Alan,

Yes, the Howard years were not perfect, as some commentators have pointed out.

But who is to say that Labor, should it have remained in power, would not have made similar decisions. for example, trends towards greater privatisation and a greater reliance on household debt had already begun, thus reflecting fewer policy options ahead.

Further, a meaner spirited Howard govt in times of relative boom would have found it hard to maintain popularity. As it was, it did reduce debt, an advantage passed on to the big-spending Labor.

But hey, I know these points would be lost on a biased and poor scholar like you, so I will stop now for fear of causing brain overload to yourself, the most biased person I have ever read

'morning Alan,

"Click"

There is a fundamental fallacy attached to this article, courtesy of its subheading:

"Outside Australia, the Howard years are actually widely regarded as dismally disappointing."

No-one should know better than the author that "outside Australia", we are for all practical purposes politically invisible.

True, our current election campaign has attracted a modicum of attention overseas, but most of it (including The Economist) written in a vein of faint bemusement. Having just returned from a seven-week overseas trip, which (thank goodness) kept me away the bulk of the domestic electioneering coverage, I can attest to the fact that only expat Aussies have even the remotest interest in our political situation.

We are, I am afraid, functionally irrelevant to the US and Europe. If Europeans remember anything about the Howard years, it will be - after a suitable round of memory-jogging - his embarrassing display of puppetry with Bush and Blair over Iraq.

The only thing for which we are "widely regarded" is still, I'm afraid, that we have great beaches and sunshine. If you ask a London pub - or a fancy dinner party - to name a famous Australian, you will get Shane Warne, Rolf Harris and Dame Edna, possibly followed at the dinner table by Germaine Greer and Clive James.

If you ask in either environment for the name of an Australian politician you will rarely get a response - although some do remember Paul Keating very fondly, for his "come along grandma" hand on the Queen's waist.

Sorry, but this was a pretty poor peg upon which to hang such a highly partisan piece of party political posturing.

Have to agree we are all but invisible overseas, when we are not a laughing stock. A friend has just returned from Russia - the only Australian news she saw was about the 'suppository' and 'Islam as a country'. Our newspapers are generally full of non-new dross (have a look at the New York Times online for a real 'news'paper).

I'd have to say the Howard years were a wasted opportunity. Think how much infrastructure could have been built instead of throwing money at the well off and further entrenching our sense of entitlement. And the ill-conceived first home owners grants which just ramped up house prices and ended up putting the money into the pockets of home sellers not home buyers. Remember FOI requests relating to the scheme being blocked by Peter Costello because it was not in the 'national (read his political) interest?

Hehe, as if we should take note of what people in France think. France is a great example of how Govts can stuff up good economies!

(Seriously, Pericles? It couldn't have been pardon for Sorry, place for hang and particularly for highly, to produce a sentence that would have been the bestest 'p' spray ever? 'Props' as always;)

Dang it WmTrevor, you're so right.

>>It couldn't have been pardon for Sorry, place for hang and particularly for highly...<<

Couldabeen, shouldabeen.

And back atcha on the props.

The author did not give a single example to support your assertion that outside Australia Howard years were regarded poorly. Not one. Left wing ideologues are constantly in the process of rewriting history as this author seems to be. Its sad to see how the Labor Party and its supporters are unable to admit to its astronomical failures over the years, while exaggerating its few successes. Lets see what the people say on Saturday. Isn't that the Labor way?

Alan,
Keating and Hawke deserve little credit on economic matters. They accepted the recommendations of Howard's Campbell Committee and laid the ground work for the worst aspects of the Howard/Costello years.

From late 1998, Howard ignored arguments from the Governor of the Reserve Bank, and the G7 finance ministers, that financial deregulation had gone too far and that there would be serious future consequences. There were but it took a few years more than expected for the private debt bubble, created by deregulation, to burst.

It did burst and in mid-September 2008 all Australian Banks were insolvent and had to go the Rudd Government cap in hand.

Selling well maintained assets capable of earning adequate income is foolish for both an individual and a government.

