Policy 'guard rails' for Australian real income?

Tricky. In practice:

• the inflation railway line 'gauge' is between 2-3% over the cycle (whatever that is);
• this works as a broad price constraint, giving us an inflation target for policy to aim at;
• per capita real income railway lines could follow actual real economic outcomes (up or down);
• following these means affordable real incomes as enterprise/industry performance varies;
• a wide 'guard rail' gauge around this 'track' allows outcomes to bounce around even more;
• using the railway analogy, it results in 'hunting' of the economy between track gauge limits;
• this extra volatility makes policy control difficult (as now) and widens the track gauge itself;
• it might damage the railway rolling stock and wheels (the economy).

Will a transition path be needed? As the Irish person said to the traveller asking directions to Dublin:

If you want to get to Dublin, I wouldn't start from here.

Of course not. But we have to. As a known starting point, it's all we've got.

We also need to know – and head towards – an agreed sustainable real national income Dublin.

Can we agree on real income 'guard rails'? Just more 'virtue signalling' on the never-never?

Too many hands in too many cookie jars? Especially government budget cookie jars? In short:

Bugger the cake, what about my slice?

Can you persuade politicians to accept direct constraints on their pork-barrel profligacy? I doubt it. In the detail of vote-trawling, forget it. As an overall constraint, less improbable? Still a long shot.

Continue making big policy mistakes, ultimately forcing (more painful) adjustment, anyway? Likely.

There are plenty of overseas lessons from which we can learn vicariously. If we want to.