Rudd inherited the world's best economy.

Abbott inherited the world's best economy with a huge debt anchor around its neck, and its productivity legs tangled by red tape and IR rigidity.

Labor has stuffed up just about everything it has touched, with financial incompetence to legislative stupidity.

It will take a decade to restore the Australian economy to where it was 6 years ago.

Shadow Minister,
For the budget years when Howard and Costello were responsible for the outcomes (1997-2007) the economy was operated in an area of fiscal space that was, in the long term, unsustainable. In every year the private sector's net financial assets decreased.

In any period where there is a deficit in the Current Account, best measured as a percentage of GDP, there has to be an equivalent sovereign government deficit or the private sector has to go further into debt to survive.

I have pointed out on this site previously that some commentators need to understand monetary theory.

A presentation at the Field Institute recently by Randall Wray and Stephanie Kelton explains the situation very precisely. Kelton's talk is illustrated by slides and slides 10-30 and 48-54 are excellent on this particular principle of empirical evidence supported economic theory. The fiscal space diagram is Slide 49.

Foyle

Your own economic theory has been completely demolished by the fact that you are unable to name any rational principle to distinguish whether the governmental provision of any good or service is too much, too little, or just enough; and how you know.

"In any period where there is a deficit in the Current Account, best measured as a percentage of GDP, there has to be an equivalent sovereign government deficit or the private sector has to go further into debt to survive."

Notice how you failed to consider less gouging of the productive class by the coercive class? You just assumed that, for anything whatsoever that government is doing, the only possibility is that it's doing just enough, or not enough!

It's you who are displaying invincible ignorance. If your assumption was right, full communism would be the most desirable system. And yet when I ask you why it's not, you're at a loss to come up with any reason! because you're at a loss to distinguish the communism - governmental control of the means of production - that's bad - from the communism you're in favour of, which is open-ended and without any limit that you can state without contradicting yourself.

So I'll ask you again: what is the rational criterion by which you distinguish excessive governmental activity? How do you know whether the governmental provision of a given good or service is too much, too little, or just enough?

< …they are now adopting almost identical broad economic policies as Labor – stimulus spending, continuing deficits and increasing debt… >

Good morning Alan. Yes, the Coalition is bumbling along with just the same sort of approach. And like Labor, they are missing one of the biggest factors of all in the maintenance of a healthy economy – the need to wind down the ever-increasing demand for everything, so that all the effort we put into increasing supply might actually get us somewhere, instead of just simply forever chasing the tail of rapidly increasing demand.

The Coalition should be winding back our super-high immigration rate and heading towards a stable population.

I find it absolutely extraordinary that there is not even a thought of this factor in the minds of our politicians or economists!

We really need a 21st indicator, which looks at how supply compares with demand and tells us if it is catching up, falling back or just staying the same. This indicator, being of great importance, needs to be near the top of the list.

So our GDP is growing at 26% PA. Wow, isn’t that wonderful! At that rate, the whole economy will double in size in about 27 years!!

How does this rapid rate of economic growth compare to population growth? How do the good components of GDP (and let’s face it; there is a host of bad things that are added to GDP and made out to be false positives) compare to the rapidly growing demand for everything?

And how are we going to keep up this rate of growth in GDP, given that the mining, agricultural, manufacturing and all other sectors are not likely to show anywhere near the same rate of expansion?

continued

I just cannot judge whose Articles I enjoy the most between Alan Austin , who lives in France, and John Pilger who lives in Utophia.

Both of whom , although living elsewhere , are quick to advise Australia where we should be going, if only we were smart enough to know. ( somewhere far to the left.)

They leave Stand-up Comedy Shows in the shade .

Let’s face it; population growth is the main factor contributing to this very high rate of increase in GDP. It is the demand that is increasing GDP… which is the biggest flaw of all in this ridiculous indicator!

And it is the biggest flaw of all in the minds of the numbskulls that run the country and economy. They see rapidly population growth as contributing strongly to a growing economy…. and that’s all that seems to matter!!

So, when are these dimwits going to get it through their monumentally thick skulls that the most important thing of all, for as long as we are struggling with the economy to make ends meets and to improve the whole caboodle, is to curtail the demand side of the equation?

Well, one thing is true. The Coalition are the greatest mob of liars that Australia has ever seen.

