Thinking of moving back to Uk

[newjez]

1 hour ago, Sloth said:

Who do you think "they" have to pay it back to?

This is a video about how the money supply works for any country that issues a sovereign currency:

 

I despair at the number of people who think a country runs it's economy the same way a private household runs it's housekeeping budget.

 

[Paul1Perth]

2 hours ago, Sloth said:

Who do you think "they" have to pay it back to?

This is a video about how the money supply works for any country that issues a sovereign currency:

 

World Bank? I guess if you're saying it's never going to have to be paid back then Australia is in fine shape.

Strange that I've read how much governments have to pay in interest when they're in debt, who does that go to?

[Sloth]

This is what the World Bank and the IMF do:

 

https://www.worldbank.org/en/about/history/the-world-bank-group-and-the-imf

 

 

[newjez]

13 hours ago, Paul1Perth said:

World Bank? I guess if you're saying it's never going to have to be paid back then Australia is in fine shape.

Strange that I've read how much governments have to pay in interest when they're in debt, who does that go to?

If the government spends to the point where it is competing against the private sector, then it will cause inflation. The central bank will then raise interest rates to control the inflation. Raising interest rates increases the cost of the private sector doing business, so it slows the economy, possibly causing a recession. Interest rates aren't a problem for the government, as they just print more money to pay them.

This is why governments should spend during recessions, but not spend during booms. During a recession they won't compete for resources against the private sector. That is why the austerity after the gfc was a really bad idea. They should have spent. That doesn't mean governments should waste money. They should spend wisely. They should spend to create value.

The worry with the amount of money the US government has thrown at covid is that it will cause inflation as the economy restarts. This will cause interest rates to rise. To make this worse, the fed has said they will let inflation ride. This could mean they get behind the curve and they need to raise rates much faster than they would like. This could cause a stock market crash and recession. The big danger of this will be in 2022/23. We are in pretty much uncharted territory. The theory is there. But practice will test it.

It's going to be a fun few years seeing how this pans out.

[MARYROSE02]

22 hours ago, Paul1Perth said:

Same old story though PP, if the countries like China, India, Japan don't buy the resources from us they'll just get them from somewhere else. Brazil comes to mind, where they are cutting down large swathes of rainforest daily.

I think of all the resource supplying countries Aus is one of the ones that care about it's own environment. Several large developments have been stopped because of environmental concerns, gas processing moved offshore on one WA project at considerable cost to the company, WA and loss of jobs.

Australia IS a fantastic country but it's because we have natural resources that are in demand that it's a great place to live. Most of us wouldn't have the opportunity to be here if it wasn't for the jobs created by those mining and oil and gas companies. If it wasn't for the royalties and taxes they are paying all those developments up and down the coast, the parks, play areas for kids, free barbeques, council guys keeping everything tidy, the spare cash that's around so people can go out. None of that would exist and the ones that were lucky enough to be here would be living in wooden shacks.

I've not known any forest clearing here, we went to Port Douglas and Cairns a few years back and the rainforest there is protected and fantastic. The cable car stanchions in the rainforest were dropped from helicopters, they wouldn't allow a road in for fear of damage.

A hundred years ago maybe you were right, when the early goldminers etc were just getting started. Now the environmental studies and rules that have to be met stop a lot of projects going ahead. 

I think a lot of the "extinction rebellion" mob are a lot of nutjobs who need to get into the real world. They are scaring themselves and the younger generation to death. No wonder they have anxiety issues.

When they've grown up a bit and look for jobs they'll realise that those companies they are dead against will be the ones they'll end up working for.

Until you can get the likes of India and China to start cutting their emissions, seriously, the amount that Aus and even Europe can contribute is a raindrop in an ocean. Climate change has always happened since the world began, only take one massive volcanic eruption, something like Pompei and it would change the world climate overnight. Might not happen though. Stop worrying so much and enjoy.

Australia contributes such a tiny proportion of the world's emissions that even if we cut our emissions to zero it would make no difference to life in Australia or the world. 

That does not mean we should do nothing and in fact we are already meeting out emission targets (but the Left and XR deny this). 

We should have the cheapest and most reliable power in the world not the most expensive and unreliable.

