I can see it now: As Gillard is being dragged out to the car, Abbott turns around to the head of the police force and says, "I know you want me to go quietly with you so you can calm down the situation but would it not be better for me to go out and address the crowd. I know that it might incite them to become even more violent and it will embarrass the PM if it is successful (especially after she has inquired and made sure of my safety), but surely it is worth the risk."

And the head of the Police force replies, "Sure don't follow my advice, go ahead and do what you think is right."

I have asked someone who has been a independent consultant to numerous Federal Ministers of Health what Abbott was like as a Minister of Health. "He was very diligent about reading the briefs, asked intelligent questions, generally followed expert advice and made decisions. Compared with most Ministers he was a pleasure to work with."

Tsk, Tsk. Breeches of security? Safety in pants? Should be 'breaches of security.' Bad editing.

I am an immigrant. From my observations of Australian electoral processes they are generally not based on a coherent vision or long term planning for particular goals so it is unreasonable to expect Abbott to behave differently. Electoral politics are based on promises of largess to various sections of the electorate - sports clubs - religious schools etc. They have little or nothing to do with the good of Australia or the wider world. Both Gillard and Abbott play that game. However, we have a chance to vote for neither. We can only vote for our local representative who really doesn't represent us. He or she must put the decision of the party room over conscience, the wishes of constituents and the good of Australia and the world. I wish Australia were a democracy. However, it is a good place to live. I will try to make it more democratic by pushing for a greater separation of religion and state. Presumably the political parties will continue to be controlled by those who make a living from them and those entities which give money to them.

Excellent analysis. Thanks, Bruce.

Just two queries, however.

Regarding "His mainly lazy parliamentary colleagues are prepared to let Tony take the running in a forthcoming electoral contest they see Julia Gillard handing to them."

Is it possible they are just waiting until the strategic moment - say, five months out from the next election - to replace him with a more plausible, more statesmanlike long-term PM, namely Malcolm Turnbull, after Mr Abbott has completed his rotweiler mission?

And why did you not refer at all to Mr Abbott's appalling grasp of truthfulness and honesty as a disqualifying factor?

Curiously, one of the more telling instances of this also involves Cardinal Pell:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZvYzLIywCiA

Mr Abbott,s abolition pledges written in blood will go against him. Julia is giving tax breaks to business with mining tax money. The man with the mouth has again put his foot in it, saying yesterday the tax cuts are too expensive.

I suggest you read Mr Abbott's address to the National Press Club yesterday, Bruce. Despite the negative comments from your fellow-travellers at 'The Age' (also known as the Green Left Daily), you might find a compelling, positive vision for an Australia free from the suffocating pressures of excessive government intervention in the daily lives of both citizens and businesses.

All sorts of proposals sound good, it's a matter of getting them up to a satisfactory level that suites all people. And with Tony's ability as an economist i doubt it.

579, You said

All sorts of proposals sound good, it's a matter of getting them up to a satisfactory level that suites all people. And with Tony's ability as an economist i doubt it.
Posted by 579, Wednesday, 1 February 2012 9:29:35 AM

You really are a joke, after Labors mismanagement of everything they touched in the last 4 years, you have the hide to question somebody elses economic ability. You have to be kidding.

Keep it up you are doing very well for the current opposition

Yet another feeble Polemic from Bruce Haigh.

There is nothing leveled against Abbott that Juliar is not more guilty of. Particularly the Diplomatic relations with Indonesia: The banning of the live cattle trade essentially set back relations with Indonesia decades treating them like untrustworthy children, causing unemployment, and threatening food security.

As a Rhodes scholar, Abbott's analysis of the politics has been almost flawless, and the positions he has taken has ruined Rudd, and made Juliar unelectable and wary of the Ides of March.

The most pathetic part of this article is the suggestion is that he should have gone out to address a violent and abusive mob incited by misinformation from Juliar's office. Notably Juliar did not address any of the Murray Darling or Pokies assemblies.

Bruce writes

'As Prime Minister he can be expected to wind-back on socially progressive issues. '

How is it that so many mix up progressive with regressive. Next Bruce will be trying to convince that the debauched 'gay' marraige is progressive.

"As Prime Minister, Abbott, would be a liability for Australia on the international stage.

His talk first think later style of discourse will do harm rather than good."

Having demonstrated that on the national stage ... spot on!

Labour must be getting even more worried about Abbott after his impressive performance at the press club. They have souled one of their fox terrier attack dogs after him, in the form of Bruce.

Well too many have learnt what desperation looks like with all the academic ravings about global warming, trying to shore up their grant money flow. They can see the same desperation in this type of "B" grade bit of sniping here.

If you want to say something worth while Bruce, spend a bit more time at it. It is no longer productive to dash off a bit of fluff like this piece. This rubbish now only resonates with the rusted on mate, & that is a diminishing market. Full support from Alan Austin I notice.

I see the ABC have moved Steve Austin into the morning session. Another of the attack dogs, only this one is so obvious he's laughable, more like a toothless cocker spaniel, [sorry dog breeders].

Isn't it fun watching the scramble, as the roof collapses.

'... the Labor Party is on a hiding to nowhere under her leadership .... The Party has absolutely nothing to lose by dumping her and if they choose wisely (for once) they might just give the Coalition a run ....'

Seismic shift in 5 months ... What's changed?

'...the military and police control politics ... outside the capital. It gives them considerable power. The President and other national politicians exercise power through influence ... sometimes effective and sometimes not.'
You're contradictory, why would anyone rush off to Jakarta to try to explain to anyone?

'The spending on schools was masterful, designed to be visible and feel good spending for swinging voters with children. Much of the money is ill directed.'

'But wise social spending has not been part of this government’s agenda.'

'...vision is not part of spin. '

'... not spent so much on spin dominated cash splashes he would have the money to pay for better health outcomes which would have been a more mature and prudent way of spending tax payer money ... .'

'The government is using our money to buy licences for water which does not exist.'

'Gillard and Rudd have caved in. Weak governments make weak decisions, they seek the easy road, but I am not sure that all the way with the USA will be easy for Australia in the longer term.

'Gillard’s response lacked self confidence; it is unimaginative and weak willed. The Swan /Gillard combination is poor. Swan and Rudd panicked ... the same paucity of moral fibre, fear and lack of understanding of the electorate has driven this latest financial fiasco.'

Who said these things? Tony has,
But these are direct quotes from the same person who wants to see this mob returned.

Bruce I don't think you saw yesterdays Press Club address by Abbott. All the leftie media are asking if his make over to a positive Tony Abbott will work. Which just goes to show they think yesterdays performace was positive. Mate it was. And since all we've seem from you and all your leftie comrades is negativity.

Instead of focusing public debate on the substantive
issues of Indigenous disadvantage the debate has
descended into a maze of meaningless tactical
tit-for-tat. It's an indication of how our political system
and the media that covers it continually fails to grasp
the bigger picture when it comes to the issues that
confront our nation.

BTW: Is a protest in which no one was arrested, no one was
injured and no property was damaged really a "riot"?

And the AFP had no problem with the way information got around. Desperation politics from Abbott.
Those water licenses are still sale-able even if there isn't water to cover them, that is why they have to be taken out of the system. Oversold from years back, and hoarded by farmers and others.

Abbott is largely incoherent on everything but the other mob are just as bad.

I want do know what we as a nation did to deserve Abbott and Gillard because they are both awful.

'I want do know what we as a nation did to deserve Abbott and Gillard because they are both awful. '

Well Marilyn the country was extremely stupid to get rid of the competent Howard Government. Only the blind could not see that now. Look how quickly this mob has wasted a good surplus with absolutely nothing to show except ruin.

You really have it bad Runner old boy. I don't know how you can sleep with that going around in your head. Jack boot John, that is really interesting.

I'm not discussing politics today. I'm having a day off..

But I wish I hadn't read this:

"Is Abbott’s 'talk first think later' approach better than Jo Hockey in Speedos?"

There are some images that, once planted in the brain, are the very devil to get rid of.

"Jo Hockey in Speedos" is one of them.

What I don't understand though is why the media keep letting Abbott and Gillard get away with complete and utter rot, and then make up leadership yarns to fill papers with.

There is real news happening in this country and around the world but we seem to have sealed ourselves into this miniscule bubble of nothingness.

Well Pericles, we can't have you getting off that easily, so here's another image that would be a hundred times worse.

Just imagine, if you will, her ladyship herself, in Speedos.

That would be a sight to curdle the milk.

The thought of John Howard in Speedos, would make anyone HUEY!!

Julia in a bikini and high heals .... agggggghhhhhh

Tony in a bikini and high heels .... oh yeah, baby!

xoxo

Julia could wedge Tony nicely - AHHHHHH - by pulling
up his speedos.

Well written article thanks Bruce and I totally agree with all of it.

We've had state premiers who gained and kept office for jsut the same qualities of energy and and popular but vacuous rhetoric style. Two that come to mind were Joh Bjelke Petersen and Charles Court. A certian section of the population - enough to win them elections - don't listen to what politicians say but only how they say it.

So I say Australia beware. Listen to what this man does not say, that is coherent policy. This is a conscious strategy; his spin doctors work on it incessantly - criticise criticise but don't say anything about what he will do and thus avoid criticism of the Coalition's own policies. There are virtually none, only general statements like 'we will reduce taxes' or 'we will reduce carbon emissions by 5% by locking it up in soils'(the latter of which is a downright wanton lie)

If those of us with brains don't stand up and start demanding policy details, we risk getting this dud of a leader who will take us back to the neoconservative pre GFC dark ages of 'let the market god rule unfettered'.

As far as I can see, Abbott has only one quality that Gillard and Rudd lack -- he will listen to and act on informed advice. But that alone should make him an election-winner.

If only that were true, Jon J, Australia would be a much happier and safer place.

Unfortunately all the evidence points in exactly the opposite direction. There are many many instances of total failure on Mr Abbott's part to listen to any advice whatsoever.

Here is just one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk

Here are two cases of deliberate Porkies by the biggest liar in Parliament:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DXSkQqXxoc8

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2xD6Fjw27A

Dear SM,

Game, set, and match old chap.

Here are two links that will easily outdo yours:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DMmhwr4gg7U

Tony Abbott's always struggled with the truth.
Few can forget the disastrous 7.30 Report interview
where he admitted - he lies.

"Tony Abbott's always struggled with the truth.
Few can forget the disastrous 7.30 Report interview
where he admitted - he lies."

Could be that lying does not come as easily to him to him as to some others who don't struggle with the truth, prefering to treat it as readilly disposable.

I'd prefer that he had the gut's to do the job honestly but overall if it's a choice between willing to admit that they lie from time to time and someone who does it but denies it I'll go with the former.

R0bert

Lexi,

It is game set and match.

The best you and the other Labor tragics can provide is gaffes, and Abbott stating what he thinks is true without checking his facts, and having to retract.

What we have with Juliar is deliberate lies to gain power or to protect it to Rudd, to Wilkie, to parliament, and repeatedly to the electorate.

To all those blinkered, rusted on Labor deniers,

Tony might be a man's man but Julia is a liar's liar.

Most of the electorate are not choosing between Tony and Julia.

The polls show they are chosing between the two major parties, their policies and their performances and currently that is 54% Coalition to 46% Labor Greens alliance.

All the negativity towards Tony hasn't turned that around and it it won't in future. Nor will changing leaders ... that'll be guaranteed to make things worse for Labor.

As Tony goes into positive and visionary mode, aka his press club speech, and as Gillard and Labor are so obviously trapped into issue by issue defensive mode and the attack Tony negativity ... well we all know only the coalition will benefit.

