How to Invest Outside the Government-Controlled System

Gino, even though there is clearly an issue with some unemployed people in rural areas, but many are linked with Australia food basket. Many are also self employed and pay taxes. Many are millionaires.

I only perceive it being fair to cater for those whom have been doing the right thing out in rural areas.

Also, got to make sure you help out those private companies digging holes.
Remember, Australia is broke without the mining boom.
.

 

Ha Ha. You should go into politics. I'f you could keep a straight face while saying it in an earnest voice I'm sure could sell that crap to enough of your electorate.

 

I should add...

When Telstra came out with the world's first rolled out mobile internet, and I was one of the first customers to jump on, Investors worldwide applauded Australia for such a bold move. Much upfront capital was needed, and it had clearly paid off as it attracted foreign investment into Australia.
The same can be said for the NBN (or whatever the hell they decide to name it). Australia will be far more attractive to foreign investors.

Telstra copped alot of shyt for suggesting a mobile broadband, but now they are laughing.

Why should we say no to a company wishing to setup a warehouse in the outback? If it means revenue...

You need to invest money to make money (as the expression/saying goes).

 

Give it time, our Government will do the right by us and sell off our NBN asset to pay off a bit of debt. It's the Aussie way.

 

I first need a Pardon from Her Majesty for my convictions... not that I had considered it or anything... :lol:

 

Yes. Still technically inconsistent. Should have NO government whatsoever.

However, at least Gino is trying to severely constrain the role of Government to wield it's monopoly on violence to direct flows (not choke them off) not to actively build monopolistic assets.

 

He's talking about the government not providing what is now a basic utility to the community and instead having it actually play nanny to his kids.

 

Yay! No Government provision of a basic utility. Bring it on.

Educating and playing nanny to my kids. NO! Bad Government! Down Boy! Down! (Will you please stop humping my wallet.)

 

I'm really not sure how things become this confused...

Governments are supposed to provide basic services to their citizens.

Parents are supposed to look after their children.

 

+1.
It's fantastic to know I will be subsidising this for you Big AD. It's makes me warm and fuzzy to know I saved you the inconvenience of 2 overseas junkets. You're welcome.
This fits perfectly with the mantra of the current government.

 

No, that is not at all what I said and I further clarified the benefit I would receive "if the government wanted to do something for me ..." in the same context as its regulating road traffic. To pretend you did not understand what I said is very disingenuous and troll like.

But, your efforts to cast my comment as hypocrisy with a side serving of poor parenting skills is really below your standard Big A.D. and completely undeserved I reckon. I could be insulted if I didn't understand your supportive position of big government and their perogative to tax and spend at their discretion. But there is just no defending the indefensible. It's a waste of energy even trying.

 

My apologies if I offended you. It was not my intention.

What I was trying to point out was that there are some things that can be done perfectly well by the private sector - voluntary internet filtering packages for example - and we know this because those things exist and there is a healthy market for them. By the same token, there are some things the private sector isn't very good at - massive, nationwide infrastructure projects - and where the market is unable or unwilling to provide those things that would provide people with a great benefit, it is entirely appropriate for the government to provide them.

In the case of the NBN, the cost per person is actually very, very small when you consider the huge benefits it can bring to our economy and our society.

 

Cheers, and I'll be happy to subsidise remote health care for you when you just need a quick chat with a doctor and a new prescription. Glad to know I can help save you the inconvenience of have to make time to show up in person at the doctor's surgery.

 

/Trivia
Doesn't bother me personally if whether or not NBN fibre is layed out in rural areas, since Mobile Broadband (followed by emergency sat) satisfies most of my internet use. However, I am one of them ones that has experienced a lot of internet access at high speeds for many years. I was able to get my fix many years ago (re: the importance of speed and reliability during pr0n + FarCry matches).

Nonetheless, I can also see the desire (and importance for some) for those that have yet to experience such reliable speeds. For them I duly recommend getting such experience, far cheaper than watching a Broncos vs Warriors match in person, with far more business and personal incentives.

I admit, sometimes a wee bit slow to load pages when on Mobile, especially can be frustrating trying to snipe ebay auctions, but you get use to it. Helps with patience, which I have been told lack a wee bit. :S
.

 

I don't know how to say this clearly but I'll give ut a stab.

Whether or not the Govt can provide some arbitrary service that I get at least SOME value out of is not in question.

Whether or not the Govt MAY happen to provide an arbitrary service that HAPPENS to result in a benefit to society as a whole is not in question. (The private sector can also stumble upon something that HAPPENS to be super awesome.)

The fundamental difference is that one is coercively forced on me, while the other is not.

Further, a key outcome of the coercive approach is that there is NO objective measure to see whether the service is actually the best use of our scarce resources and consequently will INEVITABLY cost more to provide the same quality service.


Consequently, all 'nation building' arguments are crap. Yes the Govt can LOOK LIKE it is producing some great nation building thing and it may succeed (based on a random definition of 'success'). But it will do so at greater expense of scarce resources than necessary.

 

The reason the NBN is being built the way it is is because the government originally put the project out to tender and then cancelled the tender after it received independent advice that none of the tendering companies were offering good value for money.

We tried the free-market-will-build-it approach and we got very little for more than a decade.

We tried the government-pays-private-companies-build-it-cheaper approach and it turned out that was really expensive.

We're now going with the government-owns-the-company-that-builds-it approach and, by and large, things are going pretty well.

 

I don't want any potholes fixed up in roads, as I much prefer a bumpy ride. Don't ever remember being given the option. I wish all were unsealed roads.

You can't please them all. For most, there is always something in the budget that displeases them. If 'we' are happy to build parks, fund athletes, fund military, fund students, fund fund fund, then surely we should also be 'fair' by helping out rural communities having access to reliable fast internet. Better than sticking another skate park in just so they can chrome up and smoke dope.

Internet access, if affordable, also helps to combat crime, as the internet is not only a tool for some, but a form of entertainment. Entertainment is key in combating boredom and crime. Give someone a television, playstation or radio and they will be happy to procrastinate away.

Don't fret, knowing what the government is like, the NBN will just be another black cash hole to 'pretend' that is where the public funds is being poured into.
.

 

"Good value for money" for a set of service requirements that placed far too a high a level of risk on the tenderers. Cost blowouts are now being borne by the tax payer. Regulations forcing a monopoly have been forced on the tax payer (most of which have a hidden cost).

As I said, there's no objective measure and inevitably a system will be set up that delivers a lower quality service (where quality is the best system to meet the real wants of as many consumers as possible) for a higher total cost.

 

Your sense of humour is very dry W&F and when I'm not thinking I keep taking you seriously and think WTF W&F.
I'm glad you finally managed to scrounge enough cash to pay for another month's internet connection. Keep it up, you bring colour.

 

The "objective measure" is that we're having this discussion using old copper wire that was paid for and buried under the streets decades ago by successive governments that ran the telephone network at a loss.

Their view at the time was that making it easy for people to communicate with each other was a good idea and on that basis it was worth spending the money on.

No Cost-Benefit Analysis wankery, no mucking about arguing whether advances in carrier pigeon technology would make it obsolete in a few years, just "we should do it because it'll be great" common sense.

And it is great, but we can do it even better.