Bazz the point is that they had to fork out $7 billion JUST to access pits and wires... They didn't get the whole operation back.

re: FTTN and FTTP - the point is that we don't know what demands there will be on our infrastructure in the future ; or what new industries will arise. That said it makes sense to use the best technology available. And also to keep NBN as a natural public monopoly... Because the alternative is a private monopoly which will gouge consumers. If you're about protecting consumers then you will allow for strategic natural public monopolies.

Rehctub: But the problems you're talking about could be overcome with investment in public and social housing... Government and not-for profits could step in... But also there will remain incentives to invest in new houses. Prices WILL go down - and that also means housing will be affordable for more young families.

rehctub, the farmers don't get paid more for normal milk if it sells for more. Selling it at $2 for 2 litres benefits consumers but doesn't make the farmers any worse off.

At the moment, A2 brand has a monopoly on A2 milk (milk that doesn't contain the A1 protein). And they sell it for ridiculously high prices. If they dairy companies had any sense they'd work with the farmers to challenge the monopoly. Likewise the farmers should be demanding the dairies give them the opportunity to get a better price from the higher quality milk that their A2 cows produce. They should also try selling milk that's pascalized instead of pasteurized. But I have no sympathy for those farmers who insist consumers should pay more for a mediocre product.

I didn't propose increasing cleaners' wages by $5. On its own such a rise would be bad for the economy. However if it does go up by that much, then as long as economic and fiscal policy are set to prioritise growth, tax revenue will also rise, so Australia can afford to pay doctors more. And ITYF doctors are motivated by more than just money.

Telling someone to work more hours isn't that simple at all, as the work is often unavailable.

As for housing, investors leaving the market will be replaced by owner occupiers entering it, particularly if the price does drop. But not all investors will leave the market.

It is only state government legislation which restricts the FHB grant to new homes. It has previously also been available to buyers of existing homes, and can be again if the state government so desires. Even without it, many FHBs buy existing homes.

"Who is going to build units without the aid of Ng?"
Those who think they can do so more profitably than investing elsewhere!

For more on how silly the government's criticism of Labor's plan is, I suggest you read http://www.theguardian.com/business/grogonomics/2016/feb/22/scott-morrisons-response-to-labors-negative-gearing-plan-is-truly-disturbing

Bazz,

I didn't claim the major oil companies were worried about the present low prices.

You made the absolutely ludicrous claim that the energy company balance sheets (and in particular, Woodside's drop in profits) are evidence that cheap energy has ended. I merely pointed out that the truth is the exact opposite: they're evidence that cheap energy has returned, catching them unawares.

Now things might go as predicted, with cheap oil going and returning several times. Or it might go another way. But right now we have cheap energy, therefore it hasn't ended.

As for the copper, some of it's in good condition and some of it's decrepit. But FTTN is a dead end technology. It's a waste of public money. For political reasons they fudged the financial case for it by using a discount rate of 7% for their calculations when the RBA cash rate was less than half that. Since then the RBA cash rate's fallen to 2% and they're still wasting public money on FTTN.

________________________________________________________________________________

Hasbeen,

I've seen many different claims about net taxation. What assumptions does your "57% already pay no tax after handouts" claim rely on?
[assumptons such as What constitutes tax? What constitutes handouts? What timescale is used?]

Your question "Just how do you think they could pay less?" is easily answered: no matter what handouts they're receiving, they could pay less gross tax.

The high prices of Telstra's precursors in the 1960s were due to its use of expensive (often pioneering) technology, not because of government ownership. And prices fell rapidly. Famously it was calculated that Telstra's prices fell twice as fast before Optus as after. Though of course prices aren't the only important thing, and the introduction of competition did result im much better customer service.

Nowadays Telstra employs far fewer people. But there's been a change of culture: if there was a fault their technicians used to also check for other faults at the same location. Now they don't fix unreported faults. Which probably wouldn't be such a problem if they were getting rid of the copper as planned...

Aiden, the reduction in telecommunication charges came about because
of a change in technology.
That can be seen in the empty floors in some telephone exchanges.

Aiden, you simply do not understand what is meant by cheap energy .
Just because it is selling cheaply does not mean it is cheap energy.
It is like bankrupt stock, it goes cheap.
There are many oil companies now going into bankruptcy.
Even though they are losing money they are making some sales so at
least they can cover their interest bills while they wait for price recovery.
Deloitte has stated that they believe 30% of oil companies are facing bankruptcy.
I believe many of them will be saved by a resurgence in price for a
year or two until the next cycle starts. If it starts again.
It may stabilise at a high price that the economy cannot afford.

Cheap energy means that no new cheap oil has been found for 20 years.
No major cheap oil has been found for nearly 50 years.
It has been getting progressively more expensive.
Drilling 5 miles under the sea floor is expensive.
Drilling anywhere in the sea is expensive.
Drilling tight shale oil wells is expensive.
Digging up bitumen, separating it from the sand, thinning it down is very very expensive.

All forms of oil are now declining.
Bankruptcies are now increasing and financial banks have become
wary and S&P and other rating agencies are downgrading oil companies
even some of the majors.
They now understand that the tight shale oil companies are in fact Ponzi schemes.

Bazz, "Ponzi schemes" has a specific meaning. None of the shale oil companies are Ponzi schemes, though many are bad investments.

Oil isn't cheap because companies are selling it at a loss; it's cheap because many countries, particularly in the Middle East, do still have a lot of oil that's cheap to extract.

"the reduction in telecommunication charges came about because
of a change in technology."
Yes, that's my point: originally there were no fibre optic cables and we relied on the copper cables for everything. And the first fibre optic cables that could do the job better than copper still weren't anywhere near as good as the ones they have now. And the improvements come not just from the cables themselves, but how they are used. We send much more data through them than was initially thought possible. Similarly mechanical switching has been replaced by computer switching and even some optical switching. Technology, not ownership, drives improvements.

__________________________________________________________________________________

Captain Col,

"we should never pay more than people are worth."
What people are worth is a range not a single figure. Businesses shouldn't pay people more than the upper bound of what they're worth (the cost of their work not getting done) but there may be good reasons for paying more than the lower bound of what they're worth (the cost of getting someone else to do the work instead). Reputation can be very important.

"You can't simply get a cleaner to become a mechanic by telling the cleaner that's his new higher skilled job, get on with it and produce value for his boss (who would be an idiot)."
I never said you could. Enabling people to do a job that's worth more does not mean the capability should just be assumed!

__________________________________________________________________________________

calwest, sorry about the continuing delay to respond to your post. I will get around to it soon.