You too, Spinner, have a good one.

I guess there's no hope for some of the welded-on socialist fraternity, they're so deep in their own 'spin' that maybe even a D12 would have trouble digging them out.

So be it; it takes all kinds to make a genuine Christmas Pudding.

Paul, there's only one of them who's admitted the coalition has doubled the deficit, and that's "Spin"doc. He's admitted that the "Fact Check" conclusion is accurate, despite being in love with Tax'Em Tony (Toneliar).

All the other radical righties here are still in denial about the "Fact Check" conclusion.

These old time forum righties (there's only about 5 or 6 of them on the forum) hate me being here, primarily because on several different threads I have outed them as overt racists and "white Australia" adherents. Hence the strange, immature name calling in the first post on this page from "Spin"doc --- so hilarious and funny.

More obfuscation, Ludwig. Playing silly games like this doesn't change matters one iota:

>>Yes it does. No it doesn't. Yes it does. No it doesn't. Yes it does!! Round and round the mulberry bush we go. Oh what fun!!<<

Aren't you tired of it by now?

>>And yet the economic activity spurred by the need to rebuild and get back on track after a cyclone or flood or fire, or that occurs as a result of car accidents or smoking-related illness or a myriad other things, gets added to (or included in) GDP<<

Included in. Not added to. There is a difference. Let's say you are offered a job that pays $1,000 a week. Would you see a difference in your pocket if your travel expenses were a) included in or b) added to that figure?

You really should try to get your head around this.

The basic problem you have is that on the one hand, you accept the reality...

>>Fires, cyclones, illnesses, car accidents, droughts, obesity, and a thousand other bad things, have a negative effect on productivity. Of course as a result of these, GDP would be lower than it would otherwise be<<

...and on the other, you deny it

>>[there is] increased economic turnover as a result of fires, floods, cyclones, illnesses due to smoking or alcohol<<

And still, you continue to make a spectacle of yourself with comments like this:

>>And yet its addition to GDP would have us believe that it is activity that is taking the economy forward.<<

Once more, let me be quite specific.

These activities you are fixated upon do not of themselves increase GDP.

Just because you are unhappy with the concept of GDP does not mean you can pretend it means something else. If you would like to employ a different measure - like, perhaps, simply measuring the things you deem to be "good" - by all means go ahead and do so.

Unfortunately, you will find that it is utterly valueless as a measure of any economic reality you can identify. Or even imagine.

<< As for Luddy, I think he has a point. Disaster restorations, and 'relief', may add to GNP (through construction activity), but in the end you're back to square-one. The input has not generated an ongoing increase in productivity (just a restoration of the status quo)… >>

Thankyou Saltpetre. I am pleased that someone else can see this fundamentally important point and is interested enough to comment on it.

Pericles, let’s look at the definition of GDP:

The monetary value of all the finished goods and services produced within a country's borders in a specific time period, though GDP is usually calculated on an annual basis. It includes all of private and public consumption, government outlays, investments and exports less imports that occur within a defined territory.

http://www.investopedia.com/terms/g/gdp.asp

When goods gets damaged or destroyed by a fire or flood, they need to be replaced to +/- the same extent that they existed prior to the disaster.

By definition, all of this gets included in GDP, although it is taking us from a negative situation back to a neutral situation, the same that existed prior to the disaster. It is not taking us forward in terms of productivity or economic prosperity. Not at all. It is simply taking us back to the pre-existing situation.

So it absolutely should NOT be added to or included within the GDP total!

Now, how are you going to counter this, Pericles?

Immigration demands ever-more goods and services, all of which get added to GDP, by definition. And yet it is, as with disasters and illnesses, entirely a matter of counteracting the negative aspects of immigration, and is not at all, or at best only just barely, producing any REAL increases in economic prosperity.

So again; immigration results in very large additions to GDP or inclusions in the GDP total. But NONE of it, or at best; practically none, actually does what GDP indicates it does!

GDP indicates that the entire monetary value of all goods and services is GOOD, and is taking us into a better economic position. And yet a great deal of what is added to it, or included in the total, is doing NOTHING OF THE SORT!

I hope that by putting this basic message, which I have expressed to you many times before, in somewhat different words, you will at last see the logic.

It is amusing how Pericles and Nhoj first try to claim that there is a per capita benefit to mass migration and then pull out the race card when their economic argument is shot out of the water. It never occurs to them that we might be concerned about the doubling of our population every 38 years, with all sorts of negative consequences for our environment, our security, and our quality of life, if current growth rates continue, rather than worrying about some migrants with darker skins.

Perhaps Pericles could tell us how the Japanese are getting away with "Fortress Japan", since they have virtually no immigration. I would also be delighted to see Pericles lead the way in repudiating dog-in-the-manger attitudes, by offering to share his house with one or more homeless people.

Pericles and his friends really don't have to worry, though. The politicians will never do anything that might be against the interests of their rich mates. Unfortunately, this also means that they would reject any other ideas, such as 579's suggestions, that don't involve squeezing low and middle income earners until the pips squeak.