$12,000 lump-sum payments for farming families
Government is going to spend a further " $190 million ..(which)…takes the federal government’s drought response to $576 million"
I am 'generally' against all forms of handouts and humanitarianism at a government level (Australia is not a charity) but under some circumstances there needs to be exceptions, especially when helping our own….
How do you feel about your tax funds being used for drought relief?
Not disagreeing at all but the counter-argument is that farming is a commercial enterprise and when the years are profits are good, we don't see much in return. Equally, other commercial ventures don't get handouts when the going gets tough.
I don't think that's the right way to think about it, since prices do decrease a little sometimes, but that's the opposing view.
We do see stuff in return - plenty of food to buy. Plus taxes on profits.
The amount of cash that the Australian farmers received is like a drop in the Ocean compared to what the car manufacturers were receiving (Holden, Ford, Toyota) before they stopped local production - now that was a joke.
How much were they receiving?
@Zachary: Not as much as foreign makes in there respective countries, but don't let that get in the way of some faux outrage.
@Zachary: http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-04-02/holden-reveals-billion…
Thats just from holden at that point in time
Or what about 440mil lump sum to a private charity in the Barrier Reef foundation….
I think the joke is us becoming a Country that has to import everything.Soon we won't even be able to feed our-self's. But there are still people thinking supporting local industries is a joke!
Ourselves.
Keep in mind, something like the car industry can generate and support a lot of other business and tech development. Smaller companies and startups often depend on the investment and potential applications that local industries can offer. Now, if an Australian has an idea that would improve car manufacturing they have to go overseas, or hope to find an application in one of the few remaining industries we have.
To add a little context, I worked at a hardware startup in Japan for a while that was able to find investment and potential customers in a few different industries, including automotive. If it takes off, the product (a type of measurement tool) can spread to more industries, making the startup lots of money and bringing new benefits to other Japanese companies.
It could be a billion dollar product, but this company probably couldn't exist in Australia. Before this I spent ages looking for a similar job in Australia, but they are pretty rare. I worked at one Australian place that only survives because they had built connections with a few foreign customers many years ago, back when they had money rolling in to develop their unique product.
Car subsidies sound like a lot, maybe they were too much, but these industries won't come back, and letting them go creates long term deficiencies in our capabilities.
@smartazz104: The point is however, plenty of other businesses go out of business when they can't make a profit - they don't get a handout - and certainly don't stick a big wad of cash in the CEO's pocket from that and then close the doors. So why should any other business get it.
@GregMonarch: it all depends on what benefit the government can get back from a business, such as employing thousands of people who pay tax for example.
@Repi: Nothing wrong with supporting local industries and production. But blindly supporting dying industries just because they are local is a foolish.
@GregMonarch: I agree that farming is a 'business' . However it is also in a way, a kind of a public service and necessity to the people of Australia (Unless we really want to have to buy more and more of our 'fresh fruit and veg' from China etc) .
Perhaps a levy on farmers themeselves, in times when they are thriving, may be in order. Like income protection of sorts.
For Eg. For those that are in an area that is expected to get drought every X ammount, and buy into that farming business knowing they are buying into an area that every 10 or so years will not make anything, then maybe the solution would be for them to have some sort of income insurance levy.
Also, it is worth considering that many of the Farmers would be living in areas with no other available employment other than agriculture, therefore the one-off $12,000 could actually be saving much much more $$ if they go onto many years of welfare payments (or even 1 year welfare is probably more than 12k).
Commonwealth countries are now run by people who cannot figure out what bathroom to use. There is little hope they can save civilisation.
It is funny how the ALP makes such a big issue about banks receiving company tax cuts but not a single word about punishing the b#stard supermarket giants who have been screwing suppliers and farmers for years.
The Federal government made a huge mistake when it came to cheap milk/bread by not imposing a levy to ensure farmers received a fair amount.
As for fairness in Australia it does not exist.
Law abiding citizens are homeless whilst criminals get pay tv, etc; Foreigners receive free handouts whilst Australian university students must repay HECS debt and the list goes on.
The Federal government made a huge mistake when it came to cheap milk/bread by not imposing a levy to ensure farmers received a fair amount.
I saw on tv last night woolworths is dropping the price on woolies eggs. That immediatly followed an ad about Channel 9's Farm Aid…
Sure, i'm all for saving a dollar on eggs, but i imagine the farmers are wearing that, not woolies…
The Federal government made a huge mistake when it came to cheap milk/bread by not imposing a levy to ensure farmers received a fair amount.