Let the major contributors to global emissions, the ones who really do affect our quality of life, China, India, the USA, dismantle their coal fired power stations and coal mines first. Then we will follow their example because they don't care what we do though China and India want to buy our coal, uranium, iron ore etc.

[FirstWorldProblems]

6 hours ago, MARYROSE02 said:

Australia contributes such a tiny proportion of the world's emissions that even if we cut our emissions to zero it would make no difference to life in Australia or the world. 

That does not mean we should do nothing and in fact we are already meeting out emission targets (but the Left and XR deny this). 

We should have the cheapest and most reliable power in the world not the most expensive and unreliable.

Let the major contributors to global emissions, the ones who really do affect our quality of life, China, India, the USA, dismantle their coal fired power stations and coal mines first. Then we will follow their example because they don't care what we do though China and India want to buy our coal, uranium, iron ore etc.

Every country in the world could make the claim “if only we make the change, it will just be a drop in the ocean”.  Everyone has to do it and that always takes early adopters leading by example. 

[Paul1Perth]

20 hours ago, FirstWorldProblems said:

Every country in the world could make the claim “if only we make the change, it will just be a drop in the ocean”.  Everyone has to do it and that always takes early adopters leading by example. 

Not every country, China and India couldn't say that and the US, Europe (if we lump it all together) and Russia couldn't either. 

China and India aren't going to cut back and they have been given an exemption because they're still seen as developing nations.

Aus is a great place to live because of natural resources. Really good money can be earned working in oil gas and mining, for just about all their employees. My son is a sparkie, works offshore on a rig. 3 weeks on, 3 off and earns about $170,000 a year. That money is spent back in Aus and his taxes paid here, which makes the rest of the economy turn over, it's good for everyone.

Take those industries out of the equation and there would be mass unemployment, recession, fall in house prices and standard of living. Along with that civil unrest because people can't make ends meet, they have time on their hands because they are unemployed and then it's the country and governments fault.

If you think that "green" industries are going to take up the slack and pay massive wages it's not going to happen. Aus is already investing heavily in windfarms, solar farms, localised off the grid power installations for country areas. We can do this because we can afford to, paid for by the billion dollar oil, coal, gas industries.

Aus is one of the world leaders in solar and battery development so I think we'll be well on the way to meeting targets for greenhouse gas reduction. Hopefully without massive rises in electricity prices and reliability of supply. Not like happened in SA went they tried to "go green" a little too quickly.

[Jennyrose Shields]

Interesting that I’m not alone. We have been here in Sydney 17 yrs and now coming up to 60 decided life is to be lived . ...back home . 
yes will leave 3 grandchildren but they are at an age seeing granny’s ok but fortnight’s better. 
I have a Son back home and they are expecting triplets so a helping hand might be needed. 
Hubby is looking to try and get a job to go to and obviously have to rent . 
will it be a good move ...

Im not Australian and cried when I took citizenship felt I was betraying England . But it dose give us choices to come back. 
Have a house in Tasmania rented out so will go with an open mind . 
why do I want to go back English weather , humour, English friendship and to spend time with our Son . 
 

realistically must have a job to go to having looked on the DHSS no pension rights. 

must have 10 days isolation and check flight paths so you don’t have to hotel isolation at 2,000 pounds . 

must have had both covid injections . 
 

sell all belongings including the cars 

Must have savings to go with 
 

Hope this helps 

[Fergie]

Hi Jennyrose 

Yes there do seem to be quite a few of us feeling this way. I think the only way to put it to bed and be able to move forward is to give it a go. And when you have kids it always makes things hard, that’s when you have to be realistic and brutally honest. Like you say with the grandkids( mine are only 3 and 1, and very excited to see me every week) they turn into teenagers very quickly and nanny is way down their priority list, which is the way it’s is, I was the same with my nan’s 🥴

So you are going to go back soon? I know a few on this site are waiting till covid settles down, but I’m not sure when that’s going to be, a few years yet I’m thinking.

where about in uk are you going back to? 
how are your kids over here with the news? 

 

[Marisawright]

1 hour ago, Jennyrose Shields said:

Realistically must have a job to go to having looked on the DHSS no pension rights. 

