"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."

That's correct. What dear Alan cannot see is that Australia is still doing relatively ok compared to other nations which have governments of a similar ilk to Gillard's mob, primarily because those other nations do not have the inherent advantages Australia has.

All the comparatitve indices which dear Alan lists to show Australia's relative fortune do not reflect in any way on this government; Australia is doing relatively ok IN SPITE of Gillard.

As I have said before the real comparison is with what Australia would have been without Gillard. Every policy she has overseen has been an unmitigated failure, disastrously implemented, unplanned, ideologically corrupt.

On top of that we see the alp poisoning the well so their pernicious, vile influence will remain after Gillard is booted out.

The only saving grace to come out of this will be for Gillard to face criminal charges along with her paramour Wilson.

Hi again Rhian.

Re: “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.”

Yes and no, Rhian. Prices were higher for a while, but not for long. When the iron ore price dropped in October 2011, Australia’s economy still surged.

Why was Australia the only ore exporter to avert recession? Brazil exports almost as much. Also enjoyed high prices. Brazil went into recession in 2009 along with other ore exporters. Has barely recovered since.

So no evidence that ore sales to China were critical.

Yes, you are correct re investment, Rhian. But the investment that did the trick was not mining. The critical investment in 2009-10 was in insulation, school buildings and other public facilities.

Re: “The most telling statistic accounting for Australia’s strong economy is the terms of trade, which doubled in the 10 years to 2011”

Not really. During the first eight years of that period, Australia’s economy languished. You only got through by selling off productive assets. Your economy surged to the top of the pops in 2010. You got your AAA ratings in November 2011.

So what happened in 2009-10 different from the previous 8 years? And different from the rest of the world?

It wasn’t the terms of trade.

Re: “Unless the government can claim credit for this – which of course, it can’t …”

The Government should get credit, Rhian. It gets credit abroad. Just not in Australia.

Re: “Where do you get your data saying Australia’s stimulus was better, larger and sooner than other countries?”

All the economists who have studied this, Rhian. Example:

http://www.oecd.org/economy/outlook/42421337.pdf

Refer figure 3.2. The size of the pale blue column is much greater than anywhere else – about four times the OECD average.

Plus Joseph Stiglitz:

"You were lucky to have, probably, the best designed stimulus package of any of the countries, advanced industrial countries, both in size and in design, timing and how it was spent - and I think it served Australia well.”

Cheers, AA

Dear Alan has no idea; any reasonable anlysis of the Swan stimulus package shows it was a relative failure; see for instance:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2010/05/13/did-the-stimulus-work/

Even at this stage Swan and the rest of this mob were lying and obfuscating; obviously the overseas commentators who dear Alan relies on are as gullible as him; maybe they're in some of those 90000 jobs created by the stimulus;

http://www.thechronicle.com.au/news/rudd-announces-second-42b-stimulus-package/161053/

The only thing real about Swan's stimulus is the cost, $42 billion; even if there were 90000 jobs created, which there wasn't, they were created at a cost of just under $1/2 million each.

1/2 a million each for 90,000 imaginary jobs.

Dear Alan and the alp.

Remember it when you vote folks.

Hello Shadow Minister,

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

Wrong, wrong and wrong, SM.

In 2007, Australia’s employment record was just average relative to comparable countries. The jobless rate fluctuated between 4.2% and 4.6% through 2007.

The rate in the USA was also between 4.4% and 4.7%.

Then the GFC hit, didn’t it? Every developed nation in the world lost millions of jobs. Except one. Australia alone maintained high employment. Incredible!

The USA rate today is much higher than Australia's – Europe is more than double.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/euro-area/unemployment-rate

No, Australia’s debt dropped to 9.7% of GDP in 2008. It was never “non-existent”. That was about average in the OECD then.

Australia’s is now only 20.7% – despite the worst global downturn since the Great Depression. That's about one fifth of today's OECD average. Just amazing!

Business confidence actually declined during 2007, SM. Businesses were happy to see the back of Costello who had squandered so many great opportunities. Selling all that gold at rock bottom prices. Losing billions gambling on foreign exchange markets. Selling off the rivers of revenue. Wasteful spending with nothing to show for it. Just so disappointing!

Re: “Last year the tax revenue from mining was 4x the peak that the Howard government received.”

Really, SM? Including company tax? Your source?

Re: “the AAA rating is now threatened”

Nonsense. All three rating agencies have reaffirmed Australia’s triple A. Why do you think Howard and Costello never achieved that, SM?

Re: “business costs are soaring, there are 20 000 new regulations to comply with, and business confidence especially among small business is at rock bottom.”

Hardly, SM. Australia now ranks top among OECD nations (and third in the world behind Hong Kong and Singapore) in Heritage Foundation’s survey of economic freedom. This reflects ease of producing and investing and freedom from onerous regulation. Brilliant!

http://www.heritage.org/index/ranking

Much higher than Howard and Costello ever achieved.

SM, you have been reading newspapers again, haven’t you? Not the path to knowledge or wisdom, is it?

Cheers, AA

And so it goes; the misrepresentations and outright lies continue.

In respect of unemployment, seasonally adjusted the unemployment rate is now higher than it was at the height of the GFC:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/04/11/how-is-that-stimulus-working/

The only difference is now there has been a $300 billion debt turnaround generated by dear Alan's government.

So, just to clarify, unemployment now higher than during the GFC but debt hugely increased.

And of course the current unemployment is far below what the world's greatest treasurer promised:

http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/04/12/another-broken-promise/

Hello again,

Some follow-ups briefly:

@cohenite,

Yes, that Catallaxy Files piece has done the rounds. No credibility, however, Anthony.

It asserts: “There is no obvious reason why those countries should have been excluded.” This is in reference to excluding India, Indonesia, Mexico, Russia, Saudi Arabia, South Africa and Turkey.

Well, to economists the reason is glaringly obvious. We must compare like with like. Always. Fundamental principle. Australia’s wealthy, liberal, democratic, free enterprise economy must be compared with like economies.

I personally prefer to do straight OECD comparisons. Which would include Mexico and Turkey. But no way can you include the others with integrity.

Fair enough, Anthony?

@Chris Lewis:

Have just read your paper, linked earlier. Yes, it does read as a cut-and-paste of Murdoch’s pink batts narrative. I found 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. You seem to have ignored the facts they ignored. Perhaps you were genuinely unaware of them. And the hostile witnesses they relied upon you relied upon – the Opposition, Murdoch media, anti-Rudd unions and anti-Labor business.

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?

Thanks, Chris.

Cheers, AA