Yes, it has to be difficult to fix a monumental (money from nothing) debt created calamity, quite deliberately engineered by the hypothetical inmates, who took over the allegorical asylum, with a debt funded recovery?

But particularly, when some of that new debt acquisition is used to fund recurrent expenditure, some of which is tasked as absolutely nonessential subsidies for folk, who must now learn to manage without them. Or as tax relief for folks who just don't need welfare for the rich? Like negative gearing on residential real estate, capital gains relief and so on, that simply accelerates exponentially expanding, record debt levels!

We are not as badly off as some, given our inmates have had on odd occasions some seeming semblance of all to temporary and fleeting rare moments sanity?

Must we have another arms race of worse a global war as the only means left to resuscitate debt laden economies! The rich could get richer by further squeezing the poor? Meaning that cohort would spend less, driving the economic malaise even deeper!

Doing what you've always done while expecting a different result is madness TBC.
Alan B.

Instead of a self defeating arms race, why don't we have a decarb your economies race?

It'd probably cost less in the long run and provide quite massive economic boosts during construction and roll out phases, as well as create some state owned income earning assetts that could be tasked with replacing some tax incomes/revenue streams!

As well as, provide enough stimulus to kick start a self sustaining, debt reducing demand driven economic growth! (Keynesian new deal?)

Things we haven't tried (stubbornly won't try) include downsizing and removing entirely unnecessary and ultra costly arms of duplicating bureaucracy and government, the roll out of fibre to the home NBN, cheaper than coal thorium based carbon free energy, cost effective desalination, utilizing new deionization dialysis technology, rapid rail, a supporting nuclear powered, submersible, national shipping line!

Plus, the issue of self terminating, low cost, income tax free, thirty year bonds to pay for all the, off budget, income earning hardware/infrastructure!

Do it once! Do it right! And never have to do it again! As in penny wise pound foolish examples rolled out for political expediency!

Beats sitting on the hands or spending even more, on budget, billions rearming for a potentially planet destroying war?

Or labeling sound, tried and tested and not found wanting, Keynesian economics as communism!

Must we prepare for war?

What for?

To prove with destruction on a hitherto unknown scale and in prospect; that highly destructive extreme capitalism is slightly less terminally destructive, as equally problematic (pigs in the trough) communism?

Name your pleasure? We can do one or tuther, Just not both, or the same old same old!
Alan B.

President elect Donald trump is possibly the only "elected" President since conservative Roosevelt, to initiate a Keynesian style new deal?

Why?

Because, he's the only one the "establishment" don't own or can (you can't do that Mr President) control?

And as likely an outcome, as the moon really being made of green cheese!
Alan B.

There is one major error in this article:
"nfrastructure spending involving private-public partnerships could be part of the policy response mix, but what is often forgotten is that infrastructure has to be highly productive since funding it diverts funds in finite supply away from possibly more productive private investment."

It is misleading to refer to the supply of funds as "finite" as there's no absolute limit, and the only constraint that's having a meaningful effect at the moment is the amount banks can lend profitably. If the economy were doing much better then this could be constrained by an interest rate rise (because the RBA doesn't want to see too much competition for workers due to inflationary concerns) but there's very little danger of that at the moment.

Productivity is very important. Governments should always try to get the best value for money they can, as there are always competing objectives for spending (and for tax cuts, and when the economy's going well, for avoiding interest rate rises). Often doing things directly is more efficient than public private partnerships. But either way, infrastructure enables other industries to increase their productivity and to do things they would not otherwise be able to.

Also, a lot of the malaise is because they're selling a lot of land to other countries, where instead, we should really be looking at setting up a class of 'yeoman patriots' to work the land as the world moves from a financial-industrial economy to a digital-agrarian style economy.

Oh well in for a pound in for a penny.
To paraphrase someone else;
It is the Energy Stupid !

Since around 2000 the cost of search and developing energy fields
has escalated to such an extent that the major companies have reduced
to a very low level their S & D expenditure.
The Energy Return on Energy Investment for oil and coal world wide
has fallen uneconomically low. The cost to produce energy has risen
above the communities ability to pay.

Australia is in an almost unique position with our supply of cheap coal and no oil.