Australia - 'No Infrastructure'

[5wheelguy]

So I was watching some debate on Insight (I think) and the debate went into why Australia hasn't got the ability to create awesome things.

The old man said 'because Australia does not have the infrastructure.'

Ok, fine. Now tell me why nobody is building the infrastructure. It's 2017 guys. Australia is already 20 years behind. Oh yet somehow we can borrow HUGE machines from Germany to create underground tunnels.

Yet, we can't hire machines to help build the infrastructure? Maybe 'they' are. But I am yet to see proof of this. It seems like all this underground road stuff is just for private use.

These excuses are getting as old as the wrinkly old farts who perpetuate them. Maybe these old rich greedy pigs would like the public to take control, and start building the infrastructure?

Wow. Ok. We will. But don't expect us to give you old farts permission to benefit from ANY aspect of the new infrastructure. Ha ha!

[b0son]

Australia is more concerned with entitlements than innovation.

[zipping]

It's 10 years since Rudd won and the NBN still hasn't reached Northcote and Clifton Hill in inner city Melbourne. That project has sucked up something like 80 billion.

The Vic's signed up for a road connecting the Eastern Freeway with the West the left said no and Labor payed 1 billion not to build it.

The tunnels in Melbourne are public but user pays.

Which greedy pigs are you referring too?

[lra]

I got involved in a conversation / debate a couple of weeks ago, when some-one stated that the Dar – Adl rail freight is not as well used as anticipated, because anything destined for Qld or NSW has to go to Adl before it is shipped north again. That is why most of those state’s freight is done by road.
Now, I know that most of these rail lines are either closed or underused, but why can’t any politician, or investment company look at a map of Australia, and see that a rail line linking Tennant Creek > Mt Isa > Longreach > Charleville > Cunnamulla >Bourke > Sydney would not be that hard to do and achieve freight savings and improve access to a large part of the country which is ignored by the capital city orientated decision makers.

[LG17]

One of the problems has always been our small population compared to the cost/amount of infrastructure needed to traverse the country.
European countries have short distances and large populations which makes infrastructure much more feasible.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by LG17

One of the problems has always been our small population compared to the cost/amount of infrastructure needed to traverse the country.
European countries have short distances and large populations which makes infrastructure much more feasible.

THIS!

It's the cost per person available to pay for it. We can't afford nice things







.

[Vesper Martini]

108 tower in Melbourne is a 100 storey 900 million project currently in progess

[lra]

Originally Posted by Bevsta007

108 tower in Melbourne is a 100 storey 900 million project currently in progess

That may create jobs in Melbourne, ( and how many are foreign workers? ), but how does that improve the infrastructure for the benefit of the whole country.
Australia is too capital city focussed ..... my favorite TV news moment was few years ago, I was in Broome, "breaking news, a house in Toongabbie is on fire" ....... like who in Broome really cares about that.
Big news yesterday....... a bridge on Sydney's Westconnex (?) was completed, but many wooden road bridges in the upper Hunter Valley are in danger of falling down because of age and lack of maintenance. Wait till somebody gets killed as they collapse under a vehicle ?

[lra]

Further to my rant ........ (I could go on for many more ) ......the upper Hunter Valley, vineyards, coal mines, horse studs ......... worth $ 100 Millions to NSW and Aus in the way of exports and royalties. What do they get in return from both sides of the governing political parties ? Promises, BS and SFA.

[nuthin' fancy]

I think the true infrastructure failure is in new suburbs.

It is known by the authorities who approve new suburbs that existing infrastructure will need upgrading and new infrastructure will be required.

I don't understand why each new block sold isn't subject to, say, a $5,000 infrastructure contribution. Have it so it is payable at settlement of the block and the managing authority (could be local government or a specific state government department) turn up at settlement and collect the $5,000. Because the amount would be contained within the sale price on the contract, banks would lend on it as part of the value of the land rather than it having a significant effect on the amount required to be contributed by the buyer (and first home buyers often have very limited resources).

The government could then borrow the money to put in upgraded roads and public facilities and train line extensions (or light rail in anticipation of this) and whatever else is needed before people arrive. Government would fund this through borrowing (at less than 4% in the current market) and be guaranteed the return from the settlement of the sale of the land.

The current situation is one where the people move in to poor roads and then when there is so much traffic that the upgrade has to happen, already congested roads are rebuilt causing further disruption.

