all good but: 'I’ve returned to the pages of the Australian Financial Review, after a very long absence' - heed the advice of the Scots/Shakespeare when they say: ''He who sups with the Devil should have a long spoon"
I wrote for the Fin for 20 years, and would go back if I got the chance. It's right wing, but mostly plays things straight, and you reach an audience I can't get at The Guardian, Crikey etc. I got the article pitched by the Climate Media Centre. I told them not to try The Australian, so I have drawn a line to my own satisfaction.
Fantastic - if you're willing to compromise why not come back to X - still there & still part of the debate are The Australia Institute, Richard Denniss, whom I respect immensely (& you of course), Frank Bongiorno, Chris Wallace, Bernard Keane, David Pocock, Ross Gittins, Greg Jericho, Polly Hemming, Albanese, Plibersek, Andrew Leigh, Rex Patrick etc etc & a few others you can spar with.
On the topic of picking winners, what did you make of the billion-odd dollars being thrown at that quantum computer company?
I think it’s an extremely high-risk bet. Even if the technology can be made to work, the evidence that they will be practically useful is equivocal at best from what I’ve been able to glean.
I would go further and suggest the bet is being placed mostly because of the one known useful application - codebreaking - is one that gets people with security clearances very excited.
I think we could have done a lot better just giving the money to the ARC and NHMRC (for all of those organisations’ pathologies).
When I got my first Federation Fellowship in 2003, one of the other recipients was a rising star named Michael Nielsen, who worked on quantum computing. But he left the research lab to become a science communicator. He still has interesting things to say. but I have the impression that applications justifying billion dollar investments are a long way off.
I'm a hopeless neoliberal, but I'll try to make this a real question, not snark.
Who is doing the picking here and what does "pick" consist of? Would the un-picked market invest in just anything requiring hi-vis vests? You make lithium mining and processing sold like a solid business opportunity. Why does it need the PM to pick it?
all good but: 'I’ve returned to the pages of the Australian Financial Review, after a very long absence' - heed the advice of the Scots/Shakespeare when they say: ''He who sups with the Devil should have a long spoon"
I wrote for the Fin for 20 years, and would go back if I got the chance. It's right wing, but mostly plays things straight, and you reach an audience I can't get at The Guardian, Crikey etc. I got the article pitched by the Climate Media Centre. I told them not to try The Australian, so I have drawn a line to my own satisfaction.
Fantastic - if you're willing to compromise why not come back to X - still there & still part of the debate are The Australia Institute, Richard Denniss, whom I respect immensely (& you of course), Frank Bongiorno, Chris Wallace, Bernard Keane, David Pocock, Ross Gittins, Greg Jericho, Polly Hemming, Albanese, Plibersek, Andrew Leigh, Rex Patrick etc etc & a few others you can spar with.
As Billy Hughes said of the Country Party, you have to draw a line somewhere
On the topic of picking winners, what did you make of the billion-odd dollars being thrown at that quantum computer company?
I think it’s an extremely high-risk bet. Even if the technology can be made to work, the evidence that they will be practically useful is equivocal at best from what I’ve been able to glean.
I would go further and suggest the bet is being placed mostly because of the one known useful application - codebreaking - is one that gets people with security clearances very excited.
I think we could have done a lot better just giving the money to the ARC and NHMRC (for all of those organisations’ pathologies).
When I got my first Federation Fellowship in 2003, one of the other recipients was a rising star named Michael Nielsen, who worked on quantum computing. But he left the research lab to become a science communicator. He still has interesting things to say. but I have the impression that applications justifying billion dollar investments are a long way off.
John Was that article finished ? I think there are parts of it missing .
I'll check. I cut and pasted from a PDF
I always like the economic complexity index as a way to highlight areas to move into. Harvard has a good website highlighting it.
https://atlas.cid.harvard.edu/countries/14
Try the start exploring function it gives product areas to move into and strategies/targets to improve complexity.
If you ever need to write anything up re econ complexity and implications thats a decent place to go more in depth
I'm a hopeless neoliberal, but I'll try to make this a real question, not snark.
Who is doing the picking here and what does "pick" consist of? Would the un-picked market invest in just anything requiring hi-vis vests? You make lithium mining and processing sold like a solid business opportunity. Why does it need the PM to pick it?
The cheapest thing is almost certainly to ship the ore to China, and let them do the processing. That's where the market was pushing us.
Professor, I'm curious to know what opinions you have (or have already published) about Ross Garnaut's Superpower book and general concept.
My piece is along the same general lines.