I am not sure what Peter Saunders is basing his information and experiences upon. I have certainly witnessed people who do not have enough money for basic food,heating or shelter. In Australia.Currently. I have witnessed people going without food so they could pay for heart medicine or going without heating to afford basic food which does not last though the week. I have brought food parcels to clients that I am working with to try and find more affordable accommodation,if I hadn't they would not have eaten for several days. So when I think of poverty in Australia,I do not imagine it as people not being able to go to a restaurant. If by the fact of poor health or age Peter should find himself on a benefit of between $180.00-240.00 per week I would like to show him the limited options of accommodation -generally starting at a rooming house-$100.00 per week rent alone that he would face and see how he would manage electricity,food,public transport and medicines for remaining $12-$20 per day. Stuff happens Peter and to those who you would never imagine!

I have to ask when Col Rouge last contributed to the building of any communications network. Although Col appears to knock down most arguments in other posts I am not convinced he has a thing to offer in any systems engineering. Like most things modern we get pretty much what we pay for including telecommunications.

Arguments relative to overseas experience can’t be directly applied here due to factors like distances, volumes and lead times after design. We have sometimes developed unique engineering; Telecom’s DRCS in the outback was a good example. But rapid technology change here frequently requires materials from overseas manufacturers who simply can’t keep up to the demand in their own backyard. Having the will is one thing finding the skill is another. Col seems well organized (self-actualized?) though, perhaps he can grab a bucket of cash (Nat’s slush fund), hop in the jeep and jump up a hill or two and see how he can communicate with it.

Aren’t we lucky in this sunburnt country, there’s always smoke signals to be learned

Col Rouge wrote "I am not going to nit-pick your numbers and calculations – the more I look at them the stupider they seem."

They are not my figures. They are the Finance Department's figures. They show in black and white that taxpayers will LOSE money, instead of gaining money from privatisation. Either you are too stupid to comprehend the simple meaning of the Age article or you are not capable of admitting that you were wrong.

Col Rouge wrote "I guess the matter of 'competitive pricing' has not entered your tiny mind."

Of course 'competitive pricing' has never entered my tiny mind. I have only been following the debate over economic (ir)rationalism for about twenty years now.

By the way have you noticed how much more 'competitively' priced all our banking charges have become since the Commonwealth Bank became privatised?

And has it ever entered your tiny mind to ask just who ultimately pays the cost of all the idiotic duplication in our telecommunications sector? - five digital mobile networks covering the same geographical areas in the major cities, whilst many rural users miss out altogether and the pointlessly duplicated roll out of fibre optic cables by both Optus and Telstra in the major cities in the 1990's?

Even if competition were to cause the different telcos to reduce their margins to zero, could the overall costs charged to the community be any cheaper than what would by charged by a publicly owned monopoly? Common sense would say no. If you have figures that would prove otherwise, I would be most interested to see.

We have already lost badly as a result of partial privatisation. As just one of many examples, monthly line rental charges rose from $11.65 per month in 2000 to at least $26.95 per month in 2004.

If full privatisation proceeds, we will all pay even more dearly, whilst a tiny minority including stockbrokers, investors, accountants and overpaid financial advisors will gain out our expense.

Good post Daggett but let’s get Col out of some his advanced policy rhetoric. The process of streamlining big business through privatization always creates casualties apart from immediate job loss. Raiding the capital assets including a background of good will from the public certainly reduces research, innovation and development within an industry in the long term too.

Long term training or retraining can’t happen in a climate of fierce competition either. Sure prices will fall as owner drivers do longer hours but risks escalate however more transport regulation won’t solve that issue.

My theme remains focused on practical skills retention.

When we expect others to do all our housekeeping chores through a process of contracting we inevitably become redundant too. In the end we can’t fix a puncture or mount the roadside curb or a flight of steps in our wheel chair.

Note too, if its not made in China we can’t afford it now.

We may not be all poor yet but we are again dependent for sure. Who here can build their own pair of wheels or make a set of cutlery? Shifting our all orders to the cheapest source is pure folly if we wish to keep a full range of relevant manufacturing but perhaps our smartest wish to live in say India or China.

I see I misunderstood part of Col Rouge's previous post. He wasn't ridiculing the figures from the Department of Finance. He was ridiculing my efforts to demonstrate to him that I understand the concept of compound interest.

So, Col, could you please explain to me, and to everyone else, how my formula for compound interest was wrong?

Evidently, until we can satisfy him that our knowledge of finance meets his high standards, Col would have all of us sit back and allow this Government to effectively steal from us what little value still remains in Telstra, after years of having its value eroded by stupid policies of deregulation and partial privatisation, so that he can charge his clients $25,000 per report to advise them how to profit at our expense.

Thanks, Taz for such a useful post. If, as a society we had though through the issues as clearly as you have 20 or so years ago, we could have avoided taking all the steps which today are leading us dangerously close to social, economic and ecological ruin.

We should get in touch some time.

Thanks Kit,

Your point further reinforce the points I, digiwigi, Kanga and others had made earlier. (see above) The statistics used by Peter Saunders to 'prove' that levels of poverty in Australia are not serious, are largely meaningless, and fly in the face of the experiences of people, who, unlike Peter Saunders, are in touch with welfare recipients or working in low-pay casualised occupations.