Valerie Yules Letters

May 23, 2011

6 angles on gambling that are little thought about

Filed under: Pleasures, social problems — Tags: , , — valerieyulesletters @ 8:49 am


1. Every Australian over 17 loses an average of $1300 a year on gambling — that’s about $22 billion for the whole country each year

Suppose that money was available to the banks who otherwise have to borrow it abroad?

2. The $2.6 billion in Victorian gambling turnover is stated to generate about $1 billion in gaming taxes for the State Government.  Suppose it was all available for public benefit?

3. The money spent is ill-afforded (most Australian households are in debt). The working classes lose most because they see no other means to economic mobility, and have few if any other legal ways to experience the excitements of risk-taking.  Give them more opportunities to better themselves.

4. Gambling is a noble human instinct which has been perverted.

The country itself is a gamble: its existence displays the human inclination to take risks, to attempt new ventures, to explore.

5. School maths should include the maths of gambling.

6. Alternatives to money gambling should be widely known. See


May 7, 2011

Community Housing

Filed under: conservation, social problems, Uncategorized, waste — Tags: , , — valerieyulesletters @ 6:37 am

Housing in the new developments

Housing on the outer fringes of towns is developing without consideration of future factors, and is the same as usual – separate house on separate blocks, with the same problems of facilities and waste space, and no public transport.

Yet now is the chance of trying out housing as communities.

For example:

A housing block of a square of terrace houses, with four or six houses per side. Those on the south side are two-or three storied, so the inner side of the square, which is the houses’ gardens and an inner play area safe from traffic, is not shaded except by trees.

There is a shop, next to a road to the inner space. Each pair of houses has a garage/workshop and shares appliances such as washing machines, vacuum cleaners, clothes lines, and has an alternative-technology version of these as well – carpet sweepers, a twin-tub, a manual lawn-mower, and so on. One house of each pair is designed for up to six inhabitants, the other is small, e.g. for a granny flat or new-married. Windows in the roof keep the inner rooms light.

There is no waste space as there is in separate houses. There is variety of housing. Public transport can be close.  The shop is handy.

The houses are built with every form of ecological benefit – unlike the present building of conservation-unfriendly houses

Blog at