Any one who understands economics understands that some people can save and not have much effect on the economy but, if everybody saves, as happens with compulsory superannuation, the consequence can be disastrous. The compulsory superannuation scheme has been built into a massive parasitic industry that serves no valuable, useful, purpose.

The compulsory contributions load costs onto Australian companies trying to compete either in foreign markets or against imports. And it does nor solve the problem that will occur in the future when products available at that future time have to be shared between citizens. Who is presently looking after the interests of the, as yet unborn, young in the workforce in 2035-40?

Norway took an appropriate approach to companies exploiting its oil assets. Norway set high utilisation fees and invested the proceeds in overseas assets. When the oil is exhausted, and Norway needs to import fuel, they will have income from the overseas assets to pay for the imported fuel.

Hello all,

Interesting discussion, as always. Thanks.

@Chris Lewis, re: “who is to say that Labor, should it have remained in power, would not have made similar decisions. for example, trends towards greater privatisation …?”

The privatisation policy difference between the parties is that Labor believes in retaining high income-generating monopolies like the airports – either full ownership or a strong share. As do most comparable successful governments abroad.

Re: “the Howard govt … did reduce debt”

Correct. But given the vast rivers of revenue, Australia should have had closer to Norway’s 139% of GDP (net) cash in the bank by 2007 – not the miserable 7.3%.

@Pericles, re: “outside Australia, we are for all practical purposes politically invisible.”

Depends where we look, Pericles.

Did you see this quiz question at New Matilda in March?

9. Which prestigious international news journal in February lauded the latest data on Australia's economy?

The article highlighted GDP growth, the lift in exports, record income per person and the stock market surge:

(a) The Wall Street Journal
(b) La Tribune
(c) Der Spiegel
(d) The Washington Post
(e) The Huffington Post
(f) Bloomberg.com
(g) all of the above

Amongst economists studying national comparisons, Pericles, Australia is the number one celebrity these days.

@Atman, re: “The author did not give a single example … that outside Australia Howard years were regarded poorly.”

Correct. Word limit. Happy to provide some here.

International rating agency Fitch always marked Australia down during the Howard years, only giving you the top rating in 2011.

The Aussie dollar reflects how authorities and markets abroad view economic management. After Mr Costello had managed the economy for five years, the Aussie had dropped to 49 US cents. After Mr Swan had managed things for five years, the Aussie had risen to US $1.05.

Euromoney asks a team of international economists to rate treasurers every year. Mr Costello never rated well.

More available on request, Atman.

@Foyle, agree with this.

Demonstrable, however, that Hawke and Keating took a moribund economy languishing at about 20th in the world up to 6th place.

Cheers,

Alan

Absolutely agree, Alan Austin.

>>Depends where we look, Pericles.<<

You chose to focus on your own commentary in New Matilda, citing the financial journals. I couldn't find the exact article to which you referred, but I did find this one, from March.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/06/australia-recession_n_2818610.html

It is obviously not the one you wanted us to read, because it says absolutely nothing about the "Howard and Costello years", or the lessons derived from them. Maybe you could provide a link?

But you were also kind enough to quote me in full:

>>...outside Australia, we are for all practical purposes politically invisible<<

I'm sure you agree, that your response hardly refutes the point: that we are politically invisible. No-one that I know makes any connection between Australia's financial cleverness at digging up coal and iron ore and selling it to China, and any particular political party or personality. (That last bit's for you WmTrevor)

What utter garbage this bloke tries to con everyone with.

I recall a long period where no one got a rise, because that twit Keating had destroyed the economy.

I remember that agreement with the unions, the accord, for no wage demands.

I remember getting 17.5% interest for money I had in the bank.

I remember thousands losing their homes, farms & businesses, due to Keating's interest rates.

I remember having 25 staff decide they would all work a 4 day week, to avoid 5 of them being put off, things were so bad.

I remember Keating big noting himself about having his hands on the levers of the economy.

I remember the banana republic, & the recession we had to have, thanks to those two twits.

The last thing we need is another couple of economic wizards like that pair, although Ruddy & Swanny came close.

