Does anyone still read this bloke?

When I want fantasy I go pick up a Harry Potter, definitely not an Alan Whatshisname.

AA,

Most of the variables you gave are not indicators of good economic management, the ones that really count the coalition is better in all of them namely:

Net federal debt,
Unemployment,
GDP growth rate
GDP growth rate per capita,
Multifactor productivity growth,
Better regulatory environment for small business.

'No, not at all'. Going on past performances Alan, you'd now qualify as Mr Negative.

Lol.

Hi Alan

re q1: Economic growth is the norm in the Australian economy. Every government since WW2 has left office with real GDP higher than when they were elected, so to say Labor has achieved this says nothing about its comparative economic performance. A more meaningful comparison would be the relative growth in GDP, which has slowed under Labor (see below).

Net wealth as a percentage of household disposable income rose under Howard but has declined under Labor:

http://www.rba.gov.au/chart-pack/household-sector.html

Re q1, q2 and q7. The data I used are from the ABS for Australian statistics:

GDP per capita (chain volume, seasonally adjusted, series ID A2304404C)
Mar-96 ___ $11,843
Dec-07 ___ $15,444
Mar-13 ___ $16,069

Annualised % increase:
Mar-96 to Dec-07 = 2.3%
Dec-07 to Mar-13 = 0.8%

GDP per hour worked index (chain volume, seasonally adjusted, series ID A2304192L)
Mar-96 ___ 78.7
Dec-07 ___ 97.5
Mar-13 __ 104.5

Annualised % increase:
Mar-96 to Dec-07 = 1.8%
Dec-07 to Mar-13 = 1.3%

Shadow Minister’s point is also right - total factor productivity looks even worse than labour productivity.

The GDP data not adjusted for population growth are closer to your numbers, but the per capita estimates above are a better measure of economic performance.

GDP (chain volume, seasonally adjusted, series ID A2304402X)
Mar-96 ___ $216,118M
Dec-07 ___ $328,464M
Mar-13 ___ $374,210M

Mar-96 to Dec-07 = 3.6%
Dec-07 to Mar-13 = 2.5%

Re q5 - the international debt and growth data I use are from the IMF WEO database. I agree a more important question of general economic performance, but that is not relevant to the argument you are trying to critique. The quote you try to falsify says: “Australia's debt position is better than that of some other countries – not because we've done better, but because we started better." The data show a very strong (and unsurprising) positive correlation between countries’ debt positions before the GFC and their positions after. The six countries with the lowest debt in 2006 also had the lowest debt in 2013 (Australia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Norway and Sweden). Abbott is right.

@Atman: No, there's no evidence that the mining boom saved Australia from the GFC. None whatsoever.

Absolutely wrong. Without the mining boom we were cooked. You are implying that mining had no bearing on the GFC by stating that it did not "save" Australia. You do not even concede that it was a substantial contributor. This is grossly misleading.

You deceitfully talk of one million jobs, not mentioning that the unemployment rate has gone up since 2007. Does the concept of net jobs mean anything to you?

Fact check Gillard Carbon Tax promise and her promise to Andrew Wilkie. No need, everyone knows about those lies.

We need to get rid of the Labor Party . Now.

Alan
You say “Australia is in fact doing better than every economy”. In fact, IMF data show that Australia’s economic growth between 2006 and 2013 ranked in the bottom half of growth rates - 111th of 185 countries for which it published data for both years:

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2013/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2006&ey=2013&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=country&ds=.&br=1&c=512%2C666%2C914%2C668%2C612%2C672%2C614%2C946%2C311%2C137%2C213%2C962%2C911%2C674%2C193%2C676%2C122%2C548%2C912%2C556%2C313%2C678%2C419%2C181%2C513%2C867%2C316%2C682%2C913%2C684%2C124%2C273%2C339%2C868%2C638%2C921%2C514%2C948%2C218%2C943%2C963%2C686%2C616%2C688%2C223%2C518%2C516%2C728%2C918%2C558%2C748%2C138%2C618%2C196%2C522%2C278%2C622%2C692%2C156%2C694%2C624%2C142%2C626%2C449%2C628%2C564%2C228%2C283%2C924%2C853%2C233%2C288%2C632%2C293%2C636%2C566%2C634%2C964%2C238%2C182%2C662%2C453%2C960%2C968%2C423%2C922%2C935%2C714%2C128%2C862%2C611%2C135%2C321%2C716%2C243%2C456%2C248%2C722%2C469%2C942%2C253%2C718%2C642%2C724%2C643%2C576%2C939%2C936%2C644%2C961%2C819%2C813%2C172%2C199%2C132%2C733%2C646%2C184%2C648%2C524%2C915%2C361%2C134%2C362%2C652%2C364%2C174%2C732%2C328%2C366%2C258%2C734%2C656%2C144%2C654%2C146%2C336%2C463%2C263%2C528%2C268%2C923%2C532%2C738%2C944%2C578%2C176%2C537%2C534%2C742%2C536%2C866%2C429%2C369%2C433%2C744%2C178%2C186%2C436%2C925%2C136%2C869%2C343%2C746%2C158%2C926%2C439%2C466%2C916%2C112%2C664%2C111%2C826%2C298%2C542%2C927%2C967%2C846%2C443%2C299%2C917%2C582%2C544%2C474%2C941%2C754%2C446%2C698&s=NGDP_R&grp=0&a=&pr.x=50&pr.y=12#download

Most of the economies ahead of Australia are developing countries such as China and India, and I would accept that these are likely to grow faster than a developed country. Nonetheless, in an article about fact checking, one might expect a greater degree of precision.

Re productivity
The productivity series in your graph is a trend – manipulated to smooth out fluctuations from period to period. So it’s not surprising you observe productivity growth for nine consecutive quarters. The seasonally adjusted numbers from which they are derived show productivity fell in the March quarter 2011 and June 2012, and was flat in September 2011 and March 2013. So really, growth in 5 of 9 quarters.

Compare the trend series ID A2304364W (reproduced in your chart) with the seasonally adjusted series ID A2304192L:

Table 1:
http://www.abs.gov.au/AUSSTATS/abs@.nsf/DetailsPage/5206.0Mar%202013?OpenDocument

You say productivity has come off a “high base”. Not so. seasonally adjusted productivity fell between September 2009 and March 2011. It has since picked up, but the 2.6%pa growth in the past 2 years is hardly stellar. The chart exaggerates the improvement because it is scaled with a minimum y axis of 96, making the modest improvement of the past few quarters look stronger than it really is. Good statistical practice would set the axis minimum at zero - but then, you'd hardly discern any productivity growth at all.