Thanks daggett – for proving the very point I was attempting to make

You wrote
“The finance department, itself admitted we would could the Australian taxpayer $255.5 million between 2004 and 2008”
And
“Today, The Adelaide Advertiser reported that it will cost taxpayers $500 million to sell Telstra”

Now lets assume $30 billion for the sale ofTelstra – and apply RBA rate of 5.25% interest to that I get $1,575 million

So the return from Telstra of $500 million on the $30 billion share value suggests a meagre 1.67% the other figure – 255 million - 5 years 0.17% return.

I am not going to comment on what I think about a return of 1.67% and below - that is about what the CBA offers on Christmas club passbook Accounts, not what people who deal in the “real world” expect.

I suggest if your economics lecturers are spouting these sorts of returns as “realistic” you come talk to me. Depending on your circumstances, I can get you around 10% after tax (franked), very low risk and you will not even need to use your own cash.

As for economics models - Keynes and Co used plumbing pipe and buckets of coloured water for theirs –If you want to make comparisons about economic models – I build them (corporate style but only if you have enough cash)– every model is “flawed” but at least I do not need to be a licensed plumber to build the neo-liberal ones.

Mollydukes, as expected, quick with the invective, slow with the reasoning.
That is why you are where you are and I am where I am. Md, “dreaming” is cheap, “doing” takes effort.
Dream on Mollydukes – maintain the fantasy Rage.
Leave issues of the real world to those of us who know how to make things happen.
Oh please tell all your friends, if they are anything like you, they need all the help and education they can get.

Kartiya, sounds like you have a case of sour grapes their too. Not much of a market for them

Philo and tus, thanks

Invective, Col? I have re-read my post to check for this, because I do not usually use invective. I guess you mean the bit where I ask about your 'bigotry'. This is the only word or phrase that remotely comes close to being a term of abuse. You might like to count the number of abusive words and terms you have used and ask yourself some questions.

I really was asking for an explanation of how you think people develop the 'right' attitude. I do try not to make assumption and jump to conclusions about people and their ideas. I learned this behaviour from my family and from the training I had at - wait for it - a University.

I am dissapointed that you seem unable to provide a rational explantion of how kids become bad or good and how a person can get to have the right attitude. I don't have many answers but I do have lots of questions.

I wonder if for you, the 'right' attitude is to make as much money as possible from any source as long as it is legal, or even illegal as long as you don't get caught? I'm pretty sure that was Thatcher's idea of the right way to use her position. She sure did feather her own nest comfortably.

I wonder what it is about this society with it's apparently exorbitant spending on welfare that means you are not free to show compassion. Would you show compassion to those with the wrong attitude or only those with the right attitude? But then those with the right attitude do not need compassion.

I also wonder how you 'know' where I 'am'? Is this an example of your abilty to 'know' things and of how you have the 'right' attitude?

Terje,

You clearly have not understood the Age Article at:

http://www.theage.com.au/news/Business/Telstra-sale-plan-to-cost-millionss/2005/02/15/1108229978698.html

Surely, the Finance department would have already factored in the money which could be gained by investing the $30 billion elsewhere, otherwise what use would these figures be? and what possible interest could they have in giving ammunition to opponents of the sale by omitting this?

Please don't waste any more of everyone's time in this way.

“Terje” ?? I think you meant Col Rouge!

Never a good sign of “competence” when you address the wrong poster –
but when does “competence” ever feature for consideration in your posts?

Now “Surely, the Finance department would have . . .”

I make no presumptions to what the finance department “surely did” or “surely did not” do.
You brought them into the debate, you are responsible for following that up.

There are multiple variables and caveats involved in calculating the appropriate financial return expected from 30 billion dollars.

It is not simply a “dividend payment” or even a “net profit” in any given period that matters.

In the case of one of the biggest companies operating in Australia what matters includes

Net Cash Flow (at risk because of competitive activity and commercial rollout of new telephony developments and innovations)
Capacity to raise capital (presently not possible)
Commercial Risk Profile (distorted because of government ownership)

(I will stop their, I am not getting paid for lecturing and what you must be learning is priceless)

I guess you have not heard the Prime Minister so far today.

He echoed the very point I made about “umpires owning teams” producing “conflicts of interest” as I presented in my previous post and is the source of the “raising capital” issue which I mention above

As for “Please don't waste any more of everyone's time in this way.”

When you can produce posts of any merit, you will be in a position to criticise mine.
All you have done is beat the socialist-simpleton drum and whine like some snot nosed street urchin.
Take the opportunity to learn from my posts. I am an Accountant with multi-national experience and multiple qualifications. What I know about finance completely eclipses your "pigeon understanding".
As I wrote of another of your ilk on another thread “you are out-classed, out-smarted and out-performed”.

Mollydukes The “Right Attitude” is the one where people start by taking full and complete responsibility for themselves instead of expecting the government to “Nanny” them from cradle to grave

Col Rouge (and not Terje - my apologies, Terje),

According to The Age article of 15 Feb, the Labor Party had asked the Department of Finance "to estimate the savings the government would make if it remained Telstra's majority owner."

Clearly, if the Department had done what it had been asked of it, it would have taken all factors into account INCLUDING the earning capacity of $30billion. The $525million figure over a four year period would have been the total that taxpayers stand to lose.

Your comparison of this figure with how much could be earned on $30billion is, therefore, completely meaningless.

It is not possible to know whether the Department properly took all factors into account, because they did not provide further details, but I doubt if it would have gone out of its way to understate the claimed benefits of privatisation. So, this figure makes nonsense of your earlier claim that "the immediate income the government would achieve by the sale of Telstra will significantly exceed the immediate income from dividend".

In any case, I would suggest that the loss of revenue only begins to give the picture of what the Australian community stands to lose should Telstra be handed completely across to a private corporation dedicated only to its own bottom line. (More can be found at http://www.citizensagainstsellingtelstra.com)

Yes, I had heard today, from our PM, and many many times before, the nonsense that a Government cannot be regulator as well as player.

And why not? Telstra was here first. If the other carriers did not like the situation, no-one forced them to come here.

Anyone can see, as an example, we were far better served when the Commonwealth Bank was wholly government owned and only required to pay for its operating costs, instead of gouging its customers for every cent they could. Since it was privatised, it has formed with the other banks into an effective cartel, and the Australian community are paying very dearly for it, today.

Col Rouge wrote : “you are out-classed, out-smarted and out-performed”.

Perhaps others should be the judge of that.

Col ,unbelievable, now your mate johnny has said the rich need another tax break!!
For me he continues to turn my sour grapes into sour coconuts . he fails to give hope and lift the spirits of the poor..... and i suspect peter costello now has a pallet of sour watermelons .