Australia’s economic health:

Charles Berger writes: Re. “Economic growth figures support RBA interest rate hike” (yesterday, item 19). Yesterday Glenn Dyer described Australia’s economy as the “best-performed major Western economy in 2009” based on just a single thing — growth in GDP.

But GDP growth is a terrible measure of the health or performance of an economy. It’s like measuring the quality of a meal based on how much it weighs, rather than how healthy and flavourful the ingredients are.

For starters, citing total GDP rather than per capita figures tends to inflate economic performance, because Australia’s population is rapidly growing.

Second, the ABS itself states that GDP suffers from “deficiencies as a measure of the economic well-being of Australians”. The ABS prefers net national disposable income (NNDI) as a more accurate measure of the real standard of living of Australians, as it takes into account shifts in international terms of trade and, critically, depreciation of fixed capital.  The ABS has been reporting NNDI such 2001, but it goes mostly unnoticed by economic reporters, even though it’s far more relevant to real Australians.

Last year’s important report by Joseph Stiglitz on measures of economic progress also recommended the use of NNDI as more meaningful for most purposes than GDP. (NNDI would be better still if it took account of ecological damage, or “depreciation of natural capital”, if you like.)

Things look very different using NNDI. Australia’s GDP increased by 2% last year, but our NNDI actually declined by 2%. You can see why the Government is reluctant to talk about NNDI.

Going still broader, shouldn’t we be measuring the performance of our economy based on the degree to which it delivers sustainable quality of life to real people in Australia? Are more people overworked, or unemployed, than the same time last year? Are our greenhouse emissions higher or lower? Are folks more satisfied with their lives, or less? Are people more or less healthy? Do we have more or less leisure time? These should the real tests of an economy, and I continue to be disappointed that they rate no mention in your quarterly regurgitation of ABS statistics.

Whenever other media outlets reproduce a spoon-fed list of government statistics without critical analysis, Crikey excoriates them for their lack of detectable mental activity. C’mon guys, you can do better yourselves.

Federalism:

Niall Clugston writes: Re. “Health reforms won’t revive dying federalism” (yesterday, item 1). In Bernard Keane’s comment, “that gurgling sound in the background is the death rattle of federalism as a political philosophy of any force in Australia” (Wednesday, item 1), the weasel word is “philosophy”.

Australia isn’t a country given to political philosophies, anyway.  Federalism for Australia is a practical reality which is very much alive, like it or loathe it.  While it might lack adherents among Sydney and Melbourne intellectuals, I doubt wider Australia is ready to give up State governments.

More importantly, federalism is a cornerstone of the Constitution which can only be blasted out by successful referendum. It is more likely that we will get central government through revolution, seriously.

But back to the real world:  today’s Australia doesn’t have competitive federalism, or co-operative federalism, but chaotic federalism.  And Rudd’s manoeuvres in the health sector will only add more churn to impenetrable alphabet soup.  How you could sensibly, or even practically, separate financial and administrative control is hard to fathom, but no doubt a swarm of bureaucrats can shroud the issue even more deeply in a plethora of protocol.

And when the paper storm subsides, we will still be federalised.

John Howard:

David Lenihan writes: Re. “Howard, the diplomat, may prevail as ICC president” (yesterday, item 5). I am totally shocked at the decision by the former British Airways Chairman Rod Eddington as an independent umpire, to rule that J Howard has superior credentials over the NZ nominee, Sir John Anderson to serve on the ICC Board.

There have been hints in some Australian media that it was a joint agreement by Cricket Australia and NZ Cricket Boards. That is a nonsense and totally incorrect. NZ Cricket were adamant Sir John was superior to Howard in all aspects.

The absence of information being provided by Australian media (including Crikey) about Andersons background and qualifications, alongside the former PM smacks of plenty to hide. So for the record, this article provides some of the credentials of Sir John Anderson, the Kiwi nomination, the so called independent judge decided were not good enough to match the Howard’s.

Dangerous workplaces:

Denis Goodwin writes: Re. “When dead workers weren’t quite so important” (yesterday, item 9). Bernard Keane should acquaint himself with the national OHS statistics and he would find that constructions is not the most dangerous industry. Dangerous enough maybe but not as dangerous as manufacturing or transport. The Safe Work Australia website has a plethora of statistics to prove the point.

Anna Bligh:

Michael Elliot writes: Re. “Richard Farmer’s chunky bits” (yesterday, item 11). Freudian slip or spelling error? From Richard Farmer’s chunky bits yesterday: “Already the pollsters are registering a growing dissatisfaction with the Government of Anna Blight where state final demand fell by 1.1% in the year to December.”

Is Anna Bligh a blight on Queensland?

Climate change:

Kieren Diment writes: I don’t know why you bother to publish Tamas Calderwood (yesterday, comments). Although you clearly lack the resources to fact check his drivel, it should be clear by now that everything he has to say about this subject is a lie or a misrepresentation and as a result only of value in the sense that it demonstrates the magnitude of Tamas’ delusional thought processes.

Bernard Keane’s failure to account for the full uncertainty of the dengue fever in Singapore article he cited is indeed an omission, but Tamas facile linear regression shows that the global warming signal is completely in line with the IPCC’s projections — at this stage of anthropogenic global warming we expect enhanced warming in the arctic, and rather less than average warming in the tropics.

Tamas (and Steve McIntyre who he refers to) then goes on to over generalise from a possibly suspect analysis of Chinese weather stations, to imply the argument that the urban heat island effect in the surface station measurement system negates the global warming signal.  This is clearly not the case as outlined here.

Please can we stop discussing climate science issues on the Crikey comments page.  I believe that Crikey has the expertise for providing political and economic commentary, but not really for providing expert evaluation of scientific issues.

As a result if you chose to continue to publish climate science related letters, you will be guaranteed to continue to publish lies and misrepresentations, mostly from the so called “sceptic” side, but global warming advocates understandably can find it difficult not to overstate their case in the context of the intellectually bankrupt opposition that they are faced with.

“A. Traveler” writes: Back in 1977 as a South African lad of 19 I hitchhiked through Europe, briefly joining sleeping bags with a Sydney girl.  Then we each returned to our home countries, she to pursue English and drama at Sydney Uni and myself to accountancy in Cape Town — facing National Service in the aftermath of the 1976 Soweto riots and within an increasingly repressive society.

Over the next year we wrote to each other, she complaining about Jo Bjelke and me about Botha.  To me she was a commie and to her I was a fascist.

In one letter I told her that I yearned to live in a society where the letters pages were mourning the death of a dolphin rather than the death of hundreds at the end of a barrel.

Reading Crikey’s comments section yesterday I think I have reached my goal.  Thank you.