Hi enviro,
I like high density. They should be made with soundproof walls and sprung wooden floors .
suburbia is unsustainable, such a waste of energy.
The english (100's of years ago) had big lawns to show off their wealth. lawns take a great amount of time to keep and produce nothiing,so had to be rich to have a lawn. Our society came from there.

I rent a place with a small unuseable back yard. We go down to the local park for a walk/basketball throw/run/boomerang throw whatever. Aside from the clothes line I would prefer to have no backyard. The park is perfect. HUGE, someone else mows it  . Few backyards I can run in.

yep, give me a place that is logistically good and mimimum useless maintenance, sold me.

It is apparent freediver you have no knowledge whatsoever in running a business, in particular an industrial business. If you plan to propose economic changes you need to get a grasp on how businesses are run. Like you said to me "go read a book on economics" back at you, "go read a book on the economics of business".

I wrote Quote:


You answered Quote:


I gave you a second reason earlier. Businesses need to be near employment. They need to be near services so workers without vehicles can get to them or they suffer and struggle on finding staff.

Another reason why they are near each other is because the council selects what land can be used for commercial, industrial and residential with environmental impact in mind Most of the time).

If a manufacturing plant started in my town, Brewarrina, It would be able to take advantage of backloading rates to Brisbane, Melbourne, Adelaide and possibly Perth. Many trucks prefer to use the way out west road system for two major reasons. 1) they can speed and get away with it 2) they don't have to go over the mountains making the drive fuel efficient. Many trucks come through here from Brisbane going to Melbourne and vice versa and if you look at a map you would scratch your head why.

Freediver stated Quote:


Yes, you do need to understand all the minor details before you set up a structure for these businesses to work off. If you plan to make any changes with your Sustainability Party obviously those changes will be made without taking all the minor details into account. Definately a recipe for disaster.

Maybe you could call your party "The Disaster Party"

Where do I start? There are so many holes in everything you say and don't say. This is getting to a stage of "I'm wasting my time debating with you". Have you ever thought about writing something constructive about your beliefs instead of destructive about others?

I quoted Quote:


I see you left out the reasons why I made this statement.

freediver answered Quote:


You forget why this debate has gone on the tangent it has.

Quote:


This is what you have been attacking since. The concept of incentives for businesses to move to country locations.

I wrote Quote:


freediver stated Quote:


Businesses are part of this country which is effected by any change in the economy. Look at businesses as an individual because they are their own entity (they all have individual thought and their own business models).

This is the quote that freediver lodged Quote:


This is the complete quote after he mentioned that transport was the only reason for businesses to be located together.

Quote:


freedivers answer was to the first paragraph Quote:
but, by not answering the second paragraph he now admits that their is more reasons for businesses to locate themselves together. (Councils force them to do this freediver)

I stated Quote:


Quote:


Well, employment is the problem so, back to what I said much previously, if the government gave incentives allowing increase wages would entice people to move here for work.

I have to spend the next 6 hours going through your rubbish highlighting the concept that you argue for the sake of arguing out of your backside. I know you do this to keep debate happening but it is getting very close to a stage where i may just leave the site. I would prefer to work to a beneficial solution for all of Australia rather than promote a selfish one sided dictatorial style party that you obviously are going to be head of.

Not sure what you are getting at here. I oppose subsidies for businesses to move to the bush. If it is really more efficient for them to do so, they will do it. they aren't stupid.

So you are ok with increasing emissions to allow for services to remote areas? What about education services to remote communities? Is providing subsidies for teachers ok, or is that a no-no too?

So, you want the government to pay people to leave the city because they would prefer not to live in the bush? Why not just let them live in the city? I think you need to ask yourself what your goals are. You appear to think that decentralisation is inherently good and more efficient. This is not that case.

Centralisation puts pressure on natural resources within the vicinity as well as increases emissions with regards to transport. Spreading the load has merits, unless you advocate forced sterilisation....

I said Quote:


freediver stated Quote:


No but you are! This is why businesses don't move to the bush. By subsidising you make it more efficient.

I stated Quote:


Freediver stated Quote:


What, listening to their constituents?

I said Quote:


Freediver stated Quote:


For one, think of the environmental impact from high populations in cities.

For two, people generally don't live in the bush because there is no work.

For three, I am not saying to pay the people direct, that onus is on business. What I suggest is as follows; (You can change the percentages but it is the concept I am looking at)

I earlier submitted this concept for discussion Quote:

When the government is considering a new law, it does not take a bottom-up approach. It does not look into the details of every business and try to sum up the individual effects to get the net effect on the entire economy. That is what communism attempted and it failed miserably, because government simply cannot achieve that.

What government should do is create an environment in which commerce can flourish, and society in general. This requires an understanding of the general principles of economics. It does not require an understanding of the details of running a business.

hhmmm, maybe as cities grow there will be more people who want to move to smaller towns ?
The rent/house/commuting/living pressures make cities less desirable to live in for some people.

imho suburban sprawl is unsustainable.
High density (well designed) would alleviate commuting concerns.
When the housing bubble pops, one of the major attractins to city living (and buying) will vanish.


There are advantages to living in the bush that should be promoted. Incentives ..... are a double edged sword. The low cost of living is an incentive.

With the net, the "remoteness" is lessened.

More high density living, highlight the benefits of bush living, assistance to country areas in promoting themselves, starting up new businesses there.

enviro wrote on Apr 25^th, 2007 at 8:47pm:


Due no doubt to low populations.

Most people have to work in cities as that's where the work is.   But what it means is the slow death of rural and provincial towns.   I agree with the concept of migrating industries such as service industries to regional areas.

On the subject of tax - and I see this was started as a turnover tax thread - taxes should as much as possible be confined to direct taxation and consumption tax.   Taxes such as turnover tax, payroll tax and such like will generally find individuals finding ways to avoid it.   But the only way to avoid direct tax or consumption taxes is do not work or consume.   Impossible.