Time for more leadership from politicians to make it happen, instead of mindless politicking that simple gets in the of progress and good policy.

[Raptor]

Originally Posted by lra

Further to my rant ........ (I could go on for many more ) ......the upper Hunter Valley, vineyards, coal mines, horse studs ......... worth $ 100 Millions to NSW and Aus in the way of exports and royalties. What do they get in return from both sides of the governing political parties ? Promises, BS and SFA.

You're kidding right

You don't think vineyards, coal mines, horse studs haven't either been subsidised or are a tax rort for the owners. They've all taken their share from the public pot.

Though I do agree that the capital cities get too much attention and there isn't enough spent on developing regional areas.


.

[GASWAGON]

Originally Posted by zipping

It's 10 years since Rudd won and the NBN still hasn't reached Northcote and Clifton Hill in inner city Melbourne. That project has sucked up something like 80 billion.

The Vic's signed up for a road connecting the Eastern Freeway with the West the left said no and Labor payed 1 billion not to build it.

The tunnels in Melbourne are public but user pays.

Which greedy pigs are you referring too?

This infuriates me!

The East/West link needs to be made ASAP.

Peak hour traffic down the Greensborough end of the Ring Road is only 2 lanes and most mornings and nights its bumper to bumper way back for both direction. Also very hilly so VERY dangerous in wet weather.

And to get to the Eastlink (Ringwood) from Greensborough is all urban and 60-70km zones so it takes about half an hour in heavy traffic.

The Eastlink in huge (4 lanes and 100k limit all the way down to Frankston, but it is expensive).

Somethings gotta be done instead of blowing 80Billion on NBN that still is'nt finished!

[lra]

Originally Posted by Raptor

You don't think vineyards, coal mines, horse studs haven't either been subsidised or are a tax rort for the owners. .

Probably worded my comment wrong. I didn't mean the owners of the above, I meant the populace in general ....... as in what do we, the public in the area, get in infrastructure improvements, paid for by the export and royalties ......... Promises, BS and SFA.

[au350hp]

Biggest problem this country has is no investments in science and tech. All the inventors sell any great idea to overseas investors so we lose any credit and profits for new design or ideas. We have a lot of very innovative people in this country but as long as we don't hold politicians accountable, NOTHING will change. We need to unite as a number and demand change like many other countries have successfully done in history. People here just put up with whatever is thrown at them. Change starts with one person/idea. People power always speaks the loudest and if we can join hands, we can really stick it up the powers that be. What will it take to make people do this?

[au350hp]

Any fool knows the way to reduce footprint and living costs is to build sustainable new suburbs with recycled water, solar storage batteries to store EVERY houses panels so when everyone returns home, they can call on their own grid for the peak. This is all so simple to organise, but as usual, the greedy pigs who own all the current systems don't want to share. EG: All you hear from existing coal fans is how hard and expensive it is to put an alternative in place. The truth is, they don't want to share the profits. Exactly the same for any alternative energy. Nothing is 'too hard' or 'too expensive' the reality is greed will always stop progress or corrupt it.

[Rallye Sport]

First world problems.
I work with a young guy from Tanzania, he's amazed what we have, waste and take for granted. Whilst on the other side of the world they're still on largely dirt roads, no running water and lucky to have electricity... meanwhile we're complaining from our comfortable homes, lol.

[383hq]

1. Politics /legal system (not everything should be treated as a political /legal problem) subsets of this include
a) multiple levels of bureaucracy at national, state and local arenas, AND
b) the shift to policy that includes all minorities, not THE majority AND
c) lack of policy on "Core necessities" (Water, food, Transport, energy)

2. Corporate Tax receipts in a global environment - $ doesn't stay where it's earnt
3. Low population / large distance = user pays NOT a feasible strategy, and given we've moved away from nationalising infrastructure (see 1)
4. Ageing population (see 2)

There are examples of goodness - i.e Wagners' runway in Toowoomba

Sydney harbour bridge was built 10x larger then was needed in the day - they just knew the population would grow into it, and "Right first time" was more expensive at the time, but much cheaper long term. Short termist views (refer 1) mean nowadays they can't get the economics/feasibilty study through for sufficient payback.

The runway mentioned was primarily a private project so avoided many of the issues mentioned above, it may be great to send fresh veg to China, with demand from over a billion people increasing year on year- long term, it will probably push veg prices up locally, so not everyone will be in favour (see 1b)

Opposite example: insulation saga involving Garrett, some kid dies installing insulation, and a politician from Canberra is held responsible - There is risk to politicians in doing stuff, so appearing to do stuff, whilst actually doing nothing is safest.

