How to Invest Outside the Government-Controlled System

[1for1]

Will they be running propaganda prime time adverts telling people about it like they did with the carbon tax giveaway ... the amount of money they piss away telling people they are giving them money... UMMM is that necessary... any way you look at it its inflationary... prices WILL GO UP ... the more money this big and getting bigger govt drop.. the more price inflation we will see... its just a matter of time.

How about they preserve our standard of living by sitting on there hands and doing nothing (infinitley better than what they are doing now IMO).. but hey at least australia has wealth and resources to sqaunder.. just too bad we *(this govt) are squandering them..

Enjoy the good times so they are fresh in your memory for when you remind yourself when you telling your grandkids how great a country australia used to be.

I had a terrible dream last night about my parents in dunedin (very cold part of the north island) having to move to the north island as they couldnt afford electricty to heat there houses so had to sell up and move to a warmer climate (schittt it was lucid)... carbon tax nightmares (NZ got the carbon tax last year even though though have no pollutionand more trees than most countries in the world) .. also paying ANNEX B coutnries to outsource factories to havy polluting 3rd world countries as per the 109 page PDF copenhagen summit) on my mind... but for those who position themselves you CAN make money and operational businesses. I just cant put it from my mind the old people who will freeze to death after inflation and creeeeeeeepping incremental power costs make heating and living unaffordable.. i worry as i see this as the plan and the cold heart b-stards who have carried this out have full knowledge of this and intend on these repurcussions

My Nightmare

1for1

 

[Big A.D.]

The cost of the government financing it's investment in the NBN (the "taxpayer dollars" part) isn't included in the cost of the infrastructure because it isn't infrastructure. The cost of operating the NBN isn't included either for the same reason.

It is worth noting that the way the numbers are being presented is actually in line with international accounting standards (and those standards are used by other governments and corporations for their own projects) and the NBN is classified as an investment rather than an expense because it is actually projected to make a small profit for the government. That profit is below what a private operator would deem "commercially viable" but the government doesn't need to make a commercial rate of return on it's investment because, as a not-just-in-it-for-the-money organisation, it is able to factor in the social benefits of fast, ubiquitous internet access. They simply offset the lost income opportunity with their obligation to provide a benefit to the community.

Exactly! The total cost of this government investment will be much larger that the popular numbers being pushed around and the commitments to those greater costs will go on for much longer as well.

The numbers are there to be analysed. The trick is to avoid counting things twice and recognise the difference between an investment and an expense.

The assumed "benefit to the community" will be at the expense of choice, private service providers

Private service providers have had decades to build better networks and only ever got as far as the most profitable parts of major cities. It simply isn't worth their while providing services to a lot of Australians. They're private businesses and that is totally fine from a commercial point of view, however it doesn't fix the problem of access for everyone.

and the expansion of government surviellence over private citizens.

If you don't want people snooping on your communications, you have a responsibility to encrypt them.

They are certainly "not-just-in-it-for-the-money", but the portrail of Conroy and Gillard as altruistic humanitarians is naive.

Frankly, I think Stephen Conroy is a ****ing **** but the policy is a good one and he's the guy in charge at the moment. I'd vote for Malcolm Turnbull in a second if he was going to oversee exactly the same policy.

 

[CriticalSilver]

Yes, well whatever opinions we might hold about the accuracies of third party information, we can't deny the costs are greater and it is debt-funded and the numbers are all just projections based on future (goldilocks) scenarios of the forex and debt markets.

I think the one thing we can all agree on is that we will not know the cost before they are actually realised and prior to that we are only choosing what to believe based on our respective biases.

Perhaps they should just zero all the costs out against projected future profits the government will realise from it's eventual sale of the NBN to private interests as per the Telstra sale? Hopefully they wont be forced into a fire sale to balance the budget after the MRRT fails to do the job.

 

[willrocks]

Perhaps they should just zero all the costs out against projected future profits the government will realise from it's eventual sale of the NBN to private interests as per the Telstra sale? Hopefully they wont be forced into a fire sale to balance the budget after the MRRT fails to do the job.

It's just another wealth transfer when they fund infrastructure with debt.

1. Tax payers pay for most of the NBN construction.
2. Debt is used to fund remainder of NBN.
3. Tax payers pay interest on the debt.
4. Gov eventually sells infrastructure to private interests (bankers).
5. Proceeds from sale go to pay gov debt (to bankers).
6. Private interests (bankers) continue to collect revenue from the NBN.

Bankers end up with controlling shares in the infrastructure, interest from the debt, an NBN revenue stream, and the principal.