Before the election they tried to convince the voters that Australia was going down the gurgler, was within a point or two of bankruptcy. Led by the biggest goon Australia has ever seen, Phoney Abbott, we were told that calamity would befall us unless we voted for the Coalition.

When they won the election (which could've been won by a drover's cockatoo), suddenly their stories changed and Phoney became the world's worst Prime Minister and proved within days he was a complete failure at diplomacy.

Since then it's all been downhill as the polls attest! Folks, we've been had big-time!

Just imagine what is going to happen to our once great country with Phoney at the helm for three years. The man is an accident waiting to happen. When he opens his big mouth, people shudder.

Perhaps it's time for revolution, time to put Phoney's head on a pike!

Perhaps it's time to build the barricades!

Re: Let’s face it; population growth is the main factor contributing to this very high rate of increase in GDP. It is the demand that is increasing GDP… which is the biggest flaw of all in this ridiculous indicator!

Amen to that.

Then use the ratio of tax extracted to GDP to tell us what low taxes we pay. OK, we pay so little tax then there should be no argument in lifting the GST or fuel excise or perhaps the state governments can levy an extra income tax.

Use the current tax take more efficiently.

Of course we have had a good economy, driven by the miners, the very people the author and his left wing cronies love to hate. Oh, I forgot, mining is relatively unimportant in the economy according to this author.

"Australia's general government net borrowings were just 13.74% of GDP when Labor left office." Nice try. You forgot to mention that it was up from 8.1% in two years earlier. Over 62% increase in debt/GDP in two years!!

A lot of your figures are like this, a bit of checking and they fall apart or don't imply what you suggest they imply.

Well said Aspley, I'll have to take your word for it, I gave up reading the garbage your two comedians write some time back.

Actually some of the best comedy, apart from the laughably high opinion the authors have of themselves, is from the posters.

We get posters like Kilmouski, who obviously think the most efficient way to spend our taxes is to give it to a public servant. While he is right that the quickest way to throw it away is to let some bureaucrat near it, I can't see much advantage for tax payers in that. What is it about command economies they can not understand. Every one that has existed has collapsed.

Even that modern miracle China had to transform itself into a market economy to save itself from collapse.

It is really interesting that China is more a capitalist economy than the west that invented the idea, & just look who is the most successful. The further we of the west go down the controlled economy model, & the more welfare controlled we become, the worse we perform.

That we are driving our own collapse is obvious, the only question is how much longer can we last?

>> So our GDP is growing at 26% PA <<

Obviously that should be 2.6%

Hrrgh!!

This is an enormous rate of growth. And all our nutbag politicial masters can think of doing is to increase it still further!!

<< we are driving our own collapse >>

Yer not wrong there Haz!

Hasbeen: You are so wrong. The most successful economy in Europe, is, was and remains Germany. And at their best and needing to import guest labour, had extremely generous welfare packages, with unemployment benefits around 80% of average wages. All possible because the economy was being managed by adults, not learner drivers, or blatant ideologues, like you seem to be with a head filled with really stupid tea party type stuff?
Every person who is self employed or runs a business needs others, all of who have an equal right to a fair reward!
Every person on the shop or factory floor is part and parcel of every success story, and virtually every failed business, usually has just one culprit, the idiot in charge!
Yet there are areas where I have no other choice but to agree with you H.B.
One of those areas, is just how much tax we are required to pay, and just how too much government, can waste so much of it on bureaucratic empire building, centralization, correlation and endless duplication, which adds at least 30% to the cost of most govt service!
Moreover, State govts cost the taxpayer 70 billions per, and that's before they meet and pass a single piece of often useless legislation.
Alan quotes numbers, which don't also include the highest median house prices in the English speaking world, and just how much that cruels the essential for our economic success, discretionary spending. Nor does he mention in his rose colored analysis, the ever widening gap between the haves and have nots?
We need to reduce waste, pork barreling and entirely unnecessary compliance costs, which for many businesses are often more onerous than their tax bill. If some really stupid people had their way, and reduced or removed needs based welfare, we could in one foul swoop, halve the discretionary spend, and with it, what's left of a healthy economy.
When what we really need do is wipe out welfare for the rich, which would save at least 26 billions per, albeit, probably have H.B. crying in his beer?

Good morning all,

Interesting comments. Thank you.

@Shadow Minister: No, the rankings in the article are accurate. They were checked and double checked.

