sorry,last sentence was urging AA to try his hand at academia given his supposed authority on everything and supposed mastery of the facts.

Austin, I have an idea for you. Why dont you attempt an academic article tha argues that the Home Insulation Program was a policy success? Now that would be a feat.

Another idea, based on your latest OLO piece, could be 'why Australian people and businesses have nothing to worry about'. Then send it to all the non-profit religious entities reporting increasing misery.

Greetings all,

Hello again Grim23.

Re: “If you admit that monetary policy was effective, then by definition fiscal policy is ineffective and wasteful.”

Wasteful, yes. Ineffective, no. Effectiveness depends on what outcomes we want.

‘Waste’ is an effective economic variable rarely undertstood by the media commentariat.

Re [Brad Delong]: "Here is the point: an optimizing central bank that cares only about inflation and unemployment because it does not find itself at the zero nominal lower bound … will engage in full fiscal offset"

Probably correct also, Grim23. But the outcomes of Rudd’s 2009-10 stimulus packages were not confined to inflation and unemployment, were they?

They included care for the environment, improving educational resources for schools, expanding social housing stock, expanding other assets for future utilisation, taking advantage of record low cost of borrowings and – centrally – averting the economic and social cost of widespread job losses.

Evaluation of the effectiveness of the HIP and BER must measure all these. Studies that don’t are garbage-in-garbage-out. No?

@cohenite, re: “The HIP was a disaster”

Why? On what criteria?

Re: “lives were lost, houses were burnt down”

Correct. But at one quarter of the rate experienced in the industry during the Howard years. Was the Howard Governnment a disaster four fold?

Re: “the efficacy of the insulation was nil”

According to whom? Not according to independent studies.

http://theconversation.com/pink-batts-not-a-scandal-but-not-as-good-as-claimed-10213

@Chris Lewis and cohenite, I have an idea for you.

Why not collaborate on a peer-reviewed study of John Howard’s 1996 gun buyback scheme? Now there was a disaster, a shambles, a disgrace!

Do you know they bought 650,000 firearms for $320 million. – which they could have easily purchased for a fraction of that price if they'd thought of buying on the second hand market in the USA.

Then, instead of stockpiling the weapons and selling them later when the price rose – or putting them to good use with the army – they destroyed them!

Was there ever a greater debacle in the history of government – $320 million spent and absolutely nothing tangible to show for it at the end?

Cheers,

AA,

"Not at all. Juliar has a record of better outcomes than any current government or any government in history. Can you name a better-managed economy anywhere, as measured by outcomes, SM?"

Yes Howard's government had a far better record, inheriting a heavily indebted economy, by paying back debt, achieving record sustained growth, shrinking unemployment to record levels and raising the living the real wages of the lowest income earners more than any other government in Australia's history.

Juliar inherited a stellar economy and increased debt from zero net debt to record levels, increased the oost of doing business faster than any government in history, introduced regressive IR legislation and record levels of red tape.

This is the worst government in decades and is likely to be left with a handful of seats in a few months.

Austin, do you know the difference between an opinion piece and academic article? Wow, it got published on The Conversation, a site for academic elites, so it must be right.

Once again, why dont you write an academic article (peer reviewed) on the HIP? It would be a good chance for you to establish some credibility and reinforce your own view that you know everything.

Now you have put your silly thoughts on the record again, why dont you write an academic article that suppoorts your contention that the Howard govt's gun buy-back program was a disaster. Now thyat would be some feat if you got that published, and would proably erode the perception towrds academics even further.

You are sounding madder by the minute. You should stop before you go blind.

Greetings,

Hello Shadow Minister.

Re: "Howard's government had a far better record”.

By popular perception, perhaps. By objective facts, no.

Re: “[Howard] inheriting a heavily indebted economy”

No. The previous regime delivered budget surpluses. Keating got inflation down from above 10% to below 4.6% where it has stayed since. Borrowings were low when Howard took office and have stayed low since.

Re: “by paying back debt.”

Yes, some was repaid. Largely by selling productive assets which should have been kept. Not smart. Economists were aghast.

Re: “achieving record sustained growth”

No. Growth started in 1992, well before Howard.

Re: “shrinking unemployment to record levels”

Incorrect. The data, SM?

Re: “raising the living the real wages of the lowest income earners more than any other government in Australia's history.”

Again, incorrect. Data?

Here is a short exercise, SM.

On how many of the following 25 measurable criteria was the Howard Government doing better in 2007 than the Gillard Government is doing now – during the worst economic downturn since the Great Depression?

1. income – GDP per person
2. GNI income per person
3. income disparity
4. interest rates
5. inflation
6. people employed
7. job participation rate
8. personal tax rates
9. company tax rate
10. superannuation
11. health care
12. pension levels
13. personal savings
14. productivity
15. current account deficit
16. current account deficit as a % of GDP
17. international credit ratings
18. economic freedom
19. value of the Aussie dollar cf the US$
20. value of the Aussie dollar cf the euro
21. value of the Aussie dollar cf the UK pound
22. balance of trade
23. industrial production growth
24. foreign exchange reserves
25. overall quality of life

I will give you a nudge. The answer is either

(a) all, or
(b) none

And here’s the great thing, Shadow Minister: If you actually know the numbers, instead of swallowing lies you are told, you will move from the duped-by-the-manipulators category into the knowing-which-way’s-up category.

You will then go through life with a light in your eye and a spring in your step!

Cheers,

AA