"You are rather insulting to Country people who work hard at primary employment to put bread, breakfast cereal, bacon and eggs, vegetables, milk and beef on your table.

I didn't insult anyone. But if they start demanding special treatment from the government I will expect them to justify it. Just saying 'Oh wouldn't it be nice if more people lived the way I choose to' doesn't cut it when you are asking for billions of dollars of other peoiple's money.

"I find people in the city create work for themselves - like washing car windows or selling Chinese imported gadgets. These are toy jobs compared to growing grain or vegetables essential to every persons survival.

Did you know that the majority of food grown in the world is grown in urban environments? If you think a few veges is all we need to get by then perhaps you should go back to the country and forgo any cars, white goods etc as they all come from overseas, at least in part.

"freediver, Try surviving on products not originaly gathered from the country people who produce our raw products.

What does this have to do with government subsidies? This is just getting stupid. Of course we need to eat. What we don't need to do is waste money. We are not going to go hungry because the government refuses to give you handouts.

Freediver, no-one is asking for handouts. What I've suggested is merely a way to assist in kickstarting regional economies. If you like, restrict the suggested benefits to people moving to the regions, so that those that are already there dont get a benefit. The only problem with that is that you then end up with people working alongside each other that have different effective spending power despite producing the same. So, dont think that would work. What I am trying to suggest though is a way of attracting skilled people to a regional area, not to boost incomes of those that are already there.

You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about country people, and farmers in particular. Assume you are a little miffed about the extensions to drought relief. The government continues on its path of "handouts" in the guise of interest rate subsidies, despite farmers groups ASKING for low-interest loans instead of grants/subsidies. This idea was knocked back by the current federal government two years ago. So farmers take the only assistance option open to them, grants. Which would have been cheaper to the general public??

"Freediver, no-one is asking for handouts.

What's the difference between a $2000 handout and a $2000 tax refund?

"You seem to have a bee in your bonnet about country people, and farmers in particular.

No. It's the whole handouts thing. Farmers are fine. Very few of them are the sort of person to demand free money from the government.

"So farmers take the only assistance option open to them, grants. Which would have been cheaper to the general public??

Depends on the amounts involved. Interest free loans do cost money. They are just more popular with the punters because people who don't understand the economics think giving someone $2000 worth of interest deductions/subsidies costs the government less than giving them $2000.

I am suitably chasised. Ok then, what's your solution for kick-starting regional economies (and again I am not just talking about outback Australia here, but most places outside capital cities), dealing with overpopulation and corresponding resources strain in the cities, and dealing with the housing crisis in the cities. What I have suggested is not an end-solution to any partiuclar problem, but something that can have an impact on ALL of these factors. And its simple to administer and monitor the costs of - not a great deal to go in additional administration, which is the bane of any targeted assistance programs. But I am open to suggestions....

That time limit thing is really annoying. Here is part one. Not sure when they will let me post part two

"Ok then, what's your solution for kick-starting regional economies

Why try to kick start them at all? We should not be directly subsidising industries like that. For the most part, centralisation in a natural response to economic pressures. That is, we are better off that way. This may change in the future. The migration of major shopping precincts from 'downtown' into the suburbs is a good example of this. Again, some people decry the loss of the old 'downtown' and want to government to prop it up, but people prefer to shop in the burbs.

There is however a rational economic argument for a few things, such as:

* helping to start regional tourism industries. This is just to start it. If it then can't stand on it's own two feet we should not keep pouring money in. However, the government does advertise Australia as a whole and it is reasonable to plug the outback as part of that. Obviously the Barrier Reef and some other regional places already get a lot of funding this way. You could justify continued funding on the increased government revenue from overseas travellers, but you would have to actually do the maths and prove it, not just wave your arms in the air and say it will all work out in the end..

* You could get some government agencies out of the state and territory capitals. I think the NSW government moved a call centre out to the Hunter Valley. Again, you have to be careful that this doesn't increase the cost of the beuracracy to taxpayers, especially if there is a need to the buraaucrats to all be in the same place. The last thing you need is different buraaucrats at opposite ends of the state not working together as a team because they have never met in person. This may work best for those agencies responsible for agriculture, forestry, mining, fisheries management etc. Call centres also work because they can be anywhere (even India). Having more government funds spent in the cities could distort the economy towards the cities, but showing that you would be better off moving them out would be difficult and would need to be done carefully. Perhaps it is a good candidate for one of Kevin Rudds many enquiries.

* You could fund research into how modern technology could allow people to work from home more easily. This sounds good in theory, but there are teething problems. Broadband in the bush may help, but again you have to justify the cost. Also, research into new primary industries such as aquaculture, native food breeding programs and other industries that are anchored to the land or sea. This will play into the sustainability debate. Wind farms are another good regional industry. They are far more decentralised than coal fired power stations. On the oter hand, solar will probably end up on people's roofs. Geothermal will be a regional industry, but will end up looking just like mining.

"dealing with overpopulation and corresponding resources strain in the cities, and dealing with the housing crisis in the cities

This is dealing with itself. As house prices go up in the cities, people will sacrifice income to work elsewhere in order to get the better lifestyle, cheaper housing etc. There is no need to government interference in this. You have to let people figure it out for themselves.