 

[bordsilver]

Private service providers have had decades to build better networks and only ever got as far as the most profitable parts of major cities. It simply isn't worth their while providing services to a lot of Australians. They're private businesses and that is totally fine from a commercial point of view, however it doesn't fix the problem of access for everyone.

??? Why ??? Why is not having super-fast internet access (at high cost) to everyone in Australia a problem in the first place?

I didn't have a super-cheap McDonald's or Domino's (who aren't actually that cheap anymore) in my home town for nearly 20 years after the city 80km away. We therefore had to rely on far, far more expensive takeaway or restaurant foods when we had a family night out (which meant that we had less of them). Should the Government mandate cheap takeaway food within 5km for every Australian so that we can all enjoy our universal right to cheap food services?

I still don't have a private beach, personal snowfield, holiday home, 2nd car, bluray player, 30yr aged scotch, dolby surround sound home cinema, trips to the moon etc etc either provided to me by the market at a price I can afford either.

I don't see what is so special about superfast broadband that requires the Government to steal taxpayers money to create a monopoly universal service provider at exorbitant cost.

 

[CriticalSilver]

The assumed "benefit to the community" will be at the expense of choice, private service providers

Private service providers have had decades to build better networks and only ever got as far as the most profitable parts of major cities. It simply isn't worth their while providing services to a lot of Australians. They're private businesses and that is totally fine from a commercial point of view, however it doesn't fix the problem of access for everyone.

So the people in the bush have a right to fibre optic internet services that the government must ensure at my expense

and the expansion of government surviellence over private citizens.

If you don't want people snooping on your communications, you have a responsibility to encrypt them.

but my right to privacy doesn't exist and the government can do all the snooping on me that it wants and I have to pay for their snooping as well as my counter measures.

On the one-hand we have the bleeding heart of a big, totalitarian government taking from one group to give to another, less fortunate group because they are not capable of looking after themselves. Then on the other-hand, we have the steel fist of the same big, totalitarian government smashing my right to privacy to smithereens and it's survival of the fittest with no tolerance for those who can't take care of themselves.

I would imagine that this is the very same attitude that Stephen Conroy has, actually.

 

[bordsilver]

I would imagine that this is the very same attitude that Stephen Conroy has, actually.

He's a total fascist p****.

Fascism is the system of government that cartelizes the private sector, centrally plans the economy to subsidize producers, exalts the police state as the source of order, denies fundamental rights and liberties to individuals, and makes the executive state the unlimited master of society.

 

[Big A.D.]

Private service providers have had decades to build better networks and only ever got as far as the most profitable parts of major cities. It simply isn't worth their while providing services to a lot of Australians. They're private businesses and that is totally fine from a commercial point of view, however it doesn't fix the problem of access for everyone.

??? Why ??? Why is not having super-fast internet access (at high cost) to everyone in Australia a problem in the first place?
...
I don't see what is so special about superfast broadband that requires the Government to steal taxpayers money to create a monopoly universal service provider at exorbitant cost.

Honestly?

You really don't see the benefits of everyone being able to send and receive massive amounts of information to and from everyone else at close to the speed of light? Don't you think that ability offers an absolutely mind-blowing amount of potential for everyone in this country?

 

[CriticalSilver]

Private service providers have had decades to build better networks and only ever got as far as the most profitable parts of major cities. It simply isn't worth their while providing services to a lot of Australians. They're private businesses and that is totally fine from a commercial point of view, however it doesn't fix the problem of access for everyone.

??? Why ??? Why is not having super-fast internet access (at high cost) to everyone in Australia a problem in the first place?
...
I don't see what is so special about superfast broadband that requires the Government to steal taxpayers money to create a monopoly universal service provider at exorbitant cost.

Honestly?

You really don't see the benefits of everyone being able to send and receive massive amounts of information to and from everyone else at close to the speed of light? Don't you think that ability offers an absolutely mind-blowing amount of potential for everyone in this country [... to be taxed, tracked, recorded and have their information sources controlled - extended by Gino]?

If the government wanted to do something for me in relation to the internet it could mandate that all pornography be classified and constrained to a XXX domain so I could block that domain on my firewall/router and effectively protect myself and my family from the undesired effects of this aspect of the internet. It could implement a register, similar to the do-not-call register and work with content providers to relocate their domains if they wanted to broadcast their content into this country. But instead, they want to enhance and extend on a medium where 5 year olds are a mouse click away from the most extreme forms of pornography imaginable while claiming its for the social good and declaring that everyone must pay for it.

 

[Anus]

Math is actually quite easy to defend.