Australia now has the best profile on the main economic indicators. On those same indicators Australia was ranked 10th in 2007, behind Iceland, Singapore, China, United Arab Emirates, Luxembourg, Switzerland, Norway, Taiwan and Hong Kong.

Australia's ranking fell during the dismal Howard years from 6th in 1996.

It’s really not hard to prove this. Just a matter of comparing the data which can easily be found if you follow the links in the article. A bit time-consuming, that’s all.

@Ludwig, good morning to you too.

Regarding demand, it seems the recent global financial crisis has impacted demand in many countries. Australia’s fairly modest 2.6% growth is one of the best in the developed world.

Would you agree that what really matters more than the rate of growth of demand are the outcomes of balancing demand and supply: jobs, income, sustainable environment, retirement security, community services, benefits for those with no jobs and overall quality of life?

If these are in place, why does it matter if demand is steadily increasing? Why does it matter if population is increasing?

@Atman, re “good economy, driven by the miners, the very people the author and his left wing cronies love to hate.”

No, not at all. I’m an active investor in mining stocks. Where did you get that idea, Atman?

Re: “net borrowings were just 13.74% of GDP when Labor left office … up from 8.1% in two years earlier.”

Correct. And will peak at 14.54% next year.

So what level do you think is appropriate, Atman? Do you agree with Joe Hockey before the election that Australia’s debt is far too high, or with Joe Hockey after the election that debt is way too low?

@Hasbeen, re “That we are driving our own collapse is obvious, the only question is how much longer can we last?”

Really? Are you sure?

Which economy during which period is or was travelling better than Australia in June 2013?

Thanks.

Cheers,

Alan A

Enough has been said about the "best economy in the world".

I'm too shocked that anyone would think that socialist Labor left behind anything but an absolute mess, economically, to say more.

I'm no longer a fan of the Coalition or any other bunch of politicians, but who ever is on the treasury bench should get the message that cutting spending is the only way to go. Threatening to raise more tax is grossly irresponsible, and an even bigger burden on people who simply cannot afford it.

Saving by the government, and encouragement for voters to save, is the only way to get us out of the mess that socialist Labor left us in.

There is little evidence that Abbott is going to do this. Again, more reason for we voters to demand a better class of person to run out country.

Alan has been very kind to the previous Lib/Nat Prime Minister and Treasurer, Messrs Howard and Costello, by not mentioning that Howard was the “most profligate Prime Minister in Australia’s history”, according the IMF and that Howard and Costello left the incoming Labor Government the largest structural deficit in Australia’s history.
If we had invested the proceeds of the mining boom in infrastructure and not frittered it away on tax cuts and totally unnecessary, except for re-election, middle class welfare, Australia would have been in an even better state than it is today.
It will be interesting to see how big the structural deficit is when the Abbott/ Turnbull governments hand over to Labour in 2016.

<< Would you agree that what really matters more than the rate of growth of demand are the outcomes of balancing demand and supply: jobs, income, sustainable environment, retirement security, community services, benefits for those with no jobs and overall quality of life? >>

I think we’ve been over this fairly recently, but thanks for asking Alan.

Of All of those outcomes that are fundamentally important. And balancing demand and supply is of fundamental importance in achieving them.

<< If these are in place, why does it matter if demand is steadily increasing? Why does it matter if population is increasing? >>

If they were all in place, then we would possibly have scope to increase demand, if it didn’t have negative consequences.

But they aren't all in place. Every one of them needs considerable improvement, yes?

And rapid population growth is not helping us to achieve this, is it?

In fact it is working strongly against it. For as long as we have to spend a very considerable part of the national budget on duplicating infrastructure and services, upgrading overstressed existing I&S and environmental damage all caused by population growth.... and for as long as we have to grow our export income and domestic supplies of everything, all just to stand still in terms of the basic provisions and per-capita returns for ever-more people, we are not going to get very far.

So Alan, wouldn’t it be a whole lot easier to achieve all the desired outcomes from economic growth if we had a stable population or at least one that was growing at a much slower rate than at present?

What do you see as the merits of very high immigration? How is it helping?

How can it all work if we remain hooked into a continuous growth spiral of ever-increasing supply and demand?

