This is very funny. Hat Tip: Dim Post

Kudos to George Monbiot for telling the truth, as reported in the Guardian:

 The facts have changed, now we must change too. For the past 10 years an unlikely coalition of geologists, oil drillers, bankers, military strategists and environmentalists has been warning that peak oil – the decline of global supplies – is just around the corner. …

Some of us made vague predictions, others were more specific. In all cases we were wrong. In 1975 MK Hubbert, a geoscientist working for Shell who had correctly predicted the decline in US oil production, suggested that global supplies could peak in 1995. In 1997 the petroleum geologist Colin Campbell estimated that it would happen before 2010. In 2003 the geophysicist Kenneth Deffeyes said he was “99% confident” that peak oil would occur in 2004. In 2004, the Texas tycoon T Boone Pickens predicted that “never again will we pump more than 82m barrels” per day of liquid fuels. (Average daily supply in May 2012 was 91m.) In 2005 the investment banker Matthew Simmons maintained that “Saudi Arabia … cannot materially grow its oil production”. (Since then its output has risen from 9m barrels a day to 10m, and it has another 1.5m in spare capacity.)

Peak oil hasn’t happened, and it’s unlikely to happen for a very long time.

A report by the oil executive Leonardo Maugeri, published by Harvard University, provides compelling evidence that a new oil boom has begun. The constraints on oil supply over the past 10 years appear to have had more to do with money than geology. The low prices before 2003 had discouraged investors from developing difficult fields. The high prices of the past few years have changed that.

This is why it can be very dangerous to try and second guess these things. The environmental movement has a history of getting it wrong time after time, because they don’t understand how people respond to incentives.

Maugeri’s analysis of projects in 23 countries suggests that global oil supplies are likely to rise by a net 17m barrels per day (to 110m) by 2020. This, he says, is “the largest potential addition to the world’s oil supply capacity since the 1980s”. The investments required to make this boom happen depend on a long-term price of $70 a barrel – the current cost of Brent crude is $95. Money is now flooding into new oil: a trillion dollars has been spent in the past two years; a record $600bn is lined up for 2012.

As the price of oil and petrol rises, it will both lead to investment in alternative technologies and lead to greater drilling in previously unprofitable areas.

A J Park write at NZ Lawyer:

As discussed, Article 2.2 of the TBT says that technical regulations should not be more trade restrictive than necessary to “fulfil” a legitimate objective, and that international standards should be adopted except where they would be ineffective or inappropriate for achieving those goals. To minimise trade barriers, only the part of the standard that is necessary should be adopted.

Studies on whether plain packaging of tobacco products is effective in reducing smoking rates have shown mixed results. Evidence does show that plain packs are less attractive to smokers than branded packs, that plain packaging has negative connotations, and that health warnings become more noticeable in the absence of other marks. But does this mean it will result in fewer people smoking? The studies show smokers would be more likely to choose a branded pack than a plain pack, but is there evidence they would choose no pack over a plain pack?

A comprehensive review of 37 leading plain-packaging studies showed plain packaging reduced the appeal and attractiveness of cigarettes, and that consumers viewing plain packages were more likely to think about quitting (Moodie et al, Plain tobacco packaging: A systematic review, Public Health Research Consortium, 2012). However, the evidence as to whether that would lead to smokers actually quitting was not conclusive. As the authors noted, because plain packaging has not yet been introduced in any country, it has not been possible to evaluate the impact of the policy in practice.

Which makes me wonder again why we are proceeding, not on the basis of science but on hope.

The sensible thing to do would be to wait for results of Australia’s plain packaging regime.

An alternative would be to scientifically test the policy in New Zealand. Say introduce plain packaging in the South Island only, and see if South Island smoking rates change over time any differently to North Island ones.

Have embedded an interesting OIA passed onto me, about Police pay.

Shows that there are around 640 Police constables on over $80,000 a year, being around 10% of their numbers.

For Sergeants, around 40% are on over $90,000 and for Senior Sergeants around 80% are on over $90,000.

