An interesting, if unoriginal, concept frankbr

>>...we might have institutions like a people's bank, like the original idea of the Commonwealth Bank, that could evaluate proposals like this - in a rigorous way - and potentially make investment loans of this sort.<<

If such a vehicle were to evaluate such proposals, what criteria would you - the taxpayer - require them to apply in their decision-making process? Would they be more, or less, financially rigorous than the tests applied by their commercial counterparts? If the former, you would not get an SPC investment/loan past the gatekeeper. If the latter, how would you publicly justify and defend that extra laxity, and concomitant risk, in their approach to using your money?

If the same level of rigour is applied to your situation by both the "people's bank" and the commercial lenders, and passes muster, then your project would presumably be open to competitive bids from all concerned, in order to get the best rate. So, for your "people's bank" to win the business, they would have to undercut the commercial lenders, thereby increasing their exposure to losses. How would you justify to the public such a cavalier application of their funds?

But you don't really have to answer that. Because any such institution would be so heavily biased towards furthering its own political ends, actual fiscal reality would not be allowed to intrude upon the decision process.

Even further, the amount of red tape that government departments apply to any form of financing will be grandfathered into the "people's bank" processes and procedures. By the time you got dollar one in the bank account, the business will have long since gone to the wall.

Incidentally, many countries already have a Peoples Bank. Here's one of them:

http://www.pbc.gov.cn/

Jardine; To start I don't claim to be any authority on agriculture by a very, very long shot. But here goes. I will try...

A problem for the farmers is uncertainty - with drought and the high dollar; and to keep farms viable farmers need support from the state... Now there was a time when a Marxist would say we should allow 'small scale' farms to go to the wall, with the end product of collectivised agriculture. This was seen as progress. Though against that there's the power of tradition with families staying on the land... And there's a need to help isolated rural communities to 'get connected' - for instance with high speed broadband... A compromise response to the collectivisation argument could be farmers going into *partnership* with agricultural labour co-ops... And with state insurance paid for to provide for the contingency of drought etc...

Anyway - If the Liberals want to go all 'laissez faire' on the Nationals and let farmers go to the wall perhaps its time the Nationals re-thought the whole Coalition thing - and did a deal with Labor that protects BOTH farmers and workers - and the most vulnerable and welfare-dependent as well....

There are a lot of interesting comments of this thread, however many ignore the reality of the modern world. Ask a farmer what his grandfather got for a bushel of wheat, then ask him what he is getting. Ask him what his grandfathers cost of production was, and compare this to his. If he is sensible he will flog the lot and move to the gold coast.

Farmers have been told to diversify, get bigger etc until they are sick of it. New crops are the saviour, than a blight on the landscape.

If the farm has any debt at all it is always under threat. When you go under the guy next door will club together with a few others and buy the land. Unfortunately he will then have to buy new bigger machines to harvest the crop, and get a return his grandfather would be horrified with.

Just curious!
rehctub,
I don't know how much the CEO of SPC is earning but judging by the situation SPC is in he shouldn't be getting much at all but I guess he does. I know some Qld Loacal Council CEO's are on 300 grand + benefits. That to my thinking is immoral considering they do nothing of any real tangible value. The mayor of 3000 soul town earning as much as the mayor of Sydney or Melbourne does not smell right either but earn that much he does. The reason why Australia is gradually falling into disrepair is because we have no discipline in any field nor any integrity. The people who perform important tasks get paid a pittance yet the hyped-up positions which are of no relevance whatsoever are paid small fortunes.
Australia could be a truly grand country again if only those who call themselves Australian behaved like Australians.

Hugh Jackmann only earns that much because people obviously want him to get that much, I guarantee you although I think he's a likeable character I don't think I have ever spent a single Cent on him. So, he's not getting rich from people like myself. Movie stars would very quickly earn a lot less if we had real education & reduced the number of sheeple.