calmest (continued)

[milk]
"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."
I looked at that report and initially found little mention of milk. However I did find something in an appendix that told a completely different story:
http://webarchive.nationalarchives.gov.uk/20140402141250/http://www.competition-commission.org.uk/assets/competitioncommission/docs/pdf/non-inquiry/rep_pub/reports/2008/fulltext/538_9_3.pdf page A9(3)-4 shows the farm gate price as 35% of the retail price, with 33% going to the processor and 30% to the retailer.

"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."
Yes farmers are price takers. The price is set by supply and demand, so farmers get squeezed whatever price the supermarkets sell at. Indeed $2 milk may even help the farmers by increasing demand, though that increase is likely to be slight.

But just because they're price takers it doesn't mean they can never demand anything. If the processor refuses to cooperate in the production of a more valuable product, they should find an alternative producer or set up their own.

Bigger dairy farms are generally more cost efficient, and if dairy farms aren't covering their costs then they have the options of amalgamating or switching to farming something more lucrative. But they shouldn't expect to be paid at more than the going rate for a mediocre product.

_________________________________________________________________________________

I understand perfectly. You misunderstand.

Ponzi schemes are a specific type of fraud.

Lossmaking businesses are not Ponzi schemes.

The constant inflow of capital needed by Ponzi schemes is to pay existing investors, not to subsidise lossmaking business activity.

Sorry, I failed to make it clear that the last bit of my previous post was directed to Bazz.

______________________________________________________________________________________

Tristan, why do you think "The 10 per cent of the population who are property investors will miss out"? The change Labor are proposing is not retrospective.

Aiden they will miss out on future opportunities to exploit negative gearing. Though you're right Shorten's proposal is not retrospective.

Aidan replies to my observation about the Left's managerial incompetence:

"'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!"

Well, Aidan, my only response to that is:

Pink batts. Unwanted school buildings. NBN. NDIS with virtually no funding. Gonski with partial funding. Labor's border "protection" catastrophe. Swan budget surpluses which never arrived. Labor's defence of trade union thuggery. Labor's contempt for the Australian Defence Force.

There must be many others, but I've now lost interest.

Aidan, you and Tristan are ideologues. Your juvenile pseudo-Marxist economic theories are just a bad joke. No amount of information or logic will make the slightest impact on closed minds like yours, so I'm now closing the conversation.

Cal, resorting to abuse like that is usually what people resort to when they're not able to construct a convincing and substantial argument. Yes 'pink batts' was messed up - not the necessary oversight. But remember it was private sector contractors who took advantage of the situation. 'The need for oversight' suggests *regulation* - which is something the Right is not well-disposed to these days.

The school buildings, meanwhile, were very much appreciate by most schools. Though some wanted more choices ; and it was a matter of the government containing costs through standardisation. Maybe a mistake - but nonetheless is was part of a stimulus package that saved us from a recession. Which the Conservatives will not accept for purely political reasons. That is ; because they don't want to concede anything to Labor on 'economic management.' Truth is the first casualty etc....

Meanwhile Swann should never have promised those surpluses. They were never achievable. And today they're even less achievable. But what's good for the Goose is good for the Gander - and now we have the Conservatives unable to achieve surplus without wrecking the economy... Time to confront the lie that 'a surplus is always desirable' ; and even to confront the lie that "a surplus is always desirable except in response to a recession'.

(more coming)

re: Gonski and NDIS if there is a problem with funding it is due to the necessity for tax reform. As a country we need to prioritise. Do we prioritise care for the disabled and equal opportunity in education for our kids? Or do we prioritise tax cuts for the corporates and the wealthy?

Now the Conservatives will say that resources have nothing to do with educational outcomes.... But if that was true then why are families abandoning the public system in droves even if it costs them tens of thousands every year?

As for the ADF. It is always wrong to politicise the ADF like that. The legitimate role of ADF is to defend our democracy ; and as a foreign policy instrument in defence of human rights. That said the ADF should therefore not be treated like a 'political football'.

As for unions - its interesting that those who focus on the CFMEU have little to say about white collar and corporate crime. Whatever problems there are remember this also: Depending on their leadership trade unions can be an important defence for democracy and liberal rights. Should human rights abuses arise, or should democracy be suspended - the industrial leverage of politicised trade unions are one of democracy's best potential defences. Criminal activity should be dealt with even-handedly with as much focused on corporate and white collar crime as elsewhere.

If you want to stop criminal activity in unions do the following:

Decriminalise industrial action which is 'in good faith' , including secondary boycott and political strike action. If unions can exert their industrial power - both for themselves and in solidarity with other workers - then there would never be any reason for other strategies. Internationally some unions resort to criminality because it is a defence against state repression. That is: because legitimate avenues - industrial liberties - are closed to them.

As for 'ideology': we should all try and develop coherent values. I can't see any issue with this. Your view is ideological in that same sense. So what's the point?