That's right. Unless it takes money from other countries and places it in our economy. Otherwise it's just another person servicing another person in the same economy....Otherwise Indonesia would be filthy rich yeah? They service each other. It's just money handed from one person to another that will end up with the skilled individual richer and the lesser skilled poorer. It doesn't increase or sustain Australia's wealth. That would require transferring money from other countries for our skilled services....That is not happening. If it is in any way, the Asians will eventually out compete us after we've put all our eggs in that illogical basket. If you don't agree with me, please outline how skilled labor is a productive asset that sustains our economy.
There isn't a fixed pool of money in the world. Money itself is simply the grease to trade and enables one to identify scarcity in the economy. Using words like "take money from other countries and places it in our economy" shows that you think there is a fixed amount of stuff that is simply moved about the world, which is blatantly wrong. Innovation and productivity is real as evidenced by the agriculture revolution and industrial revolutions.
It SEEMS simple. Our mining is 85% foreign owned. WA government are in financial trouble they made so little out of it. 457 workers take the wages earned home. There are mines all over the world coming on line at a fraction what Australia can produce on DECLINING demand. When this winds up, starting a few years ago (mining capex down 20% this year) our long downward decline will be more and more apparent and people will start looking for people to blame. Politicians from all parties over the past 30 years are to blame but mostly it's the voters themselves for not knowing the disaster that's unfolding. It was fun spending Australia's entire wealth in a couple of generations.
Hey I'm on a silver site. I know "money" is just a trading tool backed by other stuff. I'm not sure why I'm having so much trouble getting my point across? " Innovation and productivity is real as evidenced by the agriculture revolution and industrial revolutions".....I agree, but, as I've said, why would we risk that? Any ideas what might be the next innovation? What if there isn't one? VERY VERY VERY high price to pay in the future just so our generation could gorge ourselves to obesity and luxury. Why would we put all our faith in an unknown "innovation"? Innovation has plateaued hasn't it?
I won't be getting one but the iphone 5s was released this week. Seems kind of innovative if you want that sort of thing. Have you followed the development of the electric vehicle in the last few years? Plenty of innovation there. How about the private/free market space industry, followed that? Surging ahead in leaps and bounds while NASA/government reverts to a minorities outreach service.
What? You mean the productivity improvements freeing up scarce labour from other parts of the economy can't go towards growing food?
Fair point. Is that what's happening though? Do these people own land they can work or are they idle city folk having food trucked to them and the waste trucked away from them?
Whilst food is plentiful why would you not do something else and have it trucked to you? When it becomes scarcer (and prices rise) people can become food producers - either voluntarily with home gardens or as an "official" paid job.
"When it becomes scarcer (and prices rise) people can become food producers"............At last, someone acknowledges it's a problem So now can you tell me why we'd let it get to that stage? Why? There's not a single sensible reason we'd do it.
Umm, no. I'm not saying it is a problem or that it will become a problem. What I'm saying is that if it becomes a problem within our lifetimes, then there are enough ways to overcome it by redirecting productive efforts. As long as price signals are allowed to work that is what markets do. People in 20 years won't all be doing the same things as we do today with or without food prices rising faster than other things.
Aggghhhhhhhhhhhhh..........."What I'm saying is that if it becomes a problem within our lifetimes"........There's the difference. I'm thinking on behalf of the people I fathered. I need to be more selfish like the rest of Australia.
We recycle, compost, and use cotton nappies. We're trying to grow some of our food. My father grows a lot. I'm city folk today but far from idle, thanks. As a scientist I'm quite interested in the legacy of the waste we produce as a species. Our landfills will have many competing stakeholders in future: those wanting to retain them to harvest the methane they produce, and those who want to extract the accumulated aluminium, silver, iron etc and compressed hydrocarbons. Thinking we are deferring problems down the track is valid, as long as we acknowledge that humans are ingenious at developing new solutions to old problems. 17th Century man with your attitude may have said: "Open sewers in the street leading to our harbours are not a problem in our lifetimes, but will cause untold harm to future generations." Well no that's not what happened, we just invented a range of solutions. (Edited for spelling)
^ Exactly. Trying to hypothesise solutions to things that aren't necessarily problems yet has its place, but if you take it too far you're just taking the piss.
Innovation has not plateaued, and it never will (assuming adequate economic freedom). The potential for innovation is infinite, and always will be. What the heck does innovation in feeding people have to do with anything in a world where there is more food than all the people in the world can eat? Just because there are starving people doesn't mean there is not enough food or not enough land for food etc. Blame corrupt governments supported by rich western governments for that one. Incidentally, innovation in food production does not cease. Yields keep going up as demand for food does. We make more food today than every before (globally).
I doubt very much there's more food globally than what's needed. Westerners are a tiny fraction of global population. It's not all big macs and gluttony all over the world. Did you know that if you live in Australia, you are automatically in the top 1% of the worlds wealthy. Our views from these lofty heights are skewed. With global population that's doubled in 50 years we'd need to have more food than ever before......My whole point that I'm getting further away from was originally that populating Australia is a scam perpetrated by politicians and big business to increase the "capita" part of the "per capita" profit. It has ZERO benefit to any existing Australian and is depleting our life styles in every way. There is absolutely no valid reason we'd do it and our kids will curse us for it.
Sorry, that was incorrect. If you are an average wage earner in Australia, you are within the top 1%............ http://www.worldwealthcalculator.org/
