What an amazing argument - it comes to "take this medicine, it will make you sick but you will be better off for it"
...there are countries today that would have higher GDP per head if they'd never discovered oil.
Which countries and what's the point he is making? Is he implying that we'd be better off without a resources boom? Is he saying that by taxing their super profits (whatever they are) we can somehow reduce the risks of having a booming sector? I don't understand his point at all because he goes on to a convoluted argument that the are in fact goinmg to be better off with increased taxes..
Swan said the success of the resource sector drives up the exchange rate, making it hard for other Australian industries to find export markets and compete for skilled workers.
So what's the solution to that - tax them more? Does that reduce the claimed impact on the exchange rate? My understanding of the rest of his argument is that the sector will still grow.
Before PRRT, all the discussion was about the short remaining life of Bass Strait resources. Today Bass Strait is the largest producer of crude oil and second-largest producer of LPG and condensate in Australia, he said.
Let me try to understand this one. PRRT took away all the concerns relating to the life of the resource and the increased taxes gave them a kick-a-long.
