Hello again,

@Raycom, you truncated Mr Swan's quote:

“Leigh, there’s nothing I’m prouder of than my record as treasurer. We have an economy 13% bigger than it was before the Global Financial Crisis.

We put in place the most successful response to the GFC and the global recession of any developed economy.

We have an unemployment rate — one of the lowest in the world. We have a big investment pipeline. We have record low interest rates and we have contained inflation.”

All true, Raycom? Does Australia now have economic outcomes better than any nation ever? If not, which has?”

One positive upshot from that appalling Leigh Sales interview is this excellent exposé of the ignorance and herd mentality of Australia’s mass media:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/swan-dive-marked-down-sales-blows-the-budget/

@Slasher1: Yes, one of Chris Lewis’ papers was reviewed, here:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2012/politics/ministerial-responsibility-in-australia-accuracy-please/

His HIP ‘research’ prompted this here earlier also – so far, unanswered.

“@Chris Lewis: Have just read your paper, linked earlier. Yes, it does read as a cut-and-paste of Murdoch’s pink batts narrative. No evidence anywhere that you have tested, or even questioned, claims made in News Limited stories.

“You appear to assume all their reports are factually accurate. Fair observation, Chris? Because the things they consistently got wrong you got wrong. The things they got right you got right ... Their confusion of settings and outcomes appears to be your confusion also, Chris. And the crucial independent research they ignored you ignored. Notably that from the CSIRO.

“As with virtually all Australia’s media, including the ABC, you seem not really to understand the fundamental purpose of the scheme – which to observers who don't read The Australian was overwhelmingly accomplished.

“Instead you assert at the outset it was a “debacle” – without explaining why – and proceed as though that is a given.

“Just three questions, Chris, if you are happy to pursue this:

“What do you regard as the scheme's fundamental purpose?

“Why did you include Rodney Tiffen in your references? His research reached the opposite conclusion from The Australian’s and yours. No?

"Why no reference to the findings of the CSIRO?”

Cheers

AA,

The schools I listed have now been closed.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2011/06/22/3250830.htm?site=northtas

"All of the 20 schools on the list for possible closure received federal grants under the Building the Education Revolution (BER) program, worth more than $13 million in total."

A good investment? or a huge waste of tax payers' money?

As for the job participation rate, the reason I chose Feb 2013 at 65.1% is show your statement "doesn’t show the rebound through late 2012 and 2013," as the lie it is.

The job participation rate increased 2% under Howard, yet under labor virtually hasn't moved. Unemployment has though so if you subtract the unemployment rate from the job participation rate, labor far under performs compared to the coalition.

The Coalition were far better economic managers. Correct!

As far as the pink batts are concerned, you have accepted most of my comments showing that the scheme provides very few returns for house holders in the long term and nothing for the government.

As far as the costs involved, there was a limit to the pink batts subsidy, and many houses required the owners to pay in a portion. So again you failed. The scheme did not cover it all.

Gee thanks Slasher and AA.

You guys are clearly superior to the referees that assessed my article. Damn, here I am trying to do the best according to my limited ability, but you guys are clearly the ones I should have been communicating with to do a truthful piece on the HIP.

As for Rod, he has read the piece, and I apologise if any offence was caused by not referring enough to his piece, albeit I disagreed with it.

Thankfully Rod, who is not arrogant (unlike some), has read the piece and said it was very well researched, albeit he disagreed with it. Such supportive comments from Rod, and i et a few, easily surpass views from AA on how one should conduct esearch.

Fortunately, I don’t cater for the wishes of what some people want me to write, within their claims that there is an absolute truth.

Now I would be interested to see what Rod would say of your work, especially the claim Aust has never had a better Labor govt.

Again, we must be free to express our opinion, in academia, the press or wherever. We will get it right sometimes and wrong sometimes. In the end, however, the people will decide what they think of a govt, the only honourable way to decide which elites run the country.

AA, you may be OLO’s greatest read author, but believe me, most Australians don’t agree with you. I wonder why, and I wonder what know alls like you really think of the people.

Surely, you have more faith in a liberal democracy not to believe that the people have been hoodwinked by the press. Oh …, I may be asking too much now.

So adios AA, and lets raise a toast to the next govt of Australia and wish it luck, once the current goon show gets the flick

chris, i am surprised that you are unable to answer basic questions, unfortunately it appears that there is now a Faculty of Programmed Basket Weaving at ANU now.
Maybe we should draw it to the attention of the VC about the appalling academic oversight shown on this paper.
If you were a credible academic writer you would be able to defend the views expressed in your paper. Instead of the nah-nah response.

Slasher, give it a rest.

Like i said, i do my best. My answers are in the paper, published in a couple of university publications.

Now i dont know who you are, but go ahead and write a critique. That is what you are supposed to do in academia when something gets published.

Now, my paper has been read by many a professor, including the four that reviewed it for 2 publications. I think one professor sent it to every MP, certainly the Coalition ones.

One professor used the paper for a public service course, so you might as well have a go a the APS as well.

Like i said before, which some airheads dont seem to understand, you either agree with the argument in general terms or you dont. Funny thing is the ones who disagree all appear to be Labor zealots.

Take your complaints to the universities; they published it.

However, my publications wll be on the public record forever, whether it is any good or not. For now, given referee approval, i am happy with that.

BTW, what is your name; i would like to check your work if you have any. It is always good to learn from rthe masters, or are you a master of bs.

Hello again,

@ShadowMinister, re: “The schools I listed have now been closed.”

Correct. The Standing Committee says no BER money went to them. And your linked article says: “the Commonwealth has the right to recoup funding … if the schools are closed.”

So how is the Commonwealth remiss?

Re: “As for the job participation rate, the reason I chose Feb 2013 at 65.1% is show your statement "doesn’t show the rebound through late 2012 and 2013," as the lie it is.”

Two problems, SM:

1. The missing rebound relates to your graph. Correct?

2. If you wish to compare “final months”, February is not the latest. There was an improvement in April you should not conceal.

Re: “The job participation rate increased 2% under Howard, yet under labor virtually hasn't moved.”

Correct. Participation increased during the Howard years, but less than in comparable nations – despite Australia’s boom.

Job participation worldwide dropped through the GFC. But in Australia remained mostly constant, with a lift to an all-time high in 2010.

Can you see why the world is in awe of Australia now, SM, and regards the previous regime as inept?

Re: “As far as the pink batts are concerned … the scheme provides very few returns for house holders in the long term and nothing for the government.”

The opposite is true. Refer independent research.

@Chris Lewis, re: “AA, you may be OLO’s greatest read author, but most Australians don’t agree with you. I wonder why…”

Hmmm. Australia’s aversion to fact-checking perhaps? In the media, academia and political discourse?

Re: “My answers are in the paper, published in a couple of university publications.”

No, they aren’t, Chris. Slasher1 and I have read your paper. We have asked reasonable questions arising from your assertions, in the spirit of intellectual inquiry. Fact-checking.

You volunteered to join this discussion, Chris. You offered your paper. Slasher1 and I are simply asking you to explain assertions contradicted by objective evidence – of which, curiously, you seem aware.

Are you unwilling to do so? Seems unlikely. You have contributed here indefatigably. So are you unable?

Cheers,