Hi again SM,

Regarding your six variables, this seems the situation:

a. Net federal debt:

Rose during the Fraser period, fluctuated under Hawke/Keating, dropped under Howard, and rose during the Rudd/Gillard/GFC period.

Compared with other nations, Australia was below average under Fraser, above average under Hawke/Keating, about average under Howard and exceptionally strong during the Rudd/Gillard period.

b. Unemployment rate:

Worsened disastrously during the Fraser years, improved greatly under Hawke/Keating, continued to improve under Howard and dropped back slightly during the Rudd/Gillard/GFC period.

Compared with others, Australia was below average under Fraser, above average under Hawke/Keating, average under Howard and near world’s best during the Rudd/Gillard/GFC period.

c. and d. GDP growth rate and GDP growth rate per capita:

Poor during the Fraser years, improved greatly during the Hawke/Keating period, continued to improve under Howard but dropped back during the Rudd/Gillard/GFC period.

Comparatively, Australia was below average under Fraser, above average during the Hawke/Keating period, average through the Howard years and best by far in the developed world during the Rudd/Gillard/GFC period.

e. Multifactor productivity growth:

Depends on the data. Your sources, SM?

f. Better regulatory environment for small business.

Depends on the data. Heritage Foundation rates the Rudd/Gillard period as best in Australia’s history, best in the entire capitalist world [OECD] and third best in the world, behind Hong Kong and Singapore.

Have you other sources, SM?

On all the following, however, Rudd/Gillard have done way better than Howard – despite the GFC!

1. income – GDP per person
2. GNI income per person
3. interest rates
4. income disparity
5. inflation
6. health care
7. pension levels
8. superannuation
9. personal tax levels
10. company taxes
11. indirect taxes
12. international credit ratings
13. economic freedom
14. personal savings
15. current account
16. foreign exchange reserves
17. value of the currency cf the US$
18. value of the currency cf the euro and the pound
19. productivity
20. quality of life
21. balance of trade current
22. balance of trade history
23. terms of trade
24. 10 year bond rate
25. world ranking on economic management

Cheers,

AA

Hi Alan,

I leveled at you the criticism that you selected “bits of research and opinion that suits your claims”.

To which you responded, << @spindoc: No, the opposite is true. The article measures Mr Abbott’s statements against objective data – NOT any subjective opinion of falsity. Happy to provide further data if desired.>>

Looking back at the responses to your article we see the might of OLO hitting you with contrary “objective data” to your “objective data”.

Not to be outclassed you respond to your “quality“ being questioned by switching to “quantity”. You still don’t get it do you?

The progressives come equipped with masses of narratives to explain their ideology, this is specifically designed to impress the proletariat and establish the mantra of “intellect”. What you fail to understand is that if you did have an intellect you could “think” beyond your ideology, but you can’t so you are stuck with narrative theory.

No doubt you will continue impress the many that also cannot think it through for themselves.

It’s getting tougher to be a proselytizer is it not?

Hi Alan

You say the lies that must be countered are:
“that growth has stopped or been reversed”
If Abbott said this, he's wrong. But that not what the quotes you cite say, or even imply.

“The slowdown is the consequence of decisions in Australia”
Economics is not a precise science, and this is a matter of interpretation. A legitimate case can be made either way.

Personally I agree that the growth slowdown had little to do with government policies, but I disagree that government policies are the main reason for Australia’s stronger economic growth compared to most developed economies. I don’t think government made much difference either way. In politics, oppositions blame government for the bad elements of economic performance, and government claims credit for the good bits. Both overstate Government's capacity to influence growth. Both legitimately point to evidence supporting their arguments, but often tell only the part of the story that suits them. The verdict should be “partly true” for both.

We already have discussed in previous forums the contribution of the resources expansion, terms of trade and growth in China to Australia’s relatively strong economy. I think these were far more influential than you do. I don’t think you’re a “liar” or “tawdry” for playing down these factors, but nor do think Abbott is a “liar” or “tawdry” when he downplays the GFC’s effect on Australia’s growth. Again, I’d rank you both “partly true”.