All that is likely to happen is a continuation of blundering by Gillard and Labor and that will merely re-inforce current perceptions and change no votes. Any positives by Gillard and her mates will be met with increasing scepticism and will appear as more and more desperate.

I don't make the rules but that's how Rudd, Gillard and Labor has created them for now folks.

imajulianutter,

Choosing between the two major political parties in Australia at present is like choosing between Coles and Woolworths to do your shopping...it's akin to a duopoly, and neither party offers anything remotely inspiring.

No, Shadow Minister, all the evidence points in the direct opposite direction, doesn’t it?

Most well-informed commentators not welded on to one party accept that all leaders of political parties abandon promises from time to time.

John Howard famously repudiated his commitment to “no GST, never, ever” before the 1998 election with no-one obliging him to do so. This was a pretty craven backflip.

Gillard was forced to abandon her “no carbon tax” commitment in 2010 when confronted by a cliffhanger election, a hung parliament, a potential constitutional crisis and the overwhelming insistence of the independents, the Greens and her own party that she not allow a serial liar to become prime minister.

That was also a backflip and a broken promise. But it wasn’t a lie, was it? Because before the election, when everyone expected either Labor or the Coalition to win with a majority, it was a deliverable policy.

In fact, Labor’s preferred policy – a cap and trade scheme – remains deliverable. But in three or so years time. For now, the Greens have sufficient electoral support to have a voice in Government whether we like it or not. So Australia has carbon tax for now. That is how democracy works.

In contrast to Ms Gillard’s forced policy change, we have seen the Lateline clip, linked above, of Tony Abbott telling the nation he could not recall meeting the cardinal at the presbytery a week or so before. A deliberate blatant lie – in the sense of a statement he knew at the time was false.

Just watch the body language, facial expressions and the defensive “Why shouldn’t I meet with Cardinal Pell.” This was a serious, calculated attempt to deceive and mislead. There are others.

Here it is again in case anyone missed it:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tc5ljcri6Nk

The question yesterday on Mirko Bagaric’s thread remains unanswered: Do you have examples of blatant lies – in the sense of false statements made knowingly – from Julia Gillard equivalent to that of Tony Abbott’s blatant porkie on Lateline? [excluding on leadership challenges and climate science.]

Anyone?

Alan Austin deliberatley ignores the fact that Howard took the GST issue to the election while Gillard is far gutless to knowing it is a betrayal of trust. With all the weaseling that fact remains and the electorate know it.

46% to 54% that is not a bad position for an incumbent 2 years out from an election. Those figures would be about normal. Wasn't it Paul Keeting that won the un-winnable election.

AA,

A broken promise is lie. That she was able to deliver on all her promises but chose not to, makes them deliberate lies.

Labor and the Greens did end up installing a serial liar, who by the recent news articles is not trusted even by her own party.

Abbott will have claimed the scalp of a second Labor MP in 2 years.

579

'46% to 54% that is not a bad position for an incumbent 2 years out from an election. '

then why is the Labour party sharpening their knives yet again or is it just in everyone's imagination.

579

but unlike previous years those figures won't change greatly.

Poirot

that's the usual hoary old greens/labor line. It is merely an attempt to spread the blame for their incompetence and disgrace.

If those figures don't change we are looking at another hung parliament.

Tony Abbott has the advantages of not being ruled by the 'faceless' men, of leading a Coalition Party with a history of integrity and values which has delivered budget surpluses time and again (placing Aus in a very favourable position to ride out the GFC, and with the soundest banking system in the world), a Coalition of making hard but constructive decisions and changes (like the introduction of the GST and associated improvements to the taxation system), and of avoiding knee-jerk reactions like pink batts and overpriced school halls (instead of healthcare or affordable housing), and of avoiding untimely and unwarranted taxes like the carbon tax.

A man (or woman) is not a Party. Ms Gillard says "I, I, I"; where Lib/Nats say "we, we, we". And, when the Lib/Nats say it you can usually believe it, and have your aspirations realised.

A succession of Labor State Governments hindered developments in healthcare, education and regulation of Murray-Darling water allocations, but the Howard Federal government took a lot of misguided blame for such State deficiencies, indirectly contributing to the electoral loss in 2007. What now has really improved under Labor?

We have lost clothing, footwear, solar-panel and steel manufacture under Rudd/Gillard governments, lost jobs in banking, telecommunications, housing construction and more, and now Julia is talking about revitalising manufacturing and industry - when the horse has already bolted. "There is a time in the tides of men, which taken ..." The boats sailed, and weren't even missed. Poor timing, Julia/Wayne.

Sure, we need policies from Abbott, and he doesn't fit the usual mould, but at least he does have what it takes to rise to the occasion, and has the Party capable of making progress, profitability and rejuvenation possible. (And with budget surpluses.) Question is, can the Aus electorate see the wood for the trees? Who may ultimately best be relied upon to walk the walk?

@Saltpetre, at least seven of your statements are contradicted by the evidence.

1. “Faceless men”? ALP decision makers today are elected and well-known. Maybe in the 70s. Not now.

“history of integrity and values”? It was his own senator who called John Howard the Lying Rodent after years lying to his party. In its first term, John Howard lost seven ministers for serious breaches of ministerial conduct. The current Government? None?

“delivered budget surpluses time and again”. No, the Fraser Government never delivered a surplus. After 13 consecutive deficits Paul Keating delivered four in succession.

“knee-jerk reactions like pink batts”. Economists claim this was the key move which saved Australia – alone in the Western world – from a devastating recession. Environmentalists claim it will save energy costs for 150 years.

“overpriced school halls” Not according to independent economists and the Auditor-General.

“avoiding untimely and unwarranted taxes.” The Howard Government was the highest taxing in Australia’s history. Taxes are now lower overall.

“We have lost clothing, footwear, solar-panel and steel manufacture [jobs] …” Sure. But you have gained jobs in education, mining, technology, tourism and elsewhere. Total employment is what counts. It has gone up under Labor.

“What now has really improved under Labor?” you ask. Exactly. What have the Romans done for us?

Well, stronger economic growth relative to comparable nations, top credit rating with all agencies for the first time ever, strong Aussie dollar, better relative performance on inflation, unemployment, interest rates and debt to GDP ratio, lower taxes, increased pensions, fairer superannuation for low income earners, apology to the Indigenous communities, paid parental leave, the education tax refund, controls on pokie machines, permits for gay couples to marry overseas, better relations with neighbouring countries, higher international profile as a leader in economic management, greater ministerial integrity, greater equity in distribution of windfall mining profits and action on climate change.

That’s 20 off the top of my head. And I don’t even live in Australia.

Saltpetre, on a thread dealing with lies and integrity your input is a little disappointing. Please check your facts next time.

Cone on Alan, you've been listening to the ABC again, haven't you.

579

If you mean Tony will face a hostile Senate. That may well be the case. But in the lower house he's already overcome the deficit.

If the actual polling is the same as the last election then he'll have replacements for Slipper, Windsor and Oakshott, who will be automatically elected.

He'll have a majority of two before the polls are counted.

Then watch what the threat of double dissolution does to the Greens and any other Senator who attempts to defy the will of the electors.

Alan Austin,

no you obviously don't live here.

You are not experiencing the increasing cost of living, the skyrocketing price of fuel, the increasing homelessness, the underemployment, a two or three speed economy, you are not seeing billions being wasted on an technological dinosaur infrustructure monopoly project that is seeing an uptake of less than 9%(well below predictions), our soaring public debts (Both State and Federal) an absolutely incompetent bunch of ineffective political operatives who make up our Cabinet and a lying PM. The last two seem to lurch from crisis to crisis and have an ongoing leadership quarrel.

'“We have lost clothing, footwear, solar-panel and steel manufacture jobs ..."' (along with telecommunications, journalism, car manufacture and ancillery industry, banking, food production and distribution)

'But you have gained jobs in education, mining, technology, tourism and elsewhere ...'

Our education industry is seeing falling numbers of students from India and China. Tourism is in a terrible decline. Technology ... really where? Do these jobs requires a Uni education?

Mining ... yes it's part of the economy that is accelerating until it stalls because of labor market rigidity, the new carbon tax and new mining taxes.

But you seem to know all and dare to tell us how better off we are because our lying and distracted government has produced figures that blinkered people like you believe.

Hello Hasbeen,

Yes, I have. Sadly ABC News is now just as unreliable as the other mainstream outlets. But still good for sports results and its fluffy frissons on the Canberra buzz.

Regrettably no established Australian newsroom provides accurate data any more. (Perhaps you read this from last July: http://www.eurekastreet.com.au/article.aspx?aeid=27274)

Fortunately you have some promising emerging websites. And we can all access independent academics, the Auditor-General’s reports, plus Treasury, the Reserve Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, the CIA and UN agencies.

Through these and newspapers here in Europe it actually is possible to stay reasonably clued up.

Plus Australia has the Murdoch media which is helpful. You can almost always be confident that when a Murdoch opinion writer makes a statement about politics, economics or social issues, the precise opposite is the truth.

Cheers, Hasbeen.

Hello Imajulianutter. You sound distraught.

You shouldn’t be. All those things you list are measurable. Yes, everyone in every country at any point in time would like to have lower costs, taxes, interest rates and debt, and higher salaries and net wealth. Everyone wants to be better off than they are. Always.

But the whole world is in a major economic crisis, Im. (May I call you Im?) Every capitalist democracy is experiencing huge dislocation. All except Australia, that is, which is experiencing only minor challenges relative to the rest.

Australia’s economy underwent huge structural reform from 1983 to 1993. By 1996 it was the fifth best-managed economy in the western world. This is gauged by growth, income levels, inflation, jobs, interest rates, debt, deficits, social services, superannuation, industrial unrest and poverty. These are all quantifiable, Im, and can be found wherever you are in the world.

The Aussie economy slipped back to about ninth during the fairly lazy Howard years, despite the tremendous structural resilience Howard inherited. Not much innovation and several costly blunders.

But during the crisis of 2008-09 it zoomed to number one – with whoever is second a long way behind.

So you can cheer up, Im. Google ‘Australia Nobel Prize Economist Stiglitz’. And try to get out more. Cheers.

Allan,

http://treasury.gov.au/documents/1496/PDF/01_Debt.pdf

Since the 80s labor has left power with net debt far higher than when it gained power. The coalition took a net debt left by Keating of nearly 20% and took it to -3%. KRudd and Juliar took it from -3% to today at nearly 8% in 4 years, in spite of the largest revenue from mining in history (more than double that under Howard)

While some stimulus was necessary and a coalition would have incurred some debt, it would have been far less, and better spent.

Your comment "“overpriced school halls” Not according to independent economists and the Auditor-General" is false, as the AG was not asked to comment on the efficacy of the money spent. An independent audit showed buildings built by Gillard cost twice as much as those handled directly by the private schools.

Taxes under Howard were lower than under Keating and Hawke, and were continually reduced. Rudd implemented the cuts proposed by Howard, and since then Labor has introduced more taxes.

Unemployment under Howard dropped to about 4%, and now stands at 5.2% in spite of the largest mining expansion in history.

The Coalition's record on economics is far better than that of Labor's.

Hi Mr Minister,

This is excellent. Good research. For a while I thought you got your analysis from Piers Akerman.

Now for a bit more.

Taxes. Yes, Labor introduced new ones, but reduced them overall. Google total tax as percentage of GDP over time.