Just my thoughts

[GO FURTHER]

To those that don't understand why we don't have more infrastructure, these two images explains why....

Europe - 743 million
USA - 321 million
Australia - 24 million

Until Oz builds its population to at least 100 million, cost of infrastructure per capita will always be expensive. We missed the chance after the second world war.

[Trump]

Australia with a 100 million people... is a recipe for disaster. There isn't enough naturally occurring fresh water to support so many people, there isn't enough fertile arable land to feed so many without resorting to bulk importing, the vast majority of the Australian land mass is essentially uninhabitable desert.

[Stefan]

Originally Posted by BAXRSIX

To those that don't understand why we don't have more infrastructure, these two images explains why....

Europe - 743 million
USA - 321 million
Australia - 24 million

Until Oz builds its population to at least 100 million, cost of infrastructure per capita will always be expensive. We missed the chance after the second world war.

image
image

What a load of BS!! We don't need to build roads (or any infra structure in the middle ion the desert which most of the land on the map is.

We inhabit 10% of that space on the map and only need infrastructure in the inhabitable areas.....Its our backward government that halts any type of progress nothing else.

Our construction industry has zero innovation and we are decades behind on technology.

[FormulaFG]

Many factors have caused this.

Greed, poor government spending and shortsightedness are ones I see everyday.

Here in SA our electricity supply is a national joke. Caused by a cash strapped state government who sold it off and bought by a company who wanted to cash in. Share holders buy into it and all of a sudden money that should be spent upgrading infrastructure is now being paid out as dividends.

Telstra is another one. The copper telephone network is a mess and has been for decades now, but why throw money at it? Gotta pay those shareholders.

Rudd/Gillard Building Education Revolution meant every school in the country got a nice shiny new building that cost twice as much as they should have because greedy builders jacked the prices up. The tax payer got completely rorted on that one.

Unfortunately politicians are only interested in making things look good while they are in office. Once they are out they don't care what happens in the long term interests of this country and there is nothing to keep them accountable for that.

[Maka]

Perhaps permanently banning all foreign political donations to Canberra will help our honorable politicians refocus more on local issues lol!

Major infrastructure spending tends to need lots of borrowed money, but is seen as good debt for the economy as it provides for new jobs etc. So what are they (Canberra) waiting for?

cheers, Maka

[mr smith]

I wouldnt want to live in any country with a large population. OK if your rich but if not your screwed. We have lots of resources and need to be value adding. we need some pollies with balls.

[b0son]

Originally Posted by 5wheelguy

Ok, fine. Now tell me why nobody is building the infrastructure.

A few things....

1. lack of vision. we seem to have lost the ability to look at the big picture, we're too myopic and are overly concerned with tackling the little problems and not the big ones. the Snowy Hydro still stands as (IMO) our greatest engineering feat. would we dare tackle a project of that scale ever again? the biggest single project that comes to mind is the NBN, and that has been a colossal fail, and is comparatively far less complex.

2. too much concern over the economics. we're so anti-debt we wont take anything on, so it leads to having to engage private consortiums whose primary goal is a return rather than a public benefit. major road projects always end up addressing today's traffic, not tomorrow's. major new residential projects aren't built in concert with the necessary arterial road infrastructure, leading to congestion that puts a huge burden not only on the existing road systems, but on the people who are forced to commute 1hr+ on a journey that shouldn't take longer than 30min.

3. we don't have the right conditions anymore for manufacturing. it isn't just labour costs, but all the red tape associated with the use of labour. the government regulate almost every facet of industry, and their view is a business's first priority is compliance. they never think about how new regulations impact on our competitiveness, they believe its a direct indicator of quality, while refusing to accept there's only so much a customer is willing to pay for that supposed quality. little wonder as soon as the economy of scale is there, the first goal of most manufacturers is to find a way to go offshore.

[raised by monkeys]

Originally Posted by FormulaFG

Unfortunately politicians are only interested in making things look good while they are in office. Once they are out they don't care what happens in the long term interests of this country and there is nothing to keep them accountable for that.

Agreed.

