<< So it would appear that you have no problem at all with the statement that I made about Sydney, Ludwig >>

Pericles, Alan Austin’s article pertains to the whole country, not just Sydney. Regarding water, you conveniently didn’t mention the places that have the worst problems and chose to simply talk about Sydney. You addressed my point about water supply problems all over the country by talking only about Sydney! Hmmm.

And no they are NOT planning properly in Sydney. A huge mothballed desalination plant is an admission that water supplies are not secure. And yet this doesn’t lead to a stop or even the slightest slowing down in the rate of population growth, with the concomitant rapidly increasing demand for water!

If the government worked towards stabilising Sydney’s population, then they’d be doing some proper planning for the future.

<< It is patently obvious to even the most casual observer that it is not the lack of money to build infrastructure that is the issue, but the decisions of governments to spend our money elsewhere. >>

Whaat??

The government IS building infrastructure, at a massive rate! But the population is increasing so rapidly that this is needed just to keep up the same level of basic infrastructure for ever-more people.

I keep making this extremely important point, but you don’t respond. It either glosses over you, or you just simply can’t counter it.

<< …only a diversion into irrelevancies… >>

Deeearohdearodear! Where is your headspace at if you think my comments are a diversion? They are directly related to the subject of this thread.

Now please, let me go play in the muddy quagmire of your five-point post.

Response to number 2 coming up soon….

<< 2. Improvements are taking place all the time down here in Sydneyland. Our parks are well maintained, our streets are clean, our domestic services (garbage collection etc.) has over the years become the best I have seen anywhere in Australia. >>

And the place is congested to all buggery, despite the most phenomenal amount of money having been spent on roads!

Um… on my recent forays around the Sydney coast, I noticed that rubbish was everywhere!

In fact, it prompted me to start up a new photographic theme. Litter. A lot of which is actually quite photogenic. As a result of this endeavour, I observed that Sydney was much more rubbishiferous than anywhere else on the NSW coast.

OK, so the parks are well maintained and the streets are clean, etc. But....hasn’t it been like this for a long time? Certainly has in my part of the world.

So…. what IS actually improving in Sydney, Pericles?

<< 3. Your own ideas about closing the borders and becoming "self-sufficient" are certainly not designed to address [the eradication of poverty] either. >>

You know full well that do not want to close the borders. Net zero immigration is what we need to achieve.

If we had a stable population or a much lower growth rate and continued to have good economic growth, we would have a much better prospect of achieving real improvements in quality of life issues, including the reduction and eventual eradication of poverty.

<< 4. We are the healthiest we have ever been, with an extended lifespan and one of the best healthcare systems in the world. >>

Yes. But you’ve got to admit that our healthcare system could be a whole lot better. It is a major desire of the general community, and of government. A great deal of money is poured into it. But again, it results almost entirely in the duplication of basic health services for evermore people and the struggle to counter the overburdening of existing services due to population growth pressure, and does NOT lead to significant improvements overall.

I reckon Alan is taking a lend of you guys. His index is largely arbitrary, and house prices, the result of a credit binge, rather than careful economic husbandry, look very large in its composition. If you're in a country that still has a housing bubble, you'll look good on Alan's reckoning.

But let's assume I'm being unreasonable and the index is worthwhile, which country is the fairest of us all? Well, according to what I've read from Alan it's not Australia, but New Zealand, which rose 15 places on his index, compared to our 9 places. And from what I can tell from Alan's documentation and other research, NZ didn't splurge on government spending at all.

Alan also seems to get another fact wrong - the biggest stimulus according to the OECD http://www.oecd.org/economy/outlook/42421337.pdf was in the USA (see page 6).

What's more New Zealand says it will be back to surplus next year http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-05-16/new-zealand-government-delivers-budget/4694850, while we won't be back in surplus for quite some time, no matter what either side says.

Weak, Ludwig. C- at best.

>>Regarding water, you conveniently didn’t mention the places that have the worst problems and chose to simply talk about Sydney.<<

Exactly.

The point being that the problem in those areas is clearly a lack of planning. If the biggest city in Australia can sort it, then it cannot be that difficult for the less populated areas, surely? Since your mantra is "low population is better", then by (your) definition it must be a far simpler problem to solve for those places, no?

But if it is not about population, and it is a problem that, as Sydney's experience proves, can be solved with proper planning, then it can only be a matter of political will, n'est-ce pas?.

And frankly, you should be ashamed of such blatant sophistry as this little gem...

>>And no they are NOT planning properly in Sydney. A huge mothballed desalination plant is an admission that water supplies are not secure.<<

So, your idea of forward planning is... what? Wait until there is a drought, then complain that the shortage of water is because there are too many people?

Oh, wait. That is what you do, isn't it.

>>The government IS building infrastructure, at a massive rate!<<

I simply repeat my earlier question - where is this "at a massive rate" happening?

>>[Sydney] is congested to all buggery, despite the most phenomenal amount of money having been spent on roads!<<

It's a city, Ludwig. That's what cities are like. They prosper as a result of their being a city. Much of the Chinese economic miracle is down to their rapid urbanization.

http://www.china.org.cn/business/2014-03/22/content_31873970.htm

http://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2012/01/daily-chart-6

I know you prefer to live out in the sticks, Ludwig. But you are a relatively insignificant economic unit, and - quite frankly - wouldn't be quite so well off if it weren't for the prosperous urban centres of Australia. Like it or not, we are the reason you have a job at all.

Aust total debt is now $5 trillion. World debt is $ 40 trillion. We have 12.5% od the world's debt but only 0.03% of the world's pop. You are all dreaming to think Aust is the miracle economy.

Unless we end this private debt money creation system coupled with money printing, it will end us all.

Greetings.

Graham's observations are mostly correct, as usual.

Re: “house prices ... rather than careful economic husbandry, look very large in its composition.”

Correct. But it’s real wealth nonetheless.

If an Australian home-owner were to sell a highly-inflated house and swap the Aussie dollars for a ridiculous amount of, say, Euros, to buy property in, say, the South of France, the transaction would proceed.

Could happen.

So there’s nothing imaginary about Australia’s wealth.

Yes, the bubble may eventually burst. If so, future IAREM scores will decline accordingly.

Re: “according to what I've read from Alan it's not Australia, but New Zealand, which rose 15 places on his index, compared to our 9 places.”

Indeed. Australia was 9th in 2007 and 1st from about 2010.

Does that determine best economic management? Not necessarily.

Other ways the IAREM score may determine best management are (a) the economy which advanced the greatest number of places, or (b) the economy with the greatest increment in actual score.

Regarding (a), New Zealand rose 15 places from 25th to 10th – a greater rise than Australia’s.

But Oman rose 23 places from 35th to 12th and Chile rose an extraordinary 33 places from 50th to 17th!

Can we claim these reflect better management than the United Arab Emirates which started an impressive 8th and rose to 3rd? Or Australia which started a creditable 9th and rose only nine places – with nowhere further to go?

Regarding (b), only eight countries in the 2013 top twenty achieved higher absolute scores than in 2007:

Chile +7.64
Oman +4.58
Australia +4.41
Switzerland +2.70
New Zealand +2.34
UAE +2.48
Singapore +1.93
Sweden +0.89

Re: “Alan also seems to get another fact wrong - the biggest stimulus according to the OECD was in the USA.”

Not quite. Total *attempted stimulus* was greater in the USA. But, unfortunately for them, the attempt comprised both *spending* and *tax cuts*. The latter, as was discovered too late, were counterproductive.

Why Australia zoomed ahead of everyone else, leaving the USA in its wake, was *stimulus spending* which was highest in the world.

Cheers, AA