Unemployment. Yes, we must look at percentages over time. Then compare Australia with the rest of the capitalist world. This is a catastrophic crisis. It has affected jobs everywhere, including Downunder. But far less than elsewhere.

School halls. The spending was not to provide buildings for schoolkids, was it? It was for economic stimulus in city and country regions that desperately needed it. The more the better. The first stimulus just tipped money into the street, remember? It worked.

Inflation. John Howard as treasurer never got inflation below 9%. Keating reduced it to below 4.6% where it has stayed ever since.

Debt. Ever bought a house, Mr M? If so, you will know debt can be good. Same with nations - highly strategic when interest rates are low, when cost-effective infrastructure for the long term can be built, when that construction grows the economy, and where future repayments are easily manageable by the beneficiaries.

“For an American, there is a certain amusement in Australian worries about the deficit and debt: their deficit as a percentage of GDP is less than half that of the US; their gross national debt is less than a third.” – Nobel Prize winner, Joseph Stiglitz.

Remember, Mr M, it was after Labor incurred your current modest debt Australia gained its triple A credit rating from all three international agencies – something the Conservatives never achieved.

You may like to canvas views among economists as to which past structural reforms fireproofed the Australian economy. Who implemented those?

And look at the waste in the late 90s such as the 4.5 billion dollars blown gambling on currency fluctuations. Or the sale of most of Australia’s gold when the smart nations were buying.

So, no, Mr M. There is no evidence that the Coalition handles the economy better than Labor, is there?

The economy is Tony's greatest non event. It's always up to Labor to do the infrastructure in this country. The SM doesn't see beyond the liberal, stance. That 20 billion he talks about, would end up in the mega rich's pocket.

"Sydney, 17 February, 2003: The Australian Bankers’ Association says that Australian businesses borrowing money from overseas will on average face lower interest charges because Australia’s credit rating has improved to AAA from AA+."

In 2007 there was no net government debt, and government bonds were in short supply, and the AAA rating was a moot point, but I can find nothing that indicates that the rating was anything but gold plated.

While the overall tax rates have dropped, the spending has increased to the highest level ever, as has the public service.

Inflation reduced under Keating from recession, and under Rudd / Gillard from the increase of the dollar, cheap imports, and higher unemployment.

The stimulus was supposed to deliver infrastructure, where they gave the money to the private schools they build exactly what they needed at an average half the cost of what the public schools got, and much of the time the public didn't get what they needed. There was a genuine chance to provide needed infrastructure, and it was wasted. There are no examples of this Labor government getting anywhere near the outcomes for money spent that they claimed they would.

If the sole purpose was to Pss the money against the wall, then they get a big tick.

Good morning Mr M,

Triple A ratings. There are three big credit rating agencies: Standard and Poor, Moody and Fitch. S&P gave Australia AAA in 2003. Fitch gave Australia AAA only in November – first time ever all three agencies have awarded Australia the top rating.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-11-29/fitch-rating-australia/3701752

Tax and spending. Yes, these have increased in absolute dollar terms as population, size of the economy and wealth have grown. So we can’t compare dollars. We must compare percentages of GDP. When we do this, Labor emerges with the better outcomes.

School buildings. Yes, many cost more than if normal tendering and vetting procedures had applied. But this would have delayed the process substantially. The whole point was to get the workforce busy immediately and accept that a premium will be paid. Yes, outlays would have been lower had time not been of the essence. But it was.

As Prof Stiglitz said, “Rudd’s stimulus worked: Australia had the shortest and shallowest of recessions of the advanced industrial countries. But, ironically, attention has focused on the fact that some of the investment money was not spent as well as it might have been, and on the fiscal deficit that the downturn and the government’s response created.

“Of course, we should strive to ensure that money is spent as productively as possible, but … efficiency requires equating the marginal cost associated with allocation with the marginal benefits. In a nutshell: it is wasteful to spend too much money preventing waste.”

The outcome was: recession confined to just one quarter, continuing high employment and the world’s best economic growth. Plus many new buildings as a bonus.

Now, for examples of money p*ssed against the wall, look at the gambling losses by Costello and Howard between 1998 and 2002:

http://www.newsweekly.com.au/articles/2002mar23_curr.html

As an exercise, Mr M, what do economists regard as the ten most critical reforms to the Australian economy in the last 40 years? Who introduced them?

Was trading with Communist China a good idea? Do you recall which party proposed this – and which parties condemned it as unpatriotic, a betrayal and treason?

Cheers, AA

AA,

Perhaps you could point out any worthwhile economic reforms by the Rudd Labor government?

Stimulus involves putting money into the economy, and it does not in itself require huge economic acumen. Getting long term value for the money requires sound economic management which Labor obviously lacks. For example Co investment in private sector infrastructure that was already planned would have provided valuable infrastructure that would have generated long term employment and revenue compared the the poorly utilised school halls.

That stimulus was required in not in question, neither is whether it could have been done better with less.

Bonjour Mr M,

Mr Rudd will be primarily remembered here in Europe for the formal apology to the stolen generations. And for bringing Australia back into the international community after some years isolated as George W Bush’s sidekick.

Signing Kyoto and the other global accords – and then being rewarded with a seat at the G20 table – got significant coverage here in France.

His masterstroke, of course, was to tell the Government of Communist China they had to improve their performance in human rights – in language they understand. That was an absolute coup for Australia. Huge kudos.

In economics he is regarded as leading the only government in the Western world that averted a technical recession via its fiscal stimulus packages in 2009/10. Most economists now say Australia alone got the timing, the direction and the quantum exactly right. All other nations tried something, but only Australia acted fast enough with enough cash spent on the right things. The insulation scheme is considered sound because of its benefits for the next 150 to 200 years.

Rodney Tiffin explains the economics pretty well here:

http://inside.org.au/a-mess-a-shambles-a-disaster/

Rudd also got started with job training – another area neglected over the previous decade, which is why Australia has so many foreign workers while hundreds of thousands of Aussies remain unemployed.

Apart from these, the main structural adjustment is the mining tax. Whether this is a great initiative or just a blindingly obvious move long overdue is a matter of opinion. Certainly the Government of China recognised that Chinese companies were buying Aussie minerals at a pittance and making vast superprofits – so whacked on a tax to ensure the windfall gains were spread across China.

It was always somewhat bizarre that Australia hadn’t done the same.

You can probably add the income tax changes, the extension of superannuation as significant reforms. Whether the NBN turns out to be as asset or a liability remains to be seen.

If the view of Australia from France is of interest, Mr M, here are some perspectives from the last election:

http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/08/24/letter-from-france-captivated-by-le-duel-entre-deux-personnalites/

Cheers, AA

Alan, thanks for Professor Tiffen's article - excellent!

SM those school halls as you put it, are actually stadiums, library's, open sheltered space. Whatever the school wanted, they got. So to criticize school halls, is to criticize, the school committee. Alan austin has got your measure mate.

Well Alan, thanks for giving us a snapshot of just why Europe is collapsing, if of course your take on their love of Rudd is not a bit or rosy glasses imagination. If they in particular really admire his economic acumen, that is a damn good reason to reexamine what ever he's done. If Europe approve it must be wrong.

If they really admire useless gestures, no wonder they are suffering fatal decline. As a headline here said of his signing Kyoto, "Only the Ozzies would climb onto a sinking ship.

Then we had the apology, god! Please point out one single aboriginal, other than those on the aboriginal industry gravy train, who is even in the slightest way, better off.

As for addressing the Chinese in a language they can understand, most Ozzies felt their skin crawl in shame when the fool gave that kitsch demeaning display. The smug grin as he sprouted mandarin was sickening.

It is possible that my take on the incompetence of Europe from this distance is wrong, but let me assure it could not be as wrong as your take on Kevie from a similar distance. His trashing of a carefully built up surplus was criminal, & merely boosted inflation, rather than help the economy. His running up of a huge debt after that deserves prosecution.

Perhaps you could find a place for him over there, it would save us a lot of pain.

Hasbeen. do you mind saying I and not WE. Remember this is your opinion.

Alan Austin,

Try and answer these questions.

Why is it, given your rosy view of Australia's position, that the Labor Government is about to undergo another huge upheaveal and swap leaders?

Is it that we residents in Australia are having our opinions noticed by panicked Labour Members, and that you overseas non-resident participants can only show you don't know what you are talking about?

It must be stunning for you that the vast majority of Australians ignore your analysis and hold their own views? You must think most of us misguided and in need of re-education ... along European lines ... eh?

Nutter you are somewhat premature with your leadership predictions. Do not worry your self with what abbott says. He is a desperate man, and not in his right mind.

Your right 579, I should have said you.

Believe me I only saw a few seconds of the disgusting fool making his apology.

Just the sight of him on TV makes me sick on the stomach. I have become like greased lightning with the remote, changing channels when ever he appears.

TV channels please note. Thousands of real people do the same. The quickest way to reduce your ratings are to put that man, or his replacement on the screen.

579

Are you in denial?

It's not abbott who is talking about leadership change in the Labor Party.

It's the whole bloody media ... lefties and all. Haven't you read the metropolitan majors or watched the eletronic media?

The only desparates anywhere in sight are the panicked Labor Members?

Abbotts not desperate, he knows he's the next non-labor pm and when he is elected he'll have the record as a fantastically effective opposition leader who has despatched 3 Labor PM's.

Hello Hasbeen,

No, Europe is no longer collapsing. Most countries are now recovering, some faster than others. Just google recent European stock market charts.

It is an intriguing exercise to compare the different economic strategies and see which nations are doing better.

This is a highly useful exercise for Australians who will be confronted at the next election with political parties with contrasting economic records and strategies.

I wouldn’t say Europeans love Mr Rudd. Just that they seem to hold him in greater esteem than most national leaders. Respect for making your economy the world's best goes more to Mr Swan than either Mr Rudd or Ms Gillard.

Incidentally, it is not only European economists who approve of your Government’s economic acumen, Hasbeen. Prof Stiglitz (linked above) and Prof Paul Krugman are both Americans. Juan Jose Daboub is El Salvadoran.

Regarding the apology, I watched the broadcast that day among the 8000 Koories and whitefellas at Melbourne's Federation Square. I can assure you everyone there supportive of Indigenous aspirations felt better off.

If you are implying there more must be done in practical terms, you are agreeing with Mr Rudd: “It is not sentiment that makes history; it is our actions that make history.”

Hello again Imajulianutter.

Not sure if there will be another leadership change. If there is, it will because caucus believes it will improve their electability.

I haven’t heard of any move against Treasurer Swan, though. Have you, Im?

Incidentally, Im, it is not my “rosy view of Australia's position”. I just read what economists and social analysts are concluding from their research.

Curiously, being abroad does give an observer an advantage. Unfortunately most Australian media deal with political, social and economic matters by disseminating ‘information’ and ‘news’ which are largely untrue. This has been proven by several recent court cases and Press Council findings, hasn’t it?

It is a bit like those studies in the US that have found that watching Fox News makes people stupid.

Fortunately we can all access independent research online which can give us a pretty accurate picture.

Cheers, AA

Alan please, it took Swan 2 years to learn to read a speech written for him well enough for anyone to actually believe he understood what the words meant, let alone what they meant when combined into sentences.

Here in Queensland we have had some pretty dumb ladies & more than a few blokes who have been made ministers, due to a sever lack of talent in the government. However I don't think even Anna here would have been silly enough to appoint Swan to anything approaching a real job.

It's the old Labor story, don't have anyone competent in senior positions, or they will probably try to take your job, there is no possible other reason for Swan in there. That of course didn't stop a totally incompetent in our Julia doing it, so I guess we will see future Labor PMs, if ever there is another, undertaking all ministerial jobs single handed.