On the other hand it's hard to defend the theft of $5000 for the NBN.

No that's pretty easy too: if I can use telepresence technology to have an enhanced teleconference with someone what I'd usually fly overseas to have a meeting with, I'd only need to do that twice at some point over the next 50 years to save $5000 on airfares.

Realistically, my own personal payback period for the NBN is going to be less than 2 years. Yours might be less or more, but averaged out over the whole population the NBN will pay for itself in an incredibly short period of time.

yes thats what i think too.. telepresence systems are more that better and cheaper after 5 years for example.. long flights like 20hours or more could be the wrong way..

 

[bordsilver]

Honestly?

You really don't see the benefits of everyone being able to send and receive massive amounts of information to and from everyone else at close to the speed of light? Don't you think that ability offers an absolutely mind-blowing amount of potential for everyone in this country?

I see benefits of a million things. I am extremely sceptical about stealing individuals property (including mine) against their will and forcing them to spend the money on a project deemed by someone else to be for my benefit.

Currently - even though I have the opportunity - I personally do not want to pay the price for super high speed broadband. I would rather invest the money I save into my own business where I think I can get a much better return. My sister who also has the opportunity to access high speed broadband (and is also working so is paying taxes toward the NBN) would rather spend the money on her current healthcare so that she may hope to see her son graduate etc. We are both therefore making our own choices about how to spend our scarce resources but will be forced to pay for the F****g Governments choices which we don't want.

If people want the mind-blowing potential of super high-speed broadband then the majority of Australians ALREADY have the capability to access it BUT they also are choosing not to. Why the f*** do I need to pay for some losers in every backwater across Australia to be able to download free internet porn or to log on to Facebook to show photos of their f****ng cat 100 times faster than they already do.

Just as the Govt. should get out of our bedroom, they should also get out of my wallet when funding their cronies or pet projects. Half of what the Govt. is doing could be described as "Trough Design" - i.e. designing a better trough so that they can feed their faces and their crony ass-wipe lobbyists faster.

 

[bordsilver]

And shove your telepresence argument in someone else's face. I can buy that now BUT I DON'T WANT IT NOW. (And yes I have used it - including the very good systems - multiple times.)

Cost does not equal value! Different costs do not equal savings!

Fibre optic etc does and will continue to happen even if the NBN is scrapped. It may take longer (it may not). I can guarantee however, that it WILL better meet consumers needs at a much lower cost (enabling us to save the fr****g wales or some other thing which the NBN waste won't allow to happen due to its wasted resources).

 

[Big A.D.]

Honestly?

You really don't see the benefits of everyone being able to send and receive massive amounts of information to and from everyone else at close to the speed of light? Don't you think that ability offers an absolutely mind-blowing amount of potential for everyone in this country [... to be taxed, tracked, recorded and have their information sources controlled - extended by Gino]?

If the government wanted to do something for me in relation to the internet it could mandate that all pornography be classified and constrained to a XXX domain so I could block that domain on my firewall/router and effectively protect myself and my family from the undesired effects of this aspect of the internet. It could implement a register, similar to the do-not-call register and work with content providers to relocate their domains if they wanted to broadcast their content into this country. But instead, they want to enhance and extend on a medium where 5 year olds are a mouse click away from the most extreme forms of pornography imaginable while claiming its for the social good and declaring that everyone must pay for it.

LOL, so you're arguing against the NBN because you think the government will try to censor it to control you access to information...except you're all in favour of it where the information is pornographic?

 

[bordsilver]

Honestly?

You really don't see the benefits of everyone being able to send and receive massive amounts of information to and from everyone else at close to the speed of light? Don't you think that ability offers an absolutely mind-blowing amount of potential for everyone in this country [... to be taxed, tracked, recorded and have their information sources controlled - extended by Gino]?

If the government wanted to do something for me in relation to the internet it could mandate that all pornography be classified and constrained to a XXX domain so I could block that domain on my firewall/router and effectively protect myself and my family from the undesired effects of this aspect of the internet. It could implement a register, similar to the do-not-call register and work with content providers to relocate their domains if they wanted to broadcast their content into this country. But instead, they want to enhance and extend on a medium where 5 year olds are a mouse click away from the most extreme forms of pornography imaginable while claiming its for the social good and declaring that everyone must pay for it.

LOL, so you're arguing against the NBN because you think the government will try to censor it to control you access to information...except you're all in favour of it where the information is pornographic?

I agree with you here. It's inconsistent. Seems a bit unlike you Gino.