You're right, you won't be able to get the Australian govt pension.  However, it's very likely you're both eligible for the British pension and since you're fairly close to retirement age, it would probably be worth paying some missing years if you can.  Contact the Overseas Pension department to get started:

https://www.gov.uk/international-pension-centre

They'll reply with a letter telling you what pension you're entitled to and how to pay missing years.  You could also try signing up to the online system and taking a look at your status.  All you need is your British passport.  

Also decide what you're going to do with your superannuation.  This is very important!  Check with your super fund.  If you can withdraw it tax-free now, that's probably the best thing to do.  If you wait and withdraw your super after you've left Australia, the British taxman will take a massive chunk of it - about a third.

[Jennyrose Shields]

Hi ,

So agree with the double standards.we have been here17 yrs hubby loves it /hate it .Been home twice in the last 6 yrs and still don't feel at home here .

so hubby starting to look for jobs and we have moved into a nice rental while we sell all our stuff.and hope we get a job ,plan on just going home with 3 suitcases.

We leave behind 2 sons, ones happily married and will never leave Australia i am told ...never is  a long time.

Other one has 3 children very young, now a single parent his life and we adore the children but as they grow up into high school they don't have time for the oldies except Christmas and birthdays.. ..so they can visit in their gap year.And we have messenger and so can video chat anytime.

Back home my online business will continue hubby will get back into his field of work he loves with normal hours (currently doings specialist job working 7am -9pm 5 days a week no time to live a life.) and we have a Son who's married with one 10 yr old and babies on the way.

We came for hubby's work for 2 years ,citiezens given our all bought a home in Tasmania which we rent out and will continue to do so until we have lived in the uk long enough to know we have done the right thing.

Personally covid made us really think are we content, are we happy do we want to die here.NO.

We love the uk weather ,historial buildings ,nature walks ,meeting friends of 30 years ,love that England you can travel by roads and visit friends anywhere over a weekend.

What we will miss children ,grandchildren ........who we don't see much as they have busy life .So when they visit the uk wow so much to catch up on and show them.Stunning Aussie beaches.....Cornwall beaches stunning too.

So uk is not the same as it was 17 yrs ago, or 3 yrs ago nothing is the same since covid .Except to reaffirm that England is home 

I hope this helps others who are mature thinking is the grass greener on the other side.No its where out heart is... for us.Advice don't look back its been and one right or wrong .

Live life for now and the future ....

 

[Dusty Plains]

On 01/04/2021 at 18:17, FirstWorldProblems said:

Every country in the world could make the claim “if only we make the change, it will just be a drop in the ocean”.  Everyone has to do it and that always takes early adopters leading by example. 

Speaking of a "drop in the ocean" Fort Denison sits in Sydney Harbour and has been taking daily tide data since 1886, which makes it an excellent source of data over the longer term. Here is an historic tide station that is located within the tides associated with the largest body of water on earth, namely the Pacific Ocean. In short, sea level data taken daily at Fort Denison since 1886 up until the present time indicate a rise in sea levels of less than than 7 cm over a century up until current times. But that is not the end of it. That is merely an average, as it also also encompasses the fact that the rate of rise, recorded at Fort Denison, has also been decreasing for the past 50 years.   

You can possibly see that not "every country" is a Climate Change enthusiast.

 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Dusty Plains

[FirstWorldProblems]

2 hours ago, Dusty Plains said:

Speaking of a "drop in the ocean" Fort Denison sits in Sydney Harbour and has been taking daily tide data since 1886, which makes it an excellent source of data over the longer term. Here is an historic tide station that is located within the tides associated with the largest body of water on earth, namely the Pacific Ocean. In short, sea level data taken daily at Fort Denison since 1886 up until the present time indicate a rise in sea levels of less than than 7 cm over a century up until current times. But that is not the end of it. That is merely an average, as it also also encompasses the fact that the rate of rise, recorded at Fort Denison, has also been decreasing for the past 50 years.   

I thought that was very interesting so I took a look at the data.  I couldn't find this decrease in the rate of rise though, so I went to several sources.  Happy to share those below.   Can you share the one showing the decrease?  I'd be interested in that.

 

 

Quote

You can possibly see that not "every country" is a Climate Change enthusiast.

