Economic rationalisation of the 80s was anything but efficient. It did not result in the same services being delivered by better processes and procedures. It resulted in less service - longer queues, phone-trees, phone queues with voices telling us how important our call is and in some cases no service.

The truth is when you hear the phrase economic efficiency - RUN. It does not mean what it supposes, it is usually offered as an excuse to cut costs (staff reductions) to manufacture a better bottom line. It is rarely about 'efficiency'.

I had a boss once who when talking about service delivery, used to rant about "it isn't only about staffing, it is about better processes and procedures" like he had a poker up his bottom, and he continued with this mantra while Rome burned around him, more and more staff leaving without being replaced while the service dwindled with the inevitable repercussions and scapegoating of service staff, and he was still strutting about bleating on about 'processes and procedures' - like one of the great bureaucratic brainwashed.

Beelzebub, do you deliberately do things to make your actions less efficient?

I am very curious just when has there been “Economic efficiency” in any of the industries or government, I am not saying there couldn't be, but has there been. Our over preponderance of Lawyers and their elk, in government have produced conditions that encourage the greedy CEO's and their mates to get as much capital out of every dollar they outlay that it may look to them that they are highly efficient, but the whole view of our prosperity is very grim and we have had our parties hijacked by the wrong type of person, we should choose the person we believe will do the right thing, rather than voting for what has been our desired party previously.

> ... mythical "unceasing expansion" to explain it away.
The expansion is not mythical, it's why all TNCs are now trying to expand into China, India and Africa. Unless they can do so, their existing structures will fail. Don't take my word for it, just watch the nightly news.

> If there are no customers ... You contradict yourself everywhere.
No contradiction. The new customers are in China, India and Africa. Do you live in 2010, or still in 1950?

> the US is still a substantial ...
With annual debt at record levels and GDP plummeting ...

> viable
The US is technically bankrupt, at least if you trust such people as Greenspan, Bernanke and others who might be expected to know something about it.

> if not particularly vibrant
Let's say bordering on civil war ...

> component of the world economy.
Under the sufferance of the great majority of countries who'd be delighted to be rid of it. Did you count the number of UN representatives who applauded Ahmadinejad's speech?

> Have you been there recently?
Yep.

> Or do you just read magazines?
That too.

> I'd have to draw the conclusion ...
I'm sure you'd already arrived at that conclusion before reading my posts. And since this diatribe apears to go on forever, I'll have to plead the Forum's limit on the length and number of my posts to call it quits.

> The share of the economic pie
Don't you just looove these specific, clearly-defined economic terms? Just what is the 'economic pie'? Bangers and mash with balderdash sauce?

> the real wages of the man in the street has also grown continuously over the past few decades
Try telling that to the man in the street.

> and I would prefer to rely on the bureau of statistics than your anecdotal experience.
"There are lies, damned lies, and statistics." Especially government-controlled bureaucratic statistics. Ever heard of weighted stats?

> Perhaps your next post will be about something of which you know more, such as nuclear physics.
It was my major, and if you'd like a dissertation I'd be happy to oblige.

> every worker can choose which super fund they entrust with their money.
Like Storm (gone bust) and the others bleeding red ink? Some choice!

> Can you name any of them doing what you claim?
Well, Kerry Packer told the Fed Govt point blank that anyone who didn't minimize their taxation had rocks in their head, and made a mint following his own advice while the pollies still grovel for their pensions. Perhaps you expect Board Members to publish their financial shenanigans on a blog?

> Do you think Woolies is going to vanish sometime soon?
Not whilst its still profitable for the boys in charge.

> The truth is when you hear the phrase economic efficiency - RUN.
Sound advice, pelican.

> Beelzebub, do you deliberately do things to make your actions less efficient?
Dear God, will someone please point this fellow to the 'Page Up' button?

> just when has there been “Economic efficiency” in any of the industries or government
It's one of beautifully suggestive but ultimately meaningless terms that economists love to bandy about. Makes you feel all warm and fuzzy inside.

You can plead all you want, Beelzebub.

>>'ll have to plead the Forum's limit on the length and number of my posts to call it quits.<<

It still won't make you any more convincing.

>>No contradiction. The new customers are in China, India and Africa. Do you live in 2010, or still in 1950?<<

China's customers (as in the population of China) are being served by their own industries, not ours. In fact, it is the Chinese who are exploiting new markets, not us - just look at the figures:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=CNY

So you clearly got that one totally arse-backwards, didn't you.

As you can see from our own chart, we only occasionally escape from being a net customer ourselves, thanks to digging up all that coal.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-Of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=AUD

But we're not doing too badly, all things considered.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Per-Capita-PPP.aspx?Symbol=AUD

And let's have a look at that disaster area, the US, while we are about it.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/GDP-Per-Capita-PPP.aspx?Symbol=USD

Going down the gurgler really fast, wouldn't you say?

But what's this?

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/Economics/Balance-Of-Trade.aspx?Symbol=USD

There is your "expanding customer base", Beelzebub! The USA is buying stuff like crazy.

Oh. Wait.

You see, that's the problem with talking in slogans. They can only disguise for a short while the fact that you know absolutely nothing about the subject.

>>Under the sufferance of the great majority of countries who'd be delighted to be rid of it. Did you count the number of UN representatives who applauded Ahmadinejad's speech?<<

You mean, this one?

http://tangibleinfo.blogspot.com/2010/09/ahmadinejads-un-speech-full-text.html

Do tell us. Which parts did you applaud, and why?