Reinventing history again, I see Ludwig.

>>I put to you a very discrete point in my last post, which you would have addressed if you could have. You simply can’t, because you know I am right on that particular point. And the same applies for the whole subject. You’re off the rails with it.<<

You, I suppose, get a free pass when it comes to addressing any of the points that I make. Typical.

Get back to me on the factual basis of the following.

Ludwig says:

>>GDP... is a most terribly flawed economic indicator, which adds all sorts of negative factors to the positive side of the ledger, such as increased economic turnover as a result of fires, floods, cyclones, illnesses due to smoking or alcohol, etc, etc.<<

Then Ludwig says:

>>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<<

Explain to me how both of these statements of yours can be simultaneously true, and perhaps I will indulge you with a little more education as to what actually happens to GDP in, and after, a disaster.

In the meantime, be aware that it is a little premature to crow, when you have clearly lost every argument, and are forced to resort to Ludwig's Law.

Which states that he who has the last word in a discussion must, by definition, be correct, despite the complete vacuity of the point he is making.

Pericles, you still ‘ere?

I thought you signed off with your last post!

Apparently when you said << Nuff said >>, you didn’t mean nuff said at all. Typical!

Alright let’s make a deal….

I will fully address the points you put to me in your last post if you fully address the points I put to you in my post of Tuesday, 13 May 2014 7:38:25 PM.

Deal?

Hey, I’ll throw in a sweetener – I’ll address your post first, even though my unaddressed post pre-dates it.

Whadda ya say?

I think you missed the point, Ludwig.

>>Apparently when you said << Nuff said >>, you didn’t mean nuff said at all. Typical!<<

That was an Andy-Williams-related comment. Nothing to do with serious discussions at all. Except as a pointer to possible cerebral limitations.

>>I will fully address the points you put to me in your last post if you fully address the points I put to you in my post of Tuesday, 13 May 2014 7:38:25 PM.<<

Eh? You mean this nonsense?

>>You can’t assert that work done as part of the recovery effort after fires, floods, cyclones, earthquakes, etc is 100% diverted from elsewhere. You can’t assert that some of the work and hence contribution to GDP isn't over and above that which gets diverted from other sources.<<

These are precisely the same issues that I settled, once and for all, on Wednesday, 7 May 2014 at 10:30:23 AM, seven and a half days before.

>>Fires, cyclones, illnesses are not "good" for the country, as they divert resources - and therefore money - from other, more productive roles. But that is no reason to exclude them from the calculation, since the money is employed within our economy, buying groceries for the firefighters, allowing the nurses to pay their rent, builders' labourers to buy clothes etc. etc. But above all, these factors you cite do not, repeat not, increase economic turnover. It is clear as day (to most people) that if we spent all our time tending the sick, fighting fires and rebuilding after an earthquake or cyclone, very quickly we would have a GDP of zero. So, by definition, the time, energy, resources and money expended on these activities cannot possibly, in any universe, cause "increased economic turnover". I am frankly astounded that this simple concept still hasn't made it through into your consciousness, Ludwig.<<

Until you accept the pure, simple, crystal-clear logic of this, there is no point whatsoever in responding to your menu of tenuous bluff and bluster.

I am actually surprised that you believe a single word that you say here. If indeed you do.

<< That was an Andy-Williams-related comment. Nothing to do with serious discussions at all. Except as a pointer to possible cerebral limitations. >>

Ohww! Really! Nothing to do with serious discussions eh?

As if to say that I have some mental problem because I’m an Andy Williams fan?!?

Pericles, you took a very cheap opportunity to launch another insult. Every bit as cheap, unintelligent and mentally corrupt as that Nhoj character.

You ought to be ashamed of that.

NO you haven’t addressed my query. Your quote above, which pre-dates the statement of mine that you have repeatedly avoided addressing, does NOT address my statement.

My point economic activity is not entirely diverted – there are always going to be extra material resources, human resources and economic activity on top of that diverted from elsewhere, and therefore recovery-effort activity does add to GDP. You said that it is entirely diverted, and Divergence agreed.

You haven’t addressed this point. You have again sidestepped an issue that you know you can’t counter.

I was looking forward to addressing your post of Wednesday, 14 May 2014 3:26:49 PM. But I won’t until you address this point…. or admit that I am right.

Come on, simply admit that yes there is or at least could be some material and human resources that are not just diverted from other jobs, and that recovery-effort economic activity is or at least could be greater than the sum of diversions into it or economic activity foregone elsewhere as a result of this activity.

Just admit that, so that we can move on….please.

Really, I do look forward to addressing your mooted contradiction in my statements. But fair’s fair! You do mine and I’ll do yours.

If you insist, Ludwig. Anything for a quiet life.

>>My point economic activity is not entirely diverted – there are always going to be extra material resources, human resources and economic activity on top of that diverted from elsewhere, and therefore recovery-effort activity does add to GDP. You said that it is entirely diverted, and Divergence agreed.<<

There are indeed circumstances where this is entirely possible, although not guaranteed.

For example, if business simultaneously becomes more efficient, and can produce more without the resources that have been diverted, than yes, growth will occur. Similarly, if government decides to invest some of our taxes into those "extra material resources", then it is likely to increase economic activity. Much as the pink batts, and the investment in new school buildings, were part of the government's response to the dangers of the GFC to our economy. Without the injection of a heap of borrowed money, we might have entered a recession that would benefit no-one. Borrowing more money therefore allowed our economy to continue moving forward.

The actual medium-to-long-term impact of this process is keeping economists busy with a whole lot theories. But most seem to agree that as a mechanism to boost GDP, it is at best a blunt weapon, and at worst, a store of future dangers.

http://noahpinionblog.blogspot.com.au/2012/03/how-can-debt-affect-potential-gdp.html

If you are interested in the technicalities, this is a good starting point.

http://www.ecb.europa.eu/pub/pdf/scpwps/ecbwp1237.pdf

In all of this, one aspect stands out. Without some form of stimulus, GDP does not grow. Businesses do this by investing their profits to create more output, thereby increasing GDP. Governments invest our taxes to achieve similar results. But in neither case is growth guaranteed.

So your post-disaster scenario remains entirely speculative, for exactly the same reasons. And, incidentally, is only one of the scenarios that you proposed will "add to GDP". It is difficult to see, for example, how a SARS epidemic that filled our hospitals for six months would respond to the same opportunity for overall GDP growth.

And yes, the Andy Williams thing was a cheap shot. But you shouldn't lead with your chin...

<< There are indeed circumstances where this is entirely possible, although not guaranteed. >>

Wahoo!!

Thankyou so much for that, Pericles.

<< And yes, the Andy Williams thing was a cheap shot. >>

Thankyou again.

Wow, I’m so happy now. I’m going to have a really great afternoon…. despite the wet weather here in Cairns, which is no good for my new profession of beachbumology!

More later.

Oh, and thankyou again… again! ( :>)