could delay projects by 12 months." Then again, Citigroup recommended local mining stocks as a BUY after the tax was announced, so who knows what the hell they think?

Andrew Forrest also seems to have a different view. "The uncertainty in the financial markets caused by the proposed tax" was blamed by Forrest on his decision to review FMG's projects.

Then there's reactionary economist 'Henry Thornton' who declared "Australia now is widely perceived as a high 'sovereign risk' place to do business" and there needs to be a law against politicians lying (a rich statement indeed in this debate).

For that matter, there's Palmer himself, who was reported as saying when visiting Mackay two weeks ago that "with the threat of the RSPT on Mackay's mining industry, many future developments could be put on hold"/

Then there are our colleagues at Business Spectator who have been calling for a capital strike in response to the RSPT.

Contrary to Palmer's claim that everyone knows the tax will never be implemented so everything is sweet, the miners and their cheerleaders have been consistent in their claim that the RSPT proposal is already damaging their industry and for that matter Australia's entire reputation.

Yet they're outperforming the stockmarket and their foreign mining competitors.

And they're outperforming them for a reason: they know the RSPT won't have anything like the impact they claim.

That's why development is going full throttle in the Pilbara.

That's why some of the biggest names in the resources sector, including BHP and Xstrata, are happily paying over the odds to buy QR's coal lines.

That's why Perth mining magnate Tony Sage (who's more of a miner than Clive will ever be) declared the tax was a killer but then bought a million shares in his own company when the price dipped.

Professor Palmer's explanation for why the miners are doing so well at the moment is about as plausible as the analysis of Das Kapital he was offering yesterday.

Oh and there's one other firm at odds with Palmer. I contacted Credit Suisse to find out if their analysts had been telling investors that the RSPT could be ignored as it would never pass through federal parliament, as Palmer claimed. They could only point to a research note produced on May 10 that discussed the tax.

It noted the opposition opposed the tax, and that it would need the support of an independent senator to block an RSPT bill, assuming the bill would be introduced before the 2010-elected Senate sits next year. Credit Suisse's conclusion? "Will it get through the Senate? This is a difficult question to answer, but if we can draw one insight from the ETS experience, the bill that is put to the Senate is likely to look significantly different to this 'first draft'."

That's not quite what Palmer said. Perhaps he didn't read Credit Suisse's actual advice. It goes on to say:

"We have modelled a theoretical new iron ore project under the existing and proposed tax regimes. Using US$100/t installed capacity for capex and US$30/t of opex, our modelling suggests the economics are the same under both tax scenarios at a LT iron ore price of US$60/t. At prices below US$60/t, the new tax regime is actually more favourable and at prices up to US$70/t the impact on IRR in % change terms is less than 10%. Given the level of uncertainty around operating costs, capex, demand etc. we think it is safe to say that at a LT iron ore price of between US$55/t and US$70/t an investment decision is unlikely to be materially impacted by the RSPT."

No wonder the miners stayed away from Clive yesterday.

The corrupt power of the unelected Jewish Lobbies.

As always a brilliant objective and truthful article from Bernard Keane.

So I thought that I could add what I have copied and abrieviated from Countcurrents thus....

Israel's Mad Dog Diplomacy
By Jonathan Cook  03 June, 2010  (Emphasis added)
Countercurrents.org

Nazareth: Moshe Dayan, Israel’s most celebrated general, famously outlined the strategy he believed would keep Israel’s enemies at bay: “Israel must be a like a mad dog, too dangerous to bother.”
Until now, most observers had assumed Dayan was referring to Israeli military or possibly nuclear strategy, an expression in his typically blunt fashion of the country’s familiar doctrine of deterrence.
But the Israeli commando attack on Monday on the Gaza-bound flotilla, in which nine activists have so far been confirmed killed and dozens were wounded as they tried to break Israel’s blockade of the enclave, proves beyond doubt that this is now a diplomatic strategy too. Israel is feeling cornered on every front it considers important – and like Dayan’s “mad dog”, it is likely to strike out in unpredictable ways.
Domestically, Israeli human rights activists have regrouped after the Zionist left’s dissolution in the wake of the outbreak of the second intifada. Now they are presenting clear-eyed – and extremely ugly – assessments of the occupation that are grabbing headlines around the world.
That move has been supported by the leadership of Israel’s large Palestinian minority, which has additionally started questioning the legitimacy of a Jewish state in ways that would have been unthinkable only a few years ago.
Regionally, Hizbullah has progressively eroded Israel’s deterrence doctrine. It forced the Israeli army to exit south Lebanon in 2000 after a two-decade occupation; it stood firm in the face of both aerial bombardment and a ground invasion during the 2006 war; and now it is reported to have accumulated an even larger arsenal of rockets than it had four years ago. Iran, too, has refused to be intimidated and is leaving Israel with an uncomfortable choice between conceding to Tehran the room to develop a nuclear bomb, thereby ending Israel’s regional nuclear monopoly, and launching an attack that could unleash a global conflagration.
And internationally, nearly 18 months on from its attack on Gaza, Israel’s standing is at an all-time low. Boycott campaigns are gaining traction, reluctant support for Israel from European governments has set them in opposition to home-grown sentiment, and even traditional allies such as Turkey cannot hide their anger.
It was therefore hardly surprising that the first reaction from the Israeli government to the fact that its commandoes had opened fire on civilians in the flotilla of aid ships was to accuse the solidarity activists of being armed.
Palestinians are familiar with such tactics. Gaza’s entire population of 1.5 million is now regularly presented in the Israeli media in collective terms, as supporters of terror – for having voted in Hamas – and therefore legitimate targets for Israeli “retaliation”. Even the largely docile Palestinian Authority in the West Bank has rapidly been tarred with the same brush for its belated campaign to boycott the settlements and their products.
The leaders of Israel’s Palestinian citizens too are being cast in the role of abettors of terror. The minority is still reeling from the latest assault: the arrest and torture of two community leaders charged with spying for Hizbullah. In its wake, new laws are being drafted to require that Palestinian citizens prove their “loyalty” or have their citizenship revoked.
When false rumours briefly circulated on Monday that Sheikh Raed Salah, a leader of Israel’s Islamic Movement who was in the flotilla, had been gravely wounded, Israeli officials offered a depressingly predictable, and unfounded, response: commandoes had shot him after they came under fire from his cabin.
The few brave souls in the Israeli media who try to hold the system to account have been given a warning shot with the exile of Haaretz’s investigative journalist Uri Blau, who is threatened with trial on spying charges if he returns.
Finally, Israel’s treatment of those onboard the flotilla has demonstrated that the net against human rights activism is being cast much wider, to encompass the international community.
Foreigners, even high-profile figures such as Noam Chomsky, are now routinely refused entry to Israel and the occupied territories. Many foreign human rights workers face severe restrictions on their movement and efforts to deport them or ban their organisations. The Israeli government is agreed that Europe should be banned from “interfering” in the region by supporting local human rights organisations.
The epitome of this process was Israel’s reception of the UN report last year into the attack on Gaza by Richard Goldstone, a respected judge and international law expert who suggested Israel had committed many war crimes during its three-week operation. Goldstone has faced savage personal attacks ever since.
But more significantly, Israel’s supporters have characterised the Goldstone report and the related legal campaigns against Israel as examples of “lawfare”, implying that those who uphold international law are waging a new kind of war of attrition on behalf of terror groups like Hamas and Hizbullah.
These trends are likely only to deepen in the coming months and years, making Israel an ever greater paraiah in the eyes of much of the world. The mad dog is baring his teeth, and it is high time the international community decided how to deal with him.

