The National Forum   Donate   Your Account   On Line Opinion   Forum   Blogs   Polling   About   
The Forum - On Line Opinion's article discussion area



Syndicate
RSS/XML


RSS 2.0

Main Articles General

Sign In      Register

The Forum > Article Comments > Rudd continues to struggle with economics > Comments

Rudd continues to struggle with economics : Comments

By Mikayla Novak, published 13/10/2011

It is fiscally profligate politicians, not markets, that need to be brought to heel.

  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All
Woah there nelly! Way to put words in someone's mouth! You really think Rudd meant all that from that one little statement?

And maybe julie's own IPA could take a bit of responsibility of the market price drop after the carbon tax announcement. After all, it was organizations like hers, together with news ltd and the coalition, who were spreading disinformation and scaremongering spin about the tax and climate change.

And last I looked, the stimulus package worked. We avoided recession and have the 3rd lowest public debt as % of GDP in the OECD. As well as enviably low unemployment.

Budget surplus vs recession? it's a no-brainer, a lesson learned from the old orthodox thinking Julie is espousing which exaserbated the severity of the Great Depression. Julie either deliberately ignores this to put her spin on this, or has no basic economic understanding herself.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 13 October 2011 8:59:27 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
" After all, it was organizations like hers, together with news ltd and the coalition, who were spreading disinformation and scaremongering spin about the tax and climate change. "

So everyone else in the world was so stupid they thought that taxing every aspect of production adversely affects capital values?

"And last I looked, the stimulus package worked."

This is from the Keynesian "printing money makes us all rich" school of thought. So the pink batts fiasco, and the BER boondoggle actually made us economically better off? This is wonderful news. Why don't blow up a few big cities? - that should really make us wealthy.

Trashcanman exhibits the looking-through-the-wrong-end-of-the-telescope theory of economics - government as the horn of plenty. This ignores the fundamental fact that everything the coercive sector spends, it first gets by confiscating it from the productive sector.
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 13 October 2011 11:10:00 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
You can't get over it can you. Even as those people who routed the system are put on trial, and money recovered. This doesn't count, you only see what you want to. Just more rhetoric from the coalition of can't be informed.
Posted by 579, Thursday, 13 October 2011 11:33:34 AM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
High dollar, low inflation. I don't think printing money is relevant, Peter.
Most of the stimulus package was funded by issuing bonds, not printing money.

And lo and behold, Aussie dollar jumped above parity again after the carbon tax passed through the lower house. Seems investors don't share your dire predictions for the economy.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 13 October 2011 12:34:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"It shows that Kevin Rudd hasn't learned the basic economic lesson that economic growth, be it at a national or global level, can only be led from the front by a private sector unencumbered by the unsustainable debts, uncompetitive tax regimes and onerous regulations of big governments."

Well how about this Julie, economic growth, be it at a national or global level cannot be sustained on a finite resourced planet. We are at the limits to growth, the evidence is everywhere.

You cannot sustain economic growth, no matter what, without cheap energy.

It does not matter what Rudd, Gillard, Swan, Abbott or any other politician spruiks, global growth is over, too much debt, too much damage to the environment, too many people, unsustainable energy use, the list is endless.

Perhaps your esteemed 'think tank' could do some serious and unbiased research on the links between energy and the economy.

Until you and people who support your starry ideals realise we cannot keep growing, whether its people, GDP, energy, pollution, environmental degradation etc, current problems will only grow and continue to get worse.

Wait till China hits the wall, its in the process of doing this as we speak, then you will really see a drop in the markets, scratch your heads and wonder how did that happen. Get real.
Posted by Geoff of Perth, Thursday, 13 October 2011 1:12:57 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Thank you for your contribution Julie .

The bit I don't understand is why you had to write it ?

The malaise we are all in is called Debt ie We are Broke .

Stupidity navigated us to where we are .

I particularly see red lights when the Economics Pundit insists that selling Bonds "is not" Borrowing money ?
So where did the money come from ?
The answer could be the Bondee dumped his Qantas Shares ,BHP shares etc.
So now that money is out of circulation buried in a vortex of Debt where it will never earn a buck.

We can't do without Carbon and we sure would be better off without Debt as we are now finding out.
Posted by Garum Masala, Thursday, 13 October 2011 1:26:23 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Garum masalah,

We have the 3rd lowest government debt in he OECD at about 26%GDP. Most developed nations are well over 50%, some are pushing 200%. Put things in perspective and you'll see our government debt is minuscule and quite manageable. Most young home-owners would love to have such a low personal debt burden.

And no-one said selling bonds is not borrowing money. That's an oxymoron.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 13 October 2011 1:38:27 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"And lo and behold, Aussie dollar jumped above parity again after the carbon tax passed through the lower house. Seems investors don't share your dire predictions for the economy."

Post hoc ergo propter hoc. Society isn't a test tube of chemical compounds, with you the scientist.

"Most of the stimulus package was funded by issuing bonds, not printing money."

So now debt is the font of all wealth? Wheeee! This economic management stuff is easy! This is great news. There's obviously no reason why government debt should not be 50 percent of GDP, right? Hell, why not make it 1000?

