<< Precisely because they are intangible (i.e. not measurable) and subjective (i.e allowing you to attribute any value at all that you can conjure up), you end up with a value that is completely meaningless. It staggers me that you cannot grasp this unbelievably simple concept. >>

Good heavens, NO, Pericles!

Relative intangibility does NOT equate to meaninglessness!

In the real world there are all manner of fundamentally important things that are rather intangible.

The challenge surely is for our academics, economists and politicians to get a handle on these… and to absolutely NOT do what you seem to want – to only be concerned with things that are easily and consistently measurable!

We get our experts to come up with dollar values for these ‘intangibles’. We then have them debated amongst all interested parties, call for public submissions, and ultimately come up with values that the majority can agree on. Or some similar process.

Only taking into account easily measurable things would be absolute folly.

Even if the primary economic indicator, GDP, did put all the measurable negative things on the negative side of the ledger, it would still be a highly flawed and misleading indicator.

Surely it is just so obvious that we need something vastly better than GDP to base our economic prosperity on!

Worshipping GDP, which indicates that rapid population growth is good and faster growth is better, and that the faster we move AWAY from a sustainable future, the better we are doing economically, is absolute lunacy, writ large!

Hi Alan, agree that spending on selective infrastructure is well worth borrowing for. i.e., dams that over time, earn much more than their original capital outlay!
A very rapid rail system, that replaced most of the air traffic between Brisbane and Melbourne, one of the busiest in the world, would surely pay for itself over time, and could be funded with self terminating, Government guaranteed, thirty year bonds?
Something we don't do here.
Enabling it to stay, given a tax free status on the returns, would allow most of this money to be reinvested here.
I mean, 50% of something, is always going to outperform, the 100% of nothing we are reaping right now, from our own super funds.
I just don't see pink batts or schools halls reaping a commercial benefit, for any but a select few; and then, only during the roll out phase!
We could increase our education spend, by as much as 26 billions, if we but ended, welfare for the rich!
We could reboot our car industry, by making right hand drive electric vehicles for parts of Asia. These vehicles, could be gas powered and rely on ceramic cells rather than batteries.
The exhaust product of the NG powered ceramic cell, is mostly water vapor! Recharging is just a matter of minutes, the time taken to pump compressed gas in!
Moreover, the power to weight ratio is vastly improved, due to the fact, we don't need to push half a ton of batteries around.
The range is dramatically improved by the ceramic cell's energy coefficient, around 80%, the highest in the world.
We could and should make these vehicles here, and an employee owned co-op, would enable us, to produce them at the lowest possible cost!
You may believe we are doing well, Alan?
I however, believe we can do so much better, and indeed, demand we should, rather than praise our current mediocrity/cultural cringe and paucity of ideas/thinking leaders.
Rhrosty.

Good morning,

@Rhrosty, yes, agree with all of that pretty much.

It seems an intriguing aspect of human nature that we don’t see past immediate financial needs and wants and cash shortages to understand the big picture of our overall improved state of comfort and standard of living.

The latest world’s most liveable city ranking placed Melbourne first. The IAREM places Australia at the top. But that doesn’t stop people struggling to pay the bills, especially those on low and fixed incomes, feeling the economy is not working well for them.

Hence my attempts to be a bit nuanced regarding how “rosy” life in Australia really is. Because even though in 2013 your economy was well ahead of Norway, the UAE, Singapore and Switzerland, there are certainly areas where it could do much better.

Regarding pink batts, it has been estimated that house owners with insulation will save 45% of what they would have paid for heating/cooling. That is over the life of the buildings, which will be more than 100 years for many. Another estimate is that the emissions savings is equivalent to taking a million cars off the road. So that would seem a pretty sound investment, with benefits well beyond the roll-out phase.

The school buildings in most communities have made educating your kids just that much easier. That will pay off in generations to come.

Agree, Australia offers far too much welfare to the upper middle and the very rich. Tax concession for the big corporations is another aspect of this.

Can’t see that changing in the short term, however, Rhrosty. In fact, voters have just opted for a government which is committed to increasing it, both directly with payouts like the parental leave scheme, and indirectly by abolishing targeted taxes.

Yes, agree regarding alternative cars. Will be interesting to see how Tomcar in Melbourne progresses.

Cheers,

Alan A

Nice try Alan,

No matter how hard you try to white wash the pink batts debacle and the incompetence of the BER, the real world has cottoned on to the disasters that they were. The coroner handed down a finding that clearly indicated gross negligence on the behalf of Rudd and Garret, and the BER is now a world wide test case for how not to run a project.

Hi again Shadow Minister,

No, once again, the opposite of what you have just written is true.

You can find the Coroner's actual words here:

http://www.courts.qld.gov.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/203374/cif-fuller-mj-barnes-rk-sweeney-ms-20130704.pdf

Contrary to the false assertions in the mainstream media, the Queensland Coroner did not blame the federal Government at all – apart from noting the obvious fact that the fatalities would not have occurred if the rapid-rate scheme had not been implemented.

Culpability, according to the Coroner, was shared three ways.

1. The state authorities: “Under our constitutional arrangements, workplace health and safety is primarily within the domain of State Governments.”

2. The companies: “That the employers of the three people whose deaths were investigated by this inquest failed to adequately discharge their responsibilities is evidenced by their conviction of offences under electrical and work-place safety legislation.”

3. And, in one case, the victim: “Despite being directed not to use metal staples Mitchell chose to do so and died as a direct result.”

Don't believe what you read in The Australian, SM, or on papers written by shonky academics who get their raw data from The Australian.

That is not the way to wisdom or truth, is it?

Cheers,

AA

Alan,

From the coroner's report:

"The regulation of work place safety is primarily a State Government
responsibility. However, it is reasonable to expect that when the Commonwealth Government injects $2.7 billion into the economy via a program designed to create employment for unskilled and/or unemployed workers, it will have regard to the possible safety implications. ...
Undoubtedly, a major contributor to the failure to put in place adequate safeguards was the speed with which the program was conceived, designed and implemented. It was announced on 3 February 2009 and its commencement on 1 July meant the detailed analysis and planning that would usually be involved in such a venture was curtailed. One witness with experience in such matters estimated that such a project would usually take two years to role out. Because a major focus of this program was the stimulation of the economy to counter the effects of the global financial crisis it needed to proceed far more quickly than that, but not at the cost of human life."

"the evidence indicates it was primarily failings in the planning and
implementation of the HIP by Commonwealth agencies that led to an increased risk of harm"

That pretty much nails Rudd and Garret.

As for the BER, The statistics were from the commonwealth not the Australian, and the academics' reputations are based on their peer reviewed papers and are far more reliable than those cobbled together by an unqualified shonky would be journalist