COMMENT:   Bernard's description resonated with me because there is surely international condemnation (real or perceived)  to any patronage being paid to Terrorist organizations? These "mad dog" Zionist "Murdochs of the Middle East" should have been stopped when the Zionists infiltrated Palestine and caused a revolution against the legal authorities.  Under the Aegis of the bribed US Bush administration, they have continually proved that nation to be corrupt in its policies and gives added weight to the belief that the Zionists and their world wealth are still supporting the "wars of choice" to help destroy the infant European Union.  If allowed to exist, their power would only be peaceful and as dangerous to US/Zionist supremacy - as indeed is China and India.  Devide and conquer.

God Bless Australia and let's check if Murdoch has a Zionist "Gold Card".  NE OUBLIE.

 

It's all about the election stupid!

Further to Bernard's expose' I meant to compliment his dissemination of the Foreign Mining Corporation's $100 million political attack on the elected Federal Government of this nation. 

IMHO beginning with Menzies, Corporations’ insidious take-overs of the assets of the Australian people have waxed and waned between the Labor governments and the Conservative Coalition.  However, the enormous financial support of the Corporation’s Media to the obscenely wealthy Mining Corporations and their “Abbott coalition representatives in Parliament” is immerging as a major threat to Australian’s independence. Shades of 1975.  Be careful Australia.

I cannot remember - regardless of all the argy bargy being shoved into the minds of our voters - when any genuine Australian citizen has ever believed  that the elected Federal Government of our nation is not entitled to defend itself.

And the sick fiasco of “suggested” Australian Workers demonstrating outside Parliament that they say in effect “the Rudd government has given our school too much money for a canteen to be built”.  Fair dinkum.

As an Australian I resent that – it is un-Australian to do a reverse American revolution against the “Tea Tax”.  It is just not believable and it is symptomatic of the depths to which this Coalition of Foreign Miners and the Abbott Coalition are prepared to go.

Without any truthful (or sincere attempts to be so) by the Main Stream Media, the Rudd Government has been “Whitlamed” for their audacity to govern for and by the Australians who elected them to do so.  Struth.

The infamous methods used by the conservatives and their media conspirators in that blot on our political history is being repeated in spades.

Why do the Americans allow their politicians to be bought with financial donations (bribes)?  Doesn’t that automatically deny Democracy?

Think, reason and be logical – why, during an election campaign – would the multi-national purchasers of our natural resources, join forces with a new and more extreme Corporation’s Liberal coalition to the extent of giving a bribe or $100 million dollars?

Why indeed, would the Rudd government choose to advise that plan when they could have done a Howard and get elected first?

The Australian Federal Labor Government has been subjected to the most vicious untrue accusations since the“Whitlam Lucky country”.

IMHO, Kevin Rudd, who has done nothing other than to improve the lives of Australian working families, wants to know whether the Australian voters will support their government – who they elected – against the foreign predators who have openly defied basic political decorum. Abbott/Hockey hang your heads in shame.  Did you swear allegiance to Australia’s Government or the multi-national world based Corporations?

I still remember Kevin Rudd’s suggestion that his Government was faced with a “fork road” – and I now believe I fully understand that statement.

There is only one decision for the Australian citizens to vote in the Federal Election – and that is to decide whether or not they want to continue the right to elect their government or to be subjugated by the wealth of foreigners.

The questions are this – are the majority of Australian middle and lower class citizens better off since 2007?  And can that continue with the Mining and Media Corporations deciding our future and our government, no less than any other dictator would expect?  And are the foreign mining stocks in Australia rising on the markets? And are unprincipled Liberals like Dutton taking advantage of voting against the taxes when the market dropped due to that Coalition vote? 

Wake up Australia.  This is the biggest challenge against your sovereignty since the Frank Packer destruction of “The Lucky Country” in 1975.

God Bless Australia and may the foreign media honor the latitude they have in our nation.  NE OUBLIE.