Yes, perhaps so, Hasbeen. But Treasurers are appointed for their ability to assess the best courses of action for their economy rather than for their linguistic skills.

We can see now from international comparisons that Mr Swan was clearly the best economic decision maker in the world during the global financial crisis of 2009/10. His full-bore Keynesian-intervention-to-the-max was the only one that succeeded in averting recession.

And last November Fitch Ratings, dual-headquartered in New York and London, effectively accorded him the status of best Treasurer in Australia’s recent history.

You may wish to ponder, Hasbeen, what might have happened in Australia had alternative courses of action been followed when the GFC hit in 2009.

If Australia was still the 9th ranked economy in the world right now, as you were in 2007 when Mr Costello handed the ledgers to Mr Swan, then you would have taxation at about 48% - instead of 30.5% now (% of GDP) plus much higher unemployment, much higher prices, much greater poverty and a much greater national debt.

If there is another global crisis - which is always a possibility - would you really want Australia to respond differently next time - and join all the other loser economies around the world?

Cheers, AA

AA,

You paint a fairly rosy picture of the Aus economy (post GFC), and of Wayne Swann's contribution to this, but I wonder if your ratings take proper account of the relatively mild direct impacts of the GFC on Aus in comparison to other developed nations?

Aus did not have to bail-out any banks (or struggling enterprises), had no major housing bubble, had relatively small exposure to troubled overseas banks and foreign investment, either publicly or privately, and was blessed with sound trading and balance of payments arrangements (in resources, mining and primary production, particularly with growing demand from China and other Asian and middle-eastern nations), and Aus had a substantial fiscal surplus to work with - courtesy of Howard/Costello.

If the above is a reasonable portrayal (at least in part) of Australia's relative insulation from the worst impacts of the GFC, then Wayne Swann had a relatively straightforward task to address impacts on Aus' economic, industry and employment interests.

Interest rates set by our Fed Reserve remain relatively high in global comparison (at 4.25%), our $A has surged in response to US and EU problems - creating problems for our export industries - and our unemployment rate still sits around 5%. Our equities markets (and superannuation) have taken a substantial hit, and remain impacted by problems in US and EU economies.

Post GFC, resource exports have been impacted by an easing in China's development, and a general slowdown in Japan, US, EU and other markets, we have virtually lost our steel manufacturing due to Chinese imports, and our manufacturing sector has been badly impacted, both by a lack of development and by impacts of the high $A - as also has tourism and overseas student enrollments.

Wayne has done nothing for Aus manufacturing, little for healthcare or education, and emphasis has been on welfare, maternity/paternity leave, superannuation, first home owner grants and the NBN - and a budget deficit.

Though an obvious simplification, Wayne inherited an extremely buoyant economy, which has since gone downhill by any measure.

Hi Saltpetre,

Would you agree the recent GFC was the most severe global downturn since the 1930s? Australia was definitely negatively impacted - hugely.

Would you also agree that Australia now, post GFC, has the best set of numbers overall of any nation - on economic growth, income levels, inflation, jobs, interest rates, debt to GDP ratio, social services, superannuation, and poverty?

In other words, Australia went from 9th best-managed economy in the world in 2007 (measured by these indicators) to clearly number one now.

How did this happen? Yes, contributions of previous Treasurers are significant. Particularly the structural reforms of late 1980s and early 90s. They gave Australia surplus budgets, low debt, low inflation, a sound banking system and trade with China. All highly positive.

But independent economists do not believe those factors explain Australia's spectacular rise to top of the pops during the GFC.

They have found other countries had strong deficits and low debt before the GFC but still went backwards badly. Most other countries that came out of the GFC in almost as good shape as Australia went in with huge debts at the outset. These include Israel, Switzerland and Singapore. So the deficit and debt situation seems to have had no impact.

Other countries also had well-regulated banks but were not protected. And several countries had higher exports to China than Australia, yet neither were they protected.

The consensus – articulated in the popular media most accessibly by Prof Joseph Stiglitz – is that the all-out full-belt Keynesian stimulus packages in 2008-09 did the trick. Because Australia clearly went out hardest, earliest and best-targeted.

This plus your Government's initiatives in spending controls, lower taxes, improved job training and better targeted industry assistance.

Anyway, Saltpetre, it looks like the Stiglitz hypothesis will be tested. According to polling, there will be a return to the Coalition at the next election. It will be intriguing to see if Australia then slips back down the order, as happened during the Howard-Costello years, if the AAA rating stays, and if the smart investment money is withdrawn. We shall soon see.

AA,

I thought so, no economic reforms by Rudd or Juliar, only lots of gestures and a litany of failures.

Thanks AA,

You put forward a very compelling case. Much food for thought - and for further research on my part.

Things may not be so crook in Tullarook as I had perceived.

Yes, we are heading for interesting times indeed - and, being of a staid nature, I must say I have had quite sufficient excitement via the GFC and our local politics already. Still, there's no turning back the clock, and further pain is on the horizon.

I guess I have been staggered by the economic debacles in the US - with their having to bail out Fannie Mae, Freddie Mack, GM, Goldman Sachs, major banks, etc (and still the bonuses rolled on) - and with the problems in Japan and the mess in the EU. I feel very sorry for Barack Obama in particular - one helluva first term.

Good ol' Wayne has certainly kept his cool - in the face of multiple challenges. Credit where due.

We live in interesting political (and economic) times - made merry by internet fancying and much ado about everything.

Work choices is back on the agenda, Tony says should not have been changed.

Alan,

Don't youthink the Labor propaganda machine in Australia has been pushing the points you've made?

They have ... it's just that so few people believe anything they say anymore.

And now the cripples of Europe and the US try to tell us they are right and that they know what's best for us.

Really Alan have you lost all perspective? I know mixing with the elites of Europe has probably fuddled your judgement but remember it is we in Australia who will decide this countrys future.

And that is why Gillard will be replaced by someone other than Rudd and Labor will leave a legacy of lies, spin and waste, an unwanted carbon tax, a soaring cost of living, falling real wages in much of the economy (Exclude the wages from mining), an economy more reliant on mining, an old technology white elephant, a huge debt, a shambolic border, an absolute disgrace in indigenous conditions, 3 one term PM's and a forgotten treasurer.

Alan we can not survive a mining downturn as we are. Unless we develop other ways of earning foreign exchange, we are doomed to be worse than Greece, if the foreign exchange from mining should falter.

About the only thing you could say Julia & Swan have contributed to our economic situation is a carbon tax, & a mining tax. Both of these are assured to reduce the attraction of mining investment in Oz, & will simply be frittered away in useless increase in public spending. In fact it is fair to say Julia, I doubt Swan has much to say, has already spent the next couple of years growth of income, before we are even sure we'll ever see it.

Being praised by Europeans is indeed faint praise, & even then they are probably only doing that because of our stupidity of introducing a carbon tax. Anyone doing such a stupid thing, helps spread the blame they are copping for doing it themselves.

Even the idiots of Europe, other than the poms who seem a lost cause, are now coming to their senses, & retreating as fast as their little legs will carry them, from the whole catastrophe of global warming.

Perhaps a few weeks at home would give you a better idea, Oh, & not believing most of what you hear from OUR ABC

A long time before mining goes anywhere in this country. The carbon tax is very necessary, for investment in renewable energy. The mining tax is going to do no one any harm, but you see it as an incumbent.
Alan said it as it is, Quote. What would you change to further strengthen the economy.

We have to cut government spending almost as drastically as Europe.

We have to get our interest rates down, or loose our entire economy, other than mining, & taking in each other's washing,

We have to immediately stop wasting money in failed alternative energy.

If it ever gets to the stage that private enterprise invests in it, without subsidies, as a profitable enterprise, & only then should it be approved, but definitely nor encouraged. If It is worth having, it won't need encouragement.

Good morning Saltpetre,

Yes, there is much research still to do. This discussion has prompted me to pursue more. Eg. your observations earlier re relative interest rates.

Things are certainly crook in Tullarook. It's the worst economic period since the great depression. But not as crook Downunder as everywhere else.

Hello Imajulianutter,

No, I don't think Labor propaganda in Australia has been pushing these points. I still access Aussie media extensively. Seems the direction of the propaganda – meaning information intended to persuade which is actually untrue – is overwhelmingly anti-Government rather than pro.

I believe Australia has more of problem with rogue news media than the US or the UK. But that's a discussion for another time.

No, Im, it is not "the cripples of Europe and the US trying to tell us what's best for us". It is the opposite. The whole world – not just Europe and the US – has observed Australia’s emergence from the GFC with the least social disruption of all. And they want to know why.

Hello Hasbeen,

You don’t need to be so pessimistic about Australia’s trade. As 579 notes, there is no sign of demand from China stopping. And other buyers are emerging as neighbouring countries develop. As well as minerals and petroleum products Australia still has strong exports in beef, lamb, sugar, dairy products, fruit, wines, wheat, other cereals, processed metals, wool, medicines, passenger vehicles and others. Some are expanding, some are declining. But the total is impressive - and growing.

Australia is not being praised by Europeans, Hasbeen. By everyone. So cheer up. Yes, things are grim. But not as grim as everywhere else. And nowhere near as grim as would have been the case had you had your previous Government running the economy through these challenging times.

The carbon tax is also a discussion for another time. But here in Europe most countries have one, some for more than 20 years. Australia is really playing catch-up footy here. From the experience here in Europe it seems most of the doomsday predictions in Oz are unwarranted.

Cheers, AA

Yes Alan, as was said of the stupidity of signing onto a dying Kyoto protocol, trust Oz to be climbing onto the sinking ship, as everyone else is getting off.

This applies as well to so called renewable energy, & carbon tax/trading. The last on before the collapse, with probably the most to loose.

Mate your list of other exports have been in place for decades, with dreadful balance of trade results.

Add to that the lack of serious employment in any of them.

Today I was reading a Gary Morgan report detailing 2.1 million unemployed & underemployed in Oz today. That is a record by the way. Add to that constant announcements of factories closing or reducing staff, & the pretty picture you are trying to paint sags a little.

I'd love a pair of your glasses, even just to make things look better for a little while. Unfortunately, much more of Swan & Julia, & we will all need them.

Of course, if you listen to the ABC, you'll get Julia's propaganda, at least until the stuff hits the fan, & the smell can't be ignored.

Hello again Hasbeen,

Why this extraordinary pessimism about your Government? Do you read Murdoch publications perhaps? If so, you have no-one to blame but yourself.

Your country is generating world-beating results on just about every performance chart there is – absolutely unprecedented success – and you talk as though you are being mismanaged.

For example, you mention exports.

Exports from 2010 to 2011 were up in nearly every category. Minerals rose 25.3%, fuels up 10.7% and primary products up 18.5%. Total exports rose 10.3%. Imports only rose 9.4%. So a positive trade balance.

You also raise balance of trade. Have you looked at the actual figures, Hasbeen?

Consider the last 21 months - since April 2010. For 20 out of those 21 months Australia's balance of trade was positive. In your favour! You exported more than you imported. You made money. You increased your net national wealth. 20 out of 21 is an excellent outcome. You should be overjoyed. Ecstatic!

Okay, it could have been better. You stuffed up last February with a small trade deficit. It could have been 21 months out of 21.

So how does this compare with the previous Government? How many months of trade surplus were there in the last 21 months of the Howard/Costello Government?

21? 20? You would think so the way Australia’s media laud the Conservative political parties as brilliant economic managers.

