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