Currently typing up a paper regarding the lack of infrastructure in regional australia. Although my paper is particularly based on rural health; Australia's proud history is in farming and horticulture. Although now due to changes in tax and export policies has allowed (largely) chinese investors to come in and buy out struggling farming land move their jobs overseas for cheap labour and avoid australian taxation, pushing out the remainder of small farmers who cannot compete against conglomerates. Australia has this history of selling off what we have in order to make a short term profit. Pretty sad for a country which westernised is so young.

[GO FURTHER]

Originally Posted by Trump

Australia with a 100 million people... is a recipe for disaster. There isn't enough naturally occurring fresh water to support so many people, there isn't enough fertile arable land to feed so many without resorting to bulk importing, the vast majority of the Australian land mass is essentially uninhabitable desert.

I was wondering how long it would take someone to raise this line of debate, because it is what most people think when you talk about increasing Australia's population.
However I was a little surprised it came from you Trump, being a deep thinker.

Okay, let's roll back to after the second world war.
The Jews and survivors of the Holocaust, a race without a homeland.
Nobody wanted them, even the ships were turned around if you recall.

Eventually a portion of Palestine was provided and in 1948 the State of Israel became a nation.

100,000 displaced Jews walked into this new homeland, of which half was desert.

Today the population of Israel is over 8,000,000, and have become a great nation. Using desalination plants, drip irrigation and aquifers they have managed to grow vegetables and fruit (Remember Jaffa oranges) and their innovations are helping to fill hungry bellies everywhere, but particularly in the developing world.

Now imagine if Australia had given them some of our harsh uninhabitable land to settle in instead.... I think you get my drift here.

Now you say that "there isn't enough fertile arable land to feed so many without resorting to bulk importing".

Do you realise that if you take all the food and produce Australia currently exports to the rest of the world, it would be enough to feed at least 56,000,000 people without even increasing current crops and production!

We currently have enough food to support far more than our current population that's for sure.

Even if we forget about the vast uninhabitable desert that much of Australia is.... Let's take the state of Victoria (size = 237,000km2) and a population of approx. 6,000,000 million which is not desert or uninhabitable by any means.

Now take the United Kingdom (size = 242,000Km2, so for argument's sake the same approximate size of Victoria)... The UK has a population of 65,000,000 by comparison.

We could easily fit 100,000,000 people in the existing habitable, non-desert areas of Australia.

Manufacturing in this country failed because of lack of population / scale of economy. We are taxed to death because to build infrastructure, provide healthcare, education, etc, etc, relies on only 24 million of us to pay for it.

The only way this country of ours will survive in generations to come is to increase our population and not to keep it small, as most Australians would prefer to see for selfish reasons.

If we don't then one day, maybe not in our lifetime but in our great grand children's time... We will be absorbed by America, lose our identity and become the 51st state of the USA to survive! ... (Or maybe plans are already in place if you believe in the New World Order)

[PooDog]

Originally Posted by BAXRSIX

I was wondering how long it would take someone to raise this line of debate, because it is what most people think when you talk about increasing Australia's population.
However I was a little surprised it came from you Trump, being a deep thinker.

Okay, let's roll back to after the second world war.
The Jews and survivors of the Holocaust, a race without a homeland.
Nobody wanted them, even the ships were turned around if you recall.

Eventually a portion of Palestine was provided and in 1948 the State of Israel became a nation.

100,000 displaced Jews walked into this new homeland, of which half was desert.

Today the population of Israel is over 8,000,000, and have become a great nation. Using desalination plants, drip irrigation and aquifers they have managed to grow vegetables and fruit (Remember Jaffa oranges) and their innovations are helping to fill hungry bellies everywhere, but particularly in the developing world.

Now imagine if Australia had given them some of our harsh uninhabitable land to settle in instead.... I think you get my drift here.

Now you say that "there isn't enough fertile arable land to feed so many without resorting to bulk importing".

Do you realise that if you take all the food and produce Australia currently exports to the rest of the world, it would be enough to feed at least 56,000,000 people without even increasing current crops and production!

We currently have enough food to support far more than our current population that's for sure.

Even if we forget about the vast uninhabitable desert that much of Australia is.... Let's take the state of Victoria (size = 237,000km2) and a population of approx. 6,000,000 million which is not desert or uninhabitable by any means.

Now take the United Kingdom (size = 242,000Km2, so for argument's sake the same approximate size of Victoria)... The UK has a population of 65,000,000 by comparison.

We could easily fit 100,000,000 people in the existing habitable, non-desert areas of Australia.