Was it only 19? If so, that would make them less competent than the current Government at keeping the trade balance in surplus.

Actually, the answer is zero.

None. Not any. Zilch. Nought. Null set. The big O. Complete and total fail.

So, yet again, Hasbeen, the actual data shows your present Government to be pretty much on the ball in all areas that affect your wellbeing. By no means perfect – because all nations are experiencing the worst global downturn since the 1930s – but certainly way better than your lazy, lacklustre, no-talent previous regime.

So cheer up, Hasbeen. Things could be worse. And if there is a change of government next year, things almost certainly will be.

Has-been Look on the bright side, we could have had Abbott as leader, and things might have been like other parts of the world. We have never been better off than we are now. We have a govt; that believes in both sides of politics, and not just neo- liberal. Which was always dangerous times. A progressive leader, with strength, and ambition for Australia as a nation.

Alan,

if our balance of trade is so good why has our debt risen by nearly 200 billion in 4 years?

Alan everyone here knows Howard and Costello left Australia in good shape. Then Rudd came along with his 'pop' politics, spin and the dishonest Union Work Choices campaign.

Since we've all come to understand the dishonesty of labor It's in their DNA.

The Murdoch Press in Australia is pretty well balanced. Like Fox. Is that why you think it favours the Liberals? Every other media outlet in Australia has positive Labor bias. Lately a couple of billionaires have started to buy or announced their intention to buy Fairfax ... so as to raise the standards of Journalism in Aus. That'll set you lefties off calling for independence of the media won't it?

Could it be possible that your perception of anti-government propaganda is wrong. That in fact what you are reading is merely the truth of how our government is behaving? How do you explain even the ABC carrying stories of the PM's department's involvement in instigating the Australia Day riots and stories about the complete breakdown of our border control? Are they too examples of anti-government bias?

Why is it Alan you never acknowledge the good of the Liberals, past and present, and keep on repeatedly preaching Labor propaganda at us? Propaganda which the ABC, Fairfax, parts of the Murdoch press and nearly all the electronic media keep bombarding us and is quite contrary to what you claim. Since I experience that bombardment all the time and you see it only occassionally I think my perception far more likely true than yours. Tell me which TV news do you watch? Do you watch The Drum, QandA, The Project, The Bolt Report, The Insiders, or Meet The Press and do you read Crikey, New Matilda or On Line Opinion?

At this point I have to say you are starting to chant the same hoary old opinions as those chanted by the stressed and haggard looking Bruce Hawke on The Bolt Report yesterday. You are becoming just as laughable.

imajulianutter,

"The Murdoch Press in Australia is pretty well balanced. Like Fox..."

Gawd!...Fox News is nothing more than cheering squad for the Republican Party masquerading as a news outlet. The mere fact that they plug the label "Fair and Balanced" is a fair indication that they're not.

At least we know where you're coming from, imajulianutter.

The best that one can say of the government's economic management is that they didn't stuff it up completely. The economy needed stimulus, and Labor's ability to spend money recklessly had some benefit. But to claim that Labor "saved" Aus from the GFC is a little rich.

Could Australia have survived the GFC and not spent such a colossal amount? the answer is clearly YES. Was the money spent efficiently? The answer is clearly NO. Do we need the additional 6% increase in public servants? Again the answer is clearly NO.

Would the coalition done better? the answer is that it would have been difficult not to.

Hello again Imajulianutter,

Yes, Howard and Costello left Australia in reasonably good shape. But according to economists who study these things, nowhere near as good as if they had handled a number of issues with better judgment. We have alluded to several fairly costly blunders here already. And we have just been discussing their failures with the balance of trade.

When they left office in 2007, Australia’s economy was ranked 9th in the world as measured by economic growth, income levels, inflation, jobs, interest rates, debt to GDP ratio, social services, superannuation, and poverty.

After four years managed by a different team your economy is now clearly number one in the world.

Having money in the bank is not always good, Im, just as having debt is not always bad. It depends on many things.

And having a moderate amount of money in the bank instead of a large amount – after selling off productive assets for much less than their fair value – is definitely not good.

Regarding the Aussie media, Im, I don’t watch any TV but read all the outlets you mention and lots more. But I do not find data on economics in any of them. This is found in those sources listed above – independent academics, the Auditor-General’s reports, Treasury, the Reserve Bank, the IMF, the World Bank, the CIA and UN agencies – all available via the internet.

Regarding propaganda, Im, I am not sure what you mean. I suggested yesterday it means ‘information intended to persuade which is actually untrue’.

Do you agree with this definition? If so, I would be happy for you to indicate anything I have written here which is untrue.

The article, linked above, by Professor Tiffin explains why much of the commentary written in the Australian media about the stimulus packages in 2009 was untrue.

Here it is again:
http://inside.org.au/a-mess-a-shambles-a-disaster/

And here is a study by the University of Maryland about Fox News:
http://www.alternet.org/story/149193/study_confirms_that_fox_news_makes_you_stupid/

"Fox News Makes You Stupid"

Now that does have a certain ring to it : )

I don't suppose, however, that they'll be hurrying to adopt it as their new slogan.

Very true Alan. The coalition want to sell off medibank also. SM your answer for what you would do for AU's betterment, was no more than a copout, please try again. Turnbull's name has surfaced again today by a liberal parliamentarian. A lot of whingeing goes from the lib backers, it's more like a football match to them. They can-not see good in anyone that is not on their side. We can-not have a statesman like Abbott roaming the world, we would get laughed at continually. He is economically illiterate, and says things without any thought.

Government has no job trying to run businesses. I would sell off Medibank, the electricity generation, Quantas, Telstra, NBN, and then pass legislation so that they compete on a equal footing.

The only reason government white elephants can survive is by eliminating competition and charging the customer more. The NBN monopoly is a classic customer rort.

Alan,

We're now number one ... we started from a better position than all others and then they all really f....d up.

You spin that as Rudd and Gillard doing great.

Your response to a debt increase by $200 mill (US$212 bil) in 4 years while experiencing the best terms of trade ... ?

Too difficult?

That's what labor does ... talks up the things they think are relevant and ignores the facts and are relevant to us. That's what you are doing...

I don't doubt the Government's agencies figures, that the international organisations use as their base, show Australia as a wonderfully managed economy ... but that's just not what we see as it ignores the things we see as relevant... like the massive debt, the mistrust we have of Labor lies and it's ineptitude at Government(which translates into a mistrust of 'official sources'... something you at a distance cannot possibly appreciate), of our porous borders, of our two or three speed economy, of our disasterously strong dollar, of the closure of factories and the downsizing of our agriculture, of our shrinking superanuations and of our soaring costs of living for those on city and country wages and fixed incomes. You know those things the 'official' figures don't and cannot possibly show and which most of our media try to ignore.

'‘information intended to persuade which is actually untrue’.'

I only ask: why do you think we need persuading? Don't you think we can make our own assessments"? Why do you think you need to inform us of the meaning of 'facts'? Why does the biased media think they need to educate us on the achievements of our Government. While you can hold and express your opinion when we assesss that as merely a repetition of Government spin and it's supporting 'explanations' in our media ... I think you'd agree our perception of your view is as merely another government propagandist in a long line of government propagandists.

You are not the first and I'm sure you are not the last.

Hello again Im,

Yes, your economy is clearly number one now. But no, you most certainly did not “start from a better position than all others”.

When the Rudd Government took over, your economy was tracking 9th in the world with very ordinary performance across the board. Trade was only one area of obvious failure. Your surplus, although positive, was much less than it should have been. Australia had given inadequate thought to job training – which is why you have had to go out and get so many migrant workers.

No, Im, no-one is trying to “spin that as Rudd and Gillard doing great”. We are simply looking at the clear comparative performance figures as presented by independent authorities and analysed by reputable academics.

The debt increase was a vital strategy in giving Australia’s economy the world’s best growth and other figures. Refer Professor Stiglitz, above. As he and others have affirmed, debt is not bad in all circumstances.

“That's what labor does ... talks up the things they think are relevant and ignores the facts and are relevant to us. That's what you are doing...”

What facts have I ignored, Im?

You mention the value of the Australian dollar, Im. Just before the 1996 election when shadow treasurer Peter Costello was “burning with a cold anger” at the Keating Government for letting the Aussie dollar fall to a miserable 74 US cents. A weak dollar, he said, “impoverishes every Australian”.

And therefore, according to Mr Costello, a strong dollar enriches all Australians. Was he right?

(Incidentally, speaking of facts, Im, in September 2001, after Costello had been treasurer for five years, had the Aussie dollar (a) risen 33% to 98 US cents, (b) dropped 33% to 49 US cents, or (c) stayed at the same level?

Finally, Im, I asked earlier for you to indicate anything I have written here which is untrue. You haven’t. Does this mean there actually isn’t anything?

Cheers, AA

Yes Allan, this mob is blind in one eye, and can't see out the other. As for facts that doesn't come into it. Hell bent on causing hysteria.
medibank is causing no problem what so ever, being in govt; hands. In fact it leads the way in covered items, and the largest med; ins; in AU.
The NBN would not get off the ground without govt money, a 20 year job, then look at selling it off. Julia is an extremely strong woman, with the guts to stand up for what is right for this country.

Alan,

'What facts have I ignored...?

This fact

'Your response to a debt increase by $200 mill (US$212 bil) in 4 years while experiencing the best terms of trade ... ?'

Quoting Professor Stiglitz is a great source of mirth to me.

Why ?

He was 'chairman of the Council of Economic Advisers under the Clinton administration'.

The Administration which re-enforced Jimmy Carter’s Community Reinvestment Act with penalties forcing banks to lend to the poor and disadvantaged at urging the Socialists Frank and Dodd. The Administration that did away with the Glass-Steagall Act which had exerted huge control over the trading activities of the Banks. The biggest factors that lead directly to the first GFC.

Stiglitz obviously agreed that lending to people who couldn't repay debt was ok ... and you say he thinks debt is a good strategy.

It is a great strategy ... if you don't have to repay it and want to lose everything.

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=8053&page=0

'... your economy ... did not “start from a better position than all others”.'

Oh dear oh dear me, Alan there you go again ignoring facts and only focusing on figures.

We may have been 9th in the numerical rankings but how many of those economics ahead of us had a mining boom and money in the bank to rely upon to pull their economies out of the c..p?
How many are currently still increasing their debt through means other than because of debt repayment? Greece, Italy, Spain, France Germany, the US, Great Britan? I'm really interested in that answer and being in Europe you'd know.

N didn't challenge your intrepretation of the figures. I challenged your narrow focus on mere figures, that doesn't take into account what we Australians see. I challenged you why we shouldn't see you as just another Labor propagandist.

That's different to what you are suggesting.

Have you been away too long? ... you seem to have forgotten Australians mostly value fair dinkum. It's something Rudd, Gillard and Labor have forgotten ... showing they've lost touch with Australians ... too.

579

"Yes Allan, this mob is blind in one eye" fine one to talk.

AA,

Just about every policy that Labor has promised or put in place has been a fiasco, from education, to health to school laptops, the list goes on and on.

I would prefer they keep Juliar until the elections, as no one can believe a word she says.

Hello again Imajulianutter,

Not sure where you got that information about Professor Stiglitz. Once again, the opposite of what you are claiming is true.

Prof Stiglitz was only on the Council of Economic Advisers until February 1997. The Glass-Steagall Act was abolished almost three ears later in November 1999, long after his influence had disappeared.

Prof Stiglitz appears to have opposed the abolition and has since called for its reinstatement.