Alan,

While completing production of a wildlife adventure film in 1981-2, evidence became apparent of malnutrition amongst seafood dependent Pacific Islands people in Solomon Islands.
Long term independent general research since then has revealed various evidence and various issues.
For example indigenous people of Australia have also lost their free and available wildlife and fish supply, and have also lost their associated ‘jobs’ in traditional hunting.
Of course there are social and economic consequences.
There are also solutions involving considerable socio-economic and environment opportunities for Australia.

For reason unknown to me, major media is boycotting and/or suppressing the real state of the environment and subsequently solutions are not being put in place, and consequences are worsening.
Even UN World Environment Day 2004 focus of “Wanted dead or alive – seas and oceans”, was not taken up by media and government in Australia. Search libraries to check. Thought I am not head hunting media or govt people. Focus is to get solutions happening.

There is not time or space available right here and now to provide more details about the ocean but I can come back to this thread if you are interested. You could understand more about the situation if you search into the history of my posts on OLO.

In haste right here and now please note consequences in Solomon Islands are even now impacting sick people. I have noted your bio on OLO and think you might be able to urgently help. See:
http://www.solomonstarnews.com/news/national/20037-call-to-support-hospitals-

After Laughingstock Austins article had me rolling around the floor laughing along comes David G calling for the erection of the baricades.

David doesn't understand that would be pretty pointless. Given the current productivity of Australian workers little actual erection would take place.

Lol great morning laugh from you jokers.

.....
Abbott and co inherited the best economy in the world, can they keep it going up?

Yep, courtesy of one huge credit card, for which we will be lucky if we can pay the interest alone.

Now, had they (labor) achieved something with their record debt, well that would be different, but name one thing they implemented, that they didn't stuff up, or under fund.

You are delusional Allen!

The ALP (Australian lying party) left a huge net debt with an interest bill of roughly $10bn or $200m per week that consumes 2.5% of government revenue.

The lying party also happily predicted revenue growth year after year of 7.5% and spent it ahead of time leading to a bombshell prediction of a deficit for 2013 of $30bn after predicting a surplus, which then turned out to be a serious under estimation.

These ratbags then decided to increase future expenditure by about $20bn p.a. with Gonski and NDIS without even trying to fund it.

This combined with the financial incompetence coming to light with the NBN, and the BER debacles shows why Labor should not be trusted with anything bigger than a tuck shop.

Just goes to show the congenital pessimism and moaning of we Australians is unsupported by the evidence.

We are very lucky.

We should be proud of our achievements and traditions of moderation.

I think the 24/7 News cycle (mainly reporting bad things) explains much of our pessimism. Not so long ago news programs were between 6pm and 8pm - now they're around the clock.

Have people noticed that every bad weather event and earthquake around the world is now reported - along with "no tsunami was detected"? We didn't use to get such repetitious doom and gloom reporting!

As somebody said a year or two back about consumer confidence "anybody would think Australia is experiencing financial problems as severe as those Greece".

Cheer up everyone.

Pete
(who has few possessions - seeing it as little to lose)

"OF Greece" of course (not) :)

Greetings Hasbeen.

re: We get posters like Kilmouski, who obviously think the most efficient way to spend our taxes is to give it to a public servant.

C'on give me a break please. Where on earth did I allude to anything like that?

Or perhaps you may explain how you arrived at that conclusion.

Drawing a bit of a long bow here!

Hello again,

@NeverTrustPoliticians, re: “I'm too shocked that anyone would think that socialist Labor left behind anything but an absolute mess, economically, to say more.”

Hmmm. Am I right in suspecting you listen to radio news, watch TV news and read Australian newspapers, NTP?

Because if you do, you will definitely be told that Labor left things in a mess. But the good news is that none of that is true.

To make sure, just go to the independent sources of data shown in the article. You will then see that Australia now has the best economy – not just in the world now, but at any time in history.

Or ask any economist you know which nation in history has ever had a better economy than Australia's in 2013. See what they say.

@Ludwig, immigration has helped Australia enormously, as it has most other high-intake nations.

As the data in all the links show, all nations with lower migrant intake than Australia's are faring much worse than Australia.

@JF Aus, that is most intriguing information. Thanks for articulating that.

I’ve never been to the Solomon Islands, although I have spent considerable time in PNG, some other Pacific islands and in the remote Aboriginal communities. So I endorse all your observations.

Would you consider writing 1000 words or so for OLO here?

