Debate: Should Govenment bet on winners

[Super Nova]

I propose a debate:

Government should use our resources (taxes) to bet on our behalf what technology infrastructure our society needs rather than leave this to market forces and private enterprise.

Examples: Snowy Mountain Scheme, National Broadband Network (NBN)

[Super Nova]

I will argue the affirmative for now:

Governments are the only structure that is capable of doing large scale infrastructure projects. Private enterprise is only focused on short term objectives and short term profits and this drives behaviours that may not be in the best interest of society as a whole. The government can independently assess the best possible technologies and is best placed to make the bet for it’s society. The normal punter is not able to contribute to this decision since they are most ignorant of the technologies, the costs and the real benefits.
Governments can create use legislation to provide the environment for their chosen solution to be implemented successfully and use a large tax pool to ensure it can funded fully through to completion realising the benefits to the society.
The Snowy Mountain Scheme is a great example of a large bet and investment that has provided enormous benefits by supplying energy free electricity to the NSW and Victoria. Without Government leadership and investment, it would never have happened.

[sprintcyclist]

All sorts of private conglomerates can fund such projects now.
business DO have long term goals
it is in a businesses best interests if their customers are alive, happy, healthy and wealthy.


If a private coys big project fails, it costs the tax payer $0.

govts should intervene as little as possible

[Super Nova]

Private enterprise is not prepared to take the big risks so only government has the depth of pocket to under really large programmes and infratstructure changes.

Governments spending is necessary for the longer term good of society.

[mantra]

Private enterprise is not prepared to take the big risks so only government has the depth of pocket to under really large programmes and infratstructure changes.

Governments spending is necessary for the longer term good of society.

That used to be the case SN - but now our taxes are just flushed down the toilet. For the last decade or so - State and Federal governments have forced us to pay twice or three times for essential infrastructure.

We pay for our roads through our rego, insurance, fines etc. yet in the blink of an eye some government sells them off - so we are then forced to pay tolls, then repairs, shortfall in revenue etc. all over again even though we don't own them. We sell our freeways, but are still liable for maintaining them or adding additional lanes.

The same happened with Telecom, now Telstra. We paid for the infrastructure to be built - then the Coalition sells it off. Now we're buying it back again in order to build the NBN. Even the NBN isn't guaranteed to stay government owned and will no doubt be sold off in the future providing it's not too dated

Look at our desalination plant. We've paid through the teeth for it, the residents of Sydney have been forced to use it instead of the local dam water in order for it to look commercially viable so it can be sold off. It's currently on the market and I doubt we'll even recoup our costs.

Electricity is the same - most states have sold the stations off to private corporations.

Government owned infrastructure today is a furphy. All we're doing is paying for it to be built - so the government of the day can sell it to the lowest bidder - then it starts all over again

[sprintcyclist]

why would private do all the research into a project, then decide "NOT NOW" ?

That being the case, i am unwilling to thrust my cash where experts have said "NOT NOW", not in big lumps of unrecoverable amounts

[freediver]

That's what roads and bridges are.

[sprintcyclist]

private toll roads

[Super Nova]

An argument to the negative:

NBN a version of Cuba: Turnbull
Clancy Yeates
October 11, 2011.
Malcolm Turnbull has pledged to abandon the NBN for a cheaper broadband policy if the Coalition is elected.

MALCOLM Turnbull has likened the $36 billion national broadband network to the last bastion of communism, after a report found Australia's public spending on broadband was unmatched around the world.

Seizing on a report from the Economist Intelligence Unit, the opposition's communications spokesman yesterday dubbed the network the ''telecommunications version of Cuba''

The latest issue of The Economist's report on broadband policies, published yesterday, said Australia's network was the most ''extreme'' example of state intervention to support broadband.


Read more: http://www.theage.com.au/national/nbn-a ... z1aO4ZoE1o

The government has the right to impose such a project on the society by thinking they know best.?

[sprintcyclist]

IF "the govt" does it with their own money, I am disinterested.

But, thats the point, the govt does not "have any of their own money."
They took mine !!!!