The numbers are interesting, but for one I think they are appropriate. Police officers have to put up with a lot of crap. Note the figures are base salary only.

Grainger Joshua Signed Reply

Normally just some lovely photos of a couple having a romantic holiday.

The problem is that Monsignor Fernando Maria Bargallo is a Roman Catholic Bishop. Or he was, having now resigned.

He’s in pretty good shape for a 57 year old. Personally I think it is far better than priests have sex with consenting adult women, than choir boys.

One News reports:

 Thousands of New Zealanders with retirement savings stuck in Australia face an even longer wait to bring their money back home. 

The Australian Government is yet to pass legislation allowing Kiwis who have worked across the ditch to access money saved under their compulsory superannuation scheme in New Zealand.

This is despite the New Zealand and Australian government signing a reciprocal superannuation agreement three years ago.

Returned ex-pat David Buckingham has been fighting politicians from both sides of the Tasman to access his superannuation funds. 

He said his funds are being eaten up by fees and wants to see the money put toward supporting his young family. 

“I’ve got a lot of super sitting in Australia and I worked hard over there and 9% of my income went into these funds,” he said. 

The Australian Superannuation scheme has been compulsory for the last 20 years, meaning any New Zealander who has worked there since the early 1990s is likely eligible for a pay-out.  

More than $16 billion of retirement savings are locked up in so-called lost super accounts in Australia, and a fair chunk of it belongs to Kiwis.

Finance Minister Bill English remains confident the Australian Government will pass the legislation next year, nearly four years after New Zealand passed similar legislation.

“There’s a lot of Kiwis who have actually got quite large superannuation balance and their ability to bring them back to New Zealand might make it more likely they will come back,” he said.

Ever since the Paul Keating days, I’ve never entirely trusted Australian Governments. Hopefully they will legislate as promised, but the delay is suspicious.

There has been a trend in recent years for journalists who actually did sit through an entire trial and heard all the evidence, to then give their opinion on the verdict. I actually think this is a good thing. It means you at least get the opinion of someone who is not basing it just on the few hundred words summary every day.

Martin VB from The Press did an excellent article on why he thought David Bain, not Robin, was the more likely killer of the Bain family. Yesterday Simon Bradwell from One News wrote on why he thought the verdict for Ewen Macdonald was the correct one:

 Ewen Macdonald is not guilty. 

In the eyes of the jury, and in mine.  …

But having sat in court for every day of the month-long hearing (bar one, out of sickness) I can say what evidence they didn’t consider, simply because it wasn’t presented. 

First, no witness to say they saw who shot Scott Guy in the early hours of 8 July 2012. 

No DNA evidence worth the candle; only possible traces (along with other people’s) on the farm shotgun that could have got there before or after the murder. 

No murder weapon; only the Crown claim that the farm shotgun could not be excluded as the weapon. Along with any other 12-gauge shotgun in the country. …

No forensic evidence. Not a labrador puppy hair, not a fingerprint, not a fibre. Even the dive boot evidence – meant to be a Crown trump card – was inconclusive. 

Making a case with no witness, no forensic evidence and no murder weapon is a tough call.

Increasingly, as the trial went on, no motive. As Ewen Macdonald himself pointed out during his police interview, if he was aggrieved at how little work Scott Guy did on the farm, what sense did it make to kill him? As a result, he was working harder than he ever had. 

I think though with respect Bradwell misses the point here. The intent was not to have Scott Guy work longer hours, but to have it leave the farm (which he admitted to). He was worried Scott would try and inherit the farm and there would be no place for him. Plus he resented the equal profit sharing for what he saw as unequal work.

But a motive by itself is not sufficient.

Famously, his composure did break as his wife Anna described their idyllic life before the murder. I was sitting two metres away, close enough that I could have passed him a box of tissues, as he sobbed. There is no doubt in my mind that his distress was genuine. 

His distress can be genuine but have nothing to do with innocence.

