Bazz,

Sorry about the Joe confusion (I assumed six pack to be an ironic nickname).

"However if there is no increase there will be no growth.
Otherwise what will power the growth ?"
There are two ways growth can occur Despite no change in the energy input. The first is greater efficiency. The second is increasing the value of the products.

"Our oil based energy is almost zero and we must buy it from Singapore
Korea and Taiwan. That will disappear if we are outbid."
Our oil energy is far from zero, and as for the imports, if we're outbid on one tankerload we just bid more for the next one.

"No one is even suggesting that we build a Topisch-Fischer coal plant
to at least supply some liquid fuel for emergency services."
Because we don't need to. But there are plenty of potential unconventional fuel suppliers who'll produce it if the price is right.

Aiden, our oil production is now below 400,000 barrels a day down from
1,000,000 a day. As it is continuing to fall there was no economic
sense in operating some six or seven refineries.
The last will close either next year or the year after.

Effectively we are not an oil producer. We sell it off.

You said:if we're outbid on one tankerload we just bid more for the next one.
Yeah sure ! Deep pockets have we ?

Just for Sydney we require two oil tankers to arrive EVERY day.
We cannot afford to miss a bid and wait another day.
We have almost no storage, just several days, plus what is the service stations.

Regarding efficiency Mr Jeavons in his Paradox had something to say about that.
Greater efficiency results in higher consumption, not less.

You said:Increasing the value of the products. !!

That is applied magic. Fiddling with money values producing higher
numbers produces nothing. It used to be called inflation !

Bazz,
I never sad there was economic sense in operating six or seven refineries. But where did you get the idea that the last will close in 2016 or 17? I thought we were now down to three, only one of which has announced a planned closure. And there are even plans to build another at Gladstone - see http://www.abc.net.au/news/2015-05-19/plans-for-oil-refinery-in-gladstone/6480980

Yes we do have deep pockets! Australia is a rich country - had you failed to realise?

Selling oil off is generally what oil producers do.

"Regarding efficiency Mr Jeavons in his Paradox had something to say about that.
Greater efficiency results in higher consumption, not less."
In absolute terms, all other things being equal, that is true. But combined with an energy shortage of even just a substantial increase in the energy price, it would result in less energy consumption.

"You said:Increasing the value of the products. !!"
Indeed I did, and I meant it. You seem to think I meant increasing the PRICE of the products. Are you really not aware of the difference?

Ar Poirot, good old Saul.

For an economist, assumably a clever man, to suggest negative gearing on old homes doesn't stimulate new housing is just a joke.

Is he suggesting people who sell their used home, simp,y buy another used home yea right!

Some people actually sell their multi million dollar home, buy a down size home, then buy a few investment homes, which in turn stimulates housing.

As for the big end getting tax breaks on super, are you aware super contributions are capped depending on your age?

So a young go getter on say 2 million a year can pay about $9,000 into super before paying more tax, considering the jobs they create, are you seriously concerned about the 35cents in the dollar on nine grand. Give me a break.

As for other economies, I again remind you that these economies didn't have a mining boom to fall back on.

As for lack of business confidence, the mining tax and the carbon tax put a huge hole in that, and given Abbott was so bad in the end and Shorten stated he would look at bringing them back, business went a bit gun shy and how could we blame them for that.

rehctub,

"Ar Poirot, good old Saul.

For an economist, assumably a clever man, to suggest negative gearing on old homes doesn't stimulate new housing is just a joke."

Well that's a first...Mr Butcher is patronising one of Australia's foremost economists.

ROFL! - you don't see that every day.

"Mr. Saul Eslake is an Australian Economist at BofA Merrill Lynch, Research Division. From 1995 to August 2009, he served as the Chief Economist at Australia & New Zealand Banking Group Ltd. He served as the Chief Economist of National Mutual Funds Management (now AXA Australia), McIntosh Securities and Merrill Lynch International (Australia) Ltd. Earlier, he served as the Chief Economist at The National Mutual Life Association of Australasia Limited....' etc

http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/person.asp?personId=42721343&privcapId=100415941

"As for other economies, I again remind you that these economies didn't have a mining boom to fall back on."

In the case of our immediate and successful response to the GFC - that's a load of old cobblers.

But I'll leave you to it - you're a lost cause : )

Poirot and rehctub,

So many prominent economists talk absolute crap that "patronising one of Australia's foremost economists" is quite reasonable.

However, the claim that "For an economist, assumably a clever man, to suggest negative gearing on old homes doesn't stimulate new housing is just a joke" doesn't stand up to scrutiny. How does it add to the supply other than by increasing house prices? And wouldn't increasing house prices add as much to the supply even if negative gearing were not available?

But Poirot's right on the other matter: we didn't have a mining boom to fall back on. Commodity prices crashed in the GFC, temporarily ending the mining boom.