Manufacturing in this country failed because of lack of population / scale of economy. We are taxed to death because to build infrastructure, provide healthcare, education, etc, etc, relies on only 24 million of us to pay for it.

The only way this country of ours will survive in generations to come is to increase our population and not to keep it small, as most Australians would prefer to see for selfish reasons.

If we don't then one day, maybe not in our lifetime but in our great grand children's time... We will be absorbed by America, lose our identity and become the 51st state of the USA to survive! ... (Or maybe plans are already in place if you believe in the New World Order)

Our government in nz has opened the floodgates to anyone currently 70k a year it's the only thing propping up the economy artificially boosting growth in the economy all the politicians care about is keeping there snout in the trough and staying in power couldn't give a rats bum about future generations ....and instead of importing skilled people were short of they let in low skilled people and students that they can scam course fees out of for dodgey qualifications , then these people compete for the low skilled/ average jobs that kiwis need dodged employers import them in droves , and it's the old story supply and demand heaps of low skilled people prepared to do the jobs for s#%t so working conditions pay rates suffer so those at the top can cream it .....so good luck with population increases ....I'm sure your government would be more ethical than ours

[Trump]

Originally Posted by BAXRSIX

I was wondering how long it would take someone to raise this line of debate, because it is what most people think when you talk about increasing Australia's population.
However I was a little surprised it came from you Trump, being a deep thinker.

Okay, let's roll back to after the second world war.
The Jews and survivors of the Holocaust, a race without a homeland.
Nobody wanted them, even the ships were turned around if you recall.

Eventually a portion of Palestine was provided and in 1948 the State of Israel became a nation.

100,000 displaced Jews walked into this new homeland, of which half was desert.

Today the population of Israel is over 8,000,000, and have become a great nation. Using desalination plants, drip irrigation and aquifers they have managed to grow vegetables and fruit (Remember Jaffa oranges) and their innovations are helping to fill hungry bellies everywhere, but particularly in the developing world.

Now imagine if Australia had given them some of our harsh uninhabitable land to settle in instead.... I think you get my drift here.

Now you say that "there isn't enough fertile arable land to feed so many without resorting to bulk importing".

Do you realise that if you take all the food and produce Australia currently exports to the rest of the world, it would be enough to feed at least 56,000,000 people without even increasing current crops and production!

We currently have enough food to support far more than our current population that's for sure.

Even if we forget about the vast uninhabitable desert that much of Australia is.... Let's take the state of Victoria (size = 237,000km2) and a population of approx. 6,000,000 million which is not desert or uninhabitable by any means.

Now take the United Kingdom (size = 242,000Km2, so for argument's sake the same approximate size of Victoria)... The UK has a population of 65,000,000 by comparison.

We could easily fit 100,000,000 people in the existing habitable, non-desert areas of Australia.

Manufacturing in this country failed because of lack of population / scale of economy. We are taxed to death because to build infrastructure, provide healthcare, education, etc, etc, relies on only 24 million of us to pay for it.

The only way this country of ours will survive in generations to come is to increase our population and not to keep it small, as most Australians would prefer to see for selfish reasons.

If we don't then one day, maybe not in our lifetime but in our great grand children's time... We will be absorbed by America, lose our identity and become the 51st state of the USA to survive! ... (Or maybe plans are already in place if you believe in the New World Order)

You seem to have missed my "naturally occurring fresh water" bit. Israel does run large scale desalination, but in the situation where they have no power, they disappear within two years. And Israel is despised all throughout the Middle East; it isn't beyond the realm of possibilities that someone a bit unhinged takes out a couple of power plants...

Naturally available fresh water is the deal breaker when it comes to sustainable human habitation.

Originally Posted by Trump

Australia with a 100 million people... is a recipe for disaster. There isn't enough naturally occurring fresh water to support so many people, there isn't enough fertile arable land to feed so many without resorting to bulk importing, the vast majority of the Australian land mass is essentially uninhabitable desert.

I agree with this 100%.

My post will include a combination of the reasons above that have been made in multiple posts above. The real answer to all of our problems is far more complex and is best described as having more than one cause. In fact it has many multiple causes all across our society. Reasons include: Political, Physical, Practicality, Efficiency of current technology, Cost of operating current technology, Cost of repairing and maintaining current technology available to us.

The problem is money (cost of technology) and manpower (to implement it).

We will never have enough money to do anything of substantial value and until robotics grows substantially in evolution we will never be able to terraform any part of Australia.