Why should the federal government fix the price of these things? Nobody is forcing farmers to sell at a loss. Milk demand is quite inelastic and farmers have used co-operatives reasonably successfully in the past for collective bargaining.
not a single word about punishing the b#stard supermarket giants who have been screwing suppliers and farmers for years.
What? Supermarkets and farmers are both businesses, I'm not sure what you think supermarkets are (they're certainly not charities) or what they should be doing instead.
Well, the Harsh Reality is …
The banks operate under a licence that limits their competition, and requires a higher standard of consumer protection. Anyone can open a supermarket. Funny that you blame the ALP.
Do you really want the govt setting prices on supermarket goods, and/or what the supermarkets pay their suppliers? Is this the “New Economy” … govt micro-managing private enterprise?
What do you propose? Pay TV for the homeless? Incarcerate criminals in rat infested dungeons? Starve refugees? Better funded education (finally a good point, and ALP policy)?
Trump and Hanson push this victim/blame mentality
@BigBirdy: Rubbish. Media claims they push that victim mentality, and low-IQ or people too lazy to fact-check follow along baaa'ing behind them.
If you are going to attack banks for their bad behaviour why not the supermarket giants? They have been screwing suppliers and customers for years. Expecting suppliers to wear the cost of advertising (Jamie Oliver) and paying them months later for their goods just to name a couple of their tactics.
The point of a levy would be to discourage unrealistic pricing. When milk is cheaper than a bottle of cola something is wrong. 20 cent p/litre off fuel vouchers were banned as they were deemed unfair to independent fuel retailers.
Surely law abiding citizens should receive more assistance from the government than some one who has broken the law. If FTA TV is not good enough for them the answer should be bad luck. If they want to riot let them and if they damage their surroundings increase their sentence and let them live in their own self inflicted rot.
Why is the government imposing emission reductions? Why is the government subsidising renewables? Why should the government build the NBN? Why should tobacco products be taxed so high and forced to wear health warnings. And so on…
Their answer would be for the good of all Australians whether you agree is another debate.
Should the government control every aspect of the four majors? No. However they should discourage bad business strategies by being willing to ban or impose levies that do hurt the long term viability of farmers.
@HARSHREALITY: Carbon emissions and tobacco products have externalities. If these things are not taxed, private actors (i.e. big businesses) profit at the expense of the taxpayer by shifting the cost of the consequences of their actions onto the general public / the public health system. The government should build the NBN because plainly nobody else would have built it (even though Telstra had the means and opportunity), but should extract a commercial return from it so that taxpayers are not out of pocket.
That's my issue as well, farmers get hand outs and tax credits when times are bad but make a motza when times are good (with losses brought forward to offset).
They may not be driving around in mercs but most farmers are pretty far from poor.
I don't know which farmers you are thinking of, but the ones I know, where I grew up, were working 80+ hour weeks in all conditions, fixing their own machinery, against highly risky odds, to scrape out a living. They may be asset rich (between large land area and machinery etc), but the value of the land you need to make a living from doesn't actually put food on the table…
Because: a) why keep doing it (perhaps because like hitting your head against a brick wall, it feels good when they stop!?), and, b) if you own property lush enough to support dairy cows, then you can farm many OTHER things in that same soil. Things that produce better returns and/or require less effort - even if it's done in stages over time.
e.g. Reduce the herd/crop by 5%, devote 5% of the land to something else with a better return, and switch another 5% over each year until the entire dairy portion is gone. The return can't be too bad if they keep doing the same thing for years on end without trying something new/changing what they do.
i.e. Few farmers couldn't find twice that amount of land spare - many have that much surrounding their home (which isn't being used directly for animals/crops). Bills, fuel, repairs, etc., hard to meet - sure - but I'm just pointing out there's no reason they should be 'going hungry'. And it doesn't need to be difficult or time consuming either. For example no-dig methods using hay/lucerne. Obviously in drought areas it would more difficult. But even some of those could produce after compost coverings like pebbles and woodchips that retain water, together with shade mesh so plants (food for the family itself) don't die.
Parched earth with 50cm deep cracks in the earth is one thing, but I've seen plenty of farms classified as being in 'drought' that could have done some or all of these other things - many for less expense, effort, and frustration - if they'd just invest a little effort when things are not bad - ready for the next time they are.