Well yes of course.  We do seem to be living in an era of science denial.

Clearly not all countries are equally vulnerable.   The rate of chance differs around the globe (Global mean sea level has risen by 21-24cm since 1880) and .  Should countries less vulnerable turn their backs on the others?

[Bulya]

On 31/03/2021 at 15:46, newjez said:

I despair at the number of people who think a country runs it's economy the same way a private household runs it's housekeeping budget.

 

And they think a deficit is actually borrowed money.  They also think taxpayers pay welfare and so on. 

Edited April 29, 2021 by Bulya
Typo

[Dusty Plains]

On 29/04/2021 at 22:12, FirstWorldProblems said:

I thought that was very interesting so I took a look at the data.  I couldn't find this decrease in the rate of rise though, so I went to several sources.  Happy to share those below.   Can you share the one showing the decrease?  I'd be interested in that.

 

 

Well yes of course.  We do seem to be living in an era of science denial.

Clearly not all countries are equally vulnerable.   The rate of chance differs around the globe (Global mean sea level has risen by 21-24cm since 1880) and .  Should countries less vulnerable turn their backs on the others?

Yet the largest body of water on the earth is not rising and that is the science. As simple as that. Its got nothing to do with "countries less vulnerable turning their backs on the others".     

[FirstWorldProblems]

3 hours ago, Dusty Plains said:

Yet the largest body of water on the earth is not rising and that is the science. As simple as that. Its got nothing to do with "countries less vulnerable turning their backs on the others".     

I note that you didn't share the data from your previous assertion. I would be interested in seeing it as all the data I could find, some of which I shared, evidences that there has been no decrease in the rise.

Could you please share the evidence for this latest assertion of yours that the pacific isn't rising?   I tried to locate it myself but could only find data contradicting is.  Such as the below from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Note the acceleration over the last 20 years.

Is it possible you are relying on some old data and need to review?

 

 

 

[Dusty Plains]

14 hours ago, FirstWorldProblems said:

I note that you didn't share the data from your previous assertion. I would be interested in seeing it as all the data I could find, some of which I shared, evidences that there has been no decrease in the rise.

Could you please share the evidence for this latest assertion of yours that the pacific isn't rising?   I tried to locate it myself but could only find data contradicting is.  Such as the below from the United States Environmental Protection Agency.  Note the acceleration over the last 20 years.

Is it possible you are relying on some old data and need to review?

 

 

 

The decline in the rate of rise is of seas levels is well documented with decelerating trend of 0.04mm/yr, since 1940 or even as early as the 1930's (see references below).  Long term tide gauge records in Sydney Harbour show that there has been NO significant sea level rise in the harbour for the past 120 years, and what little there has been is about 0.65mm pa, or about the height of a matchbox over a century, as suggested by Geologist Dr Geoff Derrick. Similarly Derrick suggests that the sea level patterns appear independent of CO2 emissions.

Further information with a list of other references and citations can be found here:

 https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/sea-levels-sydney.pdf 

and:

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/HaveWeBeenToldTheTruthAboutSeaLevel(amended).pdf

[FirstWorldProblems]

2 hours ago, Dusty Plains said:

The decline in the rate of rise is of seas levels is well documented with decelerating trend of 0.04mm/yr, since 1940 or even as early as the 1930's (see references below).  Long term tide gauge records in Sydney Harbour show that there has been NO significant sea level rise in the harbour for the past 120 years, and what little there has been is about 0.65mm pa, or about the height of a matchbox over a century, as suggested by Geologist Dr Geoff Derrick. Similarly Derrick suggests that the sea level patterns appear independent of CO2 emissions.

Further information with a list of other references and citations can be found here:

 https://saltbushclub.com/wp-content/uploads/2019/02/sea-levels-sydney.pdf 

and:

http://www.galileomovement.com.au/docs/HaveWeBeenToldTheTruthAboutSeaLevel(amended).pdf

Thank you.  Interestingly the saltbushclub paper uses the same data that I posted a couple of responses above.  You can see in the charts that the sea level has risen and that the rate of rise is more acute in the last couple decades. (page 7, figures 8 and 9)

But the paper then dismisses this as being important because the rise is not a very big rise and because it's less than the global rise.  I think the author of this paper seeks to mislead its readers.