[And apologies to Big A.D. if I have gone a bit ballistic in my wording. You've touched a raw nerve and my 2nd glass of A'Bunadh is kicking in.]

 

[Big A.D.]

Honestly?

You really don't see the benefits of everyone being able to send and receive massive amounts of information to and from everyone else at close to the speed of light? Don't you think that ability offers an absolutely mind-blowing amount of potential for everyone in this country?

I see benefits of a million things. I am extremely sceptical about stealing individuals property (including mine) against their will and forcing them to spend the money on a project deemed by someone else to be for my benefit.

That's the free market argument and that's why we currently have crappy internet in this country - it's ultimately in everybody's interest to have it, but everyone thinks they won't get as much benefit as other people so therefore somebody else should pay for it initially and they'll jump on board later when its cheaper.

Sorry, it just ain't going to happen like that.

 

[bordsilver]

That's the free market argument and that's why we currently have crappy internet in this country - it's ultimately in everybody's interest to have it, but everyone thinks they won't get as much benefit as other people so therefore somebody else should pay for it initially and they'll jump on board later when its cheaper.

And THAT's the standard socialist argument. The super smart central planner is CHOOSING what's in everyone's best interests. (Obviously the other people aren't smart enough to choose for themselves.)

The first-mover disadvantage argument has been refuted many times.

Besides someone else's disadvantage benefiting the group who actually do move first, there are a wide range of simple contract arrangements that can be implemented to overcome any such disadvantage (assurance contracts and dominant assurance contracts).

However, the simplest objection is that the free market is more efficient at allocating resources (and correcting misallocations faster) than any central planner. Any misallocation is reducing the welfare of everybody.

 

[Water&Food]

So the people in the bush have a right to fibre optic internet services that the government must ensure at my expense

You never complained when we milked you for:
-subsidized fuel
-subsidized satellite phones and internet
-subsidized solar
Come tax time...
:lol:
But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Laying down fibre is preparing and planning for future growth. Also preparing for a matrix world, you will always be plugged in.

 

[CriticalSilver]

If the government wanted to do something for me in relation to the internet it could mandate that all pornography be classified and constrained to a XXX domain so I could block that domain on my firewall/router and effectively protect myself and my family from the undesired effects of this aspect of the internet. It could implement a register, similar to the do-not-call register and work with content providers to relocate their domains if they wanted to broadcast their content into this country. But instead, they want to enhance and extend on a medium where 5 year olds are a mouse click away from the most extreme forms of pornography imaginable while claiming its for the social good and declaring that everyone must pay for it.

LOL, so you're arguing against the NBN because you think the government will try to censor it to control you access to information...except you're all in favour of it where the information is pornographic?

I agree with you here. It's inconsistent. Seems a bit unlike you Gino.

Except that I am in no way arguing for censorship or any restraint on access to pornography.

What I suggested was that it would benefit me if the government took a regulatory role over pornography on the internet in the same way that it enforces that users of the road system to drive on the left side of the road. That way when I'm out and about on the streets or the internet I know in which direction to look and can better protect the kids in my care.

I think this is the kind of role government should have, regulation of dangerous materials and systems (like roads) is critical to a functioning society.

Going into monopoly businesses to further centralise power, surveillance and control over the population is not the kind of role I think Government should have, is not critical to the functioning of society and is in fact a burden on society.

 

[CriticalSilver]

So the people in the bush have a right to fibre optic internet services that the government must ensure at my expense

You never complained when we milked you for:
-subsidized fuel
-subsidized satellite phones and internet
-subsidized solar
Come tax time...
:lol:
But, hey, whatever floats your boat.

Laying down fibre is preparing and planning for future growth. Also preparing for a matrix world, you will always be plugged in.

:lol: :lol: The inequities of the world never end! If I knew you had your nose in the trough I would have really done something about it ... I ... I ... I would have written to my local member in a very angry tone. :lol:

 

[Big A.D.]

LOL, so you're arguing against the NBN because you think the government will try to censor it to control you access to information...except you're all in favour of it where the information is pornographic?

I agree with you here. It's inconsistent. Seems a bit unlike you Gino.

Except that I am in no way arguing for censorship or any restraint on access to pornography.

What I suggested was that it would benefit me if the government took a regulatory role over pornography on the internet in the same way that it enforces that users of the road system to drive on the left side of the road. That way when I'm out and about on the streets or the internet I know in which direction to look and can better protect the kids in my care.

So you want me and my tax dollars to subsidise a classification and filtering system for the internet because you can't supervise your kids properly yourself, but you don't want to have your tax dollars spent on improving the actual network infrastructure itself for everyone's benefit?