> How can we ever achieve efficiency if we constantly go for more?
As long population increases we can't avoid 'going for more'. And 'achieving efficiency' is not as easy as it sounds. You can begin with government statistics, such as the very useful report here:

http://www.aph.gov.au/house/committee/economics/Productivity/Subs/Sub06.pdf

in which you'll find that Australia's productivity compares favourably with that of other countries and has improved by many measures. However, you'll also see how difficult it is to arrive at good/bad high/low comparisons and judgements because of the many different ways of measuring such things, and the different datasets upon which the measurements can be based. But productivity is a well-defined term (albeit that there are multiple contextual definitions) and is not the same thing as efficiency, which has even more interpretations. And at the end of the day these are technical and financial considerations, whereas most people are interested in quality-of-life issues, even more difficult to measure. This contribites to the long-standing reputation of economics as 'the dismal science' (check Wikipedia etc).

The purpose of this discussion is not to argue the technical economic DETAILS of 'economic efficiency', but to examine its CONSEQUENCES for the wider issues of quality and satisfaction of life, social development and stability, and Australia's future, not as a profit centre for international interests, but as a happy and successful nation. There are many who believe (economists and politicians especially) that improved economic efficiency AUTOMATICALLY results in optimal outcomes for these social issues. This belief is not wrong of itself (though I personally disagree with it), but in keeping with the positivist philosophies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Positivism) indoctrinated in and followed by such proponents, they aggressively insist that independent analysis of these issues is invalid, and demand that only academically qualified economic opinions should be used to analyze and address them (see other posts in this thread by qualified economists).

It is, of course, quite impossible to devise valid analytical measures of such things (opinion polls usually substituting), but the general consensus in developed countries is very hostile to the corporate globalist agenda.

> the Queensland Govt .. eyeballs in debt
This is one of the most difficult issues to address. The present situation in Australia is the result of several decades of government policy conforming to a globalist agenda that was initally undeclared. On 1st December 1997, then Foreign Minister Alexander Downer announced to the Canberra Press Club that Australia was to be globalized. "Let me put this clearly; globalization is an irreversable trend. It is happening. And it is good for all Australians, the region, and the world ... Whether people fear globalization or not, they cannot escape it." In other words, you'll get because we say so, whether you like it or not. This in a supposed democracy, and from a polician whose personal qualities as a leader were disastrous for his party.

Perhaps the best way to lose an argument is to base it on 'what if' scenarios. What if Oz had not followed this agenda? Where would we be today? Is our overwhelming debt the result of following the wrong policies and agenda? Who can say? Yet at the moment we're in the position of an addict who knows that the only way to avoid the pain of cold turkey is to shoot up again, so the situation deteriorates inexorably to an inevitable disaster. Try telling the junkie that his addiction is foolish, that the only remedy is to give it up. If you don't get a fist in the face, you'll certainly get an earful of abuse. And don't even bother pleading to his dealer. The parallels with the present globalist agenda, the economic rationalists, and the international financial drug dealers don't require explanation.

Do we really want to follow this incredibly foolish course to its inevitable conclusion? Most people think not, but don't know how to escape it. Politicians are in thrall to the international banks and corporations to keep their books balanced in the short term, and have given away the sovereignty, independence and financial autonomy that, fifty years ago, would have allowed them to plot a ten-to-twenty year course out of the mess.

As long population increases we can't avoid 'going for more'. And 'achieving efficiency' is not as easy as it sounds.
Beelzebub,
There's one hell of a huge difference between keeping up with natural growth & wanting more. Keep in mind that growth in population is being kept pace with by a growth in deaths as well. What doesn't balance is the increase in wages & subsequent rise in the cost of living. Why this need for higher wages when it merely results in higher costs of living ? I clearly remember during the Joh years in Qld when the then Labor Opposition supporting Education & Health Departments catch cry was "if we had more funding we could do more". Well, guess what ? We've had a 50 or more times increase in funding & yet we're still in the middle ages when it comes to efficiency. We're still not getting any more for our Dollar in general. I can't recall which Government had a prices & wages freeze for a short time but did that hurt Australia ? Did that freeze cost jobs or opportunities ? Where I live the Goss Government sold off most of its departmental housing assets & now rents it all back from the very people it sold it to at about 20-25 times the cost. Now that is growth !

You will have to explain why globalization is irreversable, and good for all of AU.

I am forever intrigued that we can each read the exact same words, but arrive at diametrically opposing conclusions.

>>[Downer] "Whether people fear globalization or not, they cannot escape it."
[Beelzebub] In other words, you'll get because we say so, whether you like it or not.<<

Gee, and I thought that Downer was pointing out that it clearly had nothing to do with "because we say so", but merely an inevitable occurrence, like the tide coming in.

Incidentally, I'd be interested in any data behind this assertion.

>>...the general consensus in developed countries is very hostile to the corporate globalist agenda.<<

I'm aware that you have already somewhat preempted the question by admitting "It is, of course, quite impossible to devise valid analytical measures of such things", but you must have chosen a source to back you up? Or is it just your own personal view, and not a "general consensus" at all?

Nothing wrong with that, of course. We're all entitled to our opinions.

579 asks, quite pertinently:

>>You will have to explain why globalization is irreversable, and good for all of AU.<<

The trick here is to do exactly what Beelzebub suggests, and apply some "what if" questions. Only instead of concentrating on what got us to this point, look to the future.

"What if" we decide that globalization is not inevitable, and take a stand against it?

This would require a radical overhaul of the entire economy, by taking steps to discourage both imports and exports (these being the basic indicators of being part of a globalized economy), on the basis that we can survive on what we have.

It is not that difficult to model the results of this campaign. Our mineral deposits would be come worthless overnight, because we would have no-one to sell them to. And the cost of living for every Australian would skyrocket, if we decided to consume only what could be manufactured here.

So globalization is not, in theory, irreversible.

It's just that personally, I prefer not to live in a "North Korea" style economy.

Which would be our destiny, Luke.

> Government had a prices & wages freeze
When I was in Singapore years ago, at a time of international financial contraction, there was a nationwide CUT in wages, from the PM down. Singapore being what it is, nobody complained, everybody tightened their belt, buckled down, and the country pulled out of the recession ahead of every other. No, of course it didn't hurt Australia, but there would have been a gaggle of pollies fearing for their political future.

> higher wages .. higher costs .. We're still not getting any more for our Dollar
What you're saying is that, all things remaining equal, changes in the NUMBERS don't actually mean anything, and of course this is now true. It wasn't back in the days when all currencies were tied to a finite resource, the gold standard, which made ABSOLUTE numbers significant; but since the abandonment of the Bretton Woods Agreement in 1971, only RELATIVE changes in the numbers have meant anything, which is why the nightly financial 'news' is largely a storm in a teacup. So, if you'll allow, I'll rephrase your question as "Why hasn't our WEALTH increased during the past several decades", since wealth is perhaps best interpreted as a subjective measure of well-being and satisfaction. This is less of a financial issue than a social one as you'll see from this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Distribution_of_wealth

To which I'd answer, "You're quite right; this is the key issue, not the percentage by which wages have risen over the period."

> we're still in the middle ages when it comes to efficiency
From this I deduce that you regard 'efficiency' as a measure, not just of wealth generation, but of wealth generation for the population at large. If you asked New York bankers, they'd gleefully declare that THEIR wealth has boomed recently (not all of them, of course), that efficiency has soared and is a marvellous thing. So the crucial question is "How do we increase and fairly distribute the national wealth?" to which I answer, "I don't know, and that's what I'm discussing here."