DAWD..GDP..DPP

its sounding more like a fish-slap/now..<<.n <<or does that not worry you?...How will you retain the brightest brains,..in a dying economy>>

people work/for homour/title/flexible employment terms
the imaginative/boss..needs but appiciate/their talent-s skillsets/extend to all/of\us.

<<..you certainly won't be able to afford to pay them internationally competitive salaries?>>

we can assure/them\this work
wont send their/SOUL\DIRECTLY..TO HELL.

<<..Who will be left to teach in universities ..>>

ANY TEACHER/WHO REALLY TEACHES/MAKES EACH NEW LEARNING[A NEW BUSINESS//OPPERTUINITY]..HIGHER EDUCATION IS ABOUT GETTING THE FRANCHISE/OR PEERR GROUP/SKILL SETS[EACH CLASS SETS UP A REAL BUSNESS/AS CHOSEN FROM SWTUDENMTS SKILLSETS

THE FRUITS OF THIS JOINED STUDY/CAN BE INVESTED..INTO
AND THE STUDENTS EACH HOLD SHARE ACCORDING TO THEIR INPUT[ITS ike super or hoiding shared patent]..at least thats how its done in heaven

[or hell/hard to tell/they interlap together
so much/on so many levels

<<..- this is after all a service,>>

or dis-service[who/is\to/judge?]

<<and according to you,..>>

dont put wurd..tords..ain anyones ,mouth ['not\a/quote]'

<<..And why..do I expect your response..to this to be...

>>Moving right along…<>>>
why dear perJULES..your living out what was..not what is
everything..we thought..was organised..but its organised..on illusion
http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2014/05/enron-2-0-wall-street-wants-manipulate-state-energy-markets-just-like-manipulates-every-market.html

yet you/talk/like..its a skill/talent..a fixed firm foundation
which has extremist paternalistic obsessive control/over everything/so much so we all stopped thinking.

but the fruit is/THE DEBT HEAPED UPON THE POOR
and the elite twice as rich/when..they all earned dIFFERENT KARMA

BUT KARMA..is the feminie aspect/[a real/bitch]

Pericles, you know those rails. Well… you’re off them entirely. They’re way back there behind you somewhere, well out of sight…. and your train (of thought) is heading straight towards a huge cliff!

You put up a blatant straw-man question, which failed to suck me in. I rightly side-stepped it… and you call it evasion, and ‘not a good look’.

Well, we’ve been debating this sort of stuff on OLO for years. Who do most OLOers usually side with? Who ultimately does a runner from the subject, because they no longer have any credulity or room to move with their flawed arguments? Not me.

So I’m happy to let others judge who is right, who is off-track and who is avoiding the issues and erecting straw-man arguments here.

<< So your suggestion is that we somehow engineer a decreasing population. >>

There you go again - deliberate diversion into straw-man la la land. You are asserting something you know to be false. I of course was not suggesting anything of the sort.

I’ve made my position on population abundantly clear on OLO – we should head towards net zero immigration, which would take immigration out of the population growth equation. Our population would continue to increase and would stabilise in some three or four decades time if the birthrate remains the same as it is now (the natural birthrate, not the artificially-enhanced baby-bonus birthrate). Then we should maintain a stable population. Or we could let it gently decline if that is deemed the best approach by that time. Or we could increase it if we are confident that the supply capability of all goods, services and everything else that we need is up to the task of matching the increasing demand, and in a sustainable manner.

Why do you do this Pericles? Why do you try to divert the discussion off into the wilderness and in so doing, imply that I hold views and positions that you know full well I don’t?

It’s not a good look. Doesn’t do your credibility any favours at all.

continued

Back to the topic then….

I hope you can see that your incredibly simplistic assertion that ‘an increase in GDP is good, a decrease in GDP is not good’, is incredibly flawed.

And um… I note that you had nothing to say about my point that exports are subtracted from GDP while immigration is added.

This is a biggie! It is surely a huge flaw in the GDP calculation.

Would you care to comment?

<< I've ignored the redefinition suggestion >>

But of course. That one’s just too hard for you. Mwa hahahaaa!

I do thankyou for injecting a bit of humour into what would otherwise quite a droll discussion ( :> )

My goodness, Ludwig. With all the pressure, you seem to be losing your grip on the English language too...