I know you are only a spin doctor Alan, so I should not get upset with the idiotic twaddle you push, but thank god the election is tomorrow, so you'll be out of a job, & this cr4p will stop.

I see Labor's PR man, Alan Austin is back on the job. Unable to embellish the dismal truth over Labior's miserable performance, Alan tries to tarnish the successes of the Howard/Costello years.

Look Alan. Labor is stuffed at the moment but it will win in the end. The dependent people just keep on increasing in numbers either through immigration or birth rate differentials and the productive people keep declining in number. Soon, parts of Australia will resemble Detroit and I hear that the Labor Heartland of South Australia is on the way to emulating it.

You socialists can't make everybody rich but you can sure make everybody poor. Like the Arabs, the only thing keeping us afloat is our natural resources and when they run out Australia will probably become a third world country and we are doing our best already to populate it with third world people.

But after you have stuffed your own country, Alan, where are you going to go? Every white liberal democracy is hell bent on creating social suicide from unrestricted immigration, and economic suicide from the adoption of socialist economic solutions. So when you become a minority in your own country and then realise that those shining ideals of Human Rights and Egalitarianism were the fantasies of white tertiary educated, social climbing socialists, (not those of the people Australia has imported) you might start to feel like a Christian scientist with appendicitis.

Good morning all,

@Pericles, re “It [Huffington Post article] is obviously not the one you wanted us to read, because it says absolutely nothing about the "Howard and Costello years", or the lessons derived from them.”

Correct. The point was simply that the media in Europe and North America do frequently report on events in Australia.

No, the failures of the Howard/Costello period are no longer newsworthy. Unlikely to find that reported in journals abroad.

The more pertinent point, however, is that economists interested in comparisons of economic wellbeing between nations or regions and through time – who actually look at the hard data – don’t regard the Howard/Costello years as successful.

As with previous Coalition regimes, Australia’s world ranking fell significantly, though this was masked by the mining boom and constant self-talk proclaiming prosperity.

What happens in Australia over the next three years will be instructive. How will Australia’s current ranking as best-managed economy shift if there is a change of administration?

Some detailed data on this is embedded in the links in this article:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/politics/we-really-must-talk-about-tony-abbott-and-joe-hockey/

@Hasbeen, no you should not get upset at what is presented here.

As far as possible, the input in these analytical pieces is based on actual verifiable data. You are urged to ask for validation for anything at all asserted here in the articles or the comments if it’s not explicitly shown.

Perhaps we should all be a bit more upset about the distortions, omissions and outright lies that Murdoch, Fairfax and the ABC dish up to Australians daily in order to keep people misinformed to their own advantage.

@LEGO, can you see how repeating those falsehoods promulgated by the Murdoch and other media in Australia illustrates that last point?

Do you agree you would be happier and more effective if you actually understood the way the world really is rather than believing and parroting a seriously distorted view of the world?

There is plenty of data available, Lego, to confirm the assertions in this series of articles. It’s just a matter of accessing it.

Cheers,

Happy voting!

Alan

Hang on a moment, Alan Austin

You cannot simultaneously take issue with my observation on the subheading "Outside Australia, the Howard years are actually widely regarded as dismally disappointing", which you did as follows:

>>re: “outside Australia, we are for all practical purposes politically invisible.” Depends where we look, Pericles.<<.

...and then turn right round and agree with me:

>>...the failures of the Howard/Costello period are no longer newsworthy. Unlikely to find that reported in journals abroad<<

That's cheating.

Not everybody saw the Howard era through rose-tinted glasses.

Many people were hurt by his policies - some irrevocably - and most showed their displeasure at the ballot box.
Rudd was no messiah at the time but a convenient excuse to dump the worst of Howard's failings.

A clever media handling strategy with the novelty of having not one (as is typically the case) but three press secretaries working to stifle public criticism eventually failed him.

Despite calls for smaller government, the Public Service actually grew faster under Howard than under Labor governments, despite privatising many of it's functions.

His biggest failing perhaps was converting what used to be a typical conservative party to into a bunch of extremist neo-conservatives run by the religious right and their own "faceless men" - many of who are still in control today.

Many people have very short and selective attention spans.