‘Imagine what a difference we could have contemplated making if some of our budget surpluses had been dedicated to longer-term goals’.

Yes……just imagine. Just imagine a large part of our primary resource wealth having been used over the last couple of decades to direct our nation towards a sustainable future, instead of promulgating the continuous-growth, ever-more-pressure-on-environment-and-resource-base, antisustainability paradigm!

“Climate change represents Australia’s greatest medium- and long-term economic and environmental, challenge.”

I don’t think so Saul. Certainly it presents and enormous challenge, but peak oil presents much more of a challenge, in a considerably shorter timeframe than climate change, which could severely affect our longer term economic and environmental health moreso than climate change.

“…I would also nominate rising inequality as a challenge which the new Labor Government would do well to address.”

Yes, absolutely.

And as peak oil bites and fuel prices rise, economics from personal to national are set to change quite dramatically, with major effects on equality. Presumably the rich will pretty much stay above its effects while the average person suffers. Spiralling inflation, unemployment, erosion of the rule of law, and massive civil strife are very likely to result.

“The key phrase here is ‘on unchanged policies’, because the underlying message from the Reserve Bank is that confronted with such an outlook, policies will not remain unchanged.”

Too right! They have to fundamentally change. The question is; will they change enough and in the right direction?

It is of paramount importance that monetary policy, and all other national policy, be geared towards mitigating the negative effects of the new energy and economic regime that we are on the cusp of, and of gearing our country, and planet, towards sustainability.

The economic challenge will always be a moving feast, but will be ever-greater while the economics direction is built upon digging holes this year to bury last year’s dirt: when each year’s dug dirt expands four per cent greater than the hole it came from.
When will economic gurus like Saul Eslake wake up to the ultimate necessity for a steady-state economy? We do live in a finite world, yet his “long term goals” do not include recognition of that.
When there is demographic change, positive or negative, it will cost. A continuously ageing society of declining numbers will have its costs for adjustment. A continuously growing society has even greater costs, spread over a generation of fostering, provision of health, and education – we must have the ability to pay for them, or emulate East Timor.
Generation and distribution of fiscal resources comes within a discipline that needs to come to grips with the reality that those resources are ultimately generated from environmental resources. With the reality that ever-increasing numbers of people will have ever-decreasing slices of that environmental cake; and that ever-increasing numbers of people throwing scraps out of the social kitchen window will ever-increasingly disaffect their well-being, be it from pollution of soil water or atmosphere.
Saul Eslake, please embrace the bigger picture: of meeting the longer-term goals which must be limited to containment within the limits of reality. A reality that surely must at last be bearing down on the consciousness of all.

guys, as i am long since tired of pointing out, the quality of national management is constrained by the structure of society. even ozzie chatterati are vaguely aware that pollies don't think past the next election.

unfortunately, cultural blindness doesn't allow them to to come to a solution beyond hoping the next lot of pollies will be different. it would be amusing, if it were not a national tragedy.

i'm sorry, but complaining about the quality of politicians is not the limit of your responsibility. you have to actually do something to change the system.