>(As a point, have you noticed how well many of the nations that lost, say, WWII have done economically thereafter? It's difficult to generalise but there are many instances from history where losers rise victorious from the ashes. It can be argued the Ancient Greeks benefited from Rome's takeover, in more modern times look at Japan's and Germany's prosperity. At war's end who'd have ever thought a German manufacturer would get own a large part of the company that made the amazing British Spitfire or that Germany would become Europe's biggest economy?)

Yep. James mays "The Peoples Car" goes into depth on this a few times. Comparing the economics of cars and car owners between winners and losers of WW2.

>For instance, take the current debate in Australia over nuclear power, it has become politically polarised to the extent that protagonists on both sides have upped the ante to a point where logical debate is lost in the noise. Both sides and the Country are losers.

Its terrible. We have been working towards good pro nuclear positions in this country for decades, and Dutton comes along and destroys them all with his crazy SMR proposal. And now, anyone who suggests that nuclear can be a viable alternative is branded the same as Dutton.

>Thus, Australia will only decide conclusively which technology it's going to follow long after the rest of the world has come to a definitive conclusion. Either way, the Country will have left the ball too late to catch, by then it'll be too late to develop sufficiently advanced tech to compete competitively. Australia has a long history in this regard, it seems incapable of overcoming this handicap. (BTW, this has little or nothing to do with the ingenuity or inventiveness of its citizens.)

Theres an old story that Mad Max had to become popular in the united states before Australians would go and watch it.

>Many argue that Australia has only a small population thus cannot complete with larger nations. To that I'd argue poppycock—look at Finland with Nokia and the Netherlands with ASML—the most advanced manufacturer of UV lithography in the world.

Australian government has this weird paralysis where they never left the colonial mindset. The question is not what should Australia do, its what would the UK or the USA prefer australia do.

>Rousseau in his Social Contract long ago defined what he called the 'national will'. Those countries I've mentioned have had and still have the national will to achieve those things whereas Australia does not.

Australia had a national will for like 12 non consecutive weeks in the 1920s.

>This is not a political statement but a fact based on observation. Why Australia prefers to dig minerals out of the ground and sell them unprocessed abroad or why it sells gas/LPG internationally thus upping its local consumption price (effectively to above parity) and significantly disadvantaging its own citizens—not to mention making local availability a major problem—is the 64-million dollar question. It's bizarre that the Oz population isn't up in arms screaming.

Ditto Uranium, Lithium etc. Its insane,

>Powerless, I only watch such debates in utter frustration. Yep.