Australian coal, oil and gas companies receive $7.7 billion (that was in 2016, probably much more now) a year in government subsidies and that does not include State subsidies. That covers tax breaks, direct grant payments, research grants, exploration costs, extraction grants, etc. These handouts are given even if the going does not get tough.
I agree with you, but I don't think we're reducing out foreign aid budget any though.
Foreign aid is not about helping the world's neediest people. It is about buying their support for foreign policy/political reasons or so that we can exploit their people/resources later.
That’s too cynical. It is also about cultivating friendships between nations. For example, we have lots of informal aid programs to Indonesia bringing their brightest students here for study. These students will be their business and political leaders in 15-20 years. And overall, they really enjoy their time here. I think that is money extremely well spent.
Laughs. Australia has no bloody idea, China on the other hand are very smart.
Why would one give aid for nothing tangible? China loans then expects a default so they can claim infrastructure whilst Australia give money away for nothing in return.
About time Australia cuts all foreign aid and replaces it with a policy that requires those who receive it to give us back something in return whether that be land or a percentage of the profits made in agricultural investments using our money.
@HARSHREALITY: How well do you speak Indonesian? You do realise that one of the poorer nations on earth exists just a few hundred kilometres from our almost entirely unsecured coastline right?
It's important to have good relations with your neighbours.
Sounds like Trump's position. Not that I disagree.
Unfortunately, there's a lot of idealist in the world that thinks good will is the only that matters and the moral high ground is absolute. Goodwill matters, but it is not the only thing that matters. Behind every goodwill there's opportunities for exploitation - we'd be a fool to be on the wrong end of that. Whatever moral high ground one has, it is not going to stop others.
@AddNinja: cultivating friendships
No its not "cultivating friendships" - its about furthering our interests. Were not doing it out of friendship, just like France doesn't give french citizenship to African countries MPs out of friendship.
@TheMostHated: I think you’re half right - our interests are being furthered through friendship. Strategically I agree with you, but remember, on the ground it is Indonesian students being supported by our government, making friends with locals, exploring Australia etc. Most love their time here and want to return. Few would believe propaganda that Australians are evil having lived and studied here.
Our foreign aid policies are absurd. Aid should be restricted to our closest neighbors and not be given to places on the other side of the world. Those countries should be subsidized by those closer to them instead.
As for aid it should come with a expectation of loyalty to Australia not China. If nations want OR prefer the Chinese aid/takeover method let them have it and cut Australian aid to them. Feeding the greed and disloyalty of questionable or corrupt overseas governments does not benefit Australia.
"cultivating friendships between nations"
HA HA HA HA HA.
Australian government gives $300 million of OUR money to Indonesia every year. Indonesia just bought $400 million worth of attack helicopters.
Do you support bailing out other businesses too?
Did you support government subsidies for the car manufacturers, steel workers, taxi drivers, etc etc etc?
Farmers already get generous tax treatment - this is just another handout.
Hats off to their PR people 'though - they have managed to dupe the majority of Australians into believing that the country should bail them out when times are bad, but get nothing back when times are good due to the use of FMDs, family trusts and income splitting, and tax averaging.
I think irrespective of that being true, the farming industry is a strategic/security imperative so it really cannot be allowed to fail to a significant extent.
If we can spend 50 billion on subs we can surely afford this for our food security
I would have said the same thing about the steel industry and the automotive industry.
There are plenty of countries around the world with a negligible primary production sector - yet they manage to eat somehow…
Not all Australian farmers need a bail-out - only some. The sector would not disappear.
@blaircam: No, if there was a war and we couldn't import cars for a few years we would survive. If local food production collapsed and we couldn't import food, then we wouldn't (or, the government would have to start paying people to take up farming, which would be way more expensive than just helping farmers through this drought)
@Quantumcat: If there was a war the loss of heavy vehicle manufacturing would heavily impact on our war industries and capability to manufacture supplies.
If there was a war drought affected farms wouldn't help our food production one iota.
If there was a war…
@blaircam:
That's presuming the drought never lifts. Given human history I wouldn't be surprised if there were future major world wars
@blaircam: the point is, when the drought lifts if we have allowed the local food industry to collapse there will be no local food, drought or no drought. The point is to help them weather the drought and then continue producing food after the drought lifts. If they are forced to sell up and move to the city there will be no industry present once the drought is over, it could take years for the farming level to get back up and in all that time we will have to import food and pay more for it.
More to the point we can't afford 50 billion on subs.
