Greetings all,

Thanks again for these thoughts.

@Yabby, re: “No matter what Murdoch thinks, people are not silly.”

Agree with this, Yabby. There's no issue at all with what Mr Murdoch or his people think. No problem with their opinions, or their bias, or their politics, or using their publications to promote their preferred political party.

All these are perfectly acceptable in a free country.

Problems only arise when they deliberately fabricate ‘information’ which they know is false, in order to make you and other readers believe things that are not true. That is the issue.

The problem is that about half of what they write on economics is true – and the other half is false. But they don’t tell you which half is which. There are no consumer labels:

"WARNING! Article written by Gemma Jones, found by the Australian Press Council to be a serial fabricator."

Hence all readers of Murdoch publications know a lot of things that are not true and don’t know a lot of other things they should know which are true.

From afar, it’s kind of amusing to observe. Especially when the things some Australians believe are pretty dopey. But can you see how it's a bit of a problem for democracy?

Did you read the article, Yabby?

@LEGO: No. Some of my best friends are readers of The Australian.

@Ludwig, thanks for that considered response again.

Not sure who you are referring to regarding big corporations donating to Labor. Have you checked the register, Ludwig? Is there anything there amiss, do you think?

Agree with your other observations on big business.

I’m endeavouring to follow your argument regarding the high immigration rate. But I’m not completely sure why you think the rate in Australia is excessive. Are the problems economic, social, racial, environmental, or other?

You seemed to suggest earlier that there were economic disadvantages. But this appears not so - based on Australia’s economic fortunes.

Are you aware I now live in the South of France, Ludwig? So it may take a strong argument to dissuade me against migration!

Cheers,

Alan A

*The problem is that about half of what they write on economics is true – and the other half is false*

So Alan, because they don't agree with your opinion of economics, it must be false. Fact is that economists don't agree about economics, let alone various journalists. I judge things by what I see happening around me, right here in Aus, as seen by those people who make the economy happen, not those reporting spin, as most politicians do. How many people actually even read the opinion articles in the daily press? Only a small % of the public. Just about everyone switches on their tvs and politicians are in our face every day, putting out their spin. Sadly the labour party is largely made up of ex union officials and similar, not people who know much about business or the economy. No wonder this last Govt has been such a disaster.

Ha Alan it is now being suggested somewhat more widely tbat tbe loss with Kevvy will
be greater tban the loss would have been with Julia.
Since Julia was once your favourite that will no doubt please you.
And of course that was all because of the Murdoch media too ... wasn't it?
Cheers Alan.

Alan’s articles and comments follow the same pattern – present a large number of statistics selected or massaged to demonstrate Labor’s supposed superior fiscal management, and shift the goalposts as each of his claims is challenged or disproved.

For example, showing debt levels in billions of national currency is utterly meaningless, as it reflects neither the size of the economy nor the exchange rate. Australia’s $404 billion gross debt is a mere $233 billion UK pounds but a staggering 7,665,000 billion Vietnamese Dong. These absolute values, by themselves, are useless for the purpose of comparing debt levels.

He claims trade with China made no difference Australia’s relatively good economic performance during the GFC, because other countries also trade with China. But this ignores the fact that China is relatively much more important to Australia’s economy than almost any other developed country. He mentions the Euro area, New Zealand, Russia and Japan. None of these comes close to having China account for 33% of it exports, as Australia does.

The data Henry Ergas quotes are STRUCTURAL deficits and surpluses, not the headline data in the link Alan refers to. Structural balances are economists’ preferred measure of the budget balance because they even out fluctuations due to the business cycle.

These are not the kind of errors someone proficient in analysing statistics is likely to make. One has to wonder whether Alan does not know that he is using data in a misleading and inappropriate way, in which case he is not competent to discuss economic statistics; or he is deliberately manipulating them to present Labor in the best possible light. In either case, his claims to correct others’ biases stretch credibility when his own use of statistics is so often flawed.

Alan,

You are lying when you say:

"they deliberately fabricate ‘information’ which they know is false"

Unlike the turgid rags such as the New Matilda and Independent Australia who write what they feel like, Newscorp checks all its thousands of facts and gets very few wrong. Its opinions are based on the focus of the time, and when labor is a rolling train wreck, it deservedly gets a lashing.

Newscorp has on the balance supported Labor and Labour in the UK far more than it has supported the conservative side, and only now that Labor wants to white wash its failures and Newscorp wants to expose them that Newscorp have suddenly become the evil empire.

The left whingers are not complaining about bias, they are complaining that the bias is against them.

Greetings,

@Yabby, re: “So Alan, because they don't agree with your opinion of economics, it must be false.”

Yes and no, Yabby. Opinions are not the problem. My own opinions on economics change diametrically several times in the course of a single bottle.

The problems relate solely to facts and figures. Yes, Murdoch employees fabricate routinely. The Leveson Inquiry in Britain concluded this. The Australian Press Council has established this many times. And it is the finding of research in the USA.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/national-affairs/study-watching-fox-news-actually-makes-you-less-informed-20120524

Have you read the article, Yabby?

@Rhian: Hello. Good to hear from you.

Re: “showing debt levels in billions of national currency is utterly meaningless, as it reflects neither the size of the economy nor the exchange rate.“

Correct. That’s entirely my point. This was offered in response to EQ who said “The figures below are staggering” and then posted an array of gross debt numbers in millions.

Yes, gross figures are staggeringly huge. But we must consider net debt, plus the assets acquired with those borrowings. And then look at comparable nations.

Doing this – in any currency – shows Australia’s debt position as among the world's most benign. It’s by far the most strategic in that it helped rocket Australia to the top of the world.

No nation has had such sustained growth, high median wealth, high income, low interest rates, low inflation, strong employment participation, low debt, increasing productivity, low taxes, excellent economic freedom, fair pensions and benefits, retirement security, triple A credit ratings and high standard of living.

No nation ever.

Re: “He claims trade with China made no difference Australia’s relatively good economic performance during the GFC, because other countries also trade with China.”

Well, the CIA has Australia’s exports to China at 29.5%, Taiwan’s at 27,1% and South Korea’s at 24.4%.

If trade with China was critical, then Australia would do very well, Taiwan would do moderately well and South Korea would do less well. In fact, Australia did brilliantly, Taiwan fared disastrously and South Korea did okay.

There must be some explanation. What could it possibly be?

Cheers,

Alan