But come on. Are you seriously suggesting that the pink batts and BER fiascos *increased* net wealth in Australia?
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 13 October 2011 2:13:32 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Peter,

Do you really think the pink bats and BER issues are symptoms of anything new and unique to the current government? Perhaps you've only been taking notice recently but commercial operators have been abusing government funded programs for decades. I remember 7-8 years ago a company charged the government $200,000 to erect boom gates at each side of the West gate bridge. It's a symptom of pre-existing systemic deficiencies in the bureaucratic processes which have allowed construction companies, consultants etc to be taking advantage since day dot.

The only reason these issues all got dragged up is because there was little else to criticize.
Posted by TrashcanMan, Thursday, 13 October 2011 2:28:08 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Most Greeks I know and did business with were very astute Business People and incredible workers for me it beggers belief that their Country is Broke .
T.C.Man if we follow the Greek example , and we seem to be doing just that why won't we arrive at the same destination . Are you going to tell me that WE are a lot smarter than the Greeks . In your first post you indicated that selling Bonds was not Debt have you changed your mind?
Posted by Garum Masala, Thursday, 13 October 2011 2:56:15 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
TrashcanMan, the only part of Rudd’s response to the GFC which might have had merit was the initial $950 per household handout. Prior to that handout, I pointed out in The Australian that counter-cyclical spending had never worked, in any country, in any era. In all cases, as in Rudd’s, the spending has peaked, and long continued, after the recovery has begun; it has been wasteful expenditure rather than addressing issues such as critical infrastructure needs which have longer-term pay-offs; it has distorted job and product markets and fuelled inflation; and the associated government debt has led to higher interest rates, higher share of government spending on servicing debt, and reduced availability of funds for wealth-creating private investment. Rudd’s intervention did not save us, it created long-term problems.

In Canberra in May 1991, I got a call asking me to be interviewed by Rudd for the Queensland Office of Premier & Cabinet. On arrival, I was asked to produce an industry policy for Queensland. The warning signs were immediate: it was to be done in six weeks; far from consulting people with local knowledge, I was not to tell anyone what I was doing; and I was forbidden to read the Coalition’s “Quality Queensland” economic development statement.

My work became Goss’s 1992 EDS, “Queensland – Leading State.” Goss and Rudd accepted my market enhancement approach – hard to believe now. (I did read “QQ,” the analysis and prescriptions were similar to mine, and I provided a similar basis for the 1998 “State Economic Development Strategy”.) Not only has Rudd not learned, he’s forgotten. He claimed in his infamous Monthly ramble that market economics was dead, government direction was the go. Well, the markets are correcting him, the long-obvious failings of the Eurozone and US pro-government policy have been brutally exposed.

Keep up the good work, Julie.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 13 October 2011 5:45:01 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
Trashcanman, here’s my January 2009 OLO post on the issue:

It’s unfortunate that none of the Rudd Government’s measured have been designed with long-term improvements in welfare, productivity, tax structure, incentives etc in mind. There have been many sound proposals in recent years for improving the structure of our tax/welfare system, encouraging initiative and innovation, etc. Now huge sums of money are being expended without any reference to such improvements. Urgency is no excuse, Treasury could have dusted off relevant proposals in a flash.

There are also questions as to whether the various spending will have any positive impact. Clearly not in such cases as further massive subsidies to expand activities in the motor vehicle industry rather than to rationalise in the light of massive over-supply in lower-cost countries.

More broadly, eminent Harvard economist Robert Barro, an expert in macroeconomics and economic growth, has recently challenged the presumption that government spending in the current crisis will have a multiplier effect, i.e. that it will generate more resources than it uses – the only rationale for such expenditure. Barro understands that Team Obama is using a 1.5 multiplier, whereby a $1bn intervention generates an additional $I.5bn of economic activity.

Barro examines other instances of massive government intervention – defence expenditure in WWI, WWII and the Korean and Vietnam wars. He finds at best a multiplier of 0.8 and argues that it is likely to be less now. People would expect wartime expenditures to be temporary, and consumer demand would not fall as much as in peacetime, where increased government spending (and eventually taxation) suggest longer-term lower disposable incomes; a military draft has a direct, coercive impact on employment; and as regards WWII, the US economy grew strongly from 1933 (aside from 1938), and the wartime growth can not be attributed solely to the war-related expenditure.

In short, the government should focus on measures with long-term benefits which can be rapidly implemented to ameliorate the recession in the short term.
Posted by Faustino, Thursday, 13 October 2011 5:47:37 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
"Do you really think the pink bats and BER issues are symptoms of anything new and unique to the current government?"

No.

"…commercial operators have been abusing government funded programs for decades.... .. systemic deficiencies ... have allowed construction companies, consultants etc to be taking advantage since day dot."

I'm sure you're right. According to my theory, they both represent capital consumption.

However the point is, your economic theory is stuck with pretending to distinguish wasteful corrupt boondoggle A (bad), from wasteful corrupt boondoggle B (good).

So how do you do that? By what principle do you distinguish them?
Posted by Peter Hume, Thursday, 13 October 2011 6:37:49 PM
Find out more about this user Recommend this comment for deletion Return to top of page Return to Forum Main Page Copy comment URL to clipboard
  1. Pages:
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. All

About Us :: Search :: Discuss :: Feedback :: Legals :: Privacy