Greg King, Ewen Macdonald’s ebullient lawyer, carried himself with a swagger and a smile that extended to court staff, reporters, witnesses and the public. 

He told me two weeks into the trial that he was supremely confident. The conversation was off the record but he won’t mind me repeating it now that he’s a winner. 

He told me the Crown’s case was “non-existent” and he had never been more confident of an acquittal. 

That was evident throughout the trial, as he turned Crown witness after witness to his advantage, dismantling and raising doubts about their evidence. 

It’s hard to imagine anyone who enjoys the audience as much as Greg King. 

I remarked on Twitter yesterday that if I ever kill someone, I’m so hiring Greg as my lawyer 🙂

As momentum built during the trial, it was not unusual to find 100 people waiting for seats in the public gallery. I asked several what the appeal was; most agreed that it was the “family feud” aspect of the case. 

All murders are a tragedy for the family, but this one perhaps more than most. Bryan Guy was reserved with his choice of words yesterday, and I suspect this was due to the fact that Macdonald is the father of some of his grandchildren. They will have the unconditional love for a father that most children have, and the Guy family will have the awful job of coming to grips with their own loss and grief, but also looking after the Macdonald kids as well as they can. They seem to be have that amazing Kiwi rural resilience, but this is the most testing of times.

Several compared the case to a Shakespearean plot. It was an analogy that’s easy to understand. The wise ruler trying to keep the peace between the two warring heirs. 

Even the Crown used the term the “flaw of fairness” in Bryan Guy; that in trying to treat both men equally a tragic situation developed. 

Ewen Macdonald remains in custody. So he probably will for some time, as he pays the price for the crimes of arson, vandalism and poaching that he’s admitted committing. 

But whatever else he may be, he will never carry the tag of murderer. And that, to my mind, is entirely correct. Justice has been served.

In terms of the principle that no person should be convicted unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt – I agree.

However I would venture to say that I don’t think we are ever likely to see someone else charged with the killing.

Jordan Williams asked on Twitter yesterday if we should go down the Scotland route and have three verdicts available – guilty, not proven and not guilty.

I think this is worth considering. It isa fact that many people found not guilty are still assumed by many of the public to have done the crime. If the jury could return both a not proven and a not guilty verdict (both being acquittals), then those found not guilty would have less suspicion on them, and effectively have their names cleared – rather than just be found not criminally responsible. This is how the verdicts came about according to Wikipedia:

Historically, the two verdicts available to Scots juries were that the case had been “proven” or “not proven”. However in a dramatic case in 1728 the jury asserted “its ancient right” to bring in a “not guilty” verdict even when the facts of the case were proven (see jury nullification). As the “not guilty” verdict gained wide acceptance amongst Scots juries, Scots began to use “not guilty” in cases where the jury felt the “not proven” verdict did not adequately express the innocence of the defendant. 

There are arguments against it also, but a debate worth having. I am sure the Kiwiblog plethora of defence lawyers will tell me why I am wrong 🙂 I did like this reference to it:

In popular parlance, this verdict is sometimes jokingly referred to as “not guilty and don’t do it again”

Heh.

Sunset Reflection From Lake Matheson, Westland New Zealand

Welcome to the Wednesday Wallpaper – your midweek, scenic seque towards Chthoniid‘s wonderful Friday Photo.

Each week Sarah or I will be sharing an image from our New Zealand photography portfolio.  Each photo will be available for free download as a high resolution (2048px) wallpaper image – suitable for the new iPad or your PC desktop.

First up is Lake Matheson at sunset, truly one of New Zealand’s most stunning vistas.  This image was made from Reflection Island on the Matheson walkway on a summer’s evening.  The afternoon breeze dropped off, as it often does, right on sunset revealing this mirror reflection of the Southern Alps.

You can download the wallpaper here

Thanks to David for this opportunity to share a little of our country’s beauty with the Kiwiblog audience. Enjoy!

Cheers – Todd Sisson

The Fitness NZ gym promo is back.

