Yes we can, with cooperative capitalism, bold big ideas and folks willing to implement them, at the nations helm.

As opposed to more of the same, or just being the (God's gift to all mankind) albatross hanging around the nation's neck, determined as ever to limit or prevent, real, timely, genuinely inclusive progress and real reform! And as ever, always know all the multitudinous multifaceted convoluted complex reasons it won't or can't work or must not be tried?

Manifesting in such blinkered individuals as narrow horizons, internal conflict and power struggles by born to rule troglodytes, or just giving away our boom time wealth, along with our best ideas.

But I could be wrong, in which case Graham's current blog contains, I believe, some useful big ideas, just not enough of them!

Common, more than one lonely contributor please!

Somebody else, anybody must have one or two big ideas, and given anything we can put our mind and available resources to, is doable, bring them, don't be shy!

I mean look what suddenly becomes immediately possible in times of war!

Anyone who stupidly believes we're not at war and in a deathlock struggle for our very survival that can only end one way, needs to take a good long hard look at Manchester, Paris. Germany and other places, if only to realize, we confront an implacably opposed entity/culture for who nothing less than total domination; or, our extinction will suffice.

Moreover, our very best defense is right here at home with inclusive wealth building and inclusive cooperation. Almost as if we were one people sharing a single continent, and everything it promises or could be, with a very different template! And n so doing end almost all counterproductive internal dissension?

Doing what you've always done while expecting a different result, is by definition, insanity!

This more than any time in our history is a time for unity and that goal is prevented or rent asunder by pernicious puerile partisan politics that further marginalizes those with the lest to lose or risk! Can we do it? Yes we can!
Alan B.

I thought this was going to be a good article. Instead it turned into more of the usual drivel.

Maybe I should appreciate the irony of Alan Moran saying "it is a sad indictment of the economic scene that so few understand the nexus between expanded and more efficient production and higher income levels" and then dismissing as "white elephants" some of the things that would expand production and make it more efficient, such as Inland Rail and the Snowy Hydro Expansion.

But I don't. He's not the first to fail to see the connection, and unfortunately he almost certainly won't be the last.

Do we have anyone who believes that the Brisbane to Melbourne rail link would have a positive discounted net present value?

In the event that no private investors are brave enough to come forward, let us hope that the Government does not feel duty bound to fund the project.

After all, Malcolm has already done enough damage by sinking billions into an NBN that few consumers appear to be enjoying, and by committing to spend $50 billion on "submarines with an obsolete power source"

As I said, RC, we can guarantee, some folks will always find a way to dismiss our best ideas and limit progress. Fail to understand the flow on factors in investing in our own people and their better ideas. And exampled in similar opposition to the Sydney Harbor bridge. Even though since it was completed, paid for itself dozens of times over, via the increased economic activity it alone created.

Ditto the much maligned Snowy Mountains scheme, which only needed a couple of turbines/recharge schemes on the eastern side to make even more sense.

Even the most moribund green activist, knows that the engineering done to the Murray cannot be reversed, just finished with a little applied pragmatism, that would see a few more weirs and or locks coupled to space age desalination, installed to provide reliable water for the redgums and the tidal estuary/environment and those who rely on it for town water and irrigation; or use it as an inland highway.

Quite large volumes of spring water, with reliable flows, that used to flow into the Murray, have been piped and diverted directly to the ocean, given their salt content.

New space age desal., could turn as much as 90% of that water into potable town water, with the balance simply allowed to go where the entire volume used to flow?

Moreover, shipping remains the most cost effective way, after rail, of non perishable, [wool, wheat, spuds, livestock, cotton, bulk freight forwarding. If not the most profitable by a country mile!?

Your economically illiterate thinking or lack thereof, demonstrates exactly what I was saying about the paucity of thinking applied to future vision, in our ultraconservative, self serving, status quo, penny wise pound foolish, business as usual, blame shifting, point scoring, pollies, and their hidebound, manifestly moribund support.

Were these folk in a sinking lifeboat, they'd focus exclusively, [like a single minded Roo chasing a Jill in season,] on whose fault it was, that the ship sank and who should decide what direction to head or who must bail?

You'll have a nice day now y'hear.
Alan B.

"Do we have anyone who believes that the Brisbane to Melbourne rail link would have a positive discounted net present value?"
That, Raycom, depends on the rate it is discounted at.

It's unlikely to make a commercial rate of return. But considering the large productivity gains it would bering to regional Australia, why should it have to?

Those who oppose it are making the same mistake the government did when it sabotaged the NBN.

Aidan

The discount rate would need to be the required commercial rate of return. A private investor would be imprudent and irresponsible to use a lower rate.

Running a railway line is no longer the business of government. But, in the absence of a private investor, the government could still build the rail line and then privatise it. However, as the selling price would need to be pitched so to make it a commercial proposition, the government would be left with a sizeable capital loss that taxpayers would have to bear.

Proceeding with the NBN was a major error of judgement on the Labor government’s part. With its monopoly status, it is likely the total capital expenditure would have blown out to close to $100 billion, and consequently pricing to capacity users would have needed to be set very high if losses were to be kept to a minimum. High prices would in turn discourage users from buying larger capacity.

Being stuck with the NBN project, the Libs have attempted to make it more viable. But it will still remain a ‘dog’ of a project. Likely privatisation of the NBN is expected to leave the government with a very large loss that taxpayers would have to bear.