Good morning all,

Interesting comments. Thank you.

@Shadow Minister: No, the rankings in the article are accurate. They were checked and double checked.

Australia now has the best profile on the main economic indicators. On those same indicators Australia was ranked 10th in 2007, behind Iceland, Singapore, China, United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Australia's ranking fell during the dismal Howard years from 6th in 1996.

It’s really not hard to prove this. Just a matter of comparing the data which can easily be found if you follow the links in the article. A bit time-consuming, that’s all.

@Ludwig, good morning to you too.

Regarding demand, it seems the recent global financial crisis has impacted demand in many countries. Australia’s fairly modest 2.6% growth is one of the best in the developed world.

Would you agree that what really matters more than the rate of growth of demand are the outcomes of balancing demand and supply: jobs, income, sustainable environment, retirement security, community services, benefits for those with no jobs and overall quality of life?

If these are in place, why does it matter if demand is steadily increasing? Why does it matter if population is increasing?

@Atman, re “good economy, driven by the miners, the very people the author and his left wing cronies love to hate.”

No, not at all. I’m an active investor in mining stocks. Where did you get that idea, Atman?

Re: “net borrowings were just 13.74% of GDP when Labor left office … up from 8.1% in two years earlier.”

Correct. And will peak at 14.54% next year.

So what level do you think is appropriate, Atman? Do you agree with Joe Hockey before the election that Australia’s debt is far too high, or with Joe Hockey after the election that debt is way too low?

@Hasbeen, re “That we are driving our own collapse is obvious, the only question is how much longer can we last?”

Really? Are you sure?

Which economy during which period is or was travelling better than Australia in June 2013?

Thanks.

Cheers,

Alan A

Enough has been said about the "best economy in the world".

I'm too shocked that anyone would think that socialist Labor left behind anything but an absolute mess, economically, to say more.

I'm no longer a fan of the Coalition or any other bunch of politicians, but who ever is on the treasury bench should get the message that cutting spending is the only way to go. Threatening to raise more tax is grossly irresponsible, and an even bigger burden on people who simply cannot afford it.

Saving by the government, and encouragement for voters to save, is the only way to get us out of the mess that socialist Labor left us in.

There is little evidence that Abbott is going to do this. Again, more reason for we voters to demand a better class of person to run out country.

Alan has been very kind to the previous Lib/Nat Prime Minister and Treasurer, Messrs Howard and Costello, by not mentioning that Howard was the “most profligate Prime Minister in Australia’s history”, according the IMF and that Howard and Costello left the incoming Labor Government the largest structural deficit in Australia’s history.
If we had invested the proceeds of the mining boom in infrastructure and not frittered it away on tax cuts and totally unnecessary, except for re-election, middle class welfare, Australia would have been in an even better state than it is today.
It will be interesting to see how big the structural deficit is when the Abbott/ Turnbull governments hand over to Labour in 2016.

<< Would you agree that what really matters more than the rate of growth of demand are the outcomes of balancing demand and supply: jobs, income, sustainable environment, retirement security, community services, benefits for those with no jobs and overall quality of life? >>

I think we’ve been over this fairly recently, but thanks for asking Alan.

Of All of those outcomes that are fundamentally important. And balancing demand and supply is of fundamental importance in achieving them.

<< If these are in place, why does it matter if demand is steadily increasing? Why does it matter if population is increasing? >>

If they were all in place, then we would possibly have scope to increase demand, if it didn’t have negative consequences.

But they aren't all in place. Every one of them needs considerable improvement, yes?

And rapid population growth is not helping us to achieve this, is it?

In fact it is working strongly against it. For as long as we have to spend a very considerable part of the national budget on duplicating infrastructure and services, upgrading overstressed existing I&S and environmental damage all caused by population growth.... and for as long as we have to grow our export income and domestic supplies of everything, all just to stand still in terms of the basic provisions and per-capita returns for ever-more people, we are not going to get very far.

So Alan, wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier to achieve all the desired outcomes from economic growth if we had a stable population or at least one that was growing at a much slower rate than at present?

What do you see as the merits of very high immigration? How is it helping?

How can it all work if we remain hooked into a continuous growth spiral of ever-increasing supply and demand?

Alan,

While completing production of a wildlife adventure film in 1981-2, evidence became apparent of malnutrition amongst seafood dependent Pacific Islands people in Solomon Islands.
Long term independent general research since then has revealed various evidence and various issues.
For example indigenous people of Australia have also lost their free and available wildlife and fish supply, and have also lost their associated ‘jobs’ in traditional hunting.
Of course there are social and economic consequences.
There are also solutions involving considerable socio-economic and environment opportunities for Australia.

For reason unknown to me, major media is boycotting and/or suppressing the real state of the environment and subsequently solutions are not being put in place, and consequences are worsening.
Even UN World Environment Day 2004 focus of “Wanted dead or alive – seas and oceans”, was not taken up by media and government in Australia. Search libraries to check. Thought I am not head hunting media or govt people. Focus is to get solutions happening.

There is not time or space available right here and now to provide more details about the ocean but I can come back to this thread if you are interested. You could understand more about the situation if you search into the history of my posts on OLO.

In haste right here and now please note consequences in Solomon Islands are even now impacting sick people. I have noted your bio on OLO and think you might be able to urgently help. See:
http://www.solomonstarnews.com/news/national/20037-call-to-support-hospitals-

After Laughingstock Austins article had me rolling around the floor laughing along comes David G calling for the erection of the baricades.

David doesn't understand that would be pretty pointless. Given the current productivity of Australian workers little actual erection would take place.

Lol great morning laugh from you jokers.