Ah Dickie, go back to the pages I referred you to and the
individual programmes.

Even for an old fart like you, you should be able to work
it out :)

If you can't, well ok, so have a cup of tea and a good
lay down for a while.

Poor Yabby, trapped by your own hand. Shame on you!

Thanks for that info, Dickie.

I'm just wondering, if the funding for THAT is dollar for dollar by the taxpayer. It's enough to make me want to go on the dole so I don't pay any taxes (aren't most of the farmers now getting the dole, which the wider community has to mortgate its soul to get on to?) More taxpayer support, along with the subsidies for when it's wet, when it's dry, when it's hot, when it's cold, and for the latest SUV as well.

It's endless, what we throw at these parasites really, isn't it?

Cheers
Nicky

dickie, I'll help you out: http://annualreport07.mla.com.au/trade_development.php

definately states $600 000

Your own link proved the live exports were worth $700 million. Was Yabby lying?

Nicky, I never thought of you as one to harbour resentment and jealousy toward farmers, who are providers of food to the Australian nation. The people of Australia have been living cheaply at the farmers expense (declining terms of trade) with prices remaining static, but with increasing costs. They have spent the money saved on food to invest in housing and consequently we have some of the most expensive housing in the world, and inflation to boot. Now the farmers, during the worst drought in memory, get to pay higher interest bills and rates at a time when there is no income - and you then deign to criticise the minority of farmers who do claim benefits.

NO, MOST FARMERS DON'T GET THE DOLE or subsidy only about 1 in 8 do, 24000 according to abare.
I find your inaccuracy astonishing and nothing short of malevolenent, but really accuracy hasn't been your concern lately, has it?

Poor Nicky, trapped by your own hand. Shame on you!

"definately states $600 000"

Rojo

You have plucked your figure from under "Investment" which is somewhat irrelevant to the Mouth's "promotional expenditure" terminolgy. Why are you flogging a dead horse?

This is what the Mouth said:

"I make my point again. 57 million for promotion of meat,
600 thousand for live exports promotion. What is your
problem?"

So did the Mouth also grab that figure from "Investment?"

1. Definition of promotion: Programs designed to increase visibility, promotional marketing increases brand awareness and drives consumer action.

2. Generally, promotion is communicating with the public in an attempt to influence them toward buying your products and/or services.

Definition of Investment:

1. An asset or item that is purchased with the hope that it will generate income or appreciate in the future.

2. In an economic sense, an investment is the purchase of goods that are not consumed today but are used in the future to create wealth.

The figure I have raised is for "Marketing." If you don't believe "Marketing" means "promotional", then please advise otherwise.

And of course, if you are a member of MLA, you may consider another look at the A/R to find what the additional $30m or so was spent on under "Marketing." That's the figure that you and the Mouth have chosen to ignore.

As for your whack at Nicky, I remind you that farmers are not the Messiah's chosen people. They grow a product, we the consumers buy it. The problem is, that despite the overwhelming evidence that this nation has been raped of its ecological sustainability through imprudent agricultural technologies, farmers continue to practise in a manner which places this nation and others at grave risk.

Now now Dickie dear, don't try and crawl out of it with a heap of
semantic claims. Investing in various programmes is plain English.

page 16 Domestic trade and consumer promotion 27.7 million
page 18 Export trade and consumer promotion 30.2 million

That is your 57 million for meat.

page 21 Trade development-livestock exports 0.6 million

Yes they have other programmes related to marketing, if you
read further, but those are the three marketing programmes.

Of course I don't expect you to ever admit defeat, as it is
not in your nature, but then it takes bigger people then
you, to admit when they are wrong. In this case you were,
no matter how you try and wriggle out of it

Hi all
Dickie, you and I clearly are the only ones to pick up the hidden truths in MLA's propaganda machine. I don't find anything particularly dramatic in what you have said, but that is just Yabby's way of reacting when he is backed into a corner (as he usually is).

As you quite rightly point out, farmers grow stuff and people buy it - but also in this country, people make stuff and people buy it, and people do all sorts of other things in any number of professions for which people pay, so it is only in the farmers' collective imaginations that they are the only, or even close to being the major, source of GDP in this country (in fact they are a very minor source, something like 3%, from memory) - you can find that data at www.liveexportshame.com straight from the ABS.

Now my computer technician is coming round (he provides a service for which I pay and there are lots of him, too).

Sorry, Rojo, but you guys need to get over yourselves. I've got to say that I find the fact that we are paying 24,000 farmers the dole rather obscene ... no-one else can get it without jumping through a million hoops.

Cheers
Nicky