<< @Ludwig, re: “Alan, I haven’t heard any criticism of Abbott regarding his desire to really get serious about infrastructure.”

Of course not. He should be serious. But until he actually builds something, he is having a premature congratulation. >>

YES Alan, he SHOULD be serious. Because infrastructure is seriously not keeping up with our manic rate of population growth!

I don’t expect Abbott to build anything of any significance….. because we are basically putting about as much effort as we can into infrastructure now, and have been for a long time. What he is likely to say in ~two years time is that he has built this many new sections of highway and freeway, that many new hospitals, a host of new schools, a huge shirtload of new houses, ra ra… and big-note himself greatly for all of that!

But of course all of this is spurred by population growth… and is needed to support that population growth.... with no net gain!

Wanna bet that this is what will happen?

The general community and all commentators that I have heard applaud Abbott for at least verbally committing to boosting our efforts at building infrastructure…. because they know we badly need it!

<< Re: “The perception across our community seems to be that infrastructure is nowhere near good enough …”

Correct. That is because perceptions are shaped by your media. >>

No, no. You can’t entirely blame the media. People do actually experience infrastructure (and service) shortfalls first-hand – on our roads, with permanent water restrictions, long queues for medical attention, etcetratarata…

<< Those who actually understand what is happening in Australia and beyond know Australia was first or second in the world in infrastructure development from 2009 to 2013. >>

What do you mean by infrastructure development? The amount of infrastructure per capita? Or the improvement in infrastructure over and above the negative effects on it from population growth?

Clearly the former. Because the latter would be about zero, if not negative.

continued

<< Re: “Again, your IAREM indicates … that we’d all be better off if we INCREASED immigration and hence the demand for infrastructure.”

Correct, Ludwig. >>

YES Alan! Your IAREM indicator indicates that even though we are struggling to keep infrastructure up to population growth, let alone significantly improve it over and above the pressures imposed on it by that population growth, the best thing to do is BOOST population growth, simply because it would lead to the building of more infrastructure... and completely without regard to the quality of that infrastructure, or the relationship between supply and demand!

That’s just crackers! It couldn’t be more counterintuitive!

Popnperish succinctly outlines the main issues with continuous rapid population growth on another thread: http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=16156#281098

She writes:

< With 407,000 people added to the population in the year to the end of June last year, that means $80 billion is required to cater for their needs. >

Alan, we desperately need an economic indicator which shows this phenomenally huge expense on the negative side of the ledger rather on the positive.

Please, set your IAREM aside completely and devise one for us!

Good morning all.

@Shadow Minister: No, not at all. Not at all.

Re: “I asked you how many OECD countries had better growth.”

No, not really. You made an observation that “I have been looking for OECD countries that had a higher growth rate from '96 to 2007 higher than Australia's average of nearly 4% and I can't find one that comes close.”

Perhaps there is an implied question there. But there is also an admission that you were having difficulty locating the information.

So I gave you the full picture, with the link to the original data. As a bonus, the data supplied was for the whole world, not just for the OECD. So there is absolutely no possibility of any accusation of cherry picking.

Re: “of the OECD the countries that just squeaked over were Finland, Greece, and Spain”

No, not correct. Other OECD countries with higher growth were Chile, South Korea, Israel, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Turkey.

So you got three out of the eleven. Not bad.

But only Spain, Israel, Greece and Finland were “close” to Australia on the upside.

The others were waaaay ahead. Australia was a long way behind even the Slovak Republic and Turkey.

We have to accept, SM, that 1996 to 2007 was a period of dismally disappointing economic management in Australia relative to the rest of the world.

Could that be because the then Treasurer had no economic qualifications, do you think, SM?

Just a thought.

@Ludwig, thank you for your passion and your persistence. But we just don’t share your pessimism and pissed-offed-ness.

Re: “But of course all of this is … needed to support that population growth.... with no net gain!”

Of course there is net gain. It’s just that humanity has a tendency not to notice. All humanity.

You bring to mind, Ludwig, an intriguing passage in an ancient Judeo-Christian text called Ecclesiastes: “Say not thou, What is the cause that the former days were better than these? for thou dost not enquire wisely concerning this.”

Cheers,

AA

AA,

Have a look at the list of OECD countries, the additional ones you list are not there, neither is a single advanced economy. No matter how you wiggle, your lists are complete garbage.

The ever increasing performance of the economy during the Howard era contrasts with the dismal performance under Labor who brought the economy close to losing the AAA rating gained by Howard.

Is this due to Labor's Swan's feeble economic qualifications compared to Costello? or was it due to pure labor incompetence.

<< Of course there is net gain >>

How can you say that? That’s an extraordinary statement Alan, coming from one who is so into indicators and careful assessments of economic factors.

<< …we just don’t share your pessimism and pissed-offed-ness. >>

You don’t share my realistic concerns.

Alan, there are indicators of all sorts which strongly suggest that there is not only no net gain, but a steady net loss happening in conjunction with rapid pop growth.

Well I guess we can’t progress this debate any further.

Thankyou again for your friendly demeanour and willingness to keep responding.

Cheers til next time.

I wrote:

>> Where the supply capability is not up to scratch it is eminently sensible to strive to reduce the rate of increase in demand <<

Pericles, you replied:

<< This is where we ideologically part company >>

We sure do. It is just the most amazing and terrible basic premise that you have – that the demand side of the equation is untouchable! No matter how out of whack with the supply side it is or how much of a struggle we might be having in getting supply to meet demand, or how ominous it might look that supply won’t be able to meet the needs of the current demand let alone one that is rapidly increasing, it is entirely a matter of improving supply. Leave the demand alone!

Your whole argument is fundamentally based on this incredibly FLAWED notion.

The most basic tenet of good planning must surely be to match supply and demand, with the supply side being of high quality and able to remain so, ongoingly.

Heaven help us!