Jerry_Atrick

He keeps his injector serviced

The problem with futures is that it is a zero sum game. You either win or lose

I absolutely agree. But the frame of the questioning is important. There is a case that these old buildings cost too much [compared to what they bring] For many, it is true. But for some, it is not necessarily true depending on how you ask the question. If we frame it in econcomic return - i.e. does it earn an income and pay for itself? Well, then the answer looking at it like a bean counter is of course no. But that can be said about something we all cherish - probably the vast majority of what was government (now council) GA airfields. If you look at the opportunit cost of these, on their own merits, then the opportunity costs would normally - especially for those around more major conurbations - be much higher than the return provided as a pure aviation facility. The federal government recognsed it and offloaded it to the councils. Many councils either lease them or augment them wit other purposes, where they can. Those, such as Jerilderie (last time I was there) measure movements in a week; a day is too depressing Yet, while some are vital for the community such as remote regions, aeromeds, etc, they could be rationalised. We need an airline/commercial training facility - pick one of the bigger airfields such as Mooraabin- that is probably all the country needs to chrun out the pilots for commercial ops. The rest can be sold of no money spent on maintenance rather than be the preserve of a hobby for rich folk and those so imbibed by it, they will forgoe a significant strandard of living to participate (RAA stuff doesn't really need airports - people can do what they like with their own money - plenty of private strips - we are talking taxpayer money). In fact, the opportunity cost of Moorabbin + Essendon - 2 large GA airports in one city - must be astronomical. Why do we need two? Why don't we just shut one down and release the assets for far more profitable purposes? Have I riled you? Yes, because to you, the return is far more than a simple revenue minus expenses equation. The amenity that you (and I) get is far higher. But except for communities that rely on airfields, you would be hard to find too many people that mourn their loss beyond a, "oh, that's a shame". The only time here it impacts those outside aviation is when the council decides a housing estate is better - NIMBYism more than agreement that a GA airfiled is useful. Even councils want to shut them down, stop maintaining them, augment with other uses - commercial and residential. Looking at it, the cost/benefit analysis for government costs extends beyond pure break-even and into money making points. The returns sought by a govenment are not entirely financial. And, it is the same for these buildings. As I have said, you keep some stuff, you get rid of the other stuff. The heritage listed stuff gets listed for a purpose - to preserve cultural, historial, environmental (in a human sense) so as to provide an amenity. Why heritage list somethign if you are going to allow it and its curtilage to be materially altered, but just preserving a facade? It may have little resonance to you, but it may have to others. And let's not forget the stories, especially in Victoria of corruption in the construction industry - from planning, to building inspections, to construction - it is all there to see. Which means sell it off to the private industry, almost all bets, regadless of undertakings, are off.

There are many other areas of government waste that can be directed to facilities. And many who are allowed to pay no tax who should Priorities.

If the government (and therefore the country_ were a business, it would have gone broke or been sold at a knock down price years ago. The reality any business ultimately exists for one purpose and one purpose only. That is to make as much profit as it can. That is it. How it does it is it's choice. Some people may start a business with a noble intention or to indudge their hobby or whatever.. But the business only survives if it makes a profit that the owner/s want it to. A government has to balance the books - but that does not mean it has to receive a return in the same way a business does. And, in theory, a government like Australia cannot go broke. Although life can become economically untenable for its citizens (ref Zimbabwe, for example) - but it does not itself go broke. Yes, they default on international loans and the like, but they still economically function. A business defaulting on its loans with little or no chance of paying them stops in its current form. It may stay on in name, but the business is different; the shareholders are gone, etc etc. So, the returns the government (should) look at are not entirely econcomic. I am more familiar with Victoria Barracks n Melboune than Sydney. It forms part of the St Kilda Boulevard (ex St Kilda Road). This is uite an asthetic boulevard in the context of its relative greenery, division of the roads through green median strips, and a meld of modern high rise office blocks/apartments, a boundary to Fawkner Park, and as you get closer the the city, the Vitctoria Barracks (I am guessing the old hosptial is long gone that was on St. Kilda Road). The Victoria Barracks break the monotony of the more modern and somewhat bland highrise. They oen the skyscape to more sky over penthouse suites and office rooves (roofs). Also, they are pleasing to look at - and older architecture that has beauty designed into it. And it is a historical reminder. It can bring amenity in the same way people admire art - but to more people than visit galleries; Once they are gone, there is no bringing them back. In this way, from a government perspective, to take the "good business" arguement, the return to the communty can be well worth the cost ofd preservation. Of course, we can't preserve everything, but both the Melbourne and Sydney Victoria Barracks are significant enough that the return to society is worth the cost. That is good government business. If the Dept of Defence want to realise the economic gain they can give it up to a cultural ministry for some exchange of budget. I think a museum is already in one of them.. That can be expanded; it can be covnerted to a living museum to help it contrinute to its upkeep and also provide an opportunity for further educating our people. Of course, that is only my opinion. Others may think it is an old eyesore and want it gone. That is the difficulty of governing a country over running a business. How to calculate the return

