<< You have about the same level of understanding of economics as I have of surfing. >>

Well Pericles, you seem to know that surfing requires the catching of a wave. So I reckon you know a good deal about it. More than about economics actually!! { :>/

I mean, if you don’t understand the very basics, then it doesn’t really matter what else you understand… or think you understand!

<< I do the same with surfing. I view it holistically. From a distance. With a beer in my hand. >>

Haaaa hahaaa.

You seem to do the same thing with economics when it comes to viewing it holistically – from a distance, with a beer in your hand… tipping over and spilling everywhere as you nod off!! ( :>)

<< Ouch! Services are "not really productive", are they not? That's the equivalent of my saying that catching a wave is not really surfing. >>

Erm… no it isn’t.

Again 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. >

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

The enormous contribution to GDP from services is not productive in terms of the success of our economy. It is largely neutral! And therefore it should largely NOT be included in GDP!!

<< The economies who - according to Ludwig's law of services - are less productive than Australia, include France, UK, Belgium, Japan, USA, Neteherlands, Italy Sweden, Canada and Germany. What does that tell you? >>

Nothing! Because it doesn’t say anything about the other sectors of GDP. Or about population growth and hence the size of the increase in the demand for more services, infrastructure and everything else. And hence it doesn’t say anything about the amount of economic activity involved with duplicating services and the amount that actually goes into improving services in these countries.

<< Oh, about that freeway. >>

Wow thanks Pericles. That is a good answer to my question. I appreciate the links.

However, I’ve got to say that you obviously spent a bit of time researching it and finding out just what the answer is… which indicates that you didn’t know beforehand. Well… we’ve both learnt something, so all is good!

<< So the answer to your question is that the economic activity is calculated each year, on the basis of what is actually spent on the project. >>

Yes, as I presumed…. which means that the word ‘finished’ in the GDP definition is meaningless!!

This raises another interesting point – the invoices have to be closely examined in order to work out what gets included in that particular year’s GDP total and what doesn’t.

Well… that’s a bit complicated, and I would think that some of the stuff straddles two financial years or is otherwise finely poised as to whether it gets included that year or the next, or perhaps not at all.

So, if we were to devise GDP definition which only includes the stuff that should be included, and not all the stuff that just duplicates services and infrastructure in direct response to the humungous immigration influx, or occurs in response to disasters, accidents and illness, then the same sort of thing would apply – a close examination of invoices, as well as an examination who benefits from the work being done. Some of it would be difficult to determine, but not significantly harder than at present.

I say this in response to your earlier comments regarding the impracticality of working out just what should or shouldn’t be included if we were to redefine GDP as I would like it to be.

Bottom line – it wouldn’t be significantly harder to work out than for the current system. But it would certainly be a WHOLE lot more meaningful and accurate as an economic indicator.

.

Run….. RUN…. That tiger’s gunna catch you. Coz I can run faster than you!!

Not really, Ludwig.

>>Run….. RUN…. That tiger’s gunna catch you. Coz I can run faster than you!!<<

You just talk more, that's all.

For sure Pericles. I’m a real blabbermouth.

But, you don’t do too badly yourself! ( :>)

Ludwig, me ol' mate, I think Pericles must surely be female,
and with the patience of a saint.
Could be wrong of course, about the gender at least.
And you are most definitely a real bulldog,
or at least a bloodhound, determinedly pursuing the 'scent' of your quarry.

Anyhow, it's been an interesting thread.

(And I think our current population is just fine.)

Interesting perspective Salty.

But I really don’t see why you would allot more patience to Perky than to Luddy!

From my perspective, tis Lud who is the extraordinarily patient one!

But yes, Lud is certainly a bulldog who is not going to let bullsh** go unanswered! Grrrrr! } :> |

<< (And I think our current population is just fine.) >>

Agreed!

We are now at the level that the CSIRO submission and the majority of other submissions to the 1994 Carrying Capacity Inquiry wanted us to achieve as a stable population.

Trouble is of course; we are still growing manically.

So…. do you also have no problem with the size of our immigration program and the open-ended continuously-rapidly-growing-with-no-end-in-sight nature of our population?