So no, Im, Stiglitz did not “obviously agree that lending to people who couldn't repay debt was ok.” Again, the opposite of what you say is the case.

I read your link to Keith Kennelly’s piece in OLO – but not sure why this is relevant. Mr Kennelly makes some interesting observations but can hardly be regarded as authoritative after claiming in October 2008 that “in the current crisis the real crunch is coming, when inflation must eventually soar through the roof, simply because of the oversupply of money, and interest rates will rise.”

It must? When?

Finally, regarding my query about facts I may have ignored. It is not clear why you posted this: 'Your response to a debt increase by $200 mill (US$212 bil) in 4 years while experiencing the best terms of trade ... ?'

My understanding is that Australia’s debt has increased in the last four years because this was the correct strategy at this point in the economic cycle.

And I have referred to data showing Australia’s terms of trade were seriously problematic throughout the Howard/Costello years but have improved dramatically since September 2008.

So is there an ignored fact anywhere?

Thanks, Im. Cheers, AA

'The Glass-Steagall Act was abolished almost three ears later in November 1999, long after his influence had disappeared.

Prof Stiglitz appears to have opposed the abolition and has since called for its reinstatement...'

Can you reference Stiglitz opposition to the abolition of the Glass-Stegall Act.
Care to tell me the occassions (Dates) Clinton altered the Community Re-investment Act and reference Stiglitz's contemporaneous opposition?

I'll savour your response.

Again you have not written any explanation as to why our Federal and State debts have soared while we are experiencing a fantastic mining boom and such wonderful terms of trade.

You haven't told me which European economies are following our fantastically managed economy and are still increasing their borrowing.

I'm still waiting for you to tell me which of those economies had mining booms?

Hello Imajulianutter,

No, I don’t think I will chase down the dates of the US legislation. Two reasons.

First, it is your allegation that Prof Stiglitz supported abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act, and “obviously agreed that lending to people who couldn't repay debt was ok”. Not mine.

Second, I have nothing at stake. I have claimed Stiglitz to be one of many highly-acclaimed international economists who believe Australia’s dramatic Keynesian intervention – the strongest, fastest and best-directed in the world – gave Australia its unparalleled economic growth during the GFC.

I’m pretty sure Stiglitz opposed those US legislative changes in the 1990s. But it’s irrelevant to my position. He remains a highly-credentialed economist. His Nobel Prize – and several other accolades – were awarded well after that series of events. There are other economists too.

So the accusation is for you to substantiate, Im, not for me to disprove. I'll savour your response.

Regarding Australia’s debt, it hasn't ‘soared’. Relative to GDP it remains the lowest, or one of the lowest, in the developed world.

Reasons for the increase were outlined earlier, 3 February 7:51:56. Happy to restate, if you wish.

"Which European economies are following our fantastically managed economy?" All of them.

“Which economies had mining booms?” Several. Most countries which produce minerals have boomed recently. Not just Australia.

As for overall trade with China, in 2008 Japan sold five times as much to China as Australia. Suffered badly in the GFC with debt now 220% of GDP compared with Australia’s 20.5%.

The USA sold more than twice as much to China. Also suffered disastrously in the GFC with debt now 94.4% of GDP.

Germany sold almost twice as much to China. Also hit badly with debt now 84%. Other countries with greater sales to China include South Korea, Taiwan, Malaysia and Brazil.

There is no evidence that mining booms or sales to China had any effect in rescuing Australia from the ravages of the GFC.

All the evidence is that it was the Keynesian intervention by the Government on the advice of Treasury and the Reserve Bank.

Cheers, AA

AA,

"There is no evidence that mining booms or sales to China had any effect in rescuing Australia from the ravages of the GFC."

Absolute rubbish.

Company tax revenue from mining went from about 7% of total CT revenue in 2005/6 to about 23% in 2008/9, and that is excluding the mining royalties, GST, payroll tax, increased income tax etc that also flowed from the mining sector. (just the GST from mining was $4bn higher in 2008/9 than in 2007.)

Labor hit the jackpot in 2007/11 from mining and still managed to rack up record debt.

'All of them.'

Why are you telling the world all the Economies that were doing better than us, before the GFC are now increasing their borrowing and getting further into debt while their terms of trade are as fantastic as ours?

Absolute rubbish.

'Several.'

Then name them. Can't? Why not ... too difficult?

'There is no evidence that mining booms or sales to China had any effect in rescuing Australia from the ravages of the GFC.'

What was it the Shadow Minister said?

ditto.

'All the evidence is that it was the Keynesian intervention by the Government on the advice of Treasury and the Reserve Bank.'

That's what the socialist Stiglitz said too ... he was wrong as well.

Three questions for Alan Austin:

1)The total sales figures look impressive (as you no doubt intended them to). But surely a better measure would be, what percentage of exports were sold to China, by each country you cited, at the time of the GFC i.e. how dependent were they on the China market—do you have those figures?
[PS Japan had been in recession for decades –long before the GFC hit]

2)Are you telling us that of the countries you cherry picked *none* tried your Keynesian intervention.Only Wayne Swan was smart enough to think of it (or was it that, none of the other Govts had been bequeathed such a handsome surplus to play with)?

3)Is Alan Austin a nom de plume of Julia Gillard?

Hello again Mr Minister,

Yes, understand your argument. And it is attractive superficially.

But observing two things happening simultaneously doesn’t mean one causes the other, does it, Mr M?

The way economists ended up debunking your theory was by studying all countries in any way comparable. Plus they looked at outcomes in Australia over time.

They found several countries had much greater trade with China than Australia had during 2008-09. (See above chat with Im.) If high trade with China – and the associated high revenues from taxes and royalties – really did lead to a successful handling of the GFC, then those countries with even higher trade than Australia should have performed even better.

And those with low trade with China would have done badly. Logical, right? That is the way to test the hypothesis.

In fact they found no connection whatsoever. Just a coincidental occurrence in Australia.

They then looked at all other factors that could possibly explain Australia’s unique performance. And sure enough, Australia had a unique approach to stimulus in 2008-09.

This hypothesis was subjected to all the usual rigorous academic tests, as academics do. And now most economists are pretty much agreed on this. You can google them. Or I could give you a list.

So it’s not rubbish, after all, is it?

So you can cheer up, Mr M!

Hi again Im,

Just on your first question, above: No, that's not what I am saying, is it? Please read what I wrote again, carefully, Im.

Countries with recent minerals booms include Indonesia, Columbia, Ecuador, Nigeria, Libya, Canada, Chile, Australia and Netherlands. Hope that helps.

Im, how did you go confirming Prof Stiglitz’s involvement with those “that did away with the Glass-Steagall Act”? Could you please validate your accusation, or perhaps apologise?

Thanks, Im. Cheers, AA

Hello SPQR,

1) No. But if I were to get them, what would they prove? What would you like them to prove?

2) All of them tried stimulus. Only Australia went in hard, fast and well-targeted.

3) No. Economics is not really her forte, is it?

Cheers, SPQR.

Died in the wool Neo Liberals, Would not give an ounce of credit to Julia, in the face of facts and figures. Now doesn't that say something. Should sound good about election time, you can hear Tony stuttering from here. Not that he will be there ,it will be Turnbull. Tony has got too many pledges in blood.

AA,

Actually that is also rubbish. An equivalent economy, say Canada, also came through the GFC relatively unscathed. If it had the complete lack of debt as Aus did (unfortunately it suffered under socialist government for a while), its performance would have been better still.

You like Labor are cherry picking your quotes and comparisons. The reality is that reason Aus did so well was the mining boom, and the decade+ of coalition government.

Alan,

<<1) No. But if I were to get them, what would they prove? What would you like them to prove?>>

It is usually recognized that China was the dominant growth market through the period;that China kept expanding & buying while other markets contracted.That being the case, I would have thought the percentage of a countries exports/revenues that were derived from the vibrant China market would be highly pertinent: country A, selling 2% into China & 98% in other contracting markets (with likely falling prices) would not be likely to fare as well a country B which sold 98% to China & 2% into lesser markets.

There is sizable body of opinion that disagrees that Wayne's spending was "well targeted".Here's a link to jog your memory:
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/national-affairs/states-schools-blowout-exposed/story-fn59niix-1225901860057
(yes I know you have an aversion to the Murdoch Media, but it's worth a read)

579,
If Gillard had had a perfect track record --and she most certainly has not.Her handling of the carbon tax would have been enough to damn her. First promising not to bring it in. Then deluding herself that if she brought it in, the world would see the light and shout halleluiah and hail her for her foresight.
(similar to what the once & future king Kevin thought he saw when told the meeting at Bali he'd sign Kyoto)
The damage it'll do OZ industry & workers will be immense.

PS don't worry 579, I'm told when the libs get back in their stimulus package will fund remedial classes for those unfortunates like yourself who never learnt to count to ten in the conventional fashion

You are loitering around the bottom of the barrel. Ms bishop needs to watch her manners, she got a good bashing today. Job adds at a two year high, so no interest rate cut. The economy is very secure, Surplus is on track. All good.

Hello SPQR,

Yes, good question – re percentage of exports going to China's expanding economy.

Pretty sure this and all other variables were considered in the research by Professor Stiglitz and others. Unfortunately I don’t have their spreadsheets. But useful data at indexmundi.com and the CIA.

Five countries are comparable with Australia re trade with China: Japan, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil, and Thailand. All have China clearly as top export destination – as does Australia.

Now if the theory is correct that a high proportion of trade to China served as protection against the GFC, then these nations would all have weathered the GFC satisfactorily. In fact, that is not the case.

Taiwan had the highest proportion of exports going to China (28.1%) but suffered badly with four quarters of GDP contraction and a drop in 2009 of 2%.

South Korea sent 27.9% of exports to China but suffered a staggering drop in growth of 4.5% in just one quarter and a total of two negative quarters.

Both these had higher export proportions than Australia's 25%.

Japan may be exceptional. But for the record, sold 19% of its exports to China (five times Australia's by volume) but experienced six negative quarters and two negative years – 2008 and 2009.

Brazil sent 15% of exports to China but suffered two serious quarterly drops and contraction overall in 2008.

Thailand sent about the same quantum as Australia, but suffered four serious quarterly drops and a contraction overall in 2008.

In fact, none of these nations stands out from the international pack in any apparent way. So trade with China seems quite irrelevant.

Of these six major trading partners with China, Australia alone averted a technical recession (two consecutive negative quarters). Australia had a small blip in the 2008 December quarter but still managed annual growth of 1.2%.

This was second strongest of all 34 OECD countries – just behind Poland.

Significantly perhaps, Poland’s trade with China is negligible. But it also implemented rapidly a bold Australian-style stimulus package in 2008.

So it looks safest to go with Stiglitz, doesn’t it?

Cheers, AA

Alan,

You deliberately ignored my example. It is not just the volume of trade with China, but the type of trade. Canada and Australia both have huge mining exports, and both came through the GFC relatively unscathed.

As for Stiglitz, his left wing "social justice" views on politics are well known, and I doubt he would have said anything negative about labor unless they were a complete catastrophe.

Hello again Shadow Minister,

Where do you source your information? Just askin’.

According to all available data, Canada actually had one of the worst GFC experiences of all. It experienced five quarters of negative GDP growth and a serious contraction in 2009 of 2.5%. That was a very grim period indeed for our cousins across the Pacific.

That was the year Australia surged with 1.2% growth and Portugal with 1.7%, both at the very top of the OECD table.

There are 34 developed nations in the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), as you know, Mr M.