There are over half a million dollars of gym memberships available at between 40-70% subsidy, at around 100 facilities around NZ.  It’s first in first served.

Kiwiblog readers can get an additional 10% discount if you put in the special code “kiwiblog” so it’s in effect a 50-80% discount for Kiwiblog readers.

For example a 12 month membership at Cityfitness Thorndon is normally $1,305. Kiwiblog readers can get this for just $587, saving $718.

A reminder it’s for first time gym users only (or those that haven’t been a member in the last 12 months).

No taxpayer money is used with this initiative. It is 100% private sector funded. A far better way to keep or stay fit than nanny state measures.

This is the first time that I’ve actually freaked out over an earthquake. Being on the 10th floor, I felt it badly. Made it down 10 flights of steps in around 40 seconds. The first shake had me at my door frame. Then there was a pause and I had a gut feeling it may shake again so headed for the stairs. Just as I got there, then an even bigger shake and decided it was safer to get out, than head back in.

Hope those near Opunake are fine. Thank goodness it was 250 km deep. A shallow quake could have been very nasty.

One upside. I discovered an earthquake is a very good cure for the flu. My aching muscles and lethargy disappeared instantly as I fled the building!

David Allanson died unexpectedly this morning. David had worked at Parliament for 23 years as a security guard. As with many of the security team, he was a first class person who was always friendly and interesting to talk to.

Despite me having left the place eight years ago, Dave always greeted me warmly when I visited and made me feel like I had never left. He was a lovely guy.

My condolences go out to his family, and to his colleagues and friends.  He will be missed by many.

The jury has found Ewen Macdonald not guilty of the murder of Scott Guy, his brother-in-law.

I am not surprised with the verdict, as the prosecution was circumstantial and there was no direct proof.

Having said that, my view is that on balance of probabilities Macdonald probably did it. Not guilty just means not guilty beyond reasonable doubt. The timing of the killing at 5 am makes it incredibly unlikely to be a random killing, and Macdonald’s history of criminal acts against Guy was persuasive, but not obviously beyond reasonable doubt.

Macdonald has avoided a life sentence. But I suspect he will not be attending any Christmas parties with the Guy family in the future.

My thoughts go out especially to the Guy family. It must be awful for them, not to have a conclusion to Scott’s murder.

Hat Tip: Andrew Bolt.

It will be interesting to see what it is in 20 more years. China and India will continue to grow, Europe will decline steeply and US moderately.

Curia’s Polling Newsletter – Issue 58, June 2012

 May saw just five political polls published – two Roy Morgan polls a 3 News Reid Research poll, a Herald Digipoll and a Herald on Sunday Key Research poll.

The average of the public polls has National 15% ahead of Labour, up slightly from 14% in May. The centre-right has 61 out of 121 seats on the June average, so could govern without the Maori Party.

Australia has the ALP 10% to 13% behind the coalition.

In the United States Barack Obama is 2% ahead of Mitt Romney in the polls, and projected to also be ahead in likely electoral college votes. However his re-election chances on the Intrade market remains at 55%.

The Republicans remained favoured to keep control in the House (78%) and gain a majority in the Senate (56%).

In the UK the Conservatives are 10% behind Labour.

In Canada the Conservatives are now 2% behind the NDP, whom are projected to form a minority Government if there was an election today.

The normal two tables are provided comparing the country direction sentiment and head of government approval sentiment for the five countries. New Zealand continues to stand out in both.

We also carry details of polls in New Zealand on alcohol minimum pricing, asset sales, alcohol purchase age, Govt management of economy, league tables, same sex adoption, same sex marriage, plus the normal business and consumer confidence polls.

This newsletter is normally only available by e-mail.  If you would like to receive future issues, go to http://listserver.actrix.co.nz/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/polling-newsletter to subscribe yourself.

