AA,

The credentials you wanted: Sinclair Davidson is Professor in the School of Economics, Finance and Marketing at RMIT and a Senior Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs.

Also I did not refer to Joe Hockey, Professor Tony Makin did, and in the particular article Hockey had caught out Swan presenting fraudulent information to Parliament. Swan was forced to withdraw it.

The three Australian professors, two of which were commissioned by the government to assess the effectiveness of the stimulus package, all were scathing of the effectiveness of the package. It would appear the further you are away from Australia, as Stieglitz is, the easier is is to swallow the massaged information from Labor.

"My list has 25 indicators on which outcomes are better now." Wrong. As I have shown, most of the indicators are irrelevant, and many show no change.

The list I gave are genuine indicators of economic performance, and none of them have any improvement over Howard's time in office. likewise the seven quarters of growth are better than most other countries that suffered under socialist debt, but are poor compared to the previous government. It is notable that during this time of growth, Labor produced yet another record deficit, which is contrary even to Keynesian economics.

The school halls debacle was a showcase in incompetent management. "According to figures from Brumby's state labor government released figures revealing the extent of cost blowouts, fee duplication and poor value for money spent on state primary schools. According to the figures, provided as part of a government submission to a state parliamentary inquiry into the $16.2 billion scheme, the government paid an average of $4842 per square metre for 390sq m halls delivered under the scheme, and $5575/sq m for 160sq m buildings. By contrast, the Catholic Church is delivering school halls to its schools for an average of $2221/sq m.

So was the Labor State Premiere or his treasury lying?

A lot of people want our debt to increase so they can keep their cushy Govt jobs.This why we are reading this article on comparative poverty.

As I said before,our banks derivative exposure to $20 trillion cannot be bailed out and the Commonwealth this yr refuses to reveal their exposure to devivatives.This is the really scary forboding in which our economy is headed.

Alan here is one ref to our Banks Derivative exposure. http://cecaust.com.au/main.asp?sub=releases&id=2013_02_22_CBA_Hiding.html There was until recently an article on http://barnabyisright.com/ 'Tick tick tick Aussie banks $ 15 trillion time bomb.' Also there was an article in Bloomberg and an article in our papers referring to the CBA not releasing their derivative exposure.

All the banks including the Bendgio/Adelaide are into derivatives as a quick way of making money.

Good morning all.

@Arjay, thanks for those links. Will go through them shortly. Intriguing!

@Shadow Minister, thanks for the further references to the authorities. But they don’t answer the question, do they?

Plenty of economists are stroppy with the Labor Government. After all, Australia's experience through the GFC blew out of the water the cosy theories of several schools of economics around the world. Textbooks are being rewritten as we speak. Many monetarists are most certainly miffed.

The question, however, related specifically to your claim that a majority of economists agree with stimulus, but believe Australia’s “was too much, too long and poorly managed.”

Who? What do they claim the specific level of stimulus should have been – as a % of 2008 GDP? And based on what analysis – either comparative, arithmetic or other?

Incidentally, SM, you should know that reference to anybody involved with the Institute for Public Affairs loses rather than gains you credibility.

Plenty of evidence that the IPA is at the forefront of fabrication and falsifying, including this piece here at OLO:

http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=14376

Re: “The list I gave are genuine indicators of economic performance, and none of them have any improvement over Howard's time in office.”

Not true at all, SM.

First, some items you list are not indicators, but settings. Causes, not outcomes. These include federal borrowings, the company tax rate and tax rates generally.

Second, with several items, the raw data does indeed show Australia is better now than previously. These include job participation, personal tax rates and regulations.

Third, it can be readily shown there were several additional taxes levied during the Howard years.

And fourthly, we must always take into account prevailing global conditions when assessing variables such as economic growth and employment rates. No?

Finally, SM, regarding the so-called “schools halls debacle”, have you read the Victorian auditor’s report?

And do you agree John Howard could have purchased far more than 650,000 firearms for much less than the $320 million spent in 1996 if he had only thought of buying on the second hand market in the USA?

Cheers,

AA,

Your last post finally confirmed to me that you know sweet stuff all about economics. And economic theory is safe from Swan's drunken splurge.

Net federal debt is an outcome or consequence, and is one of the prime indicators. Most of your "indicators" are irrelevant such as the current account and expose your economic ignorance.

For example job participation rate you claim as an indicator is exactly the same under Howard as under Gillard. It means that exactly the same proportion of people are employed or looking for work. Except that under Gillard unemployment is more than 1% higher, meaning that under Gillard a smaller proportion are employed. Not really a good indicator.

Government regulation is more oppressive and if you look at what makes up the index of economic freedom you provided, you would see that the contribution from the federal government has been a negative.

I agree the article you provided on the IPA was a complete fabrication.

heh Austin, why dont you turn this opinion piece into an academic piece and see if it gets published. Now that will be an achievement.

Come on Austin, hundreds of people like this article so give it a go. They cant all be your mates, i would be surprised if they were.

I bet one thing, this rubbish will not get published in any respectable journal because it is is just that, rubbish. You would have to back down in major way to have any hope of publication.

Finally, after all thse years, i finally want to be an academic rather than write opinion pieces. Your mediocrity has seen to that, so i thank you for that.