Aidan, your economic theories are always a revelation. Too bad they have nothing to do with reality.

You say:

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.

That is facile and ignorant and untrue.

In 2008, the UK Competition Commission published a report on supermarket pricing, after a 2-3 year study, during which they established that of the total value in the supply chain for milk, from farm to supermarket, the supermarkets took - effectively because of their market power - 80 per cent. That left 20 per cent of the total to be shared between processors and farmers. And because processors had greater market power than the farmers, guess who was screwed? I have some sympathy for the processors: they have to reinvest in plant and machinery on a regular basis. But so does the farmer.

The situation in Australia is similar. Coles's original $2 milk squeezed the processors and the processors then squeezed the farmers, some of whom were paid less than the cost of production. Don't waste your time or ours on your fantasies about farmers' "demanding" anything. They are price takers, not price setters.

Needless to say, the farms themselves aren't worth much any more and young potential farmers can't be bothered working that hard for little more than subsistence living. So the farmers, as a group, are aging and they find it difficult to sell their businesses. I expect their employees are aging, too.

All of the above is about market power. Australia has the most concentrated supermarket industry in the world, with Woolworths and Coles sharing about 80 per cent of the entire market. In the US, where there are effective competition laws, the two biggest supermarkets, WalMart and Kroger have joint market share of about 24 per cent.

Aiden, I am sorry you do not understand, at least I tried.
They are Ponzi schemes because they need the financiers to keep
putting money in to keep them drilling to maintain production.
It is that never ending financing need that has sucked in the money.
Now the money is stopping bankruptcy is increasing rapidly.

I know you will come back with another waffle so I am ending it here
as you will go on & on.

Tristian, you say there is overwhelming evidence that used property values wont take a huge hit. Would you kindly share that evidence.

Colwest, and farm with a hint of grass is worth a small fortune because of cattle prices. Either than, or urban sprawl has turned them into multi million dollar development parcels of land, although negative gearing changes could have some effect there as well.

Rehctub ;

No I'm not saying they won't be affected at all. Probably this will prevent the housing bubble getting worse. Over time property values will become more affordable for first home buyers. Of course there will be 'winners and losers'. Big property investors will miss out. The 10 per cent of the population who are property investors will miss out. Because prospective first home buyers will finally be able to enter the market. For the 90 per cent of Australian citizens who are not property investors housing will become more affordable.

Now when it comes to the interests of the 10 per cent and the interests of the 90 per cent - Well you can try and play divide and rule... But when you're going against the interests of the 90 per cent be careful you don't shoot yourself in the foot.

calwest,

[NDIS]
"What benefits, to how many, at what cost?"
The benefits of a life not dominated by the restrictions of their disability. To about half a million. With an estimated cost of $25 billion by the 2022-3 financial year.

[Schools]
"No, the record absolutely contradicts you: billions have been spent since 1974, but the performance standards of Australian students have declined. And the two studies I quoted earlier disprove your claim that more resources lead to better outcomes."
By what measure has the performance standards of Australian students declined?

Finding a weak positive correlation doesn't disprove cause and effect!

"The Karmel report (1973) was the first to recommend needs-based funding of schools. Gonski had not a single original thought."
I'll take your word for it. But identifying what needs to be done doesn't require originality.

"Kids today have no need for literacy and numeracy?"
On the contrary, the need is stronger than ever. But beyond the basics, some of the skills that were needed then are not needed now. Calculators have almost eliminated the need for long division, and decimalisation and metrication have also removed some of the arithmetical requirements. Meanwhile typing has become a lot more important than handwriting.

"No need for history and literature?"
Less need for it in a formal educational setting, as it is more readily available from other sources.

"No need for science and maths?"
On the contrary, the need is stronger than ever.

"No need for geography?"
Still a need for geography, though the curriculum may have little in common with 1950s geography.

"What a sterile world you live in."
On the contrary, I live in a dynamic world and recognise the pace of change. You appear not to.

"Kids in the 1950s would cope very well with any of the current curriculum because they had basic skills which made them adaptable."
So do kids today, but having basic skills which made them adaptable wouldn't make them cope very well with the 1950s curriculum. You seem to have failed to comprehend that adaptation takes a lot of time.

(to be continued)

calwest (continued)

[NBN]

"Only a dunce would say that the NBN was a raging success under Labor. They were, as you've now admitted, way behind schedule and way over budget."
Only a chunk would say that being a raging success is the only alternative to being a failure. There were schedule and budget issues, and they sensibly delayed ramping up the schedule until the budget issues could be sorted.

"I appreciate that little things like management skills, billions of wasted dollars and on-time delivery mean nothing to the Left,"
YOU SHOULD NEVER EVER APPRECIATE THAT VICIOUS LIE!

There are people, both on the left and on the right, who don't care about efficiency. But on the whole, the left are far more interested in efficiency than the right are. And the left are more likely to recognise the inefficiency of the Do Nothing option.

"but it means a lot to taxpayers, who will, one way or another, pay for the incompetence and cost over-run."
What incompetence are you referring to? The biggest example of incompetence regarding the NBN is the decision to waste money on FTTN. In addition to its huge technical inferiority, FTTN has a much higher operating cost, and its much shorter lifespan means it will eventually have to be replaced with FTTP. Incompetence is opting to use FTTN because of a report that shows FTTN to be good value when interest rates are 7% (when they're actually 3%). Incompetence is sticking with that decision when interest rates fall to 2%.

"Similar high-speed broadband services operate in other countries, were built at far lower cost and deliver far higher performance. What the hell is there to admire about the NBN?"
Australia is much bigger than other countries, without the correspondingly higher population.

(to be continued)