Canada was well towards the bottom of this table in coping with the GFC. Only Estonia, Hungary, Iceland, Ireland, Italy, Norway and Spain fared worse.

You are welcome to check this information here:

http://www.tradingeconomics.com

And here:

http://www.indexmundi.com

The experience of Canada, along with the other nations we have discussed, clearly supports the conclusion that having money in the bank, having strong trade with China and having a strong mining sector were no cushion whatsoever against the onslaught of the GFC.

Only the two nations which mounted aggressive stimulus packages – Portugal and Australia – emerged with just the one negative quarter and no negative year.

Cheers, Mr M, A

Greetings again,

Well, did you spot the deliberate error? Yes? Well done!

Of course, I meant Poland – not Portugal – in the last message to Mr Shadow Minister. So please effect those two corrections.

Actually it was a typing error. Probably due to dangerously low blood alcohol levels. Will rectify that now. And chat again tomorrow perhaps.

Cheers. Goodnight. AA

SM you have not won around, and don't expect to. You and Abbott are on a par as far as economics go. Turnbull is again stirring, The focus this year for Julia is economics, which will cut tony to shreds. AA certainly knows his stuff, far to well for the likes of the neo-liberal.

AA,

If you use your link to show the GDP of Canada, the surge in growth in 2010 more than compensated for 2009 , this shows that the 20% of GDP debt incurred by Labor (that future generations will be paying off) provided only temporary relief, and no long term gain.

Australia's dip was smaller, and so was the recovery.

http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?c=ca&v=66
http://www.indexmundi.com/g/g.aspx?v=66&c=as&l=en

579,

I have a degree in engineering, an MBA, and a BComm majoring in Economics and Quantitative analysis (modelling) so that makes me more qualified in this than either Whine Swan or Juliar.

While AA cherry picks data that supports his cause and looks impressive (as does Labors spin merchants), the reality is that Labor's economic credentials are mediocre, and their management skills would get them fired from any real job.

Alan I fell overboard, when I read your response to my claims about Stiglitz..

Stiglitz wasn’t a member of Clintons Economic advisors at the time of the repeal of the Act however it is incorrect to suggest, that he had criticised the repeal of that act at the time. It seems I can only find his call for ireinstatement in 2009 and 2010. Unless you can please reference such from 1999 I think it reasonable to assume he went along with Clinton’s actions.

You, like Stiglitz, have no comment on the other key factor which led to the GFC. Clintons changes to the Community Reinvestment Act in 1995 and 1999. Nowhere is there any criticism of those actions by Stiglitz. Now if you cannot point me to Stiglitz’s criticisms at the time then I also think it reasonable to assume he was in favour of such changes.
Since the changes to the Community Reinvestment Act were directed by the socialist aim of redistributing wealth by forcing the Banks to lend to people who couldn’t repay, it is reasonable to ask why didn’t the economist in Stiglitz object. He's a rabid socialist and preferred to support a fundamentally flawed idea, than condemn it as one contrary to every tenet of our capitalist system. While belatedly, like 9 years belatedly, he as a good socialist, only called for reintroduction of greater regulation of business.

And you think he’s credible ... ... as a fellow socialist naturally you would.

You don’t think you said what you said but you are so confused I don’t think you think about what you say... and often you’ve said things without comprehending their implication. That’s your form.

I’m still awaiting you to address those issues, that contradict your beliefs, I’ve pointed out you’ve ignored. Especially an explanation of how our debt has ballooned while we've had fantastic terms of trade, why that is such a good thing, and how it is a display of sound economic management.

Hello Shadow Minister,

Still not sure why you raise Canada. Seems unfair to compare isolated Australia with a nation adjacent to the world’s largest consumer – the USA – which takes 75% of its exports.

Yet even so, Australia seems to be doing much better.

GDP growth was the same in 2011. It was in Canada’s favour only marginally in 2010. (3.1% is hardly a “surge”.) But strongly in Australia’s favour in 2007, 08 and 09. So unless you want to cherry pick just 2010, Australia has better growth.

GDP per person is in Australia’s favour. More crucially for quality of life, Australia's unemployment is 5.2%, Canada's 7.4%.

Canada’s public debt as a percentage of GDP is 84% - about average. Australia’s is 20.5% (IMF figures), close to the lowest in the Western world.

So in what way, Mr Minister, do you regard Canada as doing better?

Hello Imajulianutter,

You really should think before you accuse.

You claim: “Stiglitz wasn’t a member of Clintons Economic advisors at the time of the repeal of the Act however it is incorrect to suggest, that he had criticised the repeal of that act at the time.”

Why?

“It seems I can only find his call for ireinstatement in 2009 and 2010.”

In which case you should not make false allegations, Im.

“Unless you can please reference such from 1999 I think it reasonable to assume he went along with Clinton’s actions.”

No, it isn’t. Why would it be? And it is not for me to disprove your false allegations, Im. It is for you to substantiate them.

But as a personal favour, here’s Michael Hirsch (2009):

“Stiglitz has warned for years that pro-market zeal would cause a global financial meltdown very much like the one that gripped the world last year. In the early '90s, as a member of Clinton's Council of Economic Advisers, Stiglitz argued (unsuccessfully) against opening up capital flows too rapidly to developing countries ... Later in the decade, he spoke out (without results) against repealing the Glass-Steagall Act, which regulated financial institutions and separated commercial from investment banking.”

AA,

Now you are misrepresenting what I said. I never claimed Canada was better, just that their economy was similarly structured (Large proportion of minerals.) and had a similar result. The graphs I linked show that pretty conclusively.

Canada is also widely regarded as having weathered the GFC extremely well. Comparing primarily manufacturing countries that export to China is either naive or deliberately dishonest.

SM it's your fault for not paying attention in school. AU is doing fine when we have the time to worry about some other foreign country. Abbotts 'bring it on' was a no go question. The old attack dogs from the last coalition regime are faltering. Not one economic question, only muckraking.

Hi Mr Minister,

Yes, that was careless. Sorry.

“So in what way do you regard Canada as doing better?” should read:

“In what way do you regard Canada as having a similar result?"

Looking at all 34 OECD countries it would seem Canada and Australia have more differences than similarities.

Yes, there's a V shape from 2007 down to 2009 and up to 2010. But all country graphs have exactly this, except Greece.

And is there really evidence Canada “weathered the GFC extremely well” relative to other nations?

In 2008 Canada suffered badly with two negative quarters. Barely squeaked through with +0.4% annual. Australia in contrast grew at +2.3%, no negative quarters, a result in the top ten.

In 2009 Canada performed even worse with three negative quarters, one barely in the black and a severe annual -2.5%. Australia in contrast grew at 1.2%, the second best OECD result just behind Poland.

Public debt post GFC is dramatically different. See earlier.

Contrasting interest rates: Australia’s are pretty right with the cash rate at 4.25%. Canada’s is 1%, a disaster for those who have saved.

Different taxation rates: Australia 31.1% of GDP. Canada 38.5%.

Unemployment is strongly in Australia's favour. See earlier.

About the only similarity is that both Canada and Australia experienced sound growth in 2010 – both near the OECD average. But all OECD countries grew except Greece, Ireland and Spain.

So I am curious to know why you think Canada and Australia had a similar result, Mr M. And how this relates to our discussion.

It would seem on all data Australia now has the best-managed economy by far, with Canada somewhere in the middle.

Finally, regarding: “Comparing primarily manufacturing countries that export to China is either naive or deliberately dishonest.”

No, it isn’t. It is a valid response to your comment:

‘AA, "There is no evidence that mining booms or sales to China had any effect in rescuing Australia from the ravages of the GFC." Absolute rubbish.’

The experience of all other countries who sell more to China than elsewhere is directly relevant to this.

Cheers, AA

Alan, it really is up to you the give me direct quotes from Stiglitz.

A third party quote really isn't sufficient. I do accept he has argued against liberalising conditions for business, as any socialist economist would.

Just as he would have gone along with the changes to the Community Reinvestment Act, that aimed to spread the wealth around. He was Chair of Clinton's committee at the time.

Stiglitz is merely another socialist economist who dislikes the way our successful capitalist system works.

Now do yourself a favour, with the aim of re-establishing your credibility, how about addressing my claims about the Community Reinvestment Act. It was those loans that were bundled and sold.

Without those loans there would have been no GFC. Repealling Glass-Steagall, by itself, wouldn't have caused the GFC ... would It?

Now Alan what about those outstanding questions about the terms of trade and debt ...?

Now, what about Tony Abbott, a sheep in wolf's clothing?

Hello Imajulianutter,

No, it is not up to me at all. My credibility is under no challenge whatsoever.

I have said nothing at all about the Community Reinvestment Act, bundled loans or the causes of the GFC in the US. And don’t intend to. Completely off topic.

You are the one who alleged that Prof Stiglitz supported abolishing the Glass-Steagall Act, and “obviously agreed that lending to people who couldn't repay debt was ok”.

This is quite irrelevant to the subject of Bruce Haigh’s article and the subsequent discussion. You appear to have done it in a tawdry attempt to discredit Professor Stiglitz – which has backfired badly.

So the allegations are for you to prove to be true. If you cannot, then it is your credibility that is shot, no-one else’s.

On “outstanding questions about the terms of trade and debt” I am pretty sure these have been addressed.

If you are in any doubt, then please restate the questions and I will restate the answers.

Cheers, AA

Education is the name of the game. If u do not have it you do not understand it. Outgunned on all fronts.

Alan,

Your biased answering of some questions, partial anwering of others, your refusal to answer others and your ignoring of others is pretty well a mirror of Federal Labor. They match your credibility.

They are believed by a few die hard's and have the support of only 30% of Australians.

Their behaviour is despised by a majority of Austalians becuse they, just like you, have forgotten how to be fair dinkum.

See ya and Good Health ...mate.

AA,

Because of the nature of global trade, what you trade is far more important than who you trade with, as you either directly or indirectly compete with everyone else. The demand for manufactured goods dropped sharply, whilst the demand for minerals did less so.

Canada did not fare as well as Australia, as without a financially conservative government, it entered the GFC with a debt of about 60% of GDP compared to Australia's surplus.

http://www.couriermail.com.au/spike/columnists/canada-mounts-successful-campaign-against-gfc-and-has-rebounded-with-surprising-strength/story-e6frerg6-1225875632833

No matter which way you look at it Australia has and is faring brilliantly. Terms of trade have increased by 42% since 2004. All economies are subject to change, and in this world environment it could be abrupt. Australia has diverse, exports and rich mineral wealth. Which puts it in an enviable position.

579,

That Aus is doing well compared to the rest of the world is not under debate, it is just that Labor had very little to do with it.

Hello again Mr M,

Interesting article. Not sure I agree with all of it, though.

For example: "The European debt crisis, which has prompted a massive flight of capital to the perceived safety of the US dollar, has changed that, with commodity-based "risk" currencies such as the Loonie and the Aussie falling sharply."

This was published June 2010. There was a small decline in the Aussie during May 2010, but it was shallow and short. It has rocketed since.

I'm wondering what you make of Syvret's conclusion, however:

"We've been dealt basically the same hand as Canada when it comes to nature's gifts but we've emerged from the global financial crisis with interest rates back to a neutral setting, damn close to full employment (Canada's unemployment is a tick more than 8 per cent), only a small flesh wound when it comes to public debt, a healthy financial sector and an economy showing robust growth.

"That confluence of positives doesn't happen by accident."

This is the case I have been endeavouring to advance: (1) that Australia emerged from the GFC better than any other nation by a wide margin; (2) that trade with China doesn't explain this (We seem agreed on that); and (3) that trade in minerals is not the explanation - as Syvret seems to be arguing here.

