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