Andrew Baker from CIS writes:

 One of government’s favourite ways to solve a problem is to throw money at it.  But what if the problem is a think tank or public policy institute?  The true value of a think tank is that they can say what they think – whether to the benefit or detriment to the government of the day.  When the government starts throwing money at think tanks, there is a real danger that they undermine their capacity to critique the government effectively and make a positive contribution to civil society.

I agree.

Unlike the CIS, many think tanks and university-aligned public policy institutes receive financial assistance from the Government.  This often takes the form of endowments, donations, corporate memberships or grants.  The latest example is the Gillard government’s $7 million contribution to refurbish the building that will house the Labor-aligned Whitlam Institute, the Whitlam Prime Ministerial Library and an art gallery.

Other examples include a $112 million contribution towards the Australian National Institute for Public Policy in 2010; the $30 million that the Brumby and Rudd governments gave to establish the Melbourne based Grattan Institute; the Centre for Social Impact’s $12.5 million endowment; the $7 million for the University of South Australia to establish the International Centre for Muslim and non-Muslim Understanding ‘under the leadership of former Prime Minister, the Hon Bob Hawke AC’; and the Howard Government’s $25 million endowment of the United States Studies Centre at the University of Sydney.

That is a huge amount of money being spent.

A recent report by the Institute of Economic Affairs in the UK illustrated this point well when it found that thousands of politically active charities only survived because of taxpayer support.  Government intervention in the marketplace of ideas distorts public debate and the organic growth of civil society.  Allowing ‘zombie’ ideas without popular private support to live on long after they are declared dead by the marketplace is not in the public interest.

For the last 36 years the CIS has relied on philanthropy, private donations and individual memberships to fund our research and advocacy for small government and free markets. This makes the CIS more productive and efficient, and we are more able to say what we think is right than similar organisations that take taxpayer money.  Only without financial assistance from the government can a think tank be truly independent.

It is staggering how many lobby groups are effectively funded by the Government.

Thomas Lumley at Stats Chat blogs:

League tables work well in sports.  The way the competition is defined means that ‘games won’ really is the dominant factor in ordering teams,  it matters who is at the top, and people don’t try to use the table for inappropriate purposes such as deciding which team to support.  For schools and hospitals, not so much.

The main problems with league tables for schools (as proposed in NZ) or hospitals (as implemented in the UK) are, first, that a ranking requires you to choose a way of collapsing multidimensional information into a rank, and second, that there is usually massive uncertainty in the ranking, which is hard to convey.   There doesn’t have to be one school in NZ that is better than all the others, but there does have to be one school at the top of the table.  …

This isn’t to say that school performance data shouldn’t be used.  Reporting back to schools how they are doing, and how it compares to other similar schools, is valuable.  …

While it’s easy to see why teachers might be suspicious of the government’s intentions, the rationale given by John Key for exploring some form of official league table is sensible.  It’s definitely better not to have a simple ranking, and it might arguably be better not to have a set of official comparative reports, but the data are available under the Official Information Act.  The media may currently be shocked and appalled at the idea of league tables, but does anyone really believe this would stop a plague of incomplete, badly-analyzed, sensationally-reported exposés of “New Zealand’s Worst Schools!!”?

The data that I think would be most valuable is the “value add” over time for each school, moderatd by decile.

Isaac Davidson at NZ Herald reports:

Corrections Minister Anne Tolley says a smoking ban in prisons has drastically reduced fire-related incidents and dangerous activities, while improving air quality for inmates.

Mrs Tolley said safety in prisons had improved since lighters and matches had been taken from inmates a year ago.

Officials said fire-related incidents fell from 76 in 2010/11 to 21 in 2011/12.

The smoking ban was introduced in July last year after a 12-month campaign to encourage inmates to quit.

“It has also removed the opportunity for prisoners to use lighters to melt plastic into dangerous weapons,” Mrs Tolley said.

She said a study of Auckland Prison found air quality had improved significantly and fewer respiratory illnesses had been reported.

“Despite scaremongering before its introduction, the smoking ban has been a real success. Staff and prisoners will continue to be offered nicotine replacement therapy, as part of a wider plan to treat offenders with addictions.”

