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