So what was the real reason for Australia's success? The thesis of Prof Stiglitz and others is that it was the full-bore stimulus in 2009-10. But, yes, there are other possibilities.

You have suggested the pre-GFC surplus. Maybe. So how do we confirm this?

Intuitively there is no reason why it should be a factor. And it would seem that several other countries which emerged well from the GFC went into it with hefty deficits. Namely, Israel, Switzerland and Singapore.

So I am wondering if you are aware of other countries which, like Australia, entered the GFC in 2009 with strong surpluses. And, if we can identify these, how did they fare?

I am genuinely interested in this question. (No hurry to reply, Mr M. Bedtime here ...)

Cheers, AA

AA,

Your memory has Rudd tinted glasses. I was building plant with imported machinery. The AU$ went from near parity in early 2008 to US60c.

That stimulus was required was never in dispute, from me nor the coalition. What is in dispute is whether the stimulus was used efficiently, and whether the same could have been achieved with a fraction of the money.

The following questions are an indicator:
1 Did the money spent protect the maximum No of threatened Australian jobs,
2 Did the money spent produce infrastructure that added to the productivity of the country,
3 Did the tax payer get value for the money spent.
4 Did the money spent decline in line with the improvement in the economic conditions.

The answer to all above is No.

Simple suggestions from the coalition to help private industry to proceed with projects stalled by financing would have created needed infrastructure and jobs for a fraction of the spend.

What was left was Pink Batts, and very expensive school halls, many of which were a low priority.

The stimulus was spent as it was ,because other means would have taken to long to implement. It was the quickest way to get money into the economy. As for the amount , any less would not have had the same effect. The package did not need high priority or low priority, it needed the money to be distributed in the shortest possible time, and this is why we have the renowned position we are currently in. A calculated risk and handled admirably by the worlds best treasurer.

Though I'm out of my league here, I feel like throwing in a few other possibilities:

Perhaps Aussie optimism has helped, with the higher $A providing cheap imports, enabling Aussies to revel in that favourite occupation of shopping for bargains - with the stimulus handouts, reductions in interest rates on loans, increases in welfare payments, and the comparatively modest increase in unemployment all aiding to keep money flowing through the economy;

Low private debt, relatively high home ownership, confidence in Aussie companies to remain viable (with commensurate confidence in our equities), our highly rated, conservative and reliable Aussie banks and compulsory superannuation all contributing to maintenance of monetary liquidity - helping to keep businesses open and people employed;

Continuing reasonably high export levels, in spite of the impacts of the higher $A on terms of trade, but ameliorated by inflow of foreign investment in the $A, maintained revenue inflow and relative GDP stability;

Limited exposure to failed overseas organisations and institutions, has buffered Aus against the worst elements of the fiscal contraction and global meltdown.

Rapid stimulus spending by our Fed Gov was obviously beneficial, and it probably didn't really matter on what (apart from value and return considerations) - and that Pink Batts scheme certainly was the gift that kept on giving - but wiser choices may have been available if our Fed Labor Gov had had a greater focus at the time on national infrastructure and industry/manufacturing rather than on a socialist agenda aimed at higher wages, mining taxes and wealth redistribution.

Could the Coalition have done better? Under who's leadership? Uncertain.

As for Canada, with so much of their export trade being to the US, it would be expected that they would be more heavily impacted by the economic woes in that area - the US being at the very epicentre of the GFC as it were.

Are we riding high? Fair to middling - with the world not out of the woods yet and international relations navigating many troubled waters.

Abbott wolf or sheep? Neither. Border Collie perhaps?

Morning all,

On the Aussie dollar, Mr S M, I read Paul Syvret earlier as referring to contemporaneous events in 2010. On re-reading, yes, he was probably referring to 2008 – down to 63c.

Regarding your questions, on today’s evidence:

1 Did the money spent protect the maximum number of threatened Australian jobs? Maximum? We will never know. Did it prevent widespread and costly unemployment? Yes. Was it the best outcome in the world? No. Norway and Switzerland did better. But a podium finish.

2 Did the money spent produce infrastructure that added to the country's productivity? Most certainly. Assets include social housing, defence housing, school buildings, home insulation, roads, rail and other infrastructure. Will yield benefits for 150 years or more. Just the 1.1 million insulated homes will save 45% of heating/cooling costs for the life of the houses. That alone is multiple billions.

3 Did the taxpayer get value for the money spent? Yes. The economy went from 9th best-managed at the 2007 election to top of the table today. Have to be happy with that.

4 Did the money spent decline in line with improvement in economic conditions? Not sure what this means.

Other pertinent questions include:

5 Could the school buildings have been constructed for less? Certainly. But saving money was not the point, was it? The task was to tip precisely $14.7 billion into the economy without delay. To have built the same buildings with less would have risked missing the growth and employment target. To have built more buildings for the same amount would have taken longer and also missed the target.

6 Could other spending priorities have yielded better outcomes? Possibly. If so, no-one has come up with proven alternatives.

7 Would the then Opposition’s proposed option have worked? Clearly not. It was for less than half the money, allocated less speedily and targeted differently. In all other nations where this was applied – and it was indeed the mainstream approach – the results were a fail.

579 is entirely correct.

Agree pretty much with all Saltpetre’s observations too.

Cheers, AA

AA,

You are spouting the party line.

No the money was not spent well. The money only went to one sector of the construction industry, the investment did virtually nothing to improve productivity, and most of the money spent was spent after growth returned. And all you are trying to do is dress up the information.

For example, I was working on a project in 2008 of nearly $1bn in Sydney where the tenders were complete, and work was ready to start, and the construction was postponed to 2010 when finance dried up. A loan guarantee for a portion of that would have cost comparatively little and had heavy construction, engineering etc going immediately.

The government was approached, but had other "Priorities"

The simple reality was that Labor could have spent much less, stimulated the economy faster and far more efficiently, and ensured productive assets employing people were available.

That was the coalitions plan, and it would have worked.

SM

Given your record of "spouting", your 'take' on things is a tad warped old chap.

The SM view warped, it's got the biggest wooof in it i have ever seen.
All that money to one company, I say that is misreporting, and not worth using paper on. Labor's plan did work, and the noalitions plan is hypothetical. Not in the race.
Any plan that was cooked up by Tony and Joe would be doubtful, to say the least, the record of economics is not there.
Hopefully we will get a revised coalition, shortly, because this country deserves better from an opposition.

My dear old Mr S M,

When did you study macroeconomics? (Don’t say where or they will sue.)

It has never been true to say “The money only went to one sector of the construction industry.”

For a start, school buildings were only part of the stimulus packages, weren’t they? There were others. Then we must look at what happened to the school contruction spend:

The builders employed tradies, the tradies bought food and clothing for their families, the food producers took a beach holiday, the motels in Noosa bought new furnishings, the furniture manufacturers employed apprentices, who got off the dole.

Builders also bought timber from the hardware store, the merchant then purchased a new outboard for his fishing boat, the boat shop owner bought his wife a new dress and took her to a concert in Bendigo. The concert hall refurbished its foyer and updated the bathrooms. The bathroom renovator took his family to Tasmania and tourism operators there had to hire extra staff …

Shareholders of the companies that won contracts were able to restock with modern equipment and operate more efficiently thereafter.

Some shareholders renewed their subscriptions to newspapers. The editors then were able to visit the brothels more frequently … and the journalists repay debts to their drug dealers …

And so on and so on. The whole point was not to spend as little as possible, as some troglodites imagine was the goal, but to spend the full total of the $14.7 billion as fast as possible.

Any delay would be costly. And taking measures to reduce “waste” would also be costly.

As Joseph Stiglitz explained, “efficiency requires equating the marginal cost associated with allocation (both in acquiring information about the relative benefits of different projects and in monitoring investments) with the marginal benefits. In a nutshell: it is wasteful to spend too much money preventing waste.”

Precisely.

The measure of the success of Australia’s stimulus packages is its ranking in the world:

Number one, Mr S M. Number one.

And a long way ahead of whoever is second.

Cheers, AA

<<Given your record of "spouting", your 'take' on things is a tad warped old chap>>

Talking of being a tad warped --though "tad" might not be the right scale.

I note that in a few short months Bonmot's facade as a man-of-science has warped a tad to reveal that underneath he's just another groupie for all left-politics issues.

A wolf in sheeps clothing --Nah, more like a wannabe pontiff in a white lab coat.

Here you go, SPQR.

Mollydukes is on the ball : )

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13228&page=0#228637

"Liberals (progressives) have more grey matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity...

while the conservative (head-in-the-sand) brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear..."

As SPQR demonstrates.

I tip me hat to you Poirot, for Mollydukes' link ; )

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/04/08/3186006.htm?topic=

Poirot,

There ain't anything liberal (in any sense of the word) about Bonmot's attitude to his political opponents.It owes more to Heinrich Kramer's 'Malleus Maleficarum' than Locke's 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'.

And speaking of such things, I do detect a bit of Abigail Williams in some of your posts

Oh, I understand now SPQR.

Bob Carter, Ian Plimer and Discount Monckton can travel all over the country denying global warming while at the same time exhorting the policies of the Abbott conservatives. They even give Andrew Bolt and Alan Jones a leg-up with the aid of Gina-money.

Yep, their right-wing ideological guff even gets air time in Quadrant and the Murdoch press.

Yet when I exhort the science of 97% of the world's climate scientists and support adaptative and mitigation policies, you cry foul.

Yeah, right - stop smokin the stuff, it's delusional.

AA,

I would hate to see where you studied economics as you show a complete lack of understanding, and your analysis laughable. Your school boy rendition of the multiplier factor still fails to justify why little value was received by the tax payer, and why most of the stimulus was too late and had no effect.

The best managed economy, by what measure? Juliar, Swan, and Wong, the 3 stooges. More like Bernie Madoff triplets.

The only stoogers around here are Abbott,and Hockey, with their 75 billion $ black hole. 'what economics' is that.
The economic figures speak for themselves.
A massive amount of new money being acted upon now, and another massive amount waiting for approval.
Alcoa financed to the tune of $300 / ton of output.
No new request for assistance.
The days of rhetoric have finished.

Good morning Mr M.

“The best managed economy, by what measure?”

Economists use ten key indicators: economic growth, income levels, inflation, jobs, taxation, interest rates, debt to GDP ratio, social services, superannuation, and poverty.

We actually discussed these earlier at some length with Saltpetre and Imajulianutter. So you may wish to review our discussion from about a week ago.

It is clear from all the comparative data available – from the CIA factsheet, the OECD, the indexmundi graphs you accessed earlier, and elsewhere – that Australia is the best-managed economy now, having risen through the GFC from about 9th place in 2007.

Cheers, AA

SPQR,

(Who the hell is Abigail Williams?...she says to herself)

...Oh! that Abigail Williams.

Since you raise the issue, it's uncanny, but I do detect a touch of the Pope Innocent VIII's in your good self.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Summis_desiderantes_affectibus

AA,

Australia is one of the best economies in the world, but saying Labor is the best economic manager is a long stretch given the litany of stuff ups, and the record debt left behind.

In a horse race the winner has more to do with the horse than the jockey.

The thing is SM you can't win a race without a jockey.
Australia deserves a viable opposition , and that is something we do not have. We have a tribe of deadbeat leftovers from a former regime. Without commitment or contribution.
Open both eyes SM and be very thankful for what we have. A perfectly managed economy, credit where credit is due.