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.