@Shadow Minister, re “The ALP (Australian lying party) left a huge net debt with an interest bill of roughly $10bn or $200m per week that consumes 2.5% of government revenue.”

Are you sure SM? Or did you read that in the media?

So what do you make of the new Treasurer’s wish to expand Australia’s current modest debt ceiling up to a staggering $500 billion?

Do you agree with Mr Hockey before the election that debt was too high or with Mr Hockey after the election - and most sensible economists - that debt is too low?

Cheers,

Alan

The lies of the Abbott team are now apparent, but largely unacknowledged. It probably doesn't matter all that much anymore.

What we are now facing is a workforce that is being casualised and forced to compete on a global market dictated by Third World labour rates, yet it still has to struggle with a First World cost of living.

The real economic indicator, ignored by the number crunchers on both sides of the political divide is household debt, which is now astronomical. Contrary to prevailing opinion, that debt was not accumulated to pay for the good life. It was accumulated to simply survive.

We're not just living on borrowed money. We're living on borrowed time.

AA,

I claimed the interest bill was roughly $10bn p.a. or roughly $200m a week, I don't have the exact figures, but I don't think that I am far off. Perhaps you have the exact interest cost of Labor's debt?

As far as raising the debt ceiling and Electricity Bill's Tea party tactics, the treasury has clear said that the Australian lying party knew full well that the bloated spending machine they left behind would breach the $300bn level by Dec 2013 and exceed $400bn.

The raising of the debt level to $500bn is once again coalition cleaning up the mess left by the ALP.

I think solutions are to be found in new productivity involving new exports and new sources of revenue.
I think infrastructure development that does not produce exportable product will be a burden and not be a good investment at this time.

@ Alan Austin,

Your comment is appreciated. Thank you.
It's good to see an OLO article author responding to comments.
I will get onto the 1,000 words this weekend, toward socio-economic solutions.

Greetings again,

@Killarney, re: “The lies of the Abbott team are now apparent, but largely unacknowledged. It probably doesn't matter all that much anymore.”

Yes, they are certainly apparent. Far more lies, broken promises and hypocrisies chalked up in ten weeks than were recorded in six years of Labor.

Refer here:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/abbotts-broken-commitments-so-many-so-soon,5898

But they do matter.

Regarding: “workforce being casualised and forced to compete on a global market dictated by Third World labour rates, yet it still has to struggle with a First World cost of living.”

This is an intriguing issue, Killarney. The economists who seem to have most supportive evidence claim it’s precisely Australia’s high wages and very high job security which underpinned the extraordinarily high consumer confidence, retail spending, business investment, economic growth and employment through the GFC.

The next three years will prove them right or wrong. If the Coalition lowers wages and makes sackings easier – as they have indicated – then we will observe what happens to growth and employment.

The world is watching.

@Shadow Minister, yes, your numbers are pretty right. About $10 billion a year. The point made by independent economists is that this level is extremely low by international standards.

And, more to the point, extremely low in comparison with the government’s total revenue.

$10 billion in interest payments comes out of a total revenue of $360 billion.

Economists then consider what Australia’s economy might have been like had Labor not made those strategic borrowings during the GFC. If you had followed the Coalition policies, you would have had much lower borrowings and much lower repayments, say, around $5 billion per year now.

But the total government revenue would only be about $290 billion.

So which would you prefer, SM:

Total revenue of $360bn minus $10bn in interest, or total revenue of $290bn minus $5bn in interest?

All the evidence suggests that the level of borrowings achieved and projected in the last few years is exactly right for the conditions of low interest rates, investment opportunities – particularly in productive infrastructure – and high income and growth.

No?

Cheers,

Alan

AA,

With all due respect, you projections of what the debt and revenues that would exist if Labor had not replaced the coalition are extremely fanciful.

As most of the debt incurred under Labor's spendathon had little to no effect on the economy, and the inflexible work laws and 20 000 new regulations contributed to the greatest productivity drop in decades. The choice is far more like to be greater revenues with lower debt if the Australian lying party had not won in 2007.

<< Ludwig, immigration has helped Australia enormously, as it has most other high-intake nations. >>

But is it helping or hindering now, Alan?

What about the all-important point that I keep making; that if we have a rapidly and constantly increasing demand, then we need rapidly and constantly increasing economic growth just to stand still? And that surely we’d be MUCH better off if we stabilised the demand so that economic growth actually counts for something by way of real improvements!

