🚀 go-pugleaf

gleeson@unimelb.edu.au (Martin Gleeson) writes:

>adm@ccadfa.cc.adfa.oz.au (David Moss) writes:

>>>One wonders why David Moss chooses not to apply this reasoning to farmers
>>>when the government is giving them another $500 million in handouts.
>>>But of course we must fund the lifestyle choices of farmers or we wouldn't
>>>get bread for '99c', would we? Isn't that how it goes, David?

>>I notice you declined to continue the "Howard dons the Akubra" thread
>>Martin. I'm not surprised, you really had no answer there.

>You wish. The article hasn't reached my server yet. I'll get it from
>Dejanews and follow up. 

I look forward to seeing how you deal with the facts you asked me to provide.
If you have trouble finding the article (most of the words in the title
ae spelled wrong) let me know and I'll revive it.

Perhaps you had a similar reason for 'declining
>to continue' your defence of Pauline Hanson's racism in the thread
>entitled 'David Moss is wrong (Re: BRIAN ROSS is a LIAR.)'

I dropped out of that one because

a) I don't like my name in titles of threads
b) It had degenerated into a slanging match featuring GWB.
c) it got boring and I have better things to do.

>>As to why tha above does not apply to farming subsidy, perhaps we should
>>look at the background.

>Yes, let's see why you can complain about 'funding the lifestyle choices'
>of others, but make exceptions for the lifestyle choices of farmers.

When we subsidise farmers during hardship we are not subsidising a chosen
lifestyle, we are paying out from our national self-insurance to ensure
we sustain food prodiction capability.

>>A person who decides to take on employment and have the State take care of 
>>his/her children does nothing for the overall productivity of Australia.

>How so? It certainly doesn't take anywhere near one full-time child
>care worker per child, and people have always contributed towards
>the cost - Howard's just decided that he will slug the battler yet again.

Nice emotive language but it doesn't cut it Martin.
I'll explain it slowly.
Lets start with 2 people and 1 job.
Thats 2 people, one claiming unemployment benefit, the other a single
parents benefit.
Now we will bifurcate.

1) The UB recipient gets the job.
   The SP recipient still gets SP.
   The SP recipient provides full childcare at own expense.
   Net gain in productivity of 1 worker.

2) The SP recipient gets the job.
   The SP recipient claims childcare from taxpayers.
   The UB recipient still gets UB
   Net gain < 1 worker.

Point 2 is compounded when the SP recipient takes on a job that
requires the government to fund more childcare, as the original writer
does.

>>We have a staggering number of unemployed people willing to take the
>>person's place at award pay rates. Sure single parents should expect
>>some level of support from the community to compensate for the lack of
>>a partner. This is not carte-blanche to take on any job no matter how much
>>it costs the taxpayer however.

>But it's people like you and your Liberal cronies that tell people that
>they must take on any job that comes up because any job, no matter what
>the conditions, is better than no job. Have you changed your tune?

It must be a socialist thing.
Taking on a job and expecting the taxpayer to pay all the costs involved
is not what I am on about. When I take on a job I expect to pay any
expenses involved out of my own pocket. I expect the same of others.

>>Subsidising farmers during times of natural hardship is entirely a
>>different matter. There are very few people willing to work more than
>>three times the standard working week for less than average earnings.
>>There is a noticeable shortage of people with both the skills and the
>>capital who are willing to risk everything for such a low return.

>So what? It's a business like any other and they choose to be in it.
>We've all heard your wheat farm sob stories before, and the song
>remains the same: you think farmers should be subsidised by the
>government because you know some farmers that work very hard. 

Actually you misrepresent my position somewhat.
I expect farmers in genuine need to be subsidised during times of
genuine hardship caused by natural or economic disaster. I do not
expect such assistance to be permanent, or even regular. It is not
income subsidy but charity in time of need. 

>Well,
>there are a hell of a lot of other people in this country that work
>very hard for not much in wages - most owners of small businesses,
>for example, but they're building capital instead of drawing a high
>wage (like some farmers), 

Thats a personal choice. The Coalition recently allowed business owners
to reinvest the proceeds of a business sale in another business without
incurring capital gains tax. Are you going to whinge about that too or is it
only farmers you are against ?

