First observation:

You ignored my challenge to explain why we are very badly in need of a major catch-up with all manner of infrastructure and services, after having had very ‘good’ economic growth for many years.

Second observation:

You have ignored my point that you had shot your argument in the foot.

Of course these two things are very closely related. All that “heap of improvements planned for public transport around Australia's premier city” slots straight in to my side of this debate.

Actually, you didn’t shoot your argument in the foot; you bazookered right in the midriff and sent guts flying in all directions!

Thanks for the basic lesson in economics. So then, given that you do understand economics to this extent, why is it so hard for you to understand our national economics?

Why do you have such an enormous problem with the FACT that we have had high economic growth and GDP and even continuously increasing per-capita GDP for a long time, and the FACT that we are not seeing real improvements in most or all of the basic components of the quality-of-life (QOL) framework of our society, and are just not keeping it all up to the growing population, let alone improving it?

If you can see how it has all worked for Joe, then you can surely see how it all works at the national level.

continued

You, as a student of economics, would know all about supply and demand. And yet you seem to just leave out the fact that the demand for all the basic QOL factors has increased rapidly all the time that economic growth and GDP have increased.

Slowly but steadily increasing per-capita GDP would suggest that the economy has increased at a greater rate than the QOL demands for expenditure from that economic growth…. except for a couple of things…

1. GDP includes a whole lot of stuff that it just shouldn’t include and is therefore a considerably inflated indicator of economic wellbeing and prosperity, and therefore per-capita GDP is an inflated measurement as well, and

2. economic growth is not distributed evenly by any stretch of the imagination. So the ordinary people would see considerably less return from an increasing per-capita GDP than it would suggest that they would receive, even if it was an accurate measurement of average per-person economic growth.

You opened your post with:

<< The underlying problem of your assessment, Ludwig, is that you cannot see the bigger picture. Everything comes down to whether you personally feel better off or not, and not whether actual measurements tell a different story. >>

Well, I think it is clear now that it is entirely the other way around. You are looking at things on the micro or medio scale, while I am always considering macroeconomics, as well as all the big-picture factors of long-term economic prosperity and the achievement of a sustainable society with a sustainable (not a constantly rapidly growing) economic philosophy at its core. You don’t seem to ever even bear a thought for these things!

It's actually quite simple, Ludwig.

>>First observation: You ignored my challenge to explain why we are very badly in need of a major catch-up with all manner of infrastructure and services, after having had very ‘good’ economic growth for many years.<<

I ignored it because it is an expression of your opinion, not of reality. I can't tell you what opinion to hold.

>>You have ignored my point that you had shot your argument in the foot.<<

Well, yes. Because it is once again only your opinion that my argument falls.

You fail to point out anything that is inaccurate, but instead you take the simple fact that we are forever improving our infrastructure, as evidence that infrastructure is falling behind demand. Despite the fact that in your scenario, there would be even less money available for improvements, not more, as you seem to imply.

>>Why do you have such an enormous problem with the FACT that we have had high economic growth and GDP and even continuously increasing per-capita GDP for a long time, and the FACT that we are not seeing real improvements in most or all of the basic components of the quality-of-life (QOL) framework of our society, and are just not keeping it all up to the growing population, let alone improving it?<<

Because these are not facts, Ludwig (or even FACTS), but yet another manifestation of your paranoia about economic growth. Clearly, you did not understand one word of the "GDP of Joe" example.

So in desperation, you fall back onto your original fallacy:

>>GDP includes a whole lot of stuff that it just shouldn’t include<<

GDP has been a very reliable historical (note: not predictive) indicator of our prosperity, and that of the world at large. The proof of this is that when it declines, people are worse off, businesses close, unemployment rises etc. Conversely, when it lifts, businesses open, unemployment falls, people are better off.

But if you want to create a new index, by all means do so. Define some parameters that you believe are more meaningful, and let us discuss them.

Pericles you’ve been pushed so tightly into a corner that it is amazing that you can find any wriggle room at all. You really are sounding as though you are on your last gasp with this debate.

I wrote:

>>First observation: You ignored my challenge to explain why we are very badly in need of a major catch-up with all manner of infrastructure and services, after having had very ‘good’ economic growth for many years.<<

You replied:

<< …it is an expression of your opinion, not of reality >>

Ah but hold on…. what was that classic faux pas statement you made three posts ago? …

<< Not to mention a heap of improvements planned for public transport around Australia's premier city >>

'Improvements' that would not be needed if our very rapid rate of economic growth over the last two or three decades had achieved what it was supposed to achieve.

You also said in that post…

<< We already have invested in a desalination plant, ready for the next drought, and a new airport is finally on the drawing board. >>

Hmmm… two more huge projects that Sydney badly needs in order to CATCH UP with the demands of its rapidly increasing population… and which would NOT have been needed if this population hadn’t accompanied the rapid economic growth of the last 20 or 30 years!

So it is just my opinion that we are very badly in need of a major catch-up with all manner of infrastructure and services is it?

Hmmm… Perhaps you should rethink that one.

Actually, you need to rethink your whole argument, right from the most basic level.

Blimey Ludwig, you do have a knack of picking the example that proves exactly the opposite of what you intended. This is a cracker, even for you.

>>Hmmm… two more huge projects [desalination plant, airport] that Sydney badly needs in order to CATCH UP with the demands of its rapidly increasing population… and which would NOT have been needed if this population hadn’t accompanied the rapid economic growth of the last 20 or 30 years!<<

The desalination plant, as you very well know, has not been activated yet. Why? Because it was built well before it is actually going to be needed.

The airport, as you very well know, has not been built yet. Why? Because the existing facilities are still able to cope with the traffic, and because there are other actions (e.g. reducing curfew times, which are anomalous) that can be brought to bear if needed, well before we reach capacity.

Once again, your opinion is at total odds with reality.

I notice that you still haven't formulated a response to this little clincher:

"GDP has been a very reliable historical (note: not predictive) indicator of our prosperity, and that of the world at large. The proof of this is that when it declines, people are worse off, businesses close, unemployment rises etc. Conversely, when it lifts, businesses open, unemployment falls, people are better off."

Any thoughts?

<< The desalination plant, as you very well know, has not been activated yet. >>

and…

<< The airport, as you very well know, has not been built yet. >>

Hahahaaa… You don’t say Pericles.

So, in what way do these interesting little details make these huge projects any less a part of the enormous CATCH UP of infrastructure that is needed due to very rapid population growth in Sydney?

They are both things that we would NOT have needed at all if we hadn’t been chasing eternal infernal rapid growth that is driven primarily by eternal high immigration!

So the authorities are planning a little bit in advance… maybe. Or maybe Sydney could have done with a second airport some years back…. And maybe it is lucky not to have experienced real drought conditions and found itself in need of a huge desal plant by now.

So maybe these things aren’t being planned in advance at all. Maybe it is more of case of them actually being needed ages ago, and of the authorities doing what they do so well - playing catch-up!

<< Once again, your opinion is at total odds with reality. >>

You wish!!

<< Any thoughts >>

Yes I was actually going to comment on that before writing this post. But hey, you again presented such an easily countered piece of Periclesiastic pollywaffle that I couldn’t resist addressing it first.

I will reply to your GDP comments later.

But for now…. the beach beckons! ( :>)