Alan
I agree with you that Australia’s economy looks very good compared to most developed economies. I don’t agree that government is mainly responsible for that.

The main difference in the effect of China’s economic growth on Australia compared to say, Japan or Korea, is that we mainly export mineral commodities and Korea and Japan mainly export manufactures. Because minerals supply is inelastic, strong unexpected growth in demand leads to much higher prices for a period, and this is what prompts investment, if those high prices are sustained. Hence, the rapid growth in Australia’s export values to China in the period under discussion IS relevant, because it reflects the larger effect of China’s demand on Australia’s growth in this period.

The most telling statistic accounting for Australia’s strong economy is the terms of trade, which doubled in the 10 years to 2011 due to high export prices. Even though it temporarily dipped in the aftermath if the GFC, its low in 2009 was still 84% higher than it had been a decade earlier. Nothing like this has happened to the Australian economy over such a prolonged period for more than a century, probably since the gold rush.

Unless the government can claim credit for this – which of course, it can’t – then it can’t claim the credit for Australia’s relative economic strength. This is also why the government is being criticised for not moving into surplus sooner and not establishing an effective Future Fund to prepare for the inevitable unwinding of the in terms of trade which now looks to be underway.

Where do you get your data saying Australia’s stimulus was better, larger and sooner than other countries? This suggests it was not exceptional in size, composition or timing:

http://astrid.eu/Dossier--d1/Note-e-con/PRASAD_SORKIN_G20-economic-plans_03_09.pdf

Alan and Rhosty
The AOMF data Alan quotes are for government debt. Australia’s gross foreign debt is mostly private. It stands at $1.5 billion, or about 95% of GDP. The more usual ration cited is net debt, and this is $747b, or just under 50% of GDP

To give credit for the current economic situation, one has to forget the Rudd and Gillard government economic mismanagement, for example:

. the pink batts fiasco, without any effect whatsoever on climate change;

. the billions wasted on the BER (Julia Gillard Memorial Halls) without any resulting improvement in education standards;

. the many billions committed to the NBN without a cost benefit analysis, that will result in Australia having the highest broadband prices in the developed world;

. the knee-jerk halting of the live cattle export trade;

. the mining tax which has reaped virtually zilch revenue, but caused mining companies to choose offshore locations for future investment;

. the science- and economic-unjustified carbon dioxide tax, that has helped destroy Australian industries' natural advantage;

. the unjustified raising of the cost of employing labour through the mislabelled Fair Works Act, e.g. penalising weekend businesses and part-time jobs out of existence with over-the-top penalty rates;

. implementation of a Murray-Darling Scheme that will ensure fresh water for the dammed (formerly salt-water) Murray Mouth lakes, but reduce water allocation for food producers.

Bonjour.

Brief responses, as requested:

@imajulianutter, re: “Why are you running the Labour lie that 'government tax revenues are falling'.”

Is anyone claiming revenues are falling overall, Keith? Haven’t seen that anywhere.

Is that a “Labour lie”? Or are you still reading Murdoch papers?

The article states "tax revenues are diminishing” in the context of company profits being squeezed, job opportunities declining and wages not rising as anticipated. Hence several revenue streams are indeed diminishing. Others are stagnating where rises were anticipated. Some are rising on track. A few are rising faster than expected.

Schedule 5506 of the ABS reveals 2011-12 tax revenue declined in general sales taxes, excises other than crude oil and LPG, agricultural production taxes and a few others.

Overall, revenue will rise year on year. But not at the rate Treasury has been predicting. All set out transparently in the forward estimates.

@Chris Lewis, re: “Now lets get that quote and send it to 1,000 anonymous homes in Australia and see the response.”

Chris, that is precisely your problem. There is the narrative sold by your mendacious media which some happily buy. And there is the reality which the data reveals.

For example, did the rate of fires, property damage, injuries and deaths in the insulation industry go up during the 2009-10 pink patts project, or go down? By what factor?

Can you see, Chris, how dopey it is to ask people who are duped if they realise they are being duped?

About as smart as trying to research ministerial integrity by reading the Sydney Morning Herald.

@Shadow Minister, re: “Australia has better economic outcomes than most other countries, but not better than the Howard government.”

Australia was 11th ranked in the world in 2007. It is number one now by a mile. Compare the value of the dollar, job participation, interest rates, taxes, pensions, economic freedom, productivity, AAA credit ratings, etc. etc. etc.

Achieving this (a) during the worst crisis since the 1930s and (b) without the rivers of gold after Mr Costello sold off so many productive assets is impressive. No?

So cheer up!

AA, i think you have some real issues, particularly your lack of regard for any other person's point of view. You certainly have no regard for democracy because you always have excuses by people being brainwashed by the media. I now notice the culprit is the SMH rather than the Australian.

I have put down a 2012 version of my 2010 piece (publihsed by the ANU)on the Home Insulation Scheme and i ask readers to comment whether it was not researched properly or was merely decided by media bias.

http://epress.anu.edu.au/wp-content/uploads/2012/08/ch082.pdf

In regard to previous post, i am not asking whether you agree or disagree with my article's point of view. These sort of issues always have divided opinion, albiet the ANU thought it was ample enough to have it published.

What i am eager to know is whether anyone agrees with AA's view that this work was the result of myself being brainwashed by the media, which i find personally insulting given the effort i made to systematically go through all submissions to the Senate inquiry,as well as thousands of newspaper articles.

Fact is that there have been various academic pieces (reviewed) done on the HIP, and i am yet to see one that views the HIP as a policy success.

But heavfen forbid, AA probably will tell us how stupid academia has become because it is not agreeing with his point of view.

The HIP is indeed an important reminder why govt's need to do their job properly, not just waste money simply to boost GDP, although i would like to know how wasting many hundreds of millions of dollars is productive anyway.

In 2007 unemployment was just over 4%, net debt was non existent, and business confidence was at an all time high.

Last year the tax revenue from mining was 4x the peak that the Howard government received and this year tax revenue has increased again by 7.5%, yet Labor cannot manage a surplus, the AAA rating is now threatened, unemployment is 5.6% and creeping up, business costs are soaring, there are 20 000 new regulations to comply with, and business confidence especially among small business is at rock bottom.

So if other countries have been cursed with Socialists governments for longer than Australia and have fared worse, that still does not mean that we are doing better now than under Howard.