No, if there was a war and we couldn't import cars
I like how you completely skipped over:
I would have said the same thing about the steel industry
And yes, steel tends to be important in wars.
Otherwise I agree with you that agriculture is a vital strategic industry. And I think the difference between it and the steel industry is that, defensively, food is much more important than steel and the steel industry would've required far more, and ongoing, financial support to stay in existence.
I don't agree with arguments that X dollars are being spent on Y therefore A dollars should be spent on B.
No one is forcing farmers to keep farming. We haven't even explored other means to ensure food security. I don't imagine handing money to farmers during a drought = food security.
Farmers can sell the land. Yeah, they'll be poor but many business owners suffer the same fate when times get tough.
If land becomes sufficiently cheap and food gets sufficiently expensive, capitalism will take over.
And I'll bet that you'll be one of the first people to complain when farming land is all bought up by foreign companies.
You'd be absolutely wrong on that bet.
The great thing about selling farm land to overseas investors is they can't take it anywhere.
great thing about selling farm land to overseas investors is they can't take it anywhere.
True, however they can stop using the former farming land for farming and put a golf course there, or just leave it sitting there wasted/empty.
Also they can send any and all produce overseas also (and would be more likely to do so, than if the farm were Australian owned).
@ozzpete: Common sense will tell you that land will always be used for its highest and best use - regardless of who owns it.
A quick google search will also tell you that Australia already exports more than half of the food grown here.
Every seller will sell to the market that maximises its return. Aussie farmers are not willingly making less money to make sure that Australians get cheap food. If they can get more for their wheat/apples/potatoes overseas - that's where it will go.
People have some strange romantic notions about farms…
I'm happy for it to be given as a tax free loan. This is tax payers money not a fricking charity.
Agreed!!! Prefer to give $$$ to our own that send $300+ million to Indonesia.
So you buy directly from farmers?, Woolies and Coles are scouring these guys out of the trade anyway.
They do put food on our Table first. You head more about oversea stuff that new market for them. I know with beef supermarket are want process oversea and reimport it
I suppose you would prefer that farmers lose their farms and end up on newstart permanently, costing more money than simply helping them to get through the drought, and your food costing more because more of it having to be imported, and the real estate market swinging around because of people having to sell their farms, and animals starving to death or being sold for dog meat and being treated cruelly.
Should really think things through before crying "handouts".
Also, if you were on the receiving end (eg house burned down and insurance got out of paying out or you lost your arm in an accident and workers comp would not pay) you would be quite happy to receive government assistance. Try to practice empathy in your life (ie being able to place yourself in someone else's shoes) as it will serve you well.
No. You want to donate money, donate your own money instead of volunteering others' money.
Actually I totally support this.
If people want to financially prop up some businesses involved in primary production - good on them.
However, it is not government's job to bail out businesses failing because of changing circumstances.
This is exactly what some of those extreme animal loving tree hugging sadistics do with their over the top protests that cause damage - costing tax payers
Thanks for this comment. People are rarely ever critical when spending other people’s money.
No, it is the Government representing Society that has decided to enact a policy. If that is to help framers because this is a super drought (we had around 1900s, and then around 1940s) so be it. Better than the waste of money that we spend on politician's causes - like new stadiums.
Sorry… but I literally laughed out loud at this suggestion.
I can understand applying a levy for many, many justifiable reasons.
An unwillingness of a business in an industry that has an established, obvious cycle of drought and bounty plan accordingly is not one of those reasons.
I'd be happy for farmers to be given funding in exchange for for equity in the business. They can either pay interest on the loan, or buy back the equity when good times return.
Hopefully, taking a little slice out of their boom-time bounty will serve as incentive to actually save some of that cashflow for a no-so-rainy day.
Spot on. If farmers know they are going to bailed out every time there is no incentive for them to save money for a crisis and the taxpayer gets shafted (Once again).
It amazes me that some people think the government has an endless stream of money that can be dished out at the drop of a hat.
This gravy train is coming to a halt soon as the taxpayer simply wont be able to afford taxes!
@Zedsdeadbabyzedsdead: look what the government did to the Great Barrier Reef foundation . Just unloaded a truck full of money on them. So yes, it seems like they have a surplus.
For a strategically important industry, interest-free loans might even be appropriate. But a handout with no value for the taxpayer is unjustified.
I am kinda still sitting on the fence on this one. I would have liked to see the government actually do something to help the farmers rather than just a handout, maybe help transport water from a non-drought area or something. Don't we have an army with transport equipment lying around somewhere? The army has helped out with other natural disasters, why not this one?
