Let’s have Telstra on a pie plate in another forum.

I find it strange that replies avoid using the Henderson Report or his “poverty line” mentioned by Peter in his article. Perhaps I missed something or its not so valid today. Also the forum seems to have drifted onto the full sale of Telstra as an alternative theme.

My interest in the poverty line dates back to the original report. That document was used as an English exercise but the class wanted to get into the practical and find poor people. That we did one night in the streets of down town Melbourne. Later the core group tried building a new political party. Some of us got round to promoting the concept of a national income support scheme as a birth right based on GNP year by year. Who remembers that?

Peter Saunders: Did you ever interview homeless men or try and change their wish to remain that way or live on the street? Attitudes are a big issue regardless of the cause.

I look forward to a proper Telstra debate before its too late, but I must say before the topic is wound up Mollydukes has posted well on the original theme

Mollydukes – suggesting that tus and I lack understanding is rank hypocrisy when we test what passes for “reason” in your statements.

Holding on to Telstra because it is some icon of nationalised industry is a stupid an idea.
Governments owning Telco meansgovernments cannot deal equitably with either Telstra or its competitors in that industry because of the “vested interest”.

Whilst Telstra may achieve some revenue for government, government will also achieve significantly greater “revenue “ from the sale of shares than the trickle in net profit.

With the increase in competition in the telecomm industry, the future income streams from Telstra are more than not assured or secure- they are under direct threat.

Certainly their will also be significant capital injections into the telecomm industry in the coming decade, this could possibly negate the revenue effect, at the cash flow level, not a good strategy for government to be burdened with.

“economic rationalists” observing the nature of “market economies” - even blind pew could see that , “cooperation” (between buyer and seller) is essential in any market– thus your claim that they “fail to acknowledge that cooperation is an important aspect of a decent society. “ is patently a complete crock.

I would suggest the following provides a better definition of a “decent society” than any leveller-defined socialist claptrap -

“We want a society where people are free to make choices, to make mistakes, to be generous and compassionate. This is what we mean by a moral society; not a society where the state is responsible for everything, and no one is responsible for the state.”

Margaret Thatcher –

In that society – the individual, through compassion attends to the needs of the less well equipped – instead of the state – I suggest you also read what Noel Pearson, aboriginal leader, thinks about how the "welfare state" has wreaked upon remote aboriginal communities – the very goal you promote is a blight on the people it is set up to help – destroying dignity and self esteem. All welfare does is leave everyone “equally” desolate.

Col,
A good post. Australians has become too dependant upon welfare it is destroying our personal responsibility and work ethic, not only the aboriginal population. If the money spent on welfare were spent in legitimate National development employing people on welfare we'd be still the lucky country. It has become unhealthy in the minds of some to perspire anymore.

Get a little dirt on ya hands boy, get a little dirt on ya hands; Is considered out of date.

Great segment on 60 Minutes tonight (unusually) regarding the ascendance of South Korea as the worlds cargo ship building capital. The contrasts in attitudes with our present day society that have driven this couldn't have been starker. And it has nothing to do with cheap asian labour, their floor workers are paid very well, it's the 'can do' attitude that prevails. I can see a lot here aren't bothering with doing as they 'can bludge'.

Col Rouge wrote "... government will ... achieve significantly greater 'revenue' from the sale of shares than the trickle in net profit."

Can I suggest you read some of the words of Nick Minchin, himself, at : http://www.theage.com.au/news/national/telstra-deal-may-shrink-federal-coffers/2005/08/18/1123958182708.html ?

It begins : "THE loss of billions of dollars of Telstra dividend payments means the Government will have to run down budget surpluses or spend less on health, education and infrastructure, Finance Minister Nick Minchin has suggested."

(Can I now suggest further discussion on Telstra be held here : http://johnquiggin.com/index.php/archives/2005/08/20/dont-minchin-it ?)

Yes, Noel Pearson has some interesting ideas, but his pronouncements on social welfare are not the final word on the matter.

I don't know from which parallel universe the observations of "market economies", you refer to comes from but it is not the one in which I inhabit at this moment. What I often observe between buyer and seller is often not "cooperation", rather is deception, fraud and the naked abuse of power on the part of one against the other. Just talk to any farmer is forced to deal with Woolworths in order ot obtain a livelihood. The whole system is geared to favour those who are prepared to employ the most ruthless and unconscionable means.

Rather than bolstering your argument by referring to the fantasy world which only exists inside the heads of neo-liberal ideologues, how about responding to the concrete examples I and others have given?

From Kanga "Many come from third generation unemployed"

This says it all about the dangers of welfare. I have seen it too often people who are second and third generation welfare who are suffering because they are addicted to not working. And i can guarantee that there will be fourth and fifth and sixth generation welfare unless the system changes and people are encouraged to work hard rather than accept a handout.

Keep up the good fight Col, hard work pays off.

t.u.s