Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
NZT48

why tourism advertising should not be funded by government

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

 

go on holidays overseas if you are prepared to have international tourists come here

 

if you read that literally

Yeahhh, but no, cos he's talking about money more than people travelling. I think.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 11:32 PM, datafast69 said:

You guys are really nice and very tolerant to humour this guy, better people than I.

 

FUCK!

You've put up with me for a long time!

  • Haha 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/22/2019 at 7:43 AM, NZT48 said:

Other states/countries funding tourism advertising here means wealth is taken from here to there. If we want wealth here then we should let their wealth stay there. If there is no government funded tourism advertising anywhere then the total wealth that exists would be greater because wealth is not wasted on advertising. People will come here anyway because of word of mouth.

 

Tourism Australia exists, we do in other countries exactly what other countries do here.

 

Golden rule satisfied.

 

</thread>

  • Like 1
  • Yes Sir! Very atomic! 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 22/11/2019 at 8:43 AM, NZT48 said:

Other states/countries funding tourism advertising here means wealth is taken from here to there. If we want wealth here then we should let their wealth stay there. If there is no government funded tourism advertising anywhere then the total wealth that exists would be greater because wealth is not wasted on advertising. People will come here anyway because of word of mouth.

Ok, I'll bite.

Why do you consider it a waste of wealth to pay people to do a job? To reduce it down, why should I buy something made in your town or State, when that just reduces the wealth in my town or State? Why would I buy the product you make, or even know it exists, when all the customers in my town or State rave about the one made here?

 

In fact, why would I allow anyone from my town or even family to go and visit some other town or family?  It's just draining my wealth.  Not that I know where my wealth is coming from, seeing as if I go and work for someone, there needs to be enough demand to have my productivity turn into sales.

So what I'm picking up from what you're putting down, is we should revert to some kind of Amish-level (at best) society, where we need lots of people to provide labour because we don't use industrialisation techniques or machinery or even just technology, so that we can best concentrate our wealth by... being subsistance farmers?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why does Tourism Australia exist? So wealth from other countries comes here. If we want wealth here we should respect them having wealth there.

 

 

I don't have a problem with tourism; I just think it should not be funded by government.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
24 minutes ago, NZT48 said:

I don't have a problem with tourism; I just think it should not be funded by government.

 

...Who do you think is going to pay for it, then?

 

All citizens pay taxes.  A portion of those taxes fund tourism advertising.  Tourists come and spend money.  ALL Australians benefit.

If you try to make individual companies responsible for tourism advertising, either it won't get done (because what small business can afford a multi-million buck ad campaign?), or it will get done for the sole benefit of some large corporation.

 

Do you ever actually think through your ideas, or do you just immediately take them on as opinions?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... Hang on, with the way of www, Gov. sponsored advertising is not really as critical to this country's survival as it once was. So yeah, perhaps the funds could be better utilised.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hypothetical: Annually, the Australian government spends $1,000,000 in New Zealand on tourism advertising resulting in a wealth transfer from New Zealand to Australia of $10,000,000, and the New Zealand government spends $1,000,000 in Australia on tourism advertising resulting in a wealth transfer from Australia to New Zealand of $10,000,000. The Australian government stops tourism advertising in New Zealand and the New Zealand government stops tourism advertising in Australia, resulting in $2,000,000 more wealth existing, Australia being $1,000,000 better off and New Zealand being $1,000,000 better off.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

money is not created by the spending pattern changing

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, I am appreciating the impetus that is Aussies advertising here for Aussies to spend holiday $$ in Aus. rather than overseas. Bringing to the fore the the need for $$ to stay incountry and the beauty of this land is a good thing, just now particularly.

Could wish the Aus. media would cease and desist with the negative picks of both fire and floods

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The media love that shit.

Australia being what it is, there's always something going on weatherwise.

They must feel blessed to be working here!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, NZT48 said:

Hypothetical: Annually, the Australian government spends $1,000,000 in New Zealand on tourism advertising resulting in a wealth transfer from New Zealand to Australia of $10,000,000, and the New Zealand government spends $1,000,000 in Australia on tourism advertising resulting in a wealth transfer from Australia to New Zealand of $10,000,000. The Australian government stops tourism advertising in New Zealand and the New Zealand government stops tourism advertising in Australia, resulting in $2,000,000 more wealth existing, Australia being $1,000,000 better off and New Zealand being $1,000,000 better off.

 


save every cent you make, and never go outdoors unless it is to make more money.  you will be richer on paper, whilst your quality of life will be poor.  there is more to life than money.  

 

i assume you are talking about these money flows because youre interested in what is best for Australians.  but accruement of wealth is not the ultimate measure of success.   a healthy amount of spending is a far better measure of the success of an economy, and the net quality of life of the populace.  

 

the option to enjoy all that NZ has to offer improves Australian's quality of life.  suppose we avail ourselves of their wares more so than they ours — such that 'the wealth transfer from Australia to New Zealand' is not $10m as in your hypothetical, but $15m?  so what!  this means next to nothing in isolation.

 

say we both have $100, and stuff we want to sell.  you haggle with me and end up buying something from me for $20 that you wouldve paid $30 for.  i buy something from you for $50 dollars that i woulve paid $80 for.

 

now you have $80, and i have $50.  so who "won"?  nobody won! 

 

firstly, the idea that you can make a meaningful determination from a spreadsheet is grossly simplistic.  secondly, there is no obvious way to quantify how much my purchase improved my quality of life relative to your purchase.  thirdly, i may happen to know a buyer who will pay me $100 for your used gay porn mags, hence, i will soon be in front in the spreadsheet stakes anyway.

 

the analogue to this is a Australian photographer who spends a lot on NZ travel, helping to inflate our country's outgoings, but then makes a mint selling the resulting photos locally.  where does such seconday wealth creation factor into your appraisals?  nowhere, thats where.

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, scruffy1 said:

money is not created by the spending pattern changing

I know. This thread has nothing to do with creating money. Wealth/money is saved though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 09/02/2020 at 4:48 PM, NZT48 said:

Hypothetical: Annually, the Australian government spends $1,000,000 in New Zealand on tourism advertising resulting in a wealth transfer from New Zealand to Australia of $10,000,000, and the New Zealand government spends $1,000,000 in Australia on tourism advertising resulting in a wealth transfer from Australia to New Zealand of $10,000,000. The Australian government stops tourism advertising in New Zealand and the New Zealand government stops tourism advertising in Australia, resulting in $2,000,000 more wealth existing, Australia being $1,000,000 better off and New Zealand being $1,000,000 better off.

That's a dumb hypothetical and you should feel dumb for begging the question.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Geoffrey Robertson used to host hypotheticals but he was a learned fuckwit.................with an acquired pommy accent.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, LogicprObe said:

 

Geoffrey Robertson used to host hypotheticals but he was a learned fuckwit.................with an acquired pommy accent.

Yeah, in his later life he has  moments of dumb doochery too... I did witness one.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

anyone that gets to sit next to amal clooney at work is doing something right

 

amalqc_3179631c.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Oh sure. Fighting the good fight doesn't mean he's free of the ' dumb' gene though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Geoffrey is always on the moral highground..............and while he can be somewhat humorous at times, he is often just a pretentious git.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×