The army is too busy helping Indonesia and earthquake victims or rescuing little lost boys in caves overseas so Indonesia dont invade, our army is minuscule compared to the Indonesians conscript base so aussies pay "protection money" for peace
Spot on.
Maybe the big 4 would like to help out the farmers too, like freezing the interest on their loans or something.
Far from what happens according to the banking royal Commission sadly
Quantumcat 'practice empathy' has nothing to do with it? it is called rational thinking no good decisions are made when you put emotion into them and bluntly ignore facts.
If farming isnt a viable industry it will eventually collapse no matter how much money we throw at it (ie car manufacturing industry) - as i said some circumstances i can understand propping up an industry and this 'might' be the case. - If it is simply 'drought' that will hopefully eventually pass and make the industry viable again then fair enough
but if it is simply not sustainable then maybe we need to change the dynamics of the industry ie low cost of growing the crops
However the most likely reason would be the farmers themselves are not good businessman and will likely need handouts again in the future just like our car industry.
This is a case where it is vital to prop it up.
Most farmers have been doing this for generations, so they know what they're doing. The ones that don't would have given it up long ago and sold up anyway. And surviving the drought doesn't have anything to do with being a good businessman or not - if there's no water, there's all the bills to pay (plus more) and nothing to sell. How can you say you're a bad businessman if you fail to bring in money because all your goods went up in smoke, but you still have to pay all the bills that you'd have to pay if you were making money?
Imagine you owned a hotel which does great under normal circumstances. Then there's a plague of rats and no one touches your hotel for years and insurance doesn't cover rats. You still need to pay your mortgage, and a skeleton staff, and pay extra in an attempt to be rid of the rats, but they keep coming no matter what you do. The solution is probably to sell up for a massive loss and begin your life again, and the person that buys your building will knock it down and put something else on the land since the rats make it useless for hospitality. Now imagine 90% of the hotels in the country have this same plague, and everyone has to sell for a massive loss and move, and have the hotel knocked down. Once the rats go somewhere else, there's suddenly no hotels to be had. Now the tourism industry suffers and the loss is much greater than if the government had helped the hotel owners be rid of the rats, or kept them afloat until the rats left. This will be the same with farmers but with local food production and food prices rather than the tourism industry.
Were you a bad businessman because you couldn't bring in any money due to something completely out of your control? Are farmers bad businessman because they can't make dry dirt produce plants?
You maybe right but farmers should be preparing for inevitable bad years during the good ones.
I'd say to you in the hotel scenario you mentioned the hotel owner would go out of business because unfortunately that is life the government wont give the own a dollar why do other business get money?
Ill put this last one too you i live in Melbournes West about 25 mins more west is Werribee and before that is Hoppers Crossing in which 20 years ago there was loadssss of 'poor farmers' who would of got 'handouts' from the government with our tax payer money. The property boom has seen a large number of them sell there land for multi-millions to developers that land they only held onto with our help…. now will these new millionaires (ex poor farmers) give money back to the tax payers? No simply put they will probably spend the rest of there life trying to avoid paying taxes to a system that helped them. Instead the land would of been divided ages ago made the houses in the newer estates cheaper because no 'poor' farmer to pay millions too and business thrives in a different way….
Now im not saying that the farmers dont deserve help but it isnt as black and white as left wing media would have you believe the car industry had the same thing. If the government is going to give tax payer money it needs to be paid back when business picks up this is what we failed to do with Holden and Ford and we are failing to do it again because of 'emotion' and not logic.
Australias biggest problem is we do not learn from our mistakes
I'd say to you in the hotel scenario you mentioned the hotel owner would go out of business because unfortunately that is life the government wont give the own a dollar why do other business get money?
So all hotel owners go out of business, and instead of the government paying say $100 million to keep them going during the plague, now they lose $500 million when the tourism industry falters badly. Yes, very smart. You failed to understand the point of the analogy. If you start thinking of it as an investment, not a handout, it will be clearer.
@Quantumcat: Or there will be a better run hotel up the road without rats and better management?
Or that hotel goes out of business and is knocked down and a something else is built that is a viable business and creates more jobs, makes more money, pays taxes etc
@Pastry: ALL HOTELS ARE GETTING THE SAME PLAGUE. Droughts don't affect 1 property.
