"heh, Austin,...."

"Come on, Austin..."

hmmmm.....one would imagine that academia would solicit a more fulsome adherence to common courtesy.

(even for those who've previously been published in Quadrant and have visions of future grandeur).

Poirot,

No grandeur on my part, i dont claim to know everything, like Austin does.

In fact, i will admit I am not much of an academic either, but then again who is. It is simply too hard for anyone to claim to know how the world should work or does work.

I just write a few academic pieces as part of my vocation now after years of labouring occupations. I also do research for others, my main source of wages.

Once again, i ask Austin to put his supposed inquiry prowess to an academic publication. He may get away with his garbage analysis in opinion pieces, but i will be surprised if such arguments are not ripped to pieces where referees are involved.

Greetings all. Happy Budget Day!

@Shadow Minister, re: “Net federal debt is an outcome or consequence”

My net debt exploded 20 years ago when I borrowed many times my annual income to buy a house. Turned out alright. Just one regret. Should have borrowed more!

Have you ever had a mortgage, SM? Was that an outcome or a strategy?

One more question on this topic, SM: Australia's government 10 year bond yield declined 7 basis points in recent weeks. It's now much less expensive for Australia to borrow.

The rate has dropped below 3% for the first time since when?

Re: “job participation rate you claim as an indicator is exactly the same under Howard as under Gillard.”

Not at all, SM. Not true.

Are we examining the same data? Check the ABS chart, here:

http://abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/6202.0Apr%202013?OpenDocument

Table 18: Labour force status by Sex - Persons 15 to 64 years. Column BO, participation rate: persons, seasonally adjusted.

Is this reliable data, SM?

Lowest point under Howard: 73.2%
Lowest point under Labor: 76.0%

Highest point under Howard: 76.6%
Highest point under Labor: 76.9%

Five and half years after Howard took office [Sept 2001]: 74.0%
Five and half years after Labor took office [Apr 2013]: 76.7%

Even discounting global conditions, Labor has performed better. When we consider the impact of the GFC which has seen participation rates plummet worldwide, Labor has done incredibly well. And Howard was a dismal failure. Correct?

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

Not compared with the Howard years, SM. Australia is 3rd in the global rankings now. Top in the OECD. What was the highest ever achieved under Howard?

Please take care, Shadow Minister, who you accuse of knowing “sweet stuff all about economics”.

@Chris Lewis: Pleased to have assisted in clarifying your life’s calling.

For me, I’m content to continue to serve as a humble fact-checker. For mainstream journalists, MPs and academics. No need to join any of them.

Cheers,

For piece of mind, in case some take it the wrong way, i am not criticising opinion pieces or OLO.

i am sure many of my OLO pieces (probably most) also suffer from bias and not enough balance. For example, while i suggest the Aust economy is going down the tube, i dont offer much of an alternative vision.

But with AA, it is different. He mocks most points made that do not agree with his analysis. Even academic pieces are rubbish if they dont agree. Academics who do agree, often referred to by AA in their opinion pieces, are the exception for AA.

That is why i ask AA to have a go at academic pieces, not because academia is perfect (it is not), but because simplistic assertions or a lack of regard for policy trends beyond a silly comparison of numbers is much less likely to be accepted.

Now think about it, why would any journal accept an argument that Aust was not only the best govt in the world, but the best ever, in light of some of the negative trends that are now occurring for many battlers and businesses. It is clearly a nonsense, yet AA justs rips any alternative point to pieces

Chris Lewis,

".....yet AA just rips any alternative point to pieces."

That's the name of the game in debate - yes?

What you're experiencing is frustration.

It's a bit like a tennis match. Some players read and play their opponent's game to such an extent that even absolute champions have trouble meeting their usual standard when playing a particular player.

Yes, OLO is useful and easily accessible, but it caters to a wide range, from the near academic to the common garden variety blather of the supermarket queue.

Poirot, ok, points taken. I should always talk to people in public with greater courtesy. I probably am one of the crudest people that ever got a PhD.

But what infuriated me is when so much detail is given to a particular line of argument, particularly when greater suffering is occurring in Australia.

Now I have been lucky and have worked very hard to get in a reasonably comfortable position, especially since meeting my mrs around 11 years. We have built a new house and have a small mortgage, yet even we are mindful of meeting our future bills. I listen to the bills faced by one neighbour and cringe, merely hoping they will be prepared for a possible rocky road ahead.

Now for the majority that seek a similar lifestyle, mostly borrowing 90% of the house and land value, I know that many are heading for disaster should the card deck (current economy) fall.

Govts are printing money, but this cannot go on forever. It may even backfire, albeit doing nothing is hardly going to avoid much misery.

So when someone tells me that Aust has never had it better, I get rather infuriated given record utility bills, worsening home affordability, and an increasing distortion in Australia’s production-consumption balance. While there is a need to acknowledge both national and international economic considerations, there is also a need to acknowledge that all is not well here rather than claiming we now have our best ever govt.