An interesting article Chris, but I wonder if it doesn't all boil down to a matter of being clever at telling lies effectively? The Howard government was masterly in using word like 'choice' (as in WorkChoice and funding private schools) when the reality was the very opposite.

The 2007 election demonstrated, however, that eventually people get to see the reality behind the linguistic spin.

Perhaps the author should develop "ordinary language that conveys a clear and precise meaning." And get a dictionary - "econometrics" is "the branch of economics concerned with the use of mathematical methods ... in describing economics systems" (Concise Oxford), or more broadly a statistical technique for better understanding economic relationships. A tool, not "a system that serves market forces."

I think the author could have just said I dont like the timber industry or conservatives and just left it at that!
Suprise suprise just because smart people like her go on and on and on it will not make the arguments any more compelling.
Babble on and people switch off and you will find the more occassions that you babble the quicker people turn off.
By the by in the last few years we lost two million acres of "Native" forests because greenies convinced politicians to stop the forests Department from burning off undergrowth. How did they do that? Even more amazing is the fact the blame was not sheeted home to them! Now of course we are back to sensible practice.

1.
"It is a widespread fallacy that skillful advertising can talk the consumers into buying everything that the advertiser wants them to buy... If this were true, success or failure in business would depend on the mode of advertising only. However, nobody believes that any kind of advertising would have succeeded in making the candlemakers hold the field against the electric bulb, the horsedrivers against the motorcars, the goose quill against the steel pen and later against the fountain pen."
Ludwig von Mises

2.
The idea of 'sustainability' hardly qualifies as rational discourse. It is more in the realm of religious mania, totalitarian fantasy. The underlying idea is that we are all going to die because we face an impending ecological catastrophe. The paradise is a stasis in which all economic problems are permanently solved. Natural scarcity has been abolished, by dint of government - which is presumed to be all-knowing, all-capable and all-good - forcibly re-arranging property titles for the greater good. Unfortunately, large numbers of people may have to die while the government plays god with everyone else's right to the fuels that supply food, shelter, and clothing. The new religion requires human sacrifice, but the economic ignorance of its adherents is such that they won't recognise the connection between them banning productive activity on the one hand, and the resulting human deaths on the other.

Diocletian, some comments from my critique of a 2003 Queensland Government paper on economic growth which referred to “sustainable” economic growth without defining the term.

The issue arises from the proven economic concept that an extra unit added to any production process will have a marginal return less than that of the preceding unit, with the return tending to zero. With such diminishing returns, economic growth would also tend to zero, which is observably not the case. “Endogenous growth theory” developed since 1986 seeks to explain how growth can be sustained in the face of the theory of diminishing returns.

The QG paper states that economic growth based on increasing inputs “has attracted criticism because it is considered unsustainable.” It is true that some forms of input-driven growth have limits (e.g. a shift of workers from low-productivity agriculture to high-productivity manufacturing), but that does not mean that they are not worthwhile. Growth based on increased workforce participation will also have limits in terms of numbers employed, but the human capital embodied in each worker can be increased. Capital inputs are not inherently finite. The confusion of the Queensland paper’s approach to sustainability is indicated by the statement that “Sustainable economic growth provides the foundation to support the further development of the State’s industries and regions”. What on earth does that mean?

One concept of “sustainability” in connection with economic growth tends to convey that the form of economic growth should not be at the expense of future generations, whether in reducing their ability to maintain similar rates of growth or in severely damaging the environment so as to irremediably damage their quality of life. The concept is very nebulous and seems to imply that, although the world has made great gains over the last 250 years from innovation and technological advance at an increasing pace, it will be unable to do so in future.

The main purpose of my paper was to show, in the light of EGT, Schumpeter and empirical evidence, the kind of policies which support sustained economic growth.

Keep posting!

“The idea of 'sustainability' hardly qualifies as rational discourse. It is more in the realm of religious mania, totalitarian fantasy.”

Omygoodness Diocletian! What aaare you saying!

I’d love to know just what your interpretation of sustainability is….or what you think might happen if we don’t learn to live sustainably.