So all hotels get knocked down. Even when the rats are gone, there's no hotels - it takes years for there to eventually be the same number of hotels there were before. In the meantime tourists have nowhere to stay, and the tourism industry suffers, causing much bigger losses than just helping out the hotel owners.
The rats are temporary, but if they are allowed to force all hotel owners to close up shop, then there will be no hotels once the rats are gone. If the hotels are helped temporarily while the rats are there, they can continue operating like before as soon as the rats are gone.
I'm struggling to see why people aren't understanding.
@Quantumcat: That fair
but this isnt the 1st Drought farmers have faced this isnt a ONCE OFF phenomenon i fail how you dont see that?
@Pastry: roads are bumpy.
Like I said before, imagine you killed yourself any time you got miserable. Better to find ways to cope with the downs, so you can enjoy the highs. Destroying the industry because Australia suffers regular droughts seems pretty silly. Imagine you divorced your partner every time you had an argument. You don't, you just suffer through the temporary unhappiness, so you can enjoy the longer-lasting happiness that comes later. Now, if you always fought, it could be worth divorcing. If Australia always had a drought and we couldn't grow anything, it could be worthwhile giving up farming altogether. But that is not the case. The overall benefit of farming outweighs the occasional help the industry needs to remain present.
@Quantumcat: The scenario you put forward is black and white you fail to acknowledge the mass of grey if the govt doesnt give 12k not every farm in Australia will shut its doors tomorrow geez
@Pastry:
We don't want all our farmers quitting. We need to keep their experience on the land. They know their land, they know how to manage it. You can't just sub another farmer/corporation in to manage the same land, you lose the institutional knowledge, and it's very difficult to regain.
Were you a bad businessman because you couldn't bring in any money due to something completely out of your control? Are farmers bad businessman because they can't make dry dirt produce plants?
Yes to both, and very definitively and obviously. A good businessman would get out of a business they can't make money in.
ALL HOTELS ARE GETTING THE SAME PLAGUE. Droughts don't affect 1 property.
And yet not all farms are going broke.
The statistics don't support this argument. Despite the media outrage that's been carefully manufactured by agricultural lobby groups, the drought is localised to particular areas and is nowhere near the most severe in Australian history. Furthermore, this is nothing new to farmers - they earn 80% of their total income in 20% of their working years. It's normal for them to have years of successive crop failures - when times are good, they receive extremely large amounts of money for successful harvests.
The handout is simply absurd. We better get used to seeing every second year, because the agricultural industry will be laughing to the bank and get hooked on these like crack cocaine… The ironic aspect of this is that the political parties that farmers vote into power practice climate-change denialism and keep trying to eliminate all forms of welfare in Australia…
ooooooooooooooohhh, nice come back…..
Still, perhaps this situation can be better managed. There is no real point supporting a farm in an area where farming has become untenable. That money could surely be better spent on other needy people…
The government has even setup a saving scheme called Farm Management Deposits (FMD) for just this situation. FMDs are run through the ATO and allow farmers to set aside tax-deductible deposits of up to $800,000 during prosperous years, which they can draw upon when times are tough.
There are currently $7 billion held in FMDs, so why do we need to be giving $12,000 handouts?
If farmers can't save during the good years, for when times get tough, why should we bail them out everytime there is a drought (which is more often then not)??
Farmers did save for bad times, $7 Billion as you pointed out, but why would they spend their own money when taxpayers are gifting them cash. The fed govt even had to remove means-testing to ensure the wealthiest farmers still got handouts. It’s never been about helping farmers, it’s only about votes
Try to practice empathy in your life (ie being able to place yourself in someone else's shoes) as it will serve you well.
Cats are usually jerks, but you're not!
If the Government can see fit to "give" $300 million in aid to Indonesia then I reckon they can and should do a damn sight more for our own people in need.
I agree with this sentiment i have no idea why we blow so much money on international aid
If I can try and help you understand, it’s because international economics isn’t a zero sum game like I (maybe wrongfully) presume you believe. If you can spare 7 minutes I’d highly recommend this video.
Fantastic video!
Great video. I would love to see a counter argument to balance out views.
But like the video says competition drives innovation, and if anything ~ the recent AMD competitiveness vs Intel shows how the CPU industry has improved.
Intel no longer sells 4c8t CPUs that it has been selling for the past 5 years (!!) and has to increase core count because AMD offers way more cores for the same price.
Its of strategic importance. Anyone whose played Risk before knows that
I'd rather money be handed out to hard working farmers who put food on our table than sending millions overseas. What's the point if we can't even look after our own?