I recall the predictions of riots!

Toby Manhire blogs at The Listener:

John Key has dismissed the Green party call for an inquiry into the raid on Kim Dotcom’s mansion by saying that the Greens call for an inquiry on virtually everything.

“It’s sort of the boy who cried wolf a few too many times I think,” the prime minister said on TVNZ Breakfast this morning.

Is he right?

Here are some of the things Green MPs have demanded independent inquiries into (some have been successful) over the last 18 months.

The Dotcom Mansion raid.

Australian shipments of uranium passing through NZ ports.

The price of milk.

Hydraulic fracturing (successful).

The death of SAS solider Leon Smith in Afghanistan.

SAS prison transfers in Afghanistan.

Charter schools.

South Canterbury Finance affair.

The police case against Urewera Four.

Leak of Ports of Auckland worker’s details.

Genetic experiments on animals.

ACC claims management.

ACC conflicts of interest.

The Sky City convention centre negotiations.

Alleged war crimes in Sri Lanka in 2009.

The Rena accident and oil spill response.

NZ’s dependence on imported oil.

Auckland transport on World Cup opening night.

Huawei’s involvement in ultra-fast broadband.

Good to see a journalist doing research to substantiate a claim. That is indeed a fair number of inquiries demanded.

The sad thing is that the Greens will ignore the results of an inquiry, if it clashes with their beliefs. Take for example the Royal Commission on Genetic Engineering.

Charles Chauvel announced:

 Labour is seeking to toughen up the Government’s proposed alcohol law reform by proposing amendments to allow for minimum prices to be set and to give more clout to local government when licensing decisions are made.

I blogged last November that Labour’s policy is to have a minimum price of $2 per standard drink.

This power, if properly exercised, will put an end to $6 bottles of wine being sold in supermarkets. 

It will put an end to not just $6 bottles of wine, but $10 ones, $12 ones and $15 ones. Labour would make it illegal for a bottle of wine to be sold for less than $16.

I prefer measures that target problem drinkers, not those who sock hundreds of thousands of responsible drinkers also.

On the same basis as opposition stats, I’ve done stats for the 29 Ministers we had in full or part in the first half of 2012.

These are not really performance stats, because the number of releases you do and stories that mention you is mainly dependent on their portfolios. And the number of written PQs they have to answer is about how much they get targeted by the opposition.

So really these are more about profile. As always, they are quantitative and qualitative. As an example the third most mentioned Minister has been Hekia Parata, but of course that wasn’t exactly positive publicity.

The Minister who put out the most press releases was in fact Tariana Turia. The PM was 2nd and Pita Sharples third. So Maori Party Ministers trying hard to be in the news.  Tony Ryall was 4th and Bill English 5th.

John Banks is the Minister who has done the least number of releases, followed by Nick Smith (because he was only a Minister for half the time period).

In terms of media stories, no surprise that John Key is king with a staggering 2,720 stories in six months. Next back was Gerry Brownlee, Hekia Parata, Bill English and Judith Collins.  All front benchers.

The Minister who has been asked the most written parliamentary questions is Hekia Parata, followed by Steven Joyce, Jonathan Coleman, Gerry Brownlee and John Key.

On the weighted averaged, the highest profile and busiest Minister is no surprise John Key, followed by Gerry Brownlee, Hekia Parata, Bill English and Judith Collins.

Now as I said, sometimes it can be a good thing not to be in the media – especially if you have uncontroversial portfolios.

Debating fans in Wellington have a treat in July. The 2012 Australs are on from Sunday 8 July to Monday 16 July, with sponsorship from Russell McVeagh.

The Australs are the second largest debating tournament in the world, and you’ll see some of the world’s best performing.

