There you go again. It's called verballing, Ludwig, a technique that originated with "the putting of damaging remarks into the mouths of suspects during police interrogation."

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/verballing

>>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.<<

Once again - for the umpteenth time, it would seem - I am not in favour of i) unending growth, which is mathematically unfeasible, ii) unfettered growth, which is politically unacceptable, or even iii) "rapid growth", a concept you snuck in during a previous post.

What I do understand is that this country has nowhere near reached its optimum level of population, or economic well-being. Until such time as it actually starts showing the strain that your imagination has created within your fortress-Australia mindset, I remain a supporter of the sensible level of growth, and concomitant population increase, that is our present policy.

After all, it has done no damage at all to our per capita GDP, has it.

(Cue furious attack on GDP; which, unfortunately, from a previous exchange of views, it is crystal clear that you do not comprehend.)

I'm also a great fan of city living, as are a few million of my neighbours down here.

(Cue furious attack on city living, which you are entitled to dislike for personal reasons, but not entitled to assume that everyone shares your phobias. For one, I wouldn't live in your neck of the woods to save my life)

I note this “simple formula” excludes the vital factor (perhaps most important of all) of “human rights/freedoms”

This exclusion allows “Kuwait” and “United Arab Emirates” in top 10. More telling is how even with this exclusion the super economies like China and India still get nowhere near the top places.

Obviously the extreme lack of ‘individual freedoms’ and ‘rights’ in those nations is the reason.

This should alarm us all, especially when it is asked who will be next century’s economic flavour - "Asian” or “European”.

The mere relaxed manner in asking this question, the nonchalant demeanour, to me indicates an acceptance that Asia may rule. Worse it tells of a carefree stance to the absent human rights in Asia which in the west are the most vital factors.

. . . obviously with these attitudes the overwhelming winner will be Asia with European philosophies possibly descending into museums.

This tells us much about how well-off westerners have come to completely ignore when analysing Asian economic cultures – that is, that of human exploitation and human rights abuses. They simply care not.

Most privileged westerners act as though these atrocities do not exist each time we praise Chinese economic growth and speak of the Asian “Tiger economy” in awe, or how easily our children travel to Asia and India for their “gap year” and to somehow feel they had a wonderful experience even though they were amidst vulgar atrocities of enormous number and child labour on top of general slavery. They only remember the different foods, spices, smells, and architecture, maybe even a strange encounter or two with a local.

This is tantamount to the privileged kids in UK or USA in the early 1940s taking their “gap year” in Nazi Germany for a wonderful experience.

If that image feels eerie, imagine our global future within the current climate.

I picture some sci-fi movie of a futuristic society where most are dirt poor in squalor, the rest few live in utter luxury.

It is not hard to predict this really, since the west seems to have already given up.

Good morning all,

@Shadow Minister, are you saying Chile, South Korea, Israel, Luxembourg, Poland, Slovak Republic, Slovenia and Turkey are not OECD members? Or are you saying their GDP growth from 1996 to 2007 was not greater than Australia’s?

These are easily verified, SM.

Please spend some time with the GDP growth charts, SM. They really are quite instructive.

You will find even Angola, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Equatorial Guinea and Liberia grew at around three times Australia’s rate during the period 1996 to 2007.

That is no great party trick.

The challenge was to survive the devastating downturn from 2008 to 2012 without going into recession. Not many did that, did they?

@Matthew S,

Welcome to the chat.

Re: “this ‘simple formula’ excludes the vital factor (perhaps most important of all) of ‘human rights/freedoms’.”

Partly correct. The eighth variable - economic freedom - does include a component of human rights/freedoms. So this is not excluded completely.

You will find other rankings elsewhere which measure and contrast human rights directly. These include Transparency International’s corruption index, the World Justice Project’s rule of law index and the UN’s human development index.

So no need to duplicate all those here.

The IAREM measures purely economic outcomes. It does not measure human rights, education, the environment, health, life expectancy, crime rates, child slavery, women’s emancipation or other social outcomes – important though all these values are.

Cheers, AA

Pericles, from your post of Sunday, 30 March 2014 4:47:43 PM:

<< Your answer to everything is that our population should remain at the same level, or somehow reduce itself, without actually saying a) how this can be made to happen, and b) how this will actually improve our situation.

You call this "managing demand". Which sounds great in theory, but you don't have even the vaguest conception how this would pan out for the economy.

Tellingly, though, the common thread in your defence of the absurd notion that we can somehow stand still and everything will magically get better, is to attack the nearest straw man... >>

So.... who’s verballing whom??

You make crazy assertions about my views which you KNOW are not true.

You’re a classic verballer!

I said:

>> 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 <<

You called this verballing!

It isn’t in the slightest. It is exactly the way I see your views. You’ve made it crystal clear that the demand side of the economic equation, ie: population growth, is untouchable….. haven’t you??

<< Once again - for the umpteenth time, it would seem - I am not in favour of i) unending growth… >>

Yes I know that.

So um…. how does that sit with your notion that the demand side of the equation can’t be adjusted and that all planning has to be on the supply side?

continued

AA,

I am sorry that you lack the simple ability to comprehend english, I clearly said: "Have a look at the list of OECD countries, the additional ones you list are not there". Please stop trying to be such a smartass. Your list is dishonest manipulation to reach a predetermined result.

An indication of how the real world views Labor is:

"THE $16.2 billion Building the Education Revolution scheme, one of the signature policies of the Rudd and Gillard years, has been condemned as an international case study of legislative and ­bureaucratic failure."

I would suggest that you spend some time reading up about the following subjects about which you have little to no knowledge and scant regard:

1 Economics,
2 Logical reasoning,
3 Journalistic ethics.

<< After all, it has done no damage at all to our per capita GDP, has it. >>

What? GDP! That most fundamentally flawed of economic indicators! Even worse than Alan’s IAREM! No, population growth has done no damage to it at all! Woop de doo ( :>/

<< Cue furious attack on GDP… >>

Haaahahaha!!

Yep. And thoroughly deserved it is too!

<< I'm also a great fan of city living >> << I wouldn't live in your neck of the woods to save my life >>

Aaah haaaahahahaaaa!

You’d live in Sydney, but you wouldn’t live in the most wonderful part of the whole country – Townsville, Cairns and the Wet Tropics??

Well…. that is your loss entirely.

I’ll have the tropical north… or the botanically fantastic southwest WA, or just about anywhere else in the country ahead of stodgy old Sydney! Although, if I secured the right job at the Royal Botanic Gardens or somewhere similar, I could live there. I’d probably go completely bonkers in the first 12 months. But I’d be willing to give it a go!

<< Cue furious attack on city living … >>

Nope! I’ve got no issue with all those poor sad misguided half-mad millions of Australians who choose to live in cities!

Alright Pericles, so if my summation of your position, which you called verballing, is incorrect, then I’m at a bit of a loss.

Could you please clarify your position re: addressing supply but not addressing demand, even when demand is rapidly increasing and seriously stressing the supply capability of one or more basic resources, services or basic forms of infrastructure. Thanks.