Bam wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 6:46pm:



Ah , you quote the Australia Institute a left-leaning organisation, where everything is a subsidy if it is not Green.

Did you read further down, before cherry-picking?

'The peak mining lobby, the Minerals Council of Australia, is hotly contesting the report's findings.

Its chief executive Brendan Pearson says regular analysis by the Commonwealth Government's Productivity Commission finds mining does not receive public largesse.

"The most independent analysis of assistance to industry sectors in Australia is that done by the Productivity Commission. It has found, year after year, that the mining industry receives no subsidies," he responded.'

'The Queensland Resources Council (QRC), representing mining companies in the state that the Australia Institute report says has the biggest subsidies, says the report is full of "howlers" and "would embarrass the North Korean government."

The council's chief executive Michael Roche says most of the Queensland projects included in the study were paid for by mining companies, a fact he says is ignored in the study.

"Almost every capital project undertaken by government-owned businesses for resources sector power supply and distribution, water, rail and port capacity gets a headline," he said.

"These projects were executed on a fully commercial basis, with resources companies entering into commercial contracts that underwrote the capital expenditure and provided commercial returns to government-owned businesses."

Mr Roche argues that the state governments involved actually profited from much of the infrastructure investment.'

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-06-24/mining-industry-receives-billions-of-dolla...

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:14pm:



Yes I read "Commonwealth Government's Productivity Commission finds mining does not receive public largesse.

"The most independent analysis of assistance to industry sectors in Australia is that done by the Productivity Commission. It has found, year after year, that the mining industry receives no subsidies," he responded.'


Did you not read the post?

Sir Grappler Truth Teller OAM wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:22pm:



Actually you will find Labor appointed Commissioners among them. Curious,eh? And Libs have only been in three years, I wonder who said they didn't receive subsidies before that?

lee wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 7:25pm:


It's not even a subsidy. It's a rebate. There is a difference.

Here is my comment:-

"So why bother giving with one hand and then taking with the other?  I'll tell you why - because these rebates are simply to cover the idea that these off-roaders do not use the roads and thus should not pay road tax or equivalent..... therefore the 'rebate' is in no way any effect on profit or taxable income... it is not a cash handout, it is simply a neutral measure and gains nothing and costs nothing to either the end user or the government.

That's the theory anyway.. what the argument becomes is that this is tax money foregone - in the eyes of some....... and thus is a 'black hole' of some kind.  IF - and that is a might big IF all that tax lovely from fuel actually went back into road and transport infrastructure..... few would argue the merits of fuel excise exemption.... farmers get it since they operate on private land and not roads, and it is simply too hard to keep track of their visits to the TAB in town etc....."

It may be that the worker is motivated by being treated as a serf with a disposable job and income and life.... but I don't believe that is the case, since the average worker is no more genuinely productive under duress... actually the opposite... and let's be honest.... many such in the big cities, who these days are from countries where working hard is an option..... no Asian country has a genuine hard-working genuine labour force... are in that category.

So we are left with three things:-

Either the worker is more productive.....

The standards are now much lower.....

Or we are being lied to overall for some gain for someone thus far unspecified......

In an environment in which genuine productivity has been subordinated to subordination to The Boss, who operates a rip-off system.... what genuine productivity can there actually be?  WHAT is being produced?

I lean towards "we are being lied to royally" (again), and this is all smoke and mirrors to hide the fact that this country is falling down as we speak... and there is NO genuine productivity anywhere.....

crocodile wrote on May 13^th, 2016 at 11:58pm:


So now extend your reasoning to incorporate economic factors such as market forces, transport and such, costs of production..... and let us see why there is some argument over the cost of wages here and now....

'investment' does NOT have to increase to incorporate increased labour productivity - all that is required is to establish a datum and then operate on that basis - and the problems begin when the market forces, including all costs of production and distribution, do not permit a profit under the existing approach.

So - UNLESS there is major investment in genuine infrastructure, and not in short term fixes - there is no outcome other than destruction of the organism that generates opportunity for profit for both worker and investor - and thus ALL lose from declining productivity in inappropriate investment.

As an example - if I run a household, and wish to make it more 'productive' - do I invest in passive  investments such as insulation (etc), or do I invest in an avenue that will recoup positive revenue for my family and home, such as getting a second job, given that the 'opportunity cost' of each is the same (measure that as you will)?

These are the kinds of decision that 'board members' (other than government ones) face every day....

Now - if I am a 'rich person' with all the avenues to minimise my tax and shuffle it off into other avenues and thus reap the benefit...  INCLUDING what I have already mentioned - the ability of the 'business' to offload its running costs that a family does not have...   how then do I decide which avenue for investment is the most appropriate to ensure the ongoing prosperity of myself AND those who do the work required to ensure that prospertity?

By playing 'the bottom line' at all times?

What you are arguing for here is a totally controlled economy, based on imposition, and not on free choice and market forces...

This is your dilemna.... without the input and social productivity of the ordinary person  = the worker, and the organisation itself, no organisation  as a whole can prosper...

The reality is that the prosperity of a company or a nation relies on the prosperity of its people..... and forcing those people to work for lesser conditions is NOT prosperity - it is slavery, and no slave works as well as a willing participant.