There is a row brewing between the Olympic Sporting Blugers Inc. and the Federal Government over a recent report that suggests that funding for sport ought to be cut. The boss man of Olympic sport has predictably started to whine. What a terrible thing it would be if all the sporting bludgers had to fund their own training and travel.
One of the most fatuous statements so far is that ". . . Olympians are role models for Australians . . ."
Doesn't seem to be working as far too many Australian 'couch potatoes' are obese.
If Australia's sports administrators would only turn their undoubted talents to something useful, such as sorting out the hospital problems then they would justify their existence.

Every State in Australia has problems with run down hospitals, lack of medical staff and long waiting lists; how much suffering is one Gold Medal worth?

I find it amusing that the only people in the Olympic industry who don't get paid are the ones who actually compete. In American high schools, the most highly paid "teacher" is usually the football coach. Even worse, I had to suffer through two classes in high school taught by coaches. History wasn't too bad, except the football players all did very well in the class without ever actually opening a book or passing a test, but the algebra class was ludicrous. The teacher couldn't work the problems.

The money would be much better spent on hospitals. Although staffing problems are caused by a skill shortage, as well as budget restrictions.
Our local (Liberal) state government has cut out funding for pauper's funerals, also cancelled a programme for supplying breakfast before school for Aboriginal children in a remote community and is now closing mental health services down for a month over Christmas. Can these people be human?

$108 million a year just to get a couple of gold medals what does that say about the Olympics? It says the country with the biggest medal tally has invested the most financially.

http://www.sbs.com.au/news/article/1134 ... for-medals

The other day I heard Rebecca Wilson do a commentary on TV to a story on Olympic "losers".
All were the subject of great hilarity however Rebecca nearly wet herself laughing at Eric Moussambani's performance during the Sydney Olympics. He was an African swimmer who obviously lacked elite training and finished the 100 metres well behind the others but didn't give up and manfully completed the event.

Well Christine what more can we expect from liberals? They don't believe in helping people, they believe in 'selfishness' and do their best to disintegrate community action wherever possible, as your examples have demonstrated. I always find it slightly sickening when governments claim to have 'saved' money. What people don't appear to realise is that simply means government's have removed money from one program (usually programs that Christine gives as examples that serve people who have no voice to protest against funding cuts) and simply put it in the bank. Big deal. Whoopy doo. Anyone heartless bastard could have done that.

Australia is currently competing above our weight in sports competitions, therefore, I see no valid argument for increasing sports funding.

Arry, if the government cuts funding to services and then gives taxpayers their money back through tax cuts, then yes - they have saved money.

Selfishness is a natural human state. The trick to making selfishness 'good' is to harness it - as capitalism and free enterprise does. If you attempt to outlaw selfishness, it will always be a failed initiative. Witness the command economies of the Eastern Bloc, where corruption was so widespread that it was impossible to function without it. Theft of state-owned goods, illegal bartering and black market trading were a common occurrence simply because there was no legal outlet for such natural human behaviour.

Remember that whilst you believe a government has removed money from a social program, that government originally removed that money from people who actually worked hard for it. The government makes/earns precious little money themselves - they survive only by taking the money of others.

I wonder what you base this on harry? And what conclusions you believe you can make from this statement?



Language is interesting isn't it?

Of course, to save means to put away and keep for a 'rainy day'. What we are really talking about here is simply redistributing the money wouldn't you say harry? It's not actually being 'saved', it's just being put in a different place?

Well, it's Christine's story, but I don't think she 'believes' the money has been removed from a social program, from what she said it actually had been removed.

The government is not a business. Its role is to provide organsie and protect the people. If you like, it is delivering a service, and for that service, the people pay.

I wonder what you base this on harry? And what conclusions you believe you can make from this statement?



Language is interesting isn't it?

Of course, to save means to put away and keep for a 'rainy day'. What we are really talking about here is simply redistributing the money wouldn't you say harry? It's not actually being 'saved', it's just being put in a different place?

Well, it's Christine's story, but I don't think she 'believes' the money has been removed from a social program, from what she said it actually had been removed.

The government is not a business. Its role is to organsie and protect the people. If you like, it is delivering a service, and for that service, the people pay.

Arry, self-interest is something that comes entirely natural to humans. Almost everything we do is governed by self-interest - even seemingly unselfish things are often done in order to feel good.

You are right that the government does provide services, and that people pay for those services. However, due to the convoluted nature of government it is inevitable that those services are delivered poorly and inefficiently. I don't believe it is government's role to provide services - most services that people use aren't provided by the government. As far as domestic policy is concerned, government should be a facilitator of individual freedom. That is, the government should strive to enable the citizenry to make their own choices.

Well, I guess this comes down to individual preference, but I would trust our government over business any day. That is because, at the end of the day, governments exist to help people (usually the majority), businesses exist to help themselves (always a very small minority).

I don't think emergency services being provided by private companies, nor other essential services such as water, electricity etc. Whenever privatisation occurs, the result is services that are more expensive. Just look at the recent privatisation of gas and the 66% increase in price.

Private enterprise does have a role to play, but government also has an important role.

Further, privatisation only ever works when there is an effective competitive market. For example, the privatisation of dental care has led to exorbitant charges. Why, Harry, is the competition model not working in this case?

Arry, price rises after privatisation usually occur because losses were covered by the government. Which is funded by the taxpayer. Ergo, prices usually haven't risen, rather, true costs are more transparent. If local governments who run bus services decide to charge nothing for public transport, is it free? No, it is just paid for by someone else.

Anyone can redistribute wealth. Anyone can implement taxes to cover a subsidy. Those are both, at the theoretical level, zero-sum games (although in practice, tend to be economically negative). Neither will improve efficiency, and most certainly won't create wealth. This is the inherent problem with relying on government, arry. They don't create wealth, because they destroy more wealth than they create when they try.

Government exists to help lots of people, and does a piss-poor job of it. Business and the private sector exist to help themselves, but in addition to that inadvertently end up helping far more people than the government at the same time. Ever notice how the common factor in economically successful nations together is not their size of government, but the robustness of their private sector?

Governments enable the creation of wealth. If it weren't for the construction of the society by government- ie the laws enforced by government, education etc. business would not have the same opportunities it does today to operate.

The government helps every single person in this nation. Every time you turn on the water, drive down the road or even walk down the road safely, you have our government to thank.

Economics is important, but wealth is not the only measure of a good society. Sweden and Denmark and other Scandinavian nations are good models for social democracy.

Finally, you haven't answered my previous question: the privatisation of dental care has led to exorbitant charges. Why, Harry, is the competition model not working in this case?

Arry, perhaps not everyone believes that dental care is failing?

And no, we don't have our government to thank for water, roads and so forth. Rather, you (non-taxpaying student) have me (working taxpayer) to thank. I appreciate your thanks

Don't worry Harry, you will have me to thank when you're retired and being cared for... that's what collectivism's all about

Once upon a time the railway in NSW was run by private enterprise. Private enterprise made a mess of it and the Government had to take over; rapid expansion of the railway followed. Unfortunately there was a downturn post WW II but I doubt that private enterprise could run the system as it was in its hayday.