Wow, SPQR,

I see you're presenting your investigative cherry-pick as some kind of game-changer.

The difference, deary, is that Skeptical Science utilizes peer-reviewed material from climate scientists to explain "the science" - as opposed to pal-reviewed junk from "skeptic" sites.

I know you have a preference for the spoutings of weather hacks on the various sites you frequent which you probably consider to be cutting edge stuff....your prerogative of course.

JKJ,

There's been enough material posted and linked to on OLO to debunk the deniers a hundred times over. Why don't you trawl around for the answers to your disingenuous guff.

Here you go boys...

I'll post this here so you can tell me we can't possibly be warming if there are freaky freezing snows in the northern hemisphere.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-03-27/freezing-spring-huts-europe-and-us/4596258

But then again?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/2013/mar/25/frozen-spring-arctic-sea-ice-loss

Poirot, what is your take on the IPCC saying that there has been no
warming for 17 years ?

To get back to the thread, the European banks are adopting the policy
or stance that fixed deposits or cash accounts are investments and can
be lost if the investment manager fails.
This is the same status as other investment managers.
Depositors go onto the list of creditors such as electricity
suppliers, and other trade suppliers.
Creditors are behind employees in the queue.
How long before Australian banks adopt the same policy ?

Accounts here up to $250k I believe are insured by the government.
However it is not realised generally that the government liability
is limited to $20 billion for all banks.
If a major bank went down the gurgler that would not go very far.
Perhaps they would be settled in alphabetical order, in which case
you might want to change your name, hmm ?

If you think this is just an idle contemplation and you are a director
of a company, you had better think again.
ASIC might think differently.

Bazz,

Regarding Graham Lloyd's quoting of Pachauri:

http://skepticalscience.com/australian-pachauri-global-warming.html

(Apologies to SPQR for linking to a reputable climate science blog:)

But then it's not uncommon for that sort of treatment from a certain media stable - as this indicates:

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/1/17/science-environment/australian%E2%80%99s-climate-correction

Greetings,

@David, Re: “The data collected by the ABS are just that, "BS" ... if you have worked one hour in the previous fortnight they regard you as employed.”

Criteria for measuring employment are spelt out in the ABS explanatory notes. They follow global agreement through the International Bureau of Labor Statistics. They're not arbitrarily chosen by governments.

Whenever the criteria change, all stats are changed back through history. So we always compare like with like.

@JKJ, Re: “What about a public works program for the government to build artificial reefs on every beach in Australia? This constructive activity would provide point-break quality surf instead of beach-break quality surf. Would this justify stimulus policy funding? If not, why not?”

Simple cost-benefit analysis, JKJ. In this instance benefits to a limited number of surfers would not justify the outlay.

Re: “How about a railway through the Great Stony Desert? Obviously the data don’t exist because it hasn’t been done yet, so you’ll have to answer by reference to your theory.”

Same response. Unless there’s a likely return on the investment, it’s not worth it.

As an example, the pink batts scheme is now assessed as yielding annual savings to householders – and the planet – in the billions of dollars in energy costs avoided. This return will continue for up to 150 years.

Re: “If you’re not using aggregate demand or boosting demand as the criterion, you still haven’t said how you know whether the policies are justified.”

A combination of practical experience, pencil and paper calculations – or computer modeling these days – and inspired guesswork.

Re: “None of those documents addresses itself to *whether* the stimulus policies produce a net benefit to society, rather than merely looting A to satisfy B. They only try to measure *how much* the governments spent, and how much benefit it was.”

Yes. Measurable benefits include:

*wealth
*income per person
*income disparity
*economic growth
*current account
*foreign exchange reserves
*employment
*health care
*pensions
*savings
*productivity
*economic freedom
*home ownership
*exchange rate
*retail sales
*industrial production
*credit ratings
*overall quality of life

Cheers, AA

Well if you're using cost/benefit analysis, why not the cost/benefit analysis of profit and loss? Why not cut out the middle-man of governmental intervention?

But if you're not using profit and loss, what reason is there to think that the cost/benefit analysis of central planning bureaucrats is going to be any better, considering that
a) they have no personal interest in getting it right, and
b) they pay no price for getting it wrong?
If your presumption were valid, it would be valid for all governmental spending whatsoever.

*Economically* speaking, why would the rationale of government's superior competence at resource allocation suddently cut out when it reached the magical 3.3 percent of GDP that you have conjured without giving any data or reason to back it up?

Also, if a bank robber spends his loot on, say, building a school hall, does that mean that bank robbery creates net benefits for society considered as a whole?