Your what, Ludwig?

>>What about my ‘proof in the pudding’ comments?<<

Your numbers:

>>Average growth of 0.81% per quarter since the start of 2011. It has averaged 0.88% per annum from 1959 to 2013. This is an absolutely staggering growth rate...GDP has increased by some 250% just since 2004!!<<

And at the same time, per capita GDP rose from US$13,267 in 1962 to $37,228 in 2013 - that's a growth rate of 2% per annum.

So we are, every one of us, substantially better off than we were in [pick a year].

But that's not the point, is it. What you are asking is:

>>So…. with this sort of indication from GDP, how is it possible that we have a Federal budget ‘crisis’, or a humungous need for infrastructure expenditure or declining benefits for pensioners and other welfare recipients or the prospect of increasing prices for just about everything or a forthcoming increase in GST, or all sorts of other things, all of which clearly indicates that things are not going too well for us economically?<<

We can discount the last bit - "things are not going too well for us economically" - because as you have shown us, we have done fantastically well.

However there has to be a point at which you say, hey, we have done a great job and increased everybody's wealth over the last fifty years, but we need to start thinking about the next fifty.

Mind you, I believe the "crisis" is only a crisis in the eye of Hockey, who needs to make the previous government look as bad as he possibly can.

That is not to say we don't need to find a way forward that doesn't rely so heavily on digging stuff out of the ground and flogging it, we certainly do. Infrastructure needs some attention, for sure. Benefits need to "decline" - that's the rationale for mandated super - or we will have not enough taxpayers left to provide them.

But that's just detail.

Go to the beach. When you get back, tell me again how terrible it all is.

Once again Pericles I could write a book in response to your post.

And this time I will (well… half a book at least)…

<< And at the same time, per capita GDP rose from US$13,267 in 1962 to $37,228 in 2013 - that's a growth rate of 2% per annum. So we are, every one of us, substantially better off than we were in [pick a year]. >>

Firstly, it is nice to note that you haven’t questioned the enormous growth rate of GDP – 250% since 2004 and an average of 0.88% pa since 1959. And a huge increase in growth rate to 0.81% per quarter from the start of 2011.

I haven’t checked the figures, but I presume that this much greater growth rate started well before 2011 and is pretty well correlated to big increases in immigration…. much more so than to the mining boom.

So, do you really think that we are substantially better off to the extent indicated by GDP? Are we 2½ times better off than were in 2004?

Obviously we aren’t. So obviously there is something critically wrong with GDP…. or more specifically; with the indication of economic wellbeing, prosperity and improvement that GDP is supposed to be giving us.

Alright, I have established that GDP is enormously errant as an economic indicator. Well… obviously if GDP is fundamentally flawed, then per-capita GDP is also fundamentally flawed!

continued

And obviously NOT “everyone of us” is better off! Clearly there are a whole lot of people that are no better off at all. In fact, we are probably not any better off on average! And if we are, it’s skewed strongly towards the rich end of the spectrum.

So Pericles, how can you espouse per-capita GDP as translating into us all being better off?

Once again, this per-capita GDP measure is based on a very large part of GDP; that part resulting from economic activity related to immigration; which simply should NOT be added to (included in) GDP!

A realistic measure of GDP would be MUCH lower than it is. And then of course a realistic measure of per-capita GDP would be much lower, if not negative.

When it comes to people being or not being better off, you also need to consider all sorts of things outside of the GDP calculation, especially the rising prices of most basic necessities. Even if per-capita real GDP, as it should be measured, was increasing, it might still not translate into real average gains, if expenses are also increasing at the same or a greater rate. And we know that the prices of many basic goods and services have indeed gone well up in recent years.

Then there are other less tangible things that work against perceived improvements in peoples’ live, like congestion and travelling times, environmental quality, crime rate, access to health services, etc.