The schedule is:

• Round 1 – Tues 10 July, 0930 – 1200 (VUW)
• Round 2 – Tues 10 July 1400 – 1630 (VUW)
• Round 3 – Tues 10 July 1700 – 1900 (VUW)
• Round 4 – Wed 11 July 0930 – 1200 (VUW)
• Round 5 – Wed 11 July 1400 – 1630 (VUW)
• Round 6 – Wed 11 July 1700 – 1930 (VUW)
• Test (fun) debate – Wed 10 July 2000 – 2200 (Macs Brewery)
• Round 7 – Thu 12 July 0930 – 1200 (VUW)
• Women’s Forum – Thu 12 July 1200 – 1330 (VUW)
• Round 8 – Thu 12 July 1400 – 1630 (VUW)
• Women’s Night – Fri 13 July 1800 – 2100 (Grand Hall, Prlt)
• Octofinals – Sat 14 July 1030 – 1200 (VUW)
• ESL Semi-finals – Sat 14 July 1300 – 1500 (VUW)
• Quarter-finals – Sat 14 July 1500 – 1700 (VUW)
• Semi-finals – Sun 15 July 1030 – 1230 (Old St Pauls and Legislative Chamber, Prlt)
• ESL Final – Sun 15 July 1330 – 1500 (Old St Pauls)
• Grand Final Sun 15 July 1800 – 2100 (Paramount Theatre)

I’ll blog some of the topics, as they get finalised. They are usually very topical, and you get better debating of the issues that you get in Parliament.

The semi-finals and finals especially should be great spectacles.

Philip Booth blogs at the IEA:

The UNDP held a forum this week entitled: ‘Beyond GDP: Measuring the Future We Want’. What they actually mean, of course, is ‘measuring the future the UN wants’. The best way to ensure that we get the future we (the people) want is to have a free market, governed under the rule of law, with good protection for property rights (including, where appropriate, property rights for environmental goods). The seven billion people in the world all want a rather different future from each other. We can only achieve those different aspirations if we are free.

That is not to say that an argument cannot be made for the subsidisation of, for example, education and health care for the poor and for other forms of assistance through government. However, the success of the human race as a whole cannot and should not be measured by some kind of unified aggregate index.

Specifically, Helen Clark has proposed that the UN develop an index that combines: ‘Equity, dignity, happiness, sustainability’ arguing that ‘these are all fundamental to our lives but absent in the GDP.’ Just because something is fundamental to our lives does not mean that we need to measure it and combine it with other variables into a single index measure. Relationships are fundamental to our lives, but do we need to measure the success of the relationships of seven billion people and combine that measure with other data into some kind of aggregate index? Indeed, it is interesting that the best conditions for GDP growth in the history of the UK were created before we even started measuring GDP.

It is just about possible, nevertheless, to make a coherent case for measuring GDP. GDP does, at least, make a reasonably rigorous allowance for trade-offs that different people make in their everyday lives. If I give up £1 worth of apples to buy £1 worth of oranges and Mark Littlewood does the opposite, it can (within certain bounds of reasonableness) be said that we both have £1 of utility from the transaction. Austrian arguments can certainly be made regarding the undesirability of aggregating data and the fact that all transactions involve consumer surplus, but there is some reasonableness and consistency there.

We can also look at other statistics such as working hours, travel time, leisure time, carbon footprint (if it is thought necessary), and so on, to obtain a more comprehensive picture if we wish. However, once we try to produce an aggregate index of everything that is important, the index will lose all meaning. How can we trade off a small increase in reported happiness for somebody in Zambia for an extra £500 a year of national income per head in New Zealand? How can we trade off a tiny change in the Gini coefficient in Rwanda with a small change in the stability of marriages in India, and so on? These things have completely different values to different people.

Even trying to track one of these datasets is problematic. As the IEA’s monographs on happiness economics showed, well-being measures are suspect. There is no clear indication of a relationship between reported well-being and almost any other reasonable indicator of social progress.

Overall, we have the biggest folly imaginable: the body that some would desire to be a world government attempting to measure in a single index number everything that matters to everybody.

GDP does record economic activity only, and that is not everything – absolutely. But trying to come up with one master index will never work, because as the IEA states, we all value different things.