Not a very big rise

1. Firstly a rise is a rise is a rise.  A rise is significant and not something to be ignored.  We can't think of ecological trends in human lifespans.  
2. In the executive summary the very first attention grabbing headline in size 30 font author states

Yet the data they use clearly shows the rise has been 91mm between 1880 and today.  A bloody big matchbox.  The paper then goes on to falsely state the annual rate of rise as 0.63mm, where the data source it uses shows it to be 0.65mm.  Then extrapolates that over 100 years to make the matchbox analogy

Yet elsewhere on this website the admin publishes "data" showing the sea level at fort denison has lowered!  Though offers no source.

So which is it?  

Unimportant Because It's A Lower Rise Than Global Rises

"The trend of 0.65mm/yr is below the world average of about 3.1mm/year"

Ignoring that we are back to 0.65mm again, what is the actual point being made?  That it doesn't matter that it's a rise, because at least it's less than elsewhere.  Standard distraction tactics.  Hey, mustn't grumble, others have it worse.

The Data Itself

Firstly, this is actual data, which is good.  Elsewhere on the site they flat out make it up.  But it's only one data source and it's been cherry picked because it's the one that shows the lowest rate of rise.

A proper report would also offer up the other sources.  The ones showing higher rates of sea level rise.  It would then seek to disprove them.  This paper doesn't.  It just ignores them.

In conclusion, this cannot be considered a trusted source.  It contains contradictions, untruths and is a classic case of disinformation - throw out high volumes of opinion, dress it up to look like there's some science and this bombardment of falsehoods will stick if it's repeated often enough.  Particularly with anyone who already believes the core premise and wants it to be true because they are very unlikely to a) inspect the data or b) search for other data.  Instead they find the core message that fits to their beliefs and take it as reinforcement.

 

I really would urge you to look at a variety of sources for your information.  Unfortunately there are plenty of grinding personal agenda's out there and people looking to deceive.  Without doing the research ourselves, the best we can do is seek out multiple sources, consider the motivation of the source and most importantly, inspect the data for ourselves to see if it stacks up.  For me, the salt bush club most certainly does not stack up.

 

 

 

Edited May 8, 2021 by FirstWorldProblems

[Dusty Plains]

4 hours ago, FirstWorldProblems said:

Thank you.  Interestingly the saltbushclub paper uses the same data that I posted a couple of responses above.  You can see in the charts that the sea level has risen and that the rate of rise is more acute in the last couple decades. (page 7, figures 8 and 9)

But the paper then dismisses this as being important because the rise is not a very big rise and because it's less than the global rise.  I think the author of this paper seeks to mislead its readers.

Not a very big rise

1. Firstly a rise is a rise is a rise.  A rise is significant and not something to be ignored.  We can't think of ecological trends in human lifespans.  
2. In the executive summary the very first attention grabbing headline in size 30 font author states

Yet the data they use clearly shows the rise has been 91mm between 1880 and today.  A bloody big matchbox.  The paper then goes on to falsely state the annual rate of rise as 0.63mm, where the data source it uses shows it to be 0.65mm.  Then extrapolates that over 100 years to make the matchbox analogy

Yet elsewhere on this website the admin publishes "data" showing the sea level at fort denison has lowered!  Though offers no source.

So which is it?  

Unimportant Because It's A Lower Rise Than Global Rises

"The trend of 0.65mm/yr is below the world average of about 3.1mm/year"

Ignoring that we are back to 0.65mm again, what is the actual point being made?  That it doesn't matter that it's a rise, because at least it's less than elsewhere.  Standard distraction tactics.  Hey, mustn't grumble, others have it worse.

The Data Itself

Firstly, this is actual data, which is good.  Elsewhere on the site they flat out make it up.  But it's only one data source and it's been cherry picked because it's the one that shows the lowest rate of rise.

A proper report would also offer up the other sources.  The ones showing higher rates of sea level rise.  It would then seek to disprove them.  This paper doesn't.  It just ignores them.