So again; it is a very woolly assertion indeed that you make; that the increasing per-capita GDP that we have had for many years has meant that we are all better off.

continued

You quoted me in your last post:

>> So….with this sort of indication from GDP, how is it possible that we have a Federal budget ‘crisis’, or a humungous need for infrastructure expenditure or declining benefits for pensioners and other welfare recipients or the prospect of increasing prices for just about everything or a forthcoming increase in GST, or all sorts of other things, all of which clearly indicates that things are not going too well for us economically? <<

But you didn’t answer my question! You’ve skipped around the issue. And what a huge issue to avoid addressing!

What about the massive need for infrastructure? Or the other things I mention. How does this fit with your assertion that every one of us is substantially better off?

<< However there has to be a point at which you say, hey, we have done a great job and increased everybody's wealth over the last fifty years, but we need to start thinking about the next fifty. >>

Interesting. So what are you really saying here? That it is not looking as good for the future as it has in the past?

Well… how does that fit with GDP? I mean; GDP is ripping ahead at the moment, and giving NO indication of any need for change in the near future!

<< Infrastructure needs some attention, for sure >>

Wonderful. I’m so pleased you can appreciate that. So then… why do we need more or better infrastructure? Why hasn’t our massive rate of economic growth led us to be right up there with infrastructure? This is one thing that we would surely be right on top of…. if the GDP indicator was worth a pinch of the proverbial! You know that a massive amount of tax-payers’ money has always been put into infrastructure (and services).

continued

So there is only one possible answer; yes you know it perfectly well: massive immigration / population growth. That is: massive continuous demand for more infrastructure, despite the absolutely enormous amount of the stuff that is constantly being built, and has been built at a great rate for many years!

This constantly increasing demand not only works against the good part of economic growth – by demanding expenditure that should be put into things that improve the lives of the pre-existing population, but alarmingly, it all gets counted as positive stuff in our crazy GDP indicator!!

This is tantamount to madness. It really is brazen economic criminality!!

<< Benefits need to "decline" - that's the rationale for mandated super - or we will have not enough taxpayers left to provide them. >>

No, benefits don’t need to decline at all. They could do with a bit of re-evaluation so there is a better correlation between who gets benefits and who needs them. Then they should increase for those who really need them.

And the big factor concerning there not being enough taxpayers’ money to pay for all the stuff we need… and hence putting pressure on the government to reduce benefits, is… yes… our absurdly high immigration rate.

Ah, but let’s not get carried away with detail.

<< Go to the beach. When you get back, tell me again how terrible it all is. >>

No, no beach yesterday. But I did go for a nice hard run up Castle Hill in Townsville, amidst many lycra-clad nubile young women! And no… there wasn’t anything at all terrible about that!! ( :>)

Actually, yes, Ludwig.

>>So, do you really think that we are substantially better off to the extent indicated by GDP? Are we 2½ times better off than were in 2004?<<

The country as a whole has increased its product by that much. The numbers tell you so.

Have each of us experienced that level of increase in our prosperity? Of course not. But on a per capita basis, we are all better off, as once again the numbers clearly show.

The incontrovertible reality of that national growth is that it was created by people. People digging stuff out of the ground. People organizing to sell it to places where it is needed. If we had experienced a shortage of people to do this, who would have made it happen? You seem to think that we can be prosperous as a country independently of the number of people employed. As if prosperity is somehow our right, granted automatically.

>>So obviously there is something critically wrong with GDP…. or more specifically; with the indication of economic wellbeing, prosperity and improvement that GDP is supposed to be giving us.<<

Only in your imagination.

GDP gives us a measure of how well off we are in comparison to other parts of the world. GDP per capita gives us a view of how we each, individually, are benefitting from that prosperity. They are both numbers that are easily calculated, and difficult to fudge.

>>Alright, I have established that GDP is enormously errant as an economic indicator. Well… obviously if GDP is fundamentally flawed, then per-capita GDP is also fundamentally flawed!<<

You haven't. So it isn't.

So with that out of the way, the rest of your standard anti-immigration rant gets washed away. You are simply wasting your breath, if you think that we can continue to increase our prosperity relative to the rest of the world, and our individual prosperity within that growth, by shutting our doors and creating fortress Australia.