<< @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. >>

Alan, I haven’t heard any criticism of Abbott regarding his desire to really get serious about infrastructure. Just about everyone seems to think that is a damn good idea.

The perception across our community seems to be that infrastructure is nowhere near good enough, and needs a damn good kick-along.

It’s a pity that many of those who think this can’t see the folly in continuing with very high immigration.

They are Periclesians. They seem to only be able to see that the supply side of the equations needs a whole lot of improvement, while the demand side needs no attention! And yet the demand side is the cause of the problem, and is DEFINITELY what we should we should primarily be addressing.

Although I would suggest that there is a large portion of the populace that CAN see this connection… and would be very supportive of a government that significantly reduced immigration.

Again, your IAREM and the conventional GDP measure not only don’t indicate this, but they indicate precisely the opposite – that we’d all be better off if we INCREASED immigration and hence the demand for infrastructure.

I agree with you that there should be no further privatisation. Hockey should stop hocking off our public assets!

OK, so your IAREM suggests that privatisation is bad. Well….I’m sure that not everything it suggests is counterintuitive!

Hello again,

Just a few observations:

@Shadow Minister, re: “this strange ranking … you made it up yourself … with no economic qualifications whatsoever …”

Precisely, SM. You need (a) form three arithmetic, (b) form four clear thinking, (c) the internet for the raw data, (d) Excel or other spreadsheet software and (e) a calculator which will do square roots. No economics qualifications needed whatsoever.

That’s the beauty of it.

Re: “Howard presided over the strongest growth over a decade in Australia's history”

Perhaps. But it was below average for the developed world at the time, wasn't it, SM? The trick is to be ahead of the pack. Keating, Rudd and Gillard achieved that – even if global growth was lower than during the Howard years.

Re: “while delivering … a AAA rating”

No, SM, Australia never achieved AAA with all agencies under Howard. That came in November 2011, when Fitch gave you its first AAA. There was never any risk to Australia’s credit ratings under Labor.

@Ludwig, re: “Alan, I haven’t heard any criticism of Abbott regarding his desire to really get serious about infrastructure.”

Of course not. He should be serious. But until he actually builds something, he is having a premature congratulation.

Re: “The perception across our community seems to be that infrastructure is nowhere near good enough …”

Correct. That is because perceptions are shaped by your media. (Here’s a secret, Ludwig. Don’t tell anyone: They lie!)

Those who actually understand what is happening in Australia and beyond know Australia was first or second in the world in infrastructure development from 2009 to 2013. Admittedly from a low base.

Re: “Again, your IAREM indicates … that we’d all be better off if we INCREASED immigration and hence the demand for infrastructure.”

Correct, Ludwig.

Re: “I agree with you that there should be no further privatisation. Hockey should stop hocking off our public assets!”

Correct again.

Re: “OK, so your IAREM suggests that privatisation is bad. Well….I’m sure not everything it suggests is counterintuitive!”

I will take that as a compliment. Thank you, Ludwig.

Bonne nuit, AA

Alan, where to start.

Australia lost its AAA rating under Labor in 1986 and regained it under Howard in 2003.

"The restoration of Australia's AAA rating came after six surplus budgets were delivered. "When we recovered this rating we recovered respect in the eyes of investors and rejoined the first rank of countries as measured by economic performance," Mr Costello said.

In 2003, S&P said Australia "has one of the strongest fiscal positions" and its reinstatement of the AAA rating paved the way for Australian companies to borrow funds at a cheaper price."

That Fitch (the last and least of the rating agencies) took another few years to rate Australia meant nothing.

Secondly: With regards to the "Statistics" you disgust me!

There is a saying: Lies, damn lies, and statistics, because any idiot can with a few manipulations make statistics say whatever they want, which is exactly what you did. That is why statistics from anywhere other than a recognised body that carefully crafts indicators is viewed with suspicion.

Finally, I have been looking for OECD countries that had a higher growth rate from '96 to 2007 higher than Australia's average of nearly 4% and I can't find one that comes close.

Hi again SM,

Another good thing about the IAREM is we can check things quite simply and quickly.

If we go to the World Bank database we can easily see how many countries had higher GDP percentage growth from 1996 to 2007 than Australia’s puny cumulative 44.347.

Here is the link:
http://databank.worldbank.org/data/views/variableselection/selectvariables.aspx?source=world-development-indicators#s_g

So how many countries?

The answer is: 102!

Australia was sort of in the middle for GDP growth through that period. Not as bad as some, but given its potential, quite disappointing overall.

Countries in the developed world with higher GDP growth from 1996 to 2007 include Algeria, Bahrain, Bermuda, Chile, Croatia, Cyprus, Finland, Georgia, Greece, Grenada, Hong Kong, Isle of Man, Israel, Jordan, South Korea, Kosovo, Kuwait, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Luxembourg, Macao, Malaysia, Oman, Poland, Russia, Saudi Arabia, Serbia, Singapore, Slovak republic, Slovenia, Spain, Tunisia, Turkey and United Arab Emirates.

Countries with about double Australia’s rate include Belarus, Bhutan, Cambodia, Chad, Georgia, India, Latvia, Mozambique, Burma, Nigeria, Rwanda,

Countries with around three times Australia’s growth, or more, for that period include Angola, Azerbaijan, Bosnia & Herzegovina, Equatorial Guinea and Liberia.

Even Bangladesh, Ghana and Namibia had higher growth than Australia during that period!

Just check the data at the World Bank, SM. You don’t need any sort of qualifications whatsoever.

Cheers, AA

Ducking and weaving again Ludwig.

>>You know perfectly well what I’m complaining about…<<

That's one way to avoid the question, I guess.

Your answer to everything is that our population should remain at the same level, or somehow reduce itself, without actually saying a) how this can be made to happen, and b) how this will actually improve our situation.

You call this "managing demand". Which sounds great in theory, but you don't have even the vaguest conception how this would pan out for the economy.

Tellingly, though, the common thread in your defence of the absurd notion that we can somehow stand still and everything will magically get better, is to attack the nearest straw man...

>>Everything you say about planning is premised on letting the demand side continue to increase rapidly with no end in sight<<

Not at all. I have never advocated growth for its own sake, nor infinite growth, nor even "rapid growth". I am however a great fan of equilibrium, where population grows in line with the nation's capability to absorb it, on the basis that we become a more substantial, and therefore less vulnerable, economy as a result of that growth.

This is where we ideologically part company:

>>Where the supply capability is not up to scratch it is eminently sensible to strive to reduce the rate of increase in demand<<

Implicit in this statement is your assumption that we are actually unable to meet the demand. As I pointed out - using the most obvious example of water supply to a large metropolitan region - this is not the case. All that is required is the political will.

I fully expect that you will go to see the movie "Noah", when it reaches your neck of the woods. And I just know that you will be in the Noah cheer squad, urging him on as he and his best mate God set about reducing the world's population to a manageable level. I know this, because there is no significant difference between their attitude towards humanity, and yours

Alan,

Your totem pole is a complete fraud Another disingenuous comparison. I asked you how many OECD countries had better growth. None of the major economies had a higher growth rate, and of the OECD the countries that just squeaked over were Finland, Greece, and Spain, who on the other economic indicators did far worse.

It is this type of cherry picking the data that makes your analysis so fraudulent and incompetent.