Bombs or bridges?

Billions of dollars spent on armaments would be more productively spent on infrastructure. This would be a less wasteful and much more certain way to maintain Australia's supposed global 'middle power' status (Is that a 'status'? Or is it a bunch of diplomats exercising their vowels?). Our balance of payments plunged back into the red this month because—among other reasons—we cannot ship the minerals and coal ordered by our customers on time and in the volumes required. Our export performance—not to mention our national productivity—is held back by decades of neglect of essential infrastructure. But the Prime Minister, according to reports, wants to give priority to keeping up with an arms race.

Some analysts have described this as a "catching up" exercise, suggesting more investment would be necessary. Mr Rudd appears to agree.
"For the government, a major priority is to ensure we have enough naval capabilities in the future, enough naval assets, enough naval performance, and therefore enough funding put aside to invest in that, long term," he said.
Mr Rudd also insisted in his speech that Australia, which is a close ally of the United States, wanted to maintain its status as a global "middle power".  [From BBC NEWS | Australia fears Asian arms race]

Tags for this entry: policy rudd infrastructure