It keeps getting worse

[Siso]

17 hours ago, Marty_d said:

If private investors won't touch it then it's not profitable. If it's not profitable it means that it won't give a reasonable rate of return on current power prices, which means either prices would be higher, or the government will use taxpayer money to subsidize it.

We don't know if private investors won't touch it. NP is currently banned in Australia so no company has ever looked at it seriously. LIFT THE BAN!  The problem is the large cost out lay initially. If governments wanted to finance it they could build and sell later if they wanted to. I personally would rather they didn't. There a several companies that are designing small NPP for mine sites and small isolated communities. Approx. up to 20MWe that only need refueling every 20 years or so. Maybe cheaper than diesel in the long run, the problem is you have to pay for all the fuel you need for that 20 years upfront.  

[Siso]

16 hours ago, facthunter said:

Lets Have a Gov't owned Bank to Keep the Others Honest CBA is currently the Best.  Nuclear Under the LNP Plan was for LESS ELECTRICITY than LABOR's as Less electric powered CARS were proposed. It's Pretty CLEAR which set of figures was DODGY. They Never actually Came up with the figures IF you check Back on the FACTS.  nev

Lets start putting some CEO's in prison. We were always told they get their good salaries because the buck stops with them. Corporates are always pushing the boundary. Banks have form as we found out from the royal commission a few years ago. I think the worst that was happened was one of them lost his job with a big payout. Qantas is the same, Woolworths ect. If any of us deliberately did what they try to get away with the consequences would be different. They have lawyers to supposedly keep them compliant.

[Siso]

20 hours ago, facthunter said:

The LNP did the Lying  on UNclear Nuclear and their Plan was so suss they were Going to construct it with Government Money as no Private concerns would take it on. That was the Main factor in their election  defeat. WE were promised the details WHEN they Got IN..  and THEY DIDN'T GET IN by a long shot.  Libs Particularly but the NATS policies finished Libs Off.  A very high % of voters in Australia want some action on Climate Matters. Nev

We are still waiting for an honest cost of the intermittents plan!

[Jerry_Atrick]

...

Edited 11 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick

[Jerry_Atrick]

17 hours ago, onetrack said:

Sorry to tell you this, Nev - but the CBA was sold off to the private banks in 1997 by the traitorous Keating Govt, and the champagne glasses have been clinking in the boardrooms of the nations Big Four Banks, ever since they removed a Govt-owned bank from opposing their constant greed. King O'Malley is spinning in his grave.

Yes, agree with Nev's post except CBA being the best. Not as bad as ANZ IMHO, but wouldn't trust them as far as I could throw them.

[facthunter]

The Final 1/2 was sold by the Newly elected HOWARD gov't in 1996 making it fully Privatised from then.   I'm No fan of the Hawke_Keating Gov't. Hawke was a tool of the Abeles/Murdoch empire.  CBA has been rated as the best now by competent  Independent sources. Nev

Edited 9 hours ago by facthunter

[pmccarthy]

The Reserve Bank of Australia sold Australia's gold reserves in 1997. The RBA reduced its gold holdings from 247 tonnes to 80 tonnes, netting approximately $2.4 billion from the sale. This decision was made due to the cost of holding gold and the potential for higher returns from other investments.

 

Clever, weren't they? Today that 167 tonnes would be worth $26.9 billion. 

[Jerry_Atrick]

Yes, as did the UK, France, Switzerland, Germany, and no doubt q few others. Gold reserves were used to back the currency - or more accurately - limit the money supply. I don't know of any country that still uses what was called the gold standard. 

 

Up until recent events, some short term swings and a definitive upward trend only started after COVID:

 

I can't easily find a graph from 1997. 

 

By comparison, here is the NASDAQ Composite index from 1996:

 

At 2006, the NASDAQ composite is lets say an even 2,000points; Today, it is 22,261, over 10 times its value in 2006. In a straight line,m that is a 1,000 percent increase. Using the chart here: https://onlygold.com/gold-prices/historical-gold-prices/ , in 1996, the price was $369 a troy ounce,  today according to the Royal mint, the spot price is $3.652.21, slightly less than 10x the prince in 1996 and the recent increase is because of global risks probably not foreseeable in 1996. 

 

But if we look at the NASDAQ curve, it would have given results sooner and then corrected and the rate if increase over time is better. So, yeah.. maybe selling gold was not a good decision, but it depends what they did with the money. If they invested it in NASDAQ following ETFs, they would be slightly ahead. If they invested it in Kodak, they would be quite behind. The reality is they probably invested it in government stuff they normally invest in oir pay for, and how do you measure that?

 

Or maybe they should have invested in bitcoin on its launch in 2009, when it was less than USD $0.01... Google is telling today it is worth USD$85,974.60.

 

That is one hell of a long bubble... 

 

Point is, it was not necessarily the wrong decision to dispense with the gold, because we have not provided the net value - there is a cost to keeping gold whether it is your vaults or someone elses. We haven't factored the effect of that on the value of the investment.

Edited 3 hours ago by Jerry_Atrick