Ludwig

The difference between your questions and mine, are that mine are all on-topic, and yours are all off-topic. But I rejoin you in the population thread anyway.

Personal argument is 100 percent irrelevant. Your argument must stand or fall on its own merits in reason and evidence. The onus is on you to prove it, not just blandly assume what is in issue. I shouldn’t be expected to make the argument for you, and then disprove it.

I shouldn’t have to explain these basics of rational argumentation, and logical thought, but apparently I do. You can assume my good faith.

You seem to be surprised that someone is questioning your belief system. You should be more concerned that no-one on your side of the argument has yet been able to muster a competent answer.

“There are so many native bush tucker plants that can be grown in any community.”

Yes but obviously it was the Aborigines who showed that fact to everyone else in the first place. The problem is not a shortage of plants, nor of labour, nor of time, nor of land, nor of capital to support the people during the period of production.

The problem is too much governmental action, not too little of it. Can’t you see that? It’s staring you in the face.

The problem here, as in the thread on sustainability, is that when anyone discusses how best to use or supply scarce resources, such as pumpkins or fuels, they are discussing economic problems. The principles of economics apply. If we ignore the costs, as you do in both threads, any suggested outcome seems beneficial. But we end up using more resources to get the same outcome, thus wasting natural resources or human effort.

When people who are clueless about the basic principles of economics propose solutions, it is like someone who doesn’t understand Boyle’s Law (temperature, pressure and volume of a gas all related) suggesting how to make a boiler. They don’t understand that the outcomes *from the point of view of what they are trying to acheive*, are worse.

http://www.amazon.com/Economics-One-Lesson-Shortest-Understand/dp/0517548232

“The problem is not a shortage of plants, nor of labour, nor of time, nor of land, nor of capital to support the people during the period of production.”

Agreed Wing Ah Ling.

“The problem is too much governmental action, not too little of it. Can’t you see that?”

Um, no I can’t.

Just because government efforts to date have basically failed doesn’t mean that there has been too much government action, it means that there hasn’t been the right sort of action.

“…they are discussing economic problems.”

This is not just an economic issue. It is an issue of motivation, ownership, jobs, social improvement, etc. It shouldn’t necessarily matter if efforts to grow bush tucker or conventional crops aren’t economic for the first few seasons. If they are effective in galvanising community involvement, and thus in improving quality of life in remote communities, then great. That is far more important than economic viability.

Of course if they are not economic, the government will have to subsidise the enterprises. Subsidies could then be wound down as they become economically viable.

If enterprises are maintaining a significant improvement in quality of life but are not achieving viability, then they should continue to be subsidised. Much better this than letting them collapse and the communities going back to emptiness and despair.

.
Please see my response to the first half of your post on the ‘Population pressures’ thread:
http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=8421#133784

You are so right Shirley. My husband tried to do this in several of the remote indigenous communities we lived and worked in in WA, NT and QLD. Everyone was totally happy with the idea so long as he or some other 'white fella' did all the work! Good luck!

Wing you said:

"When people who are clueless about the basic principles of economics propose solutions, it is like someone who doesn’t understand Boyle’s Law (temperature, pressure and volume of a gas all related) suggesting how to make a boiler. They don’t understand that the outcomes *from the point of view of what they are trying to acheive*, are worse."

Are you seriously comparing economics to science. Economics is at best a social science, some have even suggested philosophy.

If economics and economic variables were as clear cut as proven scientific principles many of the articles publishes on OLO would not be necessary and there would be no debate. Clearly people disagree about the principles of economics, what works, what doesn't and what other variables influence outcomes - which suggests there are other socio-humanist factors at play.