<< …it is not the numbers that are flawed, just what you choose to read into them. >>

It is the concept of GDP that is fundamentally flawed. That makes the GDP numbers fundamentally flawed.

<< You certainly went to considerable lengths, Ludwig, but you didn't actually say anything meaningful. >>

Wow. Well it is all there in black and white for anyone else to read who may be following this sordid discussion to make their own judgement on that.

<< Most people would consider an increase in their share of GDP to be a good thing, in exactly the same way that they would consider a decrease to be a bad thing. >>

Really?

I think you might find that there are a whole lot of people out there who no longer believe that continuous rapid growth is the answer to all our ills, or that the prime indicator; GDP, is worth a brass razoo.

When you consider the amount of disillusionment out there and add to it the amount of apathy in the general community, I think you will find stark little real support for GDP.

I think most people who have given this subject a bit of thought, and who are independent of the enormous bias of the big-business profit motive and the political pandering to it, will side more with me than you.

Well, Pericles,

We are led to believe that "shutting our doors and creating fortress Australia" would not only be substantially detrimental to our economic prospects, but would actually court economic disaster, or even physical invasion, and, in any event would not be at all possible.
We either go with the flow, or we risk being ostracized as a pariah.

But is it fear which fires this outlook, or blind obedience to the prevailing global economic paradigm, or, of all things, a genuine vision of the superlative of national interest?

We are bound, and beholden, to global trade, and thus 'fortress' cannot apply, but why should 'shutting the door' be ruled as diametrically opposed to Oz' economic and/or developmental interests?
(Excepting of course for business travel, tourism, education, diplomacy and the like, and some selective residential immigration directly in the national economic interest.)

I accept we have a moral obligation to participate in international efforts to resolve the current world refugee crisis, but I question suggestions that such participation must, of necessity, include absorption of a 'quota' of displaced persons as fundamentally 'key' to Oz' future economic prospects.

As regards:

< Most people would consider an increase in their share of GDP to be a good thing,<

The problem I see with this broad-brush assignment is that GDP is not in fact shared equally, with a large portion inevitably going to the top few percent of the population, a significant portion going to infrastructure development - which many may not view as a significant personal gain - and another significant portion going to multinational interests.
In the end result, the portion of GDP growth applying directly to the personal interests of the bulk of the population may not necessarily be very significant at all.
(Larger population must also equate to a proportionately broader sprinkling of the 'crumbs'.)

No problem, Ludwig.

>>I think most people who have given this subject a bit of thought, and who are independent of the enormous bias of the big-business profit motive and the political pandering to it, will side more with me than you.<<

I'm genuinely unconcerned what you think other people might think. Even less concerned whether they might share your opinion. Having a chicken-little view of our economic position while ignoring reality is not a mindset that I would wish on anyone. But if it is how they choose to live, then that's fine by me.

What is at issue here is that you have a particular view as to what GDP is made of, what it stands for and what it is used for. Clearly I have been unable to help you by pointing to the facts.

You have a choice. Either give up a couple of hours beachbumming every day in order to learn about economics, after which you might be able to support your views with facts instead of emotion; or you can continue to believe that Australia is going to hell in a handbasket, with that opinion supported by your misapplication of a set of numbers that you clearly misunderstand.

But if beachbumming is your preference, that's all good too.

Have a great day.

Ahh Pericles, by all indications I have a much better understanding of economics than you seem to have. May be it is because whenever I am thinking about economics I am viewing it holistically, in the big picture, considering not only the numbers, but what they really mean and how well they translate into all the things that our economy is supposed to translate into – all the quality-of-life things, both now and well into the future.

Please consider this from Tradingeconomics.com:

< Australia's economy is dominated by the service sector (65 percent of total GDP). Yet its economic success is based on abundance of agricultural and mineral resources. The most important and the fastest growing sector of the economy is industry with mining accounting for 13.5 percent of GDP, manufacturing for 11 percent and construction for 9.5 percent. Agriculture accounts for the remaining 2 percent of the GDP. >

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/gdp-growth-annual

Now consider 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

continued

Well…this should immediately ring alarm bells with any economist!

GDP includes all services. But services are not really productive. And yet they make up 65% of GDP!

The productive sectors are mining, agriculture and manufacturing.

We know that service-provision is very rapidly increasing, in about a one to one ratio with population growth. And we know that those services are basically just duplication of what we already have in order to cater for that population increase.

So, anyone who thinks about this for more than a few seconds must surely realise that GDP is utterly compromised.

I would suggest that most ‘economists’ and politicians know this perfectly well, and are happy to go along with the enormous misrepresentation of economic growth and success inherent in it.

Afterall, the prime motive here appears to be to appease the big end of town and placate the masses while doing it. If leading the masses to believe in false indicators and economic prospects is the way to do this, then so be it.

Now.. is that cynical view? Or is it a realistic one?

I think both, with the latter prevailing!

Query:

From the tradingeconomics definition of GDP:

< The monetary value of all the FINISHED goods and services… >

Pray tell: what is a finished service??

Most services by their very nature are ongoing.

And what is a finished good? If a new freeway takes three years to build, is all the economic activity that goes into it in the first two years not counted in GDP until the third year?

Perhaps you can enlighten me here Pericles.

Hey the sun is shining. I’ve really got to go find a nice beach…. preferably one with a few young bikini babes on it. Chow!