I don't dismiss all data, nor do I ignore the advantage Aust has from ongoing low levels of debt by relative standards when compared with other countries.

But I do suggest that most Australian know that reform must occur in the longer term, including labour market reform, addressing energy costs, improving home affordability, making our manufacturing industries competitive, improving infrastructure, and addressing growing poverty for an increasing minority.

Propaganda stuff for Labor, or stories about how well Aust is going by international comparisons, are not relevant to the majority of Aust's who rejected Labor, including myself.

these are some aspects of the economy we people hope to see improved rather than bs numbers compared to others.

Employment: though Australia has a rate at around 5% in August 2012, the ABS indicated real unemployment rate 13.1%, when one included those who worked just one hour a week, discouraged jobseekers, the underemployed and those who wanted to start work within a month, but cannot begin immediately.

Average hours worked per Australian worker continued to decline: 35 in the 1980s, 34 in the 1900s and 33 since 2000, reaching 32.9 in 2011 (ABS, 2012).

Australian manufacturing continued its decline. As a share of Australia’s GDP, manufacturing’s share declined to 7.1% in 2011-12 after being 11.2% in 2003-04.

Manufacturing employment (938,300 in the March 2013 Quarter) meant a further decline of 143,000 under Rudd-Gillard.

also higher energy prices with double-digit growth in electricity prices after 2007, including 14% in 2012-13.

I could go on, but you can hopefuly get the drift why we aussies voted Coalition.

Who knows if the coalition will deliver, but many of us had enough of Labor.

<< An expanding population is not a problem provided infrastructure and services keep up. >>

Alan, I couldn’t disagree more! There are numerous other criteria to look at, even if I&S is keeping up with pop growth, before you could assert that it is not a problem.

<< Australia has achieved this [keeping I&S up with population growth] particularly well in recent years. >>

Really??

Why then has Mr Abbott declared himself to be the infrastructure PM? He as with a very large portion of the Australian populace sees the urgent need to improve infrastructure, big time….. because it is NOT keeping up with population growth, let alone improving.

<< Most countries ranked high on the IAREM are in the positive on real improvements. >>

Really? Australia certainly isn’t!

Which countries do you think are showing real improvements? And how does this correlate with population growth?

<< Pretty sure we do have those indicators, Ludwig. >>

Yes Alan, we have a range of indicators that show how well we are doing in terms of quality-of-life factors. But how much notice do our politicians take of these? How significantly are they treated compared to GDP and the likes of your IAREM?

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

Yes. A measure that tells us in no uncertain terms that population growth is good and faster growth is better, and that forever increasing the demand for everything is a good thing, no matter how stressed certain resources or services or infrastructure might be!

<< So what exactly are you complaining about? Too much investment, or not enough investment? >>

What a classic attempt to divert the subject away from the core issue, Pericles!

You know perfectly well what I’m complaining about…. and it is the one thing that you avoid addressing like the plague.

To reiterate for the hundredth time:

I am concerned about all this economic activity simply leading to the duplication of everything, at about the same quality, for evermore people, and NOT leading to any significant improvements for the pre-existing population.

And despite this lack of improvements it adds enormously to the positive side of the ledger for GDP and IAREM….which renders them fundamentally flawed indicators. In fact; much worse; terribly WRONG and highly misleading indicators of our true economic wellbeing.

<< That is simply perverse thinking, Ludwig. If your city is growing, you plan to keep water supply ahead of that growth. >>

Ah Peri, tis you who suffers from perverse thinking when it comes to planning. You really do only see the supply side, don’t you. You seem to be simply incapable of entertaining even the slightest thought for addressing the demand side.

Everything you say about planning is premised on letting the demand side continue to increase rapidly with no end in sight… and that planning is all about supplying everything that is necessary for that growth.

Well….. that is just bizarre!

Where the supply capability is not up to scratch it is eminently sensible to strive to reduce the rate of increase in demand and indeed to plan for it to be stabilised.

And get this: addressing the demand side is vastly easier than addressing the supply side! All we would need to do is reduce the immigration rate. And perhaps implement some incentives to get people to move to places where all the supporting stuff is in good order, and not into areas where there are major problems with services/infrastructure/resources. Oh, and completely obliterate the stuuupid baby bonus!

Sorry Pericles but I think that you are just completely off the rails with this stuff.

Greetings again,

@Rhrosty, re “However a rosy picture you paint Alan, no nation can borrow its way to prosperity, particularly, where those borrowings are used to service debt or recurrent spending!”

Do you really see a rosy picture? The IAREM merely ranks the nations according to economic outcomes.

Would you agree borrowings lead to prosperity when applied to infrastructure and productive assets?

@GrahamY, yes, agree mostly.

Chile's rocky patch was between 1972 and 1984 when GDP per capita fell well below the region’s and took until 1992 to catch up. Your Wikipedia graph shows this well.

Agree completely Chile’s future will be highly instructive as well as intriguing to watch.

Same here in Europe where the United Kingdom changed recently to a Conservative government after years of Labour. France then did the opposite, changing to the Socialists after years of the right.

Both are liberal economies, similar populations, same region and both suffered badly through the GFC.

So which will emerge from recession faster?

Would you agree, Graham, that in both cases – Chile v Latin America and France v the UK – the IAREM scores will be useful indicators?

@Chris Lewis, re “But I do suggest that most Australian know that reform must occur in the longer term, including labour market reform.”

Two questions:

How do you know ‘most Australians’ know this?

How do you explain countries which maintained high wages through the GFC, like Australia, Switzerland, Norway and Luxembourg, mostly boomed, but those with lower wages, like the USA, France and Germany, suffered badly?

Is there empirical evidence that ‘labour market reform’ is needed in Australia?

@Ludwig, re: “Why has Mr Abbott declared himself to be the infrastructure PM?”

The answer is embedded in the question, Ludwig. Only Mr Abbott calls himself that. No-one else just yet.

The London-based organisation Infrastructure Investor awarded Anthony Albanese “International Infrastructure Minister of the Year” in 2012. We shall see what they say about the achievements of the Abbott government in due course.

Finally, the IAREM was applied to Mr Hockey’s proposals for privatisation here today:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/abbott-and-hockey-selling-off-the-silver-iarem-says-australians-will-suffer,6328

Comments welcome.

Cheers, AA

Alan,

I tried to find where on earth you got this strange ranking, only to find that you made it up yourself! Alan Austin, a man with no economic qualifications whatsoever, an a penchant for cherry picking statistics, has created a fantasy based ranking system, and then has the temerity to lecture the rest of us based on a bunch of lies.

Howard presided over the strongest growth over a decade in Australia's history, and better than any where else in the developed word delivering record low unemployment, and doing this while delivering almost continuous surpluses, and a AAA rating

Labor's legacy is mediocre growth, record debt year after year, threatening the AAA rating, rising unemployment, and a litany of badly managed projects, broken promises, and a labor created immigration problem. All in all the most incompetent government in living memory.