In conclusion, this cannot be considered a trusted source.  It contains contradictions, untruths and is a classic case of disinformation - throw out high volumes of opinion, dress it up to look like there's some science and this bombardment of falsehoods will stick if it's repeated often enough.  Particularly with anyone who already believes the core premise and wants it to be true because they are very unlikely to a) inspect the data or b) search for other data.  Instead they find the core message that fits to their beliefs and take it as reinforcement.

 

I really would urge you to look at a variety of sources for your information.  Unfortunately there are plenty of grinding personal agenda's out there and people looking to deceive.  Without doing the research ourselves, the best we can do is seek out multiple sources, consider the motivation of the source and most importantly, inspect the data for ourselves to see if it stacks up.  For me, the salt bush club most certainly does not stack up.

 

 

 

Agreed lets seek multiple sources but lets take the politics out of it. Look here:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/

This is the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA also nominates that Fort Denison ( or what NOAA refers to as Sydney Harbour) sees only a small rise per year of .065 millimetres within the period 1886 to 2010, agreeing with my earlier assertion and also the references and citations I provided. Both Honolulu and Fremantle tidal stations, also long term measuring stations, have seen rate rises over a century at 1.5mm per year.

Not exactly an imminent end to the world, now or in a hundred years, is it?

I also encourage you to visit NOAA Sea Level Trends, here 

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

You may note that:

1. Most of the global datum points as displayed show either no rise in sea level or up to only 3mm per year.

2. There are only 4 locations world wide that have seen sea level rise greater than 9mm per year, yet there is double that amount of locations where sea levels have fallen by more than 9mm per year.      

 

 

[Paul1Perth]

On 08/05/2021 at 22:56, Dusty Plains said:

Agreed lets seek multiple sources but lets take the politics out of it. Look here:

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/

This is the US National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). NOAA also nominates that Fort Denison ( or what NOAA refers to as Sydney Harbour) sees only a small rise per year of .065 millimetres within the period 1886 to 2010, agreeing with my earlier assertion and also the references and citations I provided. Both Honolulu and Fremantle tidal stations, also long term measuring stations, have seen rate rises over a century at 1.5mm per year.

Not exactly an imminent end to the world, now or in a hundred years, is it?

I also encourage you to visit NOAA Sea Level Trends, here 

https://tidesandcurrents.noaa.gov/sltrends/sltrends.html

You may note that:

1. Most of the global datum points as displayed show either no rise in sea level or up to only 3mm per year.

2. There are only 4 locations world wide that have seen sea level rise greater than 9mm per year, yet there is double that amount of locations where sea levels have fallen by more than 9mm per year.      

 

 

I think the trend is to carry on talking about a "climate crisis" and scare all the young kids to death. Driven by their left leaning female teachers. I say female because it's very few and far between that a male would choose to be a teacher now. 

[Fergie]

Here’s a question to anyone wanting to move back, are you going to wait till international borders here in Oz open? (which sounds like a wee while away) or make plans and get permission from the powers that be to go sooner.  

[Marisawright]

19 minutes ago, Fergie said:

Here’s a question to anyone wanting to move back, are you going to wait till international borders here in Oz open? (which sounds like a wee while away) or make plans and get permission from the powers that be to go sooner.  

I don't know why anyone would wait for the borders to open.  If you are moving permanently then you're guaranteed to get permission (we've had a couple of members here refused, but only because they either applied under the wrong category, or didn't attach sufficient proof), so it's no big deal.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Marisawright

[Toots]

1 hour ago, Fergie said:

Here’s a question to anyone wanting to move back, are you going to wait till international borders here in Oz open? (which sounds like a wee while away) or make plans and get permission from the powers that be to go sooner.  

You don't have to wait until the international border opens.  Lots of people have moved back to their home countries.  Just apply and you will get 'permission' to leave.  I don't think it's that a big a deal.

Edited May 13, 2021 by Toots

[Cup Final 1973]

Given the rather sluggish vaccine roll out in Australia, I don’t think the international borders will open anytime soon.  We didn’t wait - applied for permission to leave, had the negative Covid test, filled in the passenger locator form and booked the days 2 and 8 Covid tests for when we arrived in the UK.  We are now out of isolation at our daughter’s house and reacquainting ourselves with life in England.

[Fergie]

Hi cup final

How exciting!

and how’s it going? Are you looking  for houses, in what area? Please tell me all, I’m very interested