The issue is not the difference between aspiring to economic inefficiency or efficiency but how 'efficiency' is defined and asking what does efficiency look like.

Not all human/economic activity is meant to be lean and mean when the purpose is to provide an essential service - such as a service that is funded via taxes. An essential service can still be provided with efficient deployment of those taxes but it is only efficient if it actually performs the service it was designed to deliver. If budget cuts actually prove detrimental to the service then it is inefficient use of taxes even if that inefficiency looks more 'efficient' on paper as real costs of labour are blurred or hidden under private consultations.

As for the private sector - it has become so wrapped up in maximising gains for shareholders that service and efficiency got lost along the way.

Efficiency now means building profit and savings by budgeting for the lowest level of service that you can get away with before losing business. That is, how your service compares with your competitors who hopped on the same 'efficiency' bus along with you and between you keep the expectations low and the competition non-existent.

This requires constant vigilance and observation of one's competitors but both riding on the security of the LCD view of service. In other words there is no competition when the competition are in on it.

That does not mean there are not real inefficiencies in some cases but oftentimes commonsense goes out the window while the top end of town finds no problems in the inefficiencies of higher salaries and bonuses (with no corresponding achievement). Much of it comes down to personal greed and using funny money or shifty bookwork to promote the impression of savings and services, when the reality is quite different.

Look more closely, Beelzebub.

>>Which is why VW's were the most common car in Beijing when I was there recently. Yes, of course.<<

Where were these VWs being manufactured?

>>Many of China's CONSUMER exports are the produce of Western CORPORATE intellectual property and manufacturing licenses<<

Of course. But who is doing the manufacturing and who is doing the buying? China is manufacturing, the rest of the world is buying. Hence the inwards investment you pointed to.

>>A deficit of US$43Bn is a healthy economy? I'm beginning to suspect that you're an economist!<<

I did not say it was healthy. I said it was substantial. But the critical point that you ignore, is that the US is in trade deficit with China. That is, they are China's customer. Your original position, which you seem to have either forgotten about or abandoned, is that "economic efficiency" can only be maintained when there is "ongoing expansion", i.e. the customer base continues to buy from you.

You started off talking about "Western governments". We now appear to be discussing the growth of Chinese industry, and the impact of its balance of trade with the rest of the world.

Which is a good and interesting topic. But not, in fact, anything at all to do with "Western governments" pursuit of efficiency.

In fact, I'd suggest that it highlights, spotlights, and brings into sharp relief, the utmost urgency of that very pursuit of efficiency that you seem to despise.

A bit off-topic, merv09, but a useful aside in remembering that what ever ideals are espoused (econ eff being but one), many political players see it simply as a game played for personal intrigue and profit.

A nicely thought-out post, pelican.
> how 'efficiency' is defined and asking what does efficiency look like.
This approach has always been my preference, so I've decided to put up a page containing some relevant definitions that we can refer to with using up our word-limit or posting quotas:

http://52midnight.com/articles/101014.html

> Not all human/economic activity is meant to be lean and mean ...
Yes, this is the crux of the matter, especially at a time when the almighty dollar is used to measure everything without concern for human and real-world issues.

> budgeting for the lowest level of service that you can get away with before losing business.
Spot on! Tried registering a complaint at a call centre recently?

> to promote the impression of savings and services, when the reality is quite different.
Ring Telstra's customer services and you'll be informed by the tediously polite female voice that Telstra is restructuring its services and they'd be obliged if you'd indulge them; and this has been going on now for years!

.. cont >

On this basis, European nations are mature adults, China an old man, the US a burly adolescent pumped on testosterone and brute power. Even Singapore qualifies as mature, since the Peranakan Chinese have lived there for centuries. But Australia is like a boy in short pants who hasn't yet untied mother's apron strings. It may be embarrassing to admit, but it's surely the truth.

There's something else, as well. The US has 1776, the UK the Magna Carta, New Zealand the Treaty of Waitangi, even little Singapore has 1965. All of these were crucial events in which the entire nation committed itself emotionally to a vision or ideal, even at the cost of lives. It's this emotional commitment that fuses a mob into a nation, I believe. By contrast, in 1901 the British Parliament passed an act which granted Australia national status - but this was a legal fiat by a foreign power, not the sort of crucial emotional crisis that's needed for true nationhood. As a result, Australia is not yet a real nation IMO, just a legal entity with pretensions to nationhood. This is why we have this dreadful posturing of 'Australian pride'. People in other countries don't go about forever boasting how PROUD they are to be Bigendians - it's a quiet inner conviction that doesn't need verbalizing. This whole thing is an invention of the political spinmeisters to keep the football crowd emotionally pumped. Australians WANT to be a nation, they WANT to feel proud, but they haven't yet found a path to that achievement; and hollow boasting and media jingoism can never provide it.

> people are well aware they have full sovereignty .. and have been nurtured in .. responsible decision making
You're on the ball here, IMHO.

< cont ..

.. cont >

> in a system such as ours, most people don't bother because they know it's not THEIR input, but the
> figurehead's and their lobbyists, long before the values of the issue itself are even addressed.
Spot on! This is the real issue we need to address. All of the legalizing and bureaucratizing can come later - they're quite straight forward. As always, it's the human issues that are the most difficult, both to identify and to address.

> so long as referenda are voluntary, it will only be the engaged who will leave their homes
Yes. You've obviously given a lot of thought to these issues, and equally obviously have a good deal to contribute once that stage is reached; but until the human issues are resolved, none of the others will be in the least effective. It would be like trying to construct a building without foundations - no matter how many times you rebuild the walls, they'll still fall down.

Given that the only thing you could comment on was my typo, I take that as an admission that:

-You have no economic credentials whatsoever,
-You have no idea what "economic efficiency" actually means,
-You have no facts or data other than personal opinion upon which to base your post,

To sum up, the premise of this post is entirely baseless.