It is seems to me that the greatest economic challenge ahead is to get the powers that be to take heed of one of the most basic principles of economics: that supply is supposed to match demand, ongoingly.

And that a system that incorporates continuous rapidly increasing demand while we are really struggling to keep supply up to it, let alone improve it, is just as crackers and as you could ever get!

Hi again Shadow Minister,

Re: “[Alan’s] projections of what the debt and revenues that would exist if Labor had not replaced the coalition are extremely fanciful.”

No, not at all. They are drawn from either Treasury or the IMF. Politicians had no part in formulating these projections. Neither did journos.

Re: “most of the debt incurred under Labor's spendathon had little to no effect on the economy …”

Not according to Joe Stiglitz and other leading economists. As the links here will show, the stimulus spending in 2008/09 was the critical intervention which rocketed Australia’s economy to strongest the world has ever seen:

http://www.independentaustralia.net/politics/politics-display/we-really-must-talk-about-what-actually-did-save-australia,5644

Re: “the greatest productivity drop in decades.”

Not at all, SM. If you look at this graph, you will see labour productivity has increased steadily for the last ten quarters. Not seven. Not eight, which is two years. Not just nine. Ten!

Don’t believe what the Coalition MPs and the Murdoch press tell you, SM. Remember – as we have seen many times over – they are all liars! Go to the source data for factual information.

Hi again Ludwig,

Re: “if we have a rapidly and constantly increasing demand, then we need rapidly and constantly increasing economic growth just to stand still”

Perhaps. But in Australia the demand is not increasingly rapidly. It seems to be growing at a slow and steady rate which is quite sustainable.

Re: “surely we’d be MUCH better off if we stabilised the demand so that economic growth actually counts for something by way of real improvements!”

Demand in Australia is quite stable and according to all indicators is leading to substantial improvements – in productivity, incomes, wealth and most other indicators of increasing standard of living.

Re: “the greatest economic challenge ahead is to get the powers that be to take heed of one of the most basic principles of economics: that supply is supposed to match demand, ongoingly.”

Correct. Australia seems to have accomplished this remarkably well from 2008 to 2013.

If not, where is the mismatch?

Cheers,

Alan

Alan,
I submitted 1,500 words to OLO on 1st Dec, focused on economic development and environ reasons why such development should be possible to achieve. Although regulars on OLO may be aware of relevant evidence it took the extra 500 words to briefly explain to a new reader.
Let's hope OLO uses it.

<< Demand in Australia is quite stable >>

Alan, I find it quite extraordinary that you would say this.

Demand is constantly and quite rapidly increasing. The only thing that could be said to be stable about it is the rapid rate of increase…. which has been more or less stable now for a long time!

<< …where is the mismatch? >>

Everywhere! Where’s the match?? Where is there actually a match between supply and demand such that the quality of the supply is actually keeping up with demand, let alone improving things?

Look at practically every service and type of infrastructure. Where are things actually improving?

You could perhaps say that in some instances there is a match between supply and demand, such that things are not actually getting worse. But in most instances they ARE getting worse…. and they aren’t getting better in ANY instances, are they??

Alan, why do we have this constant struggle to improve infrastructure and services, given the constant enormous amount of effort that gets poured into them over the years?

One reason: the constantly rapidly increasing demand.

Even if you think that immigration / population growth is not that great, you would surely appreciate that if it was considerably lowered, it would significantly help us balance the books, balance supply and demand and render some REAL improvements right across society.

Of all the things that can be done to improve the economy and improve the quality-of-life returns to ordinary citizens of this country from the economy, considerably lowering immigration has got to be THE easiest… and THE most significant.

AA,

There have been several studies into particular Labor stimulus programs, some of which had little to no effect on economic activity such as the $9bn cash hand out, and some which had only a partial effect such as the BER debacle which spent several times as much as was needed to save jobs.

Don’t believe what the Labor MPs and the Independent Australia tell you, AA. Remember – as we have seen many times over – they are all liars! Go to the source data for factual information.

There is no doubt whatsoever that a considerably lower amount of "stimulus" could have been spent with little difference in the resultant economic output.

As for the Multi variable productivity drop under Labor, please feel free to consult the stats from the ABS which clearly shows a drop under Labor.