maybe, but when someone refers to you as 'dodgy' you get a bit pissed off

I note that your "manifesto" regurgitates that old furphy, Ludwig...

"Bushfires, car accidents and crime waves all increase GDP".

They do not. I have asked you to justify this statement on a number of occasions, but you never do.

Here is an explanation of GDP that describes the components that are measured.

http://www.investopedia.com/exam-guide/cfa-level-1/macroeconomics/gross-domestic-product.asp

So - either in your own words, or words that you cut'n'paste from the internet - describe how bushfires, car accidents and crime waves impact GDP. Explain, for example, if the entire country was covered by bushfires, how GDP would increase. Alternatively, if there were no bushfires at all for, say, five years, explain how GDP would decrease.

You see, whichever way you look at it, the theory cannot possibly be correct.

Given that illustrates the intellectual basis of your "manifesto", I wouldn't pay too much attention to it if I were you. Also, a quick glance through its signatories is illustrative of the nature of its adherents. Very few actually have a stake in the productive economy; most rely on the taxpayer to provide for them in one fashion or another.

Bonjour all,

Just rushing out, so can't stop to chat.

Regarding academic integrity, refer here:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/ministerial-responsibility-in-australia-accuracy-please,4333

And for an update on the economy, refer here:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/joe-hockey-is-no-paul-keating,6352

Back later ...

Cheers,

AA

Pericles, where in that brief explanation of how GDP is calculated does it say or allude to your assertion that economic activity generated by…

<< bushfires, car accidents and crime waves >>

…does not get added to GDP?

It really is very simple: Bushfires etc increase economic activity, all else being equal. And what does GDP measure?

Yes, that’s right; it measures economic activity, regardless of the whys or wherefores of that activity, or whether it is good, bad or indifferent.

From your link:

< Government (G) - This category includes government spending on items that are "consumed" in the current period, such as office supplies and gasoline; and also capital goods, such as highways, missiles, and dams. >

So increased government spending on items that are consumed, as a result of the recovery effort after a flood, cyclone, bushfire, etc get added to GDP…

…. and ongoing government expenditure due to health issues, road accidents, etc does indeed contribute to GDP.

Perhaps you can specifically point out to me where in this summary there is anything that supports your assertion that things like this don’t result in a ‘positive’ contribution to GDP.

Alan,

The independent Australian is where integrity goes to die. It consists of pompous and factually dubious polemics written by failed journalists with no integrity and zero subject knowledge, and read by a handful of left whinge retards.

Just sad really

Greetings,

Intriguing comments. Thank you.

@WmTrevor, thanks for the Legatum link.

Curious about their ‘economy’ rankings. Not explained, unfortunately.

@Shadow Minister, no, none of those BER observations is true.

The key questions are: What was the scheme’s purpose? To what extent was that achieved?

Answers here: http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-really-must-talk-about-what-actually-did-save-australia,5644

@Rhrosty, thanks. Mostly agree. Just a couple of queries.

Re, “we would have been better served by the building of many low cost homes …”

Perhaps. But where? On what government land?

Do you accept, Rhrosty, that construction had to start in the 2009 third quarter to have the desired effect? Could land have been acquired in that timeframe? Compulsory acquisition?

Could house construction realistically be accomplished in every population centre across the nation?

@Chris Lewis, calm down! You have no legitimate complaint whatsoever.

When you first published those ministerial sackings figures – which were not just dodgy, but blatantly false – I wrote privately to lead author Keith Dowding alerting him to the errors and providing the accurate data.

So you should have said ‘thank you’, withdrawn the fraudulent paper, and rewritten it. When you didn’t, it was entirely reasonable that it be refuted here:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/ministerial-responsibility-in-australia-accuracy-please,4333

In fact, if you studied responsibility of knowledge in ethics at school, you would understand it was my responsibility to refute it.

But do I get any thanks?!

You’ve made the same basic mistakes in the BER paper, Chris. Starting with believing what you read in Murdoch publications.

Please research these Press Council adjudications, Chris. They will show you – from independent semi-judicial inquiry – that Murdoch employees are paid to distort, fabricate and lie.

Adjudication numbers 1441, 1447, 1476, 1480, 1483, 1484, 1486, 1492, 1496, 1498, 1503, 1506, 1509, 1511, 1513, 1515, 1517, 1519, 1523, 1525, 1527, 1529, 1530, 1531, 1536, 1537, 1539, 1540, 1547, 1549, 1550, 1554, 1555, 1556, 1558, 1561, 1562, 1568, 1572, 1573, 1583, 1587, 1588, 1590, 1591, 1592 and 1594.

Your BER paper makes four fatal errors. Happy to discuss, if you wish. But quoting The Australian should be enough for most readers to see it is, well, dodgy.

Cheers, AA