I think you miss the point.. also government is not a business.

That is true. But they would be French, and nuclear powered.. 🙂

I didn't say we shouldn't write off the "investment" and stop throwing good money after bad. I was merely stating we are already in loss territory. I owuld like us to buy nuclear subs form the French. The size is more appropriate to our waters.

When he realises it will cost him votes. Too late.. we have already spent $1.6bn under the bits that allow the US or Aus or the UK to kill the deal and we will not get refunded. He should have pulled out day 1 and negotiated a better deal.. For some reason that review when Albo took office was very uick and decided to continue. It would be a lot harder for them to mount that sort of raid in Aus.. And it would cost them a lot more than Cuba already has.

I have a question.. Once it is done, which of your helmets are you going to wear when riding it? 🙂 OK.. I'll get my hat and coat as well.. I'll shut the door quietly.

I only heard it for the first time in 2018. I led a sheltered life.

It's an image, so by definition, it is a real image... Just not everything in the image is real.

I know the military and the department of defence are always reviewing their property portfolio to optimise it for modern day use. A war machine costs money and requires modern amenities. However, I can't help but think there are brown paper bags passing about in the halls of our decision makers. Not for sall of the properties. But Victoria Barracks in both Melbourne and Sydney, for example, are historically significant and an essential part of the fabric of their area; they are architecurally and environmentally a part of the culture and provide a welcome relief from the many bland building around them. Of course, they and the land they are upon are a developer's nirvana. And developers have little regard for the quality of the environment of what they develop to the communities they affect. Yes, they will be expensive to maintain. But sometimes things are important enought to warrant the cost. Otherwise we end up with bland, faceless streetscapes with no acknowledgment of our past, nor the variety and space that can bring enjoyment to dull days.

Holy thread resurrection! I see it was started and up until today finished a day before I joined the forums! You fellas are into your 10th year suffering my rants and raves - more rants.. England has that effect on one.. Am I now a whinging pom?

Not only do you admit, but you show it with what you think is fake news from the ABC. If renewables are the reason for price rises, why is NSW, SA, and SE QLD getting free electricity because of solar? The reason for electricity price rises globally is the massive increase in gas price increases due to peak in demand of electricity post pandemic, severe supply chain issues, and the Russian invasion. I still don't know why, but that drove up coal prices, and guess what? John Howrards criminally short sighted policies of selling gas to the Chinese at even then knock-down prices and hold them for god knows how long at that price without indexation (must have been a very big brown paper bag involved somewhere) and successive governments allowing coal being liberalised to be traded on the open global market wthout reserving necessary supply domestically at cost of extraction plus decent profit margin (admittedly, when the price of coal is down, that would work against the consumer - but at least there would be certainty of what you have to pay), and - voilla! There you have your increasing electricity prices.. As with any new technology, there is a short term capital investment recovery built into the price, but in a fully competitive or well regulated market where structural impediments of entry and exit exist (take your pick), once that is recovered, the prices tend to stabilise near the cost of production + a margin for ongoing returns. We are starting to see it in solar. Renewables are cheaper longer term than any other form of generation. Remeber the price of colour TVs when they came out. More expesnive in absolute terms than you can buy them now. Imagine the real cost difference? Yeah, ABC don't get it right all the time and they do sometimes show bias, especially on one issue - in my opinion. But I have found when you dig into the facts, more often than not, they are far closer to objectivity than the others, willing to admit they make mistakes better than the others, and even on the area I think they are biased, they are no more so than most of the others (whether it fits my agenda or doesn't).