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.