Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Originally posted by Spiderman
If we modified that quote to read '... the reason Australia became poorer in comparison with other OECD countries over the last 100 years, is the vast amount of property they sold to one another' would it have some truth here?
Interesting concept, but perhaps overlooking the fact that the profits are staying within Australia.Originally posted by Spiderman
If we modified that quote to read '... the reason Australia became poorer in comparison with other OECD countries over the last 100 years, is the vast amount of property they sold to one another' would it have some truth here?
But a country can't get rich if we all sold property to each other, even though some individuals within it can.
Is Australia heading down the same path that the Spanish did, especially given current talk about property being a key route to wealth?
Of course GDP as a measure has problems. Though it is often used as a crude measure of national wellbeing, it does not measure environmental or social outcomes. Also if we do each others washing (and pay for it) our GDP goes up as we're transferring activities from non-tradeable/DIY to the cash economy. But overall living standards have either not changed, or declined slightly due to some new costs.
Regards, Peter
Originally posted by Spiderman
1. Though our living standards are still high, we have slipped from being in the top 3 to in the top 20 countries in the last 100 years
2. Our export base contains a large proportion of primary produce compared to other first-world countries. The relative value of this has tended to drop over time, reducing the terms of trade.
3. Despite recent rises, the value of our currency has declined in the longer term relative to world currences. For instance in the 1970s $1 AU > $1US. Though this gives respite for exporters, it means that we can afford less in the world, and our economy represents a shrinking proportion of the world total GDP.
4. Though there are small specialised technology companies that are world class we are not home to large companies in fast growing industries like pharmaceuticals.
5. Though we are early adopters of consumer goods, we are lagging in some important areas, eg access to broadband in residential areas.
6. Barry Jones & John Button mentioned the low amount of private sector R&D compared to other countries. I'm not sure if that's still the case.
7. Our rate of personal savings is low and we have not provided for superannuation sufficiently. Offsetting this is that our population is younger than Europe's.
Originally posted by qazwsx
This is a VERY interesting topic. I disagree with you Acey on the foodstuffs independance point. In the industrial age the theory of economics being the competition for limit resources was correct, however I beleive in the information age wealth is only limited to information/current technology and the morse law states information double (i think) every 2 years. Theres a book which theory i agree with (cant remember what its called) which says that wealth in the information is stored in information/technology as opposed to land (agrerian age), factories (industrial age). With technology we will find more efficient ways to produce food stuff and bypass/limit our current dependance on resources such as oil and precious metals.