The juxtaposition of ideas often throws up new meaning.
Eras collided in the statements thrown around in two consecutive interviews on the ABC's Inside Business.
The program kicked off with Peter Brecht, CEO of a new company called Valemus that's being floated by German construction giant named Bilfinger Berger.
Mr Brecht was doing a good job talking up the prospectus launch as a good investment in a rotten economic climate etc...blaa..blah.
Seemingly ordinary and uncontroversial, this statement struck me between the eyes:
It's an old mantra which always proved right - it's accepted wisdom that in financial crisis people buy blue chip stock and real estate.
I on the other hand dream of a country that wants to invest in new industries and new technology that may lead us to a bright and prosperous GREEN future.
Anyway, he went on to say that they believe this accepted wisdom (as evidenced by the buying trends) put Valemus "in the sweet spot".
Basically it sounded like caveman talk to me like he was saying: "What risk? Australia has "aging infrastructure" and needs big strong construction and resource companies to stroke economy."
Well - it is Australia's brown paper bag isn't it? This is all "a given" isn't it? Sure we need roads, ports and whatever else I hear Kevin Rudd talking about. One kind of infrastructure he obviously leaves off his list is digital infrastructure because Australians just don't understand it and don't vote for it. Right?
So the Rudd Government wants a big slice of pie from the mining sector cause that's where the money is.
They want to scoop 40 percent off the top of super profits to get it up - the new infrastructure I mean.
The Government says we need to pay to (a) pay off the debt and (b) build infrastructure.
A question arises here: How come our infrastructure is aging?
It's a question that seems pertinent.
The Opposition says we had the money in the bank before Rudd spent it staving off the GFC.
But the infrastructure didn't just age in the past three years - since the Rudd Government was elected - did it?
No I'd say that this problem goes back at least 25 years - that's a few governments coming and going of different persuasions.
If the Howard Government had spent all that money on infrastructure maybe the Coalition would still be in power and maybe we'd have a stronger economy.
Bricks and mortar - resources and growth.
"Sweet spot". That's how it goes right?
Or is it? Is it the entire story? The next interview was about climate change.
Former Blair Government advisor Nick Rowley didn't talk about bricks and mortar.
He thinks climate change isn't even an environmental problem at all.
"We've got an extremely hard problem here, it's not an easy problem, it's not an environmental policy problem, it's a fundamental policy problem about the way in which we run our economy, " Rowley said.
He's questioning accepted wisdoms.
But this is only my opinion. What do you think?
Nothing will change as long as people hold on tight to those "aging" dreams.