The SM view warped, it's got the biggest wooof in it i have ever seen.
All that money to one company, I say that is misreporting, and not worth using paper on. Labor's plan did work, and the noalitions plan is hypothetical. Not in the race.
Any plan that was cooked up by Tony and Joe would be doubtful, to say the least, the record of economics is not there.
Hopefully we will get a revised coalition, shortly, because this country deserves better from an opposition.

My dear old Mr S M,

When did you study macroeconomics? (Don’t say where or they will sue.)

It has never been true to say “The money only went to one sector of the construction industry.”

For a start, school buildings were only part of the stimulus packages, weren’t they? There were others. Then we must look at what happened to the school contruction spend:

The builders employed tradies, the tradies bought food and clothing for their families, the food producers took a beach holiday, the motels in Noosa bought new furnishings, the furniture manufacturers employed apprentices, who got off the dole.

Builders also bought timber from the hardware store, the merchant then purchased a new outboard for his fishing boat, the boat shop owner bought his wife a new dress and took her to a concert in Bendigo. The concert hall refurbished its foyer and updated the bathrooms. The bathroom renovator took his family to Tasmania and tourism operators there had to hire extra staff …

Shareholders of the companies that won contracts were able to restock with modern equipment and operate more efficiently thereafter.

Some shareholders renewed their subscriptions to newspapers. The editors then were able to visit the brothels more frequently … and the journalists repay debts to their drug dealers …

And so on and so on. The whole point was not to spend as little as possible, as some troglodites imagine was the goal, but to spend the full total of the $14.7 billion as fast as possible.

Any delay would be costly. And taking measures to reduce “waste” would also be costly.

As Joseph Stiglitz explained, “efficiency requires equating the marginal cost associated with allocation (both in acquiring information about the relative benefits of different projects and in monitoring investments) with the marginal benefits. In a nutshell: it is wasteful to spend too much money preventing waste.”

Precisely.

The measure of the success of Australia’s stimulus packages is its ranking in the world:

Number one, Mr S M. Number one.

And a long way ahead of whoever is second.

Cheers, AA

<<Given your record of "spouting", your 'take' on things is a tad warped old chap>>

Talking of being a tad warped --though "tad" might not be the right scale.

I note that in a few short months Bonmot's facade as a man-of-science has warped a tad to reveal that underneath he's just another groupie for all left-politics issues.

A wolf in sheeps clothing --Nah, more like a wannabe pontiff in a white lab coat.

Here you go, SPQR.

Mollydukes is on the ball : )

http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?article=13228&page=0#228637

"Liberals (progressives) have more grey matter in a part of the brain associated with understanding complexity...

while the conservative (head-in-the-sand) brain is bigger in the section related to processing fear..."

As SPQR demonstrates.

I tip me hat to you Poirot, for Mollydukes' link ; )

http://www.abc.net.au/science/articles/2011/04/08/3186006.htm?topic=

Poirot,

There ain't anything liberal (in any sense of the word) about Bonmot's attitude to his political opponents.It owes more to Heinrich Kramer's 'Malleus Maleficarum' than Locke's 'An Essay Concerning Human Understanding'.

And speaking of such things, I do detect a bit of Abigail Williams in some of your posts