>>Who ultimately does a runner from the subject, because they no longer have any credulity<<

credulity n. a tendency to be too ready to believe that something is real or true

An interesting, but somewhat self-defeating, description. In fact, altogether a pretty feeble reason to leave an argument, don't you think?

And then there's this:

>>I do thankyou for injecting a bit of humour into what would otherwise quite a droll discussion<<

Surely, if the discussion was already droll, it wouldn't need an injection of humour?

I know it is difficult keeping it all together when every bit of logic and rational arguments are going against you. But do make an effort, there's a good chap.

Now, where were we.

>>You put up a blatant straw-man question<<

That's ridiculous, and you know it. You stated...

>>[GDP] is taken as a prime indicator of what is good about our economy. The larger the better, end of story, according to our dumb pseudoeconomists and politicians!<<

So the obvious inference is, if bigger is not better, smaller must be.

Yet you deny this too.

>>I note that you had nothing to say about my point that exports are subtracted from GDP while immigration is added.<<

Exports are subtracted, imports are added. Seems pretty straightforward.

Immigration is not "added", just the economic activity that immigrants create. Which is actually indistinguishable from the economic activity that anyone else creates. Including you.

And for the record, I've ignored the redefinition suggestion because giving you carte blanche to change the definition of GDP simply invalidates every argument, for or against.

>>I’ve made my position on population abundantly clear<<

Yep. It appears to me that You believe a smaller population will be good for Australia. Am I wrong?

Pericles, there is an amazing contrast between your excellent command of the Queen’s English and your off-the-rails views on all things economics and population-related.

Many posters have picked you up on this over the years. I am certainly not alone in headbanging with you on this stuff on OLO.

I'm not at all concerned about occasionally using words that might be technically incorrect, especially when the meaning in the context where used is perfectly clear.

My biggest PITA on OLO is MWS!!

I’ll expand…

The biggest pain in the ar…mpit about writing stuff on OLO has been this extraordinary missing word syndrome that I suffer terribly from. It seems that on average, there is one MW in every bloody post. No amount of proof-reading or spell-and-grammar checking can prevent it!

Second to this is the OLW (one-letter-wrong) syndrome… where a post is corrupted by a single incorrect letter, such as ‘it’ where it should be ‘is’ or ‘out’ where it should be ‘our’

I HATE that stuff, with a vengeance!! I wish we could edit after posting, as per Skype and Facebook!

You are a very minor PITA in comparison, Pericles ( :>)

But I do thank you for going to considerable lengths to point out that my use of the words; ‘credulity’ and ‘droll’ were not the best choices.

So, after all of our correspondence, which must now number in the thousands of posts, the grand total of incorrect words that I have used and that you have pointed out is…..um…….2!

I’m sure if there had been any others, you woodna held back in coming forward about them!!

Now, where the blazes were we....

Oh yes….

<< So the obvious inference is, if bigger is not better, smaller must be. >>

If GDP is bigger while being based on a whole lot of stuff that does not indicate that our economy is improving, then bigger is certainly not better…. and smaller would be even worse!!

<< Immigration is not "added", just the economic activity that immigrants create. >>

Um… yeayus!

All that enormous economic activity from our enormous immigration intake gets added to GDP, despite it being +/-NEUTRAL in terms of supply and demand and our overall economic wherewithal.

So, if all of this is going to be added to GDP, then why wouldn’t imports be added as well? Or at least not subtracted. Why wouldn’t the silly economists and politicians strive to make our GDP appears as big as possible? This is what they seem to be doing in every way, except with the subtraction of imports!

<< …I've ignored the redefinition suggestion because giving you carte blanche to change the definition of GDP simply invalidates every argument, for or against. >>

So what you are actually saying is that you have a completely closed mind on the idea of redefining and thus improving GDP so that it could become a much more meaningful economic indicator ??

<< Yep. It appears to me that You believe a smaller population will be good for Australia. Am I wrong? >>

I’ve made my position on population abundantly clear. But as is your wont (sheesh, I hope I’ve used the right word here), you’ve read something else into it which is completely different to what I have said.

You are wrong. I don’t advocate a smaller population. I advocate the lowest population level that we can achieve from this point forward while maintaining a significant immigration program and accepting that our birthrate (minus the influence of the baby bonus) is actually very good and doesn’t need to be further lowered.