Pericles
What would you propose that we teach our students? And who would teach them?"

They have to be taught to produce something useful, and this might also mean producing something that other students would find useful or an aid to their studies.

That type of thing produces exponential growth, as one thing builds upon another.

So the students in every class can simply be told that there will be a class project to produce something useful by the end of the year.

That can be done for every class in every school or university throughout the country each and every year. That introduces the student to the concept that they have to produce, and not just import like their teachers.

There reaches a point where the more someone imports, the less likely they will ever export something, and I believe many in Australia have reached that point right now.

You've been on those conspiracy sites again, haven't you, Geoff of Perth.

>>Global finance and banking (all money whether paper-coin/electronic) is derived from "Fractional Reserve Banking System" i.e. released at interest.<<

Only the portion that is borrowed, is "released at interest". All the rest pay cash.

Our sovereign debt in Australia is around 24% of GDP - that's three months worth. Think of it this way - it is the equivalent of you earning $80k, being in debt of $20k, paying interest to the bank at (say) 7%, or $1,400 p.a.

Not exactly a disaster, wouldn't you agree?

>>To permit this economy to function you need to have growth, its imperative to pay off the interest on money loaned into the system.<<

You wouldn't need "growth" to pay $1,400 a year, would you?

>>To permit growth you need cheap energy, energy above about 6% of GDP stalls growth in all economies<<

Bunkum. See above.

>>Hence, loss of cheap energy, loss of growth, then the whole Ponzi scheme falls apart<<

I was working in London in 1973 when the first "oil shock" occurred. The price went from $3 a barrel (yes, look it up) to $5.11, a 70% increase. By the end of 1974 it had reached $12, then in 1981 went up to $35. That was a nearly twelve-fold increase, in eight years. The world did not come to an end then, just as it didn't when oil reached $150 three years ago.

The part you're missing is that money does not exist in its own right. It only has value when it is exchanged for something.

>>Pretty basic when you think about it. How's that for answering your question?<<

You didn't. You just went off on a tangent, hoping I wouldn't notice.

Australian Universities are falling in world rankings. Funding for research and development is collapsing and manufacturing just about gone....

To turn your dream from wishful thinking and into reality........first the structural social design must change.

There is always billions of dollars for real estate growth infrastructure..which is an investment in pollution....while there is no capital for PhD's to do their research and later to take developments through to manufacture and protect our intellectual property.

By rapidly stabilising the population ( current growth rate is over 1 million more people every 3 years ), those billions that would have been spent on more people, can alternatively be spent on the utopia you envisage. That is the "opportunity cost" of population growth.

Without addressing this structural problem......your dreams will turn to dust.

Best regards,

Ralph

Oh dear, P., do we really have to go through banking 101 again?
“Only the portion that is borrowed, is "released at interest". All the rest pay cash.”
All the rest of whom, pray tell? “Cash” ie printed money represents on average about 3% of all new money. The rest (97%) is borrowed into existence by banks and their victi.... sorry, customers; including entire nations.
“Our sovereign debt in Australia is around 24% of GDP - that's three months worth. Think of it this way - it is the equivalent of you earning $80k, being in debt of $20k, paying interest to the bank at (say) 7%, or $1,400 p.a.”
Well actually, no. GDP (Gross Domestic PRODUCT) is not the same as GD PROFIT, and is certainly not interchangeable with GNI (Gross National Income). In fact, small matters like catastrophic floods in Qld, or bushfires in Vic actually increase GPD, by stimulating economic activity.
“You wouldn't need "growth" to pay $1,400 a year, would you?”
If it was an EXTRA $1,400 a year, well then yes, you would.
“The part you're missing is that money does not exist in its own right. It only has value when it is exchanged for something.”
Absolutely true. The question is, how much money do you have to exchange for something? In an inflationary period (too much money) such as we are undoubtedly entering now, a bloody lot. If however, the PIGS decide to drop out of the EU, and (either literally or effectively) default on their loans, we could see a deflationary effect (maybe).
Where does the money go? The same place everyone's superannuation and stocks and bonds value went 2 years ago.
Away.
As to the article, my compliments to Julian Cribb. It's a lovely dream. Unfortunately, the answer to insoluble national debt has historically always been the same.
War.

A weekly roundup from the Oil Depletion Analysis Centre, the UK registered charity dedicated to raising awareness of peak oil.

The oil market was plunged into turmoil as the IEA announced it will tap its strategic reserve for only the third time ever. The agency had hinted in the past months that it might be prepared to release stocks to offset the shortfall in production from the Libyan crisis, to calm prices and avoid a "hard landing" for the global economy. But it was widely expected that Saudi Arabia was to be given time to make up the difference. Instead the IEA will release 60 million barrels over the next 3 months in order to "bridge the gap" until new OPEC or Saudi supplies are available.

Prices dropped sharply — as intended — and Brent ended Thursday at $107/barrel. Whether the action can balance the markets in the longer term however is surely in doubt. There is no end to the Libyan conflict in sight, and so far oil prices have remained stubbornly high even in the face of weak economic data including the Greek debt crisis stalking the Eurozone. Everything rests on Saudi Arabia being able to deliver the extra capacity — although many doubt it can, at least not in time. Their announcement suggests even the IEA agrees.

In the UK this week the government published a clutch of National Policy Statements making the case for new energy infrastructure — fossil plants, renewable and gas and electric grids - and a list of eight sites proposed for new nuclear stations. The papers are intended to guide planning authorities about the national interest when considering new energy infrastructure projects.It does no fit into the 2050 which willfail.

vanna, I almost agree. I don't mind using imported computers and basic programs and suites such as MS Office and the Adobe Creative Suite. Innovation comes from building on what already exists, and those programs are among the easiest to use (and most widely used in the 'real world').

The trouble is what students are asked to do with them. This is due to a combination of stubborn teachers and short-sighted educational policy. The latest catchcry is that we should be encouraging students to 'create, collaborate and innovate' with ICT. It's no longer enough to type up assignments, insert pictures into documents, research on the web and use PowerPoint to aid speeches. We must harness opportunities available to us to use ICTs to improve educational outcomes; we also need to empower students to harness those opportunities. Doing that would be taking a step in the right direction and contributing to, rather than simply consuming, the digital world.

Two things get in the way. One is the policy that has integrated ICTs into every subject and deprived it of any stand-alone value. As well as teaching English, I teach kids how to use ICTs. I feel well-equipped to do that, but some of my older colleagues don't. I don't blame them. There is little professional development here, so teachers are left teaching kids to do what they themselves can do. The kids tend to be more advanced, but can't use their skills in the classroom because many teachers can't keep up. Thus skills are devalued and stagnate.

The second is a negative attitude I have encountered with many teachers. They have taught for 30 years without having to do this 'ICT stuff', so they don't see why they should start now. They can point to all sorts of literacy, numeracy and social statistics to 'prove' that computers are bad for us. I find it frustrating but, when I consider how little support they receive, I can sort of understand where they are coming from.

Meanwhile, these opportunities to take good ICT resources and make them great go to waste.