go back to school and do the ESL classes.

you have have knocked out of the ring.
At present you are arguing black is white.
you are merely confirming you are both ignorant and idiots

Again you were found doctoring quotes and cheating. It really is offensive.

This is just another subject in which you show profound ignorance and keep on despite all the data showing you are wrong.

funny about that!

You ought to be ashamed of yourself.

However it is entirely appropriate given everyone here has yet to get any actual data on hospital expenditure by States and Federal Governments.

Rafe:

The workers were doing well in Australia circa 1900. Visitors were impressed by the fact that ordinary folk could afford to regularly eat meat. We had possibly the highest per capita income in the world but that was before the “Austrlian Settlement” between the labour movement and others, resulting in the White Australia Policy, tariff protection and central wage fixing. And a downward trend in our relative economic performance.

Homer:

The major reason we had such a high per capita income was the LOW population. Ian McFarlane talked about this in his Boyer lectures. It was always going to fall as population increased.

I found the transcript of McFarlane’s Boyer lecture. He said the EXACT OPPOSITE of what Homer attributed to him. He did not say economic growth dropped with population growth but, rather, that the only reason it was as high as it was must be attributed to an unusually high rate of population growth.

I realise, looking back at what I have said, that I could be accused of over-glamourising the 1950s and 1960s. To remedy this impression, I want to bring up two other considerations.

First, Australia did not stand out at this time in comparison with other countries. While in absolute terms our performance was good, we did not grow as fast as the OECD average. In the era before the Golden Age, that is the 80 years prior to 1950, our average growth rate of 2.9% exceeded the OECD average of 2.3%, but in the period from 1950 to 1973, we slightly underperformed, growing at an average of 4.7% compared with the OECD average of 4.9%. A close examination shows that the main reason we got so close to the OECD average was that our population and work force grew much faster than in other countries. This was of course the period of the great post war immigration programs. If we take out the effects of our faster population growth by looking at the growth in GDP per capita, the underperformance by Australia is more apparent. In the 1950s GDP per capita in Australia rose by 1.7% per annum compared with 3.3% in the OECD area. In the 1960s we did better, with GDP per capita rising by 3.2% per annum, but still a little lower than the 3.9% for the OECD area.

Caught quote-doctoring and verballing Ian McFarlane.

No recovery is possible.

???

Research isn’t really a skill here at catallaxy is it!

go away CL. you confuse 1890 with 950/60 and then say half of the deficit which is due to the economy is all Obama’s fault.

you are a first class dolt.

Shame on you, Homer.