The issue stems from the fact that we are not only overpopulated worldwide but we are also 'betting' on the future (betting that technology will save our bacon) by generating fake money in the US FED.

I do not mean that overpopulation is a bad thing. It is only a bad thing in the sense that it is difficult for people to find a job. That is all. We can sustain our current population but it is reliant upon the current inflated financial situation. Our overpopulation is reliant upon the US FED generating 'fake' money and increasing financial inflation worldwide. If that disappears then that excess population will starve to death.

There is also another way that that excess population can dissappear That is through a 'financial crunching' which I believe will occur in the future. The reason why there will be a financial crunch in the future is because we cannot sustain perpetual growth. Perpetual growth on a planet which is finite in size and resources is impossible to do. Basically we will be unable to pay all of the bills and we will not be able to continue living up to the living standards that we have now, we will denegrate back into a 3rd world country as we were in the 1800s.

For example if we were to create several Nuclear power plants all across australia we could generate enough electricity to pump up water from the Great Artesian Basin and import water from the ocean, We could also provide electricity for air conditioning of inland cities which can reduce the cost of inhabiting inner Australia.

However the cost of operating and maintaining and decomissioning those nuclear power plants would be cost prohibitive for any of this to occur. We would also need a large amount of rare earth metals to maintain these systems.

That is just one example. The main point is that we cannot afford to do anything like this and we should be happy with whatever we have right now. We do have a sustainable population but only just.

If we were to go into war with Asia, as allies of the USA we would be in far greater financial strife than we are now.

When you take out the fat and boil it down to the fewest possible words, the best way to describe our situation would be that we are:
"Just barely surviving"

And the reason why Politics doesn't work is because the people have an unrealistic view of the powers that are available to them. They use that to their advantage to control and manipulate the population. Remember that most if not all politicians were former Lawyers and they all do very good business in their political lifetimes. That is why they are in power. But they are just human beings and as a result they are limited in the amount of things that they can coordinate and control to create something new. Like a railway system.

The power that a politician has is very limited. As a result our public view of their abilities is far greater than they actually are.

And the reason why they lie to us and promise us all of these fantastic ideals but never actually deliver is because it helps for them to be seen as a hero according to the populace, it prevents them from being hated by the populace if the population thinks that they are trying but failiing due to no inadequacy of their own but because the other party in the house is causing problems for them and blocking their path towards "delivering to the people".

These people are professional liers, Just like the christian down the street who promises everlasting life. We are all surrounded by liers.

The cold hard reality is is that we are all dependent upon fossil fuels and the middle east. We are still dependent upon the currently still-primitive technological advances that we have made. And we are all extremely dependent upon the false economic system which perpetually increases the cost of items in the hope that it would drive technological progress faster, an economy that we have created in the hope of saving our asses from extinction, or worse, world war 3.

Politicians and buisnessmen who operate global buisnesses know all of this and don't care. They are in it for their own short term happiness as is most people are these days.

There is no point dreaming up big plans that we cannot possibly ever do within our lifetime. These plans for creating a rail network across Australia would put the truckers out of jobs. So politically it would be impossible.

Massive terraforming of Australia would only be possible by the next generation of humans and robots. Working hand in hand.

The only thing that I can see saving our asses politically in the short and long term would be a completely computerised political system without any human beings working in it at all except for large descision making. If we take away the human factor we can allocate jobs to a certain task based upon public demand and targets and destroy or create industries based upon a single command.

But business has far too much power and influence at the moment. That is the first thing which must fall before we can go to a fully open source democratic system that is completely computerised and removes human emotion somewhat from the factor of descision making.

The computer would in essence be doing things for the greater good and not for the individual or small minority.

The closest analogue that I can see to this would be voting Republican next time. They seem to like jobs more than they do like minorities. But remember every political party is corrupt even the good guys.

The computerised system would be online and we could allocate based upon individual votes tallied up the amount of resources that we allocate towards a certain goal. Say for example an inner rail system would get 20% of the total budget and there would be cuts elsewhere. We could allocate these funds temporarily or on a more permanent basis.

It would be far more democratic because each individual nationwide would get a say in how we do things. We would also need individual identification cards for this to be possible... So it might not go down too well with some.

It would probably look somewhat similar to the website https://www.nationstates.net/

[ebxr8240]

Part the problem is . Anything good as far as infrastructure goes is sold ! Can't mention anything political !! Both are as bad as each other !!