Likewise, I accept growth has slowed less in Australia than other developed economies. But most people do not live in developed economies. To claim that our economic growth is the best in the world is wrong.

I think your arguments are misleading on debt, productivity, and GDP growth per capita. I also disagree with your point that the mining boom is not ending, but we haven’t discussed that one yet.

I partly agree with several of the points you make. But to be credible as a “fact checker”, you should impartial, willing to explore all the evidence, and give credit for legitimate argument on both sides. I don't think you do that.

AA,

Thanks for acknowledging that Labor is the party of debt and unemployment.

Debt,

The only liberal government that had debt rise was the Frazier government, after Whitlam trashed the economy and left it in deep recession.

Hawke Keating drove it to record highs,

Howard repaid all the debt,

Rudd / Gillard ran it back up to new record highs.

Unemployment

Rose drastically under Whitlam,

Dropped slowly under Frazier,

Rose again under Hawke/Keating

Dropped to record lows under Howard,

Rose under Dudd/Gillard.

Productivity rose under Howard, dropped under Dudd/Gillard - ABS figures.

Morning all.

@Rhian, thanks for this.

Where we differ:

(a) Importance of assessing economic performance within the international context. Australia was 12th-ranked economy globally in 2007. It is now first by a street.

(b) Australia’s bizarre fixation on depicting borrowings as an indicator of failure. This is the equivalent of religious or superstitious nutters who believe ‘neither a borrower or lender be’ and who never take out a mortgage. Just weird. And seldom the way to prosperity.

(c) Impact of pre-GFC debt and surpluses on weathering the GFC. Evidence is compelling it had none whatsoever. Refer Luxembourg, Russia, Ukraine and Chile.

(d) Impact of minerals export volumes and commodity prices on weathering the GFC. Evidence suggests none whatsoever. Refer South Africa, USA, Brazil and Russia.

(e) Impact of trade with China on weathering the GFC. Evidence suggests little, if any. Refer Euro Area, South Korea, New Zealand and Japan.

(f) Impact of the extensive 2009-10 stimulus packages on weathering the GFC. Evidence suggests these were critical. Refer economic analysis from the IMF, OECD, UN and independent academia.

(g) Australia’s economic health now relative to earlier periods. Evidence shows Australia is significantly more prosperous now than earlier.

(h) Australia’s economic health now relative to other nations. Australia’s economy is now healthier than any other economy anywhere ever.

Have endeavoured to link to data sources. Happy to provide more.

Hence these are clearly untrue:

“The Howard/Costello Government … presided over what now seems like a golden age of prosperity – that's been lost” [Mr Abbott last week]

"The Treasurer said that it was a budget for jobs and growth. In fact, unemployment increases and growth decreases." [Mr Abbott, May]

“… the reality is that the cupboard is bare.” [Joe Hockey. May]

“The Gillard Government will be remembered as the most profligate and wasteful custodian of the Federal Treasury in Australian history.” [Julie Bishop, March]

These are clearly false and malicious and ought not be stated or implied. When they are, they should be exposed and condemned, along with all other porkies.

Back later to tie up loose ends.

Cheers,

AA

'The only liberal government that had debt rise was the Frazier government, after Whitlam trashed the economy and left it in deep recession.'

This says otherwise:

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-6goWIsM6G1A/UckTj1RK3QI/AAAAAAAAA-Y/l7xeukzBgx0/s1600/Chart2+June+2013.jpg

There is also that little matter of the OPEC oil crisis and Nixon's severing of the dollar from the gold standard and the runaway inflation that both of these fuelled - which can be seen in the high debt levels of the Fraser years.

The myth of Whitlam era debt was all part of the carefully contrived media beat-up that set the stage for the 1975 Dismissal. The powers that be (draw your own conclusions) were not prepared to tolerate any more 'socialist' reforms from a lefty government. Whitlam debt fantasy was, and is, a brazen lie of epic proportions, which Australian politics has never recovered from