OK Alan, so Chile is your poster child? Still proves my point. On your somewhat arbitrary index a country which runs a smaller public debt than we do, and did little more than maintain expenditure just after the GFC does much better. They also have a requirement to run a balanced budget over the economic cycle and have run surpluses since the GFC, unlike Australia.

Good morning all,

@Ludwig, re: “if population growth is high, the burden on existing infrastructure and services is constantly rapidly increasing, and the demand for the duplication of I & S is forever high, your IAREM will look very rosy indeed.”

Correct. An expanding population is not a problem provided infrastructure and services keep up. Australia has achieved this particularly well in recent years.

Re: “Meanwhile, real improvements in I & S, over and above the constant pressure being placed upon them, and over and above the constant duplication of it all for evermore people, are very small indeed, if not in the negative.”

Not necessarily, Ludwig. Most countries ranked high on the IAREM are in the positive on real improvements.

Re: “we just so totally need an indicator which everyone hangs out to hear about, which takes into account the things that I have mentioned, and thus gives us a realistic view of where we are economically with full regard to real improvements in quality-of-life factors …”

Pretty sure we do have those indicators, Ludwig. Nine are listed in paragraph 7 here:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/australia-tops-the-iarem-worlds-best-economy,6279

Now we have a measure of straight economic performance as well.

@Graham Y, not really.

Chile certainly wins hands down for best increment from 2007 to 2013. But that could be because of poor management prior to 2007.

Most citizens around the world would prefer to live in nations with much higher income and wealth. If deficits and debt help achieve this, most citizens accept that.

Chile goes into deficit as required, and is in deficit again this year.

Cheers, AA

'Most citizens around the world would prefer to live in nations with much higher income and wealth. If deficits and debt help achieve this, most citizens accept that.'

Like the Greeks and Spainards, Alan?

<< 5. Massive economic activity? Where? >>

Holy snapping duck poo Pericles? Open ye eyes!!

It’s everywhere around us! All sorts – mining, agriculture, new houses by the thousands, roadworks everywhere on our highways, new hospitals and schools, yada yada….

But….. yes you know what I’m going to say….. where are the real improvements??

They are very thin on the ground! The vast majority of this activity is part of the endless struggle to keep up with the demand created by rapid population growth, without it leading to real tangible significant improvements for the pre-existing population, or leading to a better future outlook for our nation.

And yet, it all comes out very strongly on the positive side of the ledger in indicators like GDP and Alan’s IAREM score….. and hence leads our dumb pollies, pseudoeconomists, pretend-academics and vested-interest big-bizzos to feel happy and to rest in comfort that all is well. ( :>(
.

That was a really fun mud-slosh!! You’ll have to give me another quagmire of a post sometime.

Hold on…. just about every post of yours is a quagmire! ( :>)

In fact, your latest one is a doozy. More like a vast impenetrable swamp than a mere mud puddle!

Response pending….

Pericles, there so so sooo many things to counter in your latest post that my head is just spinning!

<< The point being that the problem in those areas is clearly a lack of planning >>

Well of course it is. And the rate of population growth and the ultimate size, for a town, city, state or the whole country, are surely two of the most fundamental factors in developing those plans.

A fundamental part of any local/regional/state/national plan has surely got to be the ability for the environment/resourcebase/servicebase/infrastructure to support the desired or expected pop growth, and to strive to reduce or curtail that growth if any one of those things is not up to scratch and can’t reasonably be brought up to scratch.

You seem to see population growth and planning as separate issues. Wrong wrong wrong!

The lack of planning extends to your beloved Sydney in no uncertain manner.

<< 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? >>

Der… um…. my idea of forward planning could possibly maybe be to strive to greatly reduce population growth in places like Sydney where the water supply capability is not guaranteeable in dry times?

And your idea of planning is? To keep allowing massive population growth, even though the authorities have, by way of building a huge desalination plant in Sydney, effectively admitted that the water supply is not up to the task with the necessary safety margin in dry times?

You are happy for the demand for water to continue until the supply capability from all the dams and the desal plant and presumably groundwater sources is barely enough to get the population by in good times, and that two or three or ten new desal plants would then be needed to guarantee water provision in dry times??

Rapid pop growth forever and at all costs, eh Pericles.

Some plan!

continued

I wrote:

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

You replied:

<< It's a city, Ludwig. That's what cities are like. >>

Ohmygoodness! I’m speechless. My poor head! Now it’s REALLY spinning!

So……. the incredibly stifling congestion in Sydney is ok by you. Fascinating. So then, what other really significant downsides to a large and rapidly growing population are ok by you?

This is a really interesting point. You are one of OLO’s prime continuous-rapid-population-growth advocates. You don’t have an issue with congestion…. which the vast majority of Sydneysiders certainly do. You don’t have a problem with water demand-supply security not being implemented, or being steadily eroded by the ever-increasing demand. So, what other enormous negative aspect of pop growth are you willing to accept? And, how does this reflect on your assessment of the positives and negatives of continuous rapid pop growth?

And no, cities are not necessarily like that. Think about Perth, Adelaide, Hobart, Darwin, Geelong, Newcastle, Townsville or Cairns.

Oh… of course, they aren’t cities to you – they’re just large country towns!

<< They prosper as a result of their being a city. >>

Who’s ‘they’? And how do you define ‘prosper’?

I was going to say that I’ll give your post a dismal F. But I won’t.