Ok Remco, I will explain it slower, until you do get it.

I happen to think that the ratrace is a great place, if you
are a rat :) A country kid, who learns to weld, fix an engine,
drive machinery and cars, all by the age of 13, is better off
then one hanging out around shopping centres, looking for
a drug dealer. Your family argument is thus questionable.

You should feel lucky that some people are passionate about
farming, 4% producing 20% of exports, in the real world.
Just trading houses and hamburgers is not sustainable,
world bankers will eventually shut you down without us.

Some families have spent 2-3 generations building up what
they have, they don't take your defeatist cut and run
approach to life.

The way to deal with climate change is not to run from it,
but to deal with it through market based solutions, with
a win-win for all.

One option is to sell stock early, at world market prices.
ie 2000 sheep sold at 50$ = 100K. Your rules prevent that,
they mean 2000 sheep at 20$ = 40k, a loss of 60k thanks to you.

You pay yourselves 90 billion a year in charity, now you complain
when 4% of taxpayers want a tiny fraction of what they paid back.

Why do you believe in the tyranny of the city majority?

Today's SHA map is showing an almost identical coastal profile to yesterday. This is suspicious. I would expect additional changes over such a short (24 hr) time frame, if indeed real changes in wastewater management are occurring:

Nov-1
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1162359544.gif

Oct-31
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1162272758.gif

NOAA does sometimes present unspecified errors in their maps.

However, if the map is correct and this reduced Sea Height Anomaly pattern off the NSW coast, below Coffs Harbour to the Vic border, is maintained for one full week, we should expect some inland NSW rainfalls.

Country Gal, I think we are all waiting with bated breath.

ITM Peter Costello has said the minerals boom is over:
http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2006/10/31/1162278141451.html

I've got news for pistol-Pete: With a proposed expediture of 1% world GDP on green projects from now on, even if the Poms are mistaken about their faux global warming, commodities will skyrocket beyond current boom levels to levels we can hardly imagine right now.

You see Costello's problem? He can't be PM, so He HAS to be the best Treasurer Australia has ever seen. Thus he continues to assume his fellow Australian's are a bunch of zombies and SPINS all this BS about falling commodity prices. He hopes to jack up his treasury performance profile of the last 10 years by downplaying the impact of mineral wealth on the economy. Hey Peter, you can fool all of us some of the time but not all of us all the time.

Of course we know Costello has done bugger all except immigrate profits, creating enviro-damage and civil strife, pinch pennies from the poor, pi$$ off the states(especially NSW with that $3billion GST grab) and lie about our mineral wealth so he can take credit for our boomtime economy.

The truth is that without mineral profits the Federal government is in a shambles, descending into totalitarianism with media monopolies yet barely legal.

Why do people even vote for this ego maniacal fool in his own electorate? I would really like to know!

PS Watch the changes in the SHA maps NOW!

Clearly therefore, drought assistance is free insurance.

It is capitalised in their superannuation as land values.

The rural sector doesnt want to leave their unfair world (ie. of high costs, deprivations, trade barriers etc etc) as they are are in reality comfortable or at least better off than elsewhere. They scratch their heads about why their martyrdom in providing their commodities is less and less appreciated by the bludgers in the cities.

Multipliers, dead lambs, sob stories of unfairness marketed through their trade union the National Party, who holds out the hand to those in the towns that have to move on sell out or retrain when things go bad.

The "miles per gallon" and "inch of rain" man is getting his dusty hat out for the next TV camera crew to share his misery when the drought revisits. His family suffers over a principle.

How sad. Very sad we continue with his "life support".

Remco, have you ever used public transport, received family tax benefit, been paid a parenting allowance, gotten unemployment or disability support, attended a government school, gone through uni with HECS, gotten a subsidy for having private health insurance, gotten child care rebates or benefits? I dare say very few people can deny ever getting a benefit from any of the above. They are all funded by the tax payer. Should we cut off all of this support too? It is in Australias best interest to retain family farmers, because to corporatise farming would be to sound the death knoll for our fragile environment. It will cost Aussies much more in the long run to offset the effects on our environment caused by corporate greed. Whilst corporates have sufficient resources and diversification to weather a drought without assistance, we will suffer more for this than from having to loosen the purse strings now and then.

Droughtsupport is made up of two components. Interest subsidy and income support (unemployment benefits). Income support is available to those that have little off-farm income and assets. its available the way that unemployment benefits are, except that in EC declared areas you dont have to sell up your farming assets to qualify. This recognises that its preferable that these people have a business to return to (ie employment) once the drought is over, otherwise you are faced with quite a number being on income support for the rest of their lives (generally they will find it hard to get other work due to a lack of qualifications and experience). If you have off-farm assets (tried to insure yourself against drought) you are penalised, and refused assistance until you have used up these other resources. This is a disincentive to diversify.

Few farmers want a grant (subsidy) - there has been quite a push for no-interest HECS-style loans, that are indexed to inflation like HECS and like HECS are repayable to the govt once certain income thresholds are met. Dont blame farmers - blame governments for not developing these HECS-type packages. These would be a win-win solution.

Well Remco, its all quite simple. Free up the labour market in
the meat industry and farmers would have that much extra income
due to real market forces, there would be no need to pay them
unemployment insurance. I see your response of course avoided
that point completely, as I had expected :)

There are good reasons why a few city slickers object to farmers
receiving unemployment payments, much as they do. Firstly those
few don't understand a thing about farming and country life. Secondly
they clearly just want farmers as taxpayers to add to paying for the
90 billion charity bill, not as recipients. Do you sell your million
$ house, before you receive the dole? Nope you don't. Why not?
You are clearly applying 2 standards here, even though your city
house may well be worth more then alot of farms.

Political represantion for farmers is a good thing, it stops the
tyranny of the city majority, overwhelming country people completely.

Luckily most city people don't see it your way, they see the benefits
of farming families on the land, as opposed to say Maquarie Bank
owning the lot.

Today's SHA map is showing extreme anomalies off the NSW coastal port offenders, yet again.

http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/phod/trinanes/tmp/sha1162457961.gif

We tried!

I'll keep monitoring and post if things improve again.

PS That will teach me to dob in a treasurer!