It's not debt, it's how much debt. Having a surplus when the GFC arrived was a plus. We are also very lucky to have so much in the ground and an established market through which sell it thanks to previous governments. However anything could happen and it could all fall in a heap. So it is best to be cautious with debt.

Another factor is a flexible workforce and innovative business. America might do better with massive debt than Greece. No one wishes hardship on anyone but in the sense of cutting your coat to fit your cloth, America would have more cloth than Greece.

I think the difference between our stimulus and that in the US was how it was targetted and the speed at which it was done.

The US used their money just to bail out failed financial institutions - something we didn't need to do.

We injected cash directly into the economy to maintain employment levels and then used capital works programmes to maintain and increase the building industry.

By doing it quickly it prevented a sudden rise in unemployment and a loss in business confidence.

Of course having a decent reserve plus a continuing market demand for our resources played a significant role, but to claim is was all down to some strange unrelated coincidence is a bit disingenuous and maybe the result of a short and selective memory.

As for the "many BER" projects providing poor value for money, if you look past the biassed reporting in The Australian and refer to the independent report, it showed that only 2.7% of those were in this category. Those "rorts" were mainly to do with the premium price paid for a sudden high demand and State Government inefficiency.

If he hadn't lost the preceding election I suppose the Howard alternative would have been just to hand out big tax cuts to high income earners and wait for it to "trickle down".

As a small businessman involved in the building industry as a supplier, I want to know when the "financial crisis" ended? My business was about 20% down last year compared to the year before and this year I've yet to make anything at all.

I'm sure the miners are doing well and academics are doing just fine - certainly public servants are doing well, with their numbers growing every year thanks to assiduous empire-building, but what about the great drivers of the economy - retail and housing construction, as well as small manufacturing?

Retail did well out of the Harvey Norman Stimulus Package, but take a walk around any shopping centre for a real indication of current conditions. As well as the usual Spring clothing sales, there are clearances being run all over the shop, especially on premium products. If anybody wants some good cookware, DJs have 50% off the Scanpan and Tefal ranges, for example.

Housing finance is down by over 10% and finance for renovations and maintenance is down by nearly 20%. Builders are going out of business all over the show.Small industrial and commercial units are available to lease at less than the price they were last year and vacancy rates have never been higher.

One of the reasons I'm still in business is that I have no debt. If I did, it may well be worth considering bankruptcy or liquidation, like so many others have done in the past few years. Certainly I'd be a lot more worried about where the next dollar comes from.

It makes no sense to me to be spending hard-won public money on giveaways. If Keynesianism is to be the model, then target the spending to the sectors that are most in need of stimulus, instead of doing a Rudd and trying to buy votes with it. Since Gillard was part of the Rudd cabinet and managhed to comprehensively balls-up the school building program, I can't see much chance of that.

Antiseptic,
You are clearly one of the small business people that was not stupid enough to believe the boom would last forever and run up unserviceable debt.
The boom that the building industry had was always unsustainable. I have been in the industry in one capacity or another for 20 odd years. I have been appalled at the inflation of pricing and some of the slap up workmanship that has become the norm in the industry. The uncontrolled push by realestate agents to drive house prices higher and higher at any cost has made housing unaffordable and unrealistic. There is some real pain in the future for housing and the building industry as the country comes to terms with sustainability and affordability of housing. It is a pity but the short term greed of some will as usual cost long term pain for many. I will agree that the way the stimulas was spent added to this problem, but it was building for many years prior.

Nairbe, you're right about the boom, but you're wrong about me "being sensible enough to avoid running up debt". I would have done just that if I had been able, but the fight with the CSA has meant I have not had a relaible bank account for the past 6 years, rendering borrowing impossible. Perhaps I should be thanking the CSA...

I've saved a deal of money by living on-site at my business, which is probably the biggest single factor in the survival of that business.

The building industry is not one that can be allowed to diminish without a fundamental rethink about the way we want to live. Our population is increasing and hence the demand for housing. House prices can reduce considerably and still make housing an attractive, stable long-term investment, producing good reliable rental income. The price bubble is a short-term aberration that the Howard Govt allowed to develop willy-nilly. It is causing a lot of pain, but I remain convinced that it will not last.

nairbe, I still don't get how one decides whether Australia did relatively well during the GFC *because of*, rather than *despite* stimulus policies?

Obviously the benefit must come after the policy but how do you eliminate the possibility of a 'post hoc ergo propter hoc' type fallacy?