Should be required reading - a really thorough and excellent analysis.

Wow.  Much sense here, and much food for thought.

Page 30 is just plain scary, though. 

49% of Tasmanian adults, 2.6 pc more than the national average lack the minimum prose literacy skills required to meet the demands of every day life and work.

  That’s your biggest electoral system issue, right there:  These people vote.

An important event, but a dismal picture. Eslake spoke only from an economic point of view but even that demonstrated very clearly just how wrong the two major parties are in relying on old technology, extractive industries based on unprocessed commodities such as mining and forestry that can no longer compete on the world stage, yet a dogged refusal to embrace new technologies and service-based industries.

The big question is will a chastened Bartlett, forced back to take responsibility for what he tried to dodge, get the message? The one bright hope is that there is definitely a qualitative change. A majority of voters gave their primary vote to the Greens in two electorates, Denison and Lyons. It is also significant that there are eleven new faces, nearly half the parliament, while several old stagers lost to younger members of their own party. Scott McLean was strongly pro pulp mill and lost as did Sturges, Llewellyn, and Daniel Hulme – a pointer to public feeling on forestry that an incoming government surely cannot ignore.

“A majority of voters gave their primary vote to the Greens in two electorates, Denison and Lyons.”

Where were there more than 50% giving their primary votes?

Do we have an issue with numeracy as well as literacy?

Saul Eslake wrote: “Tasmania’s most fundamental economic problem is its persistently low level of productivity.”

Define the word ‘productivity’ and clarify who is to directly benefit from such ‘productivity’ Mr Eslake.  Without clarification this entire article is meaningless.

PS:  I suppose that Gunns Ltd, FEA and co think that productivity is the faster and faster rate of destruction of native forests as they convert them to woodchip with fewer and fewer workers involved in the process.

I defined “productivity” on slides 13, 14 and 15 as “value of goods and services per hour worked”, and on slide 17 provided illustrations of some of the benefits of high productivity.

If past form is any guide, what we will now get from Ms Rosser is tedious argument over definitions, combined with some personal abuse. I don’t intend to get involved in either

Ah, in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king!

If I was cynical, I’d say the situation is ideal for maintaining a solid population of poker-machine playing, beer drinking folks who don’t ask too many deep questions. Gotta keep business going somehow.

And being serious, I just feel a little sad about the whole assessment.  Although the reference to Mr Bartlett having a copy of the summary pinned up in his office did raise a wry smile.  Like to see some evidence that he’ll take action!

Mr Eslake wrote: “If past form is any guide, what we will now get from Ms Rosser is tedious argument over definitions, combined with some personal abuse. “

Oh, that’s right.  We’ve had a long online discussion about the extreme social and environmental danger inherent in such a narrow definition of productivity (”“value of goods and services per hour worked”).

The ‘abuse’ that Eslake refers to consisted of calling this logic ‘nonsense’.  He retaliated by questioning my character and accusing me of being the type of person that would genocide in Cambodia.  [See the Tasmanian Times archives for this].  It was at that point that I refused to engage in further debate with Eslake on that thread.

Hardly ‘productive’ discussion….about as ‘productive’ as failing to measure real social and environmental costs in industrial exploitation.

Correction:  “accusing me of being the type of person that would genocide in Cambodia” should read: “accusing me of being the type of person that would support genocide in Cambodia.”  It read like character defamation from Saul Eslake (just as his claims of my giving “personal abuse” without explicit examples could be equally interpreted as such.)

For those who want to read the thread where Eslake fails to answer the arguments against his narrow and dangerous interpretation of ‘productivity’ - and also fails to answer my arguments against his claim that we are all better off due to our increased ‘productivity’ go to:
http://tasmaniantimes.com/index.php/weblog/comments/2307/

An excerpt:  Okay Mr Eslake, let’s look at the points you raise one by one:
“.. most people, if invited to compare their standard of living with (say) 25 years ago, would concede that they are better off today..”
You provide no evidence that that is, in fact, what ‘most’ Australians believe.  So let’s look at the indicators of quality of life and see whether such optimism is called for.
Health:  Life expectancy has improved slightly but “the World Health Organization warns that the global burden of chronic disease is increasing rapidly, and predicts that by the year 2020 chronic disease will account for almost three quarters of all deaths. In Australia, the burden of chronic disease and its consequent effect on disability and death is growing in line with this trend.”
http://www.health.gov.au/internet/wcms/publishing.nsf/Content/pq-ncds-strat
Unemployment: Mr Eslake you have failed to provide a definition of ‘employment’.  Therefore one must respond to the Government-imposed definition and that is, if you work (and are paid) for one hour a week you are classified as ‘employed’.....

Where does Eslake get off talking about personal abuse… I remember that long thread ... where he was unable to respond to logical economic arguments that challenged his paradigm of growth .... It was so priceless I kept a copy or two of Eslake’s and Rosser’s exchanges.

Perhaps I can remind him who it was that was actually abusive…

“Pol Pot had strong views about the way in which his people ought to live, and how to make sure that they lived that way. He and his mates sought to create a society in which there was no capitalism, no markets, no trade, no individualism, and no technological progress. There were certainly no “unacceptable parties or candidates” in Pol Pot’s “Democratic Kampuchea” - I guess Ms Rosser would approve of that, too. No economic activity to speak of, so no pollution. All the regulation you could ask for. No problem with ‘over-population’, either.

So, Sister Number One, answer this question: how does “Rosserworld” differ from Pol Pot’s?
Posted by Saul Eslake on 09/03/07 at 12:56 PM”
NC

(6)

  “If past form is any guide, what we will now get from Ms Rosser is tedious argument over definitions, combined with some personal abuse. I don’t intend to get involved in either
Posted by Saul Eslake on 09/04/10 at 03:34 PM “

  Appears to me, “Eslake” !  that you have already involved yourself !  poorly ! and petty ! i must say.
                  d.d.