Dear Alan,

<<The differences in policies, Yuyutsu, do seem fairly significant, especially in economic management.>>

Really?

Both parties believe that government should manage the economy of the land.
This is wrong in principle because government is an involuntary body.
That this party wants to manage the economy this way and the other party wants to manage the economy another way, are therefore insignificant differences.

Both parties believe that it is OK to have debt and further, to place a debt on us, tax-payers. Whether it is this much debt or that much debt, whether it is gross or net, whether it is acceptable in these circumstances or in some other circumstances, are insignificant differences. All debt is gross.

If "my" party were to take power finding a debt, then they would sell as many government buildings as needed, in fact they would sell their cars and their shoes if necessary so that the same day they enter all debt is eliminated.

I don't do drugs. I don't take debt - I'd rather go cold and hungry if I didn't have the money - and so should they. These things are wrong - so one should not do them, period.

Dear Yuyutsu,
Yes, there are certainly plenty of areas where all parties have the same ideas.
The differences between Labor and the Coalition in economic management include:
• Wage levels
• How wealth generated from selling Australia’s minerals and energy resources is shared
• Proportion of wealth the top 10% and the top 1% are entitled to control
• Amount of tax the large corporations are allowed to avoid
• Extent of economic stimulus during downturns
• Subsidies for manufacturing industries
• Resources allocated to curbing tax evasion
• Resources allocated to social welfare
Most people would consider these significant, don’t you think, Yuyutsu?
Cheers,
AA

Dear Alan,

I am not saying that there are no differences between the two major parties, but rather that in comparison with the big picture, those differences are dwarfed and pale in significance, so are not worth considering.

Both parties agree that the state (and its government) is a legitimate body, despite being involuntary. I don't. They both agree that despite never having received the consent of the inhabitants of this continent, they somehow have a right to control and interfere with our lives, economy being just one facet of it. I don't.

All the items you mentioned may legitimately and morally only be handled by voluntary body(s) on behalf of people who agreed to be part of it - certainly it should not be that same body which has a monopoly on arms and violence, which is also to control of the economy (should the people choose to have economy(s) in the first place).

Under the circumstances, it's better to stop pretending that the rulers want our good. It would be cheaper and more honest not to have parties at all, but just one dictator, where we don't have to vote (how significantly) whether we prefer that he hits us first on our left and then on our right, or first on our right and then on our left.

AA,

The reason that Gillard earned the moniker Juliar was because she and Whine Swan gave the Australian an iron clad guarantee that there would be no carbon tax under a government she led, and three weeks later sold Australia down the river with the biggest most comprehensive carbon tax in the world, fixed for three years and then a variable carbon tax after that.

Secondly if you read the economic news the ratings most commonly quoted are firstly S&P, and then Moody's and very seldom Fitch. The AAA rating achieved under Howard underpinned the financial transactions in the world, the Fitch rating, while nice to have was largely irrelevant.

Not at all, SM.
The opposite is true, as is often the case with your claims.
Labor policy before the 2010 election was for an emissions trading scheme.
According to the Greens and the independents Ms Gillard fought hard to get through, but did not have the numbers in either the House of Representatives or the Senate.
Correct?
Labor policy has not changed. If Labor is returned after the next election with a workable majority - which now seems likely - then an ETS is what the nation will get.
So here is your dilemma, SM:
The current government won office on a promise to cut the debt and deficit. Correct?
Yet since the election, the forward estimates show the deficits have been doubled. And the Final Budget Outcome shows that in the first 10 months, debt has blown out nearly 14% over the level projected had Labor stayed on.
Are Hockey and Abbott liars also? Or has the hostile Senate prevented them from implementing their economic program?
You can't have it both ways, SM.
On the rating agencies, again, no-one agrees with you. Virtually all authorities which analyse credit ratings talk about the Big Three - S&Ps, Moody's and Fitch.
Cheers, AA

AA,

To help with your selective amnesia, I am going to list a few occurrences and please point out if anything I state is incorrect:

1 After having the ETS voted down at least twice in the Senate, Rudd indicated that Labor would no longer pursue an ETS.

2 Just before the 2010 election Juliar gave an unambiguous, iron clad promise that "There will be no carbon tax in a government I lead" followed by Whine Swan rubbishing the "hysterical" claims by the coalition that Labor intended to implement a carbon tax.

3 Roughly 3 weeks after the 2010 election Juliar announced plans for a carbon tax.

Thus Gillard came to be known as Juliar by the majority of Australians.

Secondly, every single labor budget forecast from 2007 to 2013 has significantly over estimated revenue and underestimated costs, leading to repeated record budget blow outs. The chances that if Labor had won in 2013 of keeping to the election forecast is zero.

The coalition has reduced expenditure significantly and would have done more if labor had not been so obstructionist.

Thirdly Since 2003 Aus had a AAA rating for all its bonds and transactions. The addition of Fitch to the mix made no practical difference whatsoever.

Finally, the return of the $8bn or so of working capital to the reserve bank is essentially a paper transaction that makes no real difference to the bottom line nor interest payments. It was looted by Labor to patch up its figures.