>and I don't see you arguing that they should
>also be subsidised when business is bad or when they haven't set
>anything aside for slow periods.

Chalk and cheese Martin and you know it.

>>What do you suppose would happen if we didn't support farmers during
>>lean periods, and family farming became extinct in Australia ?

>Perhaps they should acquire some budget skills and manage their money
>like anyone else in business. 

Hmm, like how much they can invest in soil conservation work during
drought periods and still have enough left to produce next year when the
rain arrives. Or is it the year after ? Or the one after that ? or
perhaps they should budget wisely and stuff soil conservation ?

It's not as though lean times are some
>sort of freak occurrence. We've been having droughts every few years
>for decades. Or perhaps (to be fair) we should get them to pay higher
>taxes when there's a bumper crop?

Learn a little about the sector Martin.
1 bumper crop every 7 years is about average. Thats the one that buys
the farmer new clothes, a "town" car and educates his/her kids. The
others _might_ pay maintenance costs.

>>Think of how production costs would rise if we had to pay award wages
>>and conditions for food production. I used to get paid for 20 hours
>>when working 12 hour shifts in the steel industry, use that as a starting
>>point.

>So? Like I said in the other thread, they should raise their prices,
>which would be passed on to the consumer with little difference in
>price, instead of complaining and asking for a handout when they're
>sitting on hundreds of thousands of dollars worth of capital.

Read the "Howard dons the Akubra" thread Marty and you will see that if
farmers raised their prices, even marginally, it would be more economic to
import grain and the whole sector would be wiped out.

Think about that when you butter your toast or gobble your pasta.

>>The result would be the total destruction of domestic food production,
>>all our grain would be imported and none exported. What would that do
>>to our balance of payments, never mind unrealistically exposing us to
>>the foreign policy of food producing countries.

>Rubbish. Either people would be happy to pay, or (as your economic
>rationalist Liberal friends would say) we'd be rid of inefficient
>or non-viable businesses.

I guess thats why we have so few imports and Australian businesses are
booming hey Martin ? People are so happy to pay more ?
If people were happy to pay more retailers would charge more.
Wholesalers would still buy from the cheapest source to make their own
cut. National interest doesn't get a mention in real life economics.

>>There is no comparison between hardship subsidies for farmers and
>>people who think its their right to work regardless of of what they cost
>>the community.

>So you've changed your tune from 'people should take ANY job", eh?

No, I just expect them to carry the cost instead of passing it on to me.

>It looks like your statement "Why you should expect me to fund your
>lifestyle choice when I have enough trouble funding my own is really
>beyond me" is just the usual hypocritical rhetoric. You're having
>others fund your lifestyle choice (running off to the wheatfields
>for a few weeks every year), and complain that you have trouble
>paying for your own lifestyle. Why don't you get some contract
>work instead of chasing headers - then you'll have less trouble
>paying for your own lifestyle and you'll be able to make that
>statement above without being a complete hypocrite.

Martin, when I go off to the wheatfields I drive my own car, which I
pay for. I use my own petrol, without expecting the rest of Australia
to chip in. My wife stays home and looks after the kids, living from
our accumulated savings. Its my lifestyle choice and I fund it myself.

Incidentally the harvest conflicts with a Lotus Notes Developer course
I have to take for ADFA this year. Guess which gets priority ?
Right on ! You guessed it ! My _paying_ job. Fortunately harvest looks
like being later this year so I will probably do both.

>>People who choose to have children also choose to look after them.
>>If they want to work at something else too, let them make their own
>>arrangements. Sometimes its viable, sometimes its not. Thats life.

>Like I said before, why don't you apply the same reasoning to farmers?

I do. Farmers who want subsidies for everyday running expenses should be
told to go jump. Those who need hardship relief during times of natural
disaster should be helped out. The alternative is we all starve together.

>Is it because they're some sort of special group that is more deserving
>because you happen to have some first-hand experience of their business?
>The 'deserving poor' vs. the 'undeserving poor', eh?

You might notice that I was very vocal in arranging relief for the
people of North Korea who's farmers were also caught out by natural
disasters. There is a well known adage that charity begins at home.
Whos the hypocritical one with "deserving" and "undeserving" poor now ?

David Moss,
personal opinion only.
http://www.adfa.oz.au/~adm/politics for Australian Politics resources.