Australia's current economic and budgetary problems are the direct consequence of the hysteria of spending by the Rudd and Gillard governments. Tristan Ewins wants to resolve those problems by spending even more.

No wonder the socialist left is an intellectual wasteland.

How else to explain Ewins's cheer leading for the catastrophic waste of money that was and is the NBN, the unfunded moral posturing that was Gillard's legacy in relation to the National Disability Insurance Scheme and the unfunded parts of the Gonski nonsense?

Gonski contributed not a single original thought. Not a new idea since the Karmel report of the 1970s. And the billions of dollars that have been spent since have delivered massive declines, not only in literacy and numeracy, but in the ability to construct an argument based on evidence, analysis, rationality. Ewins's thought bubbles here are a case in point. On the face of it, educational standards have declined in inverse ratio to the money spent: logically, education funding should be CUT to help return us to the higher standards of the past.

I have a copy of the 1959 eighth grade public exam paper for English in Queensland. Most year twelve students today would fail it.

cont.

cont.

Ewins lists the poor and downtrodden whom he claims are suffering and would suffer worse from reductions in government spending: students, who, apparently despite the availability of extensive student loans, are forced to take jobs that prevent them from studying; the unemployed who are so poverty stricken they can't afford to seek work. His list goes on and on: the aged, the sick, the mentally ill, etc., etc., etc.

And his solution is, as always with the socialist left, other peoples' money. More and more paid for by fewer and fewer.

Interestingly, he sees the destitute as having no responsibility for their own welfare: no effort required, they should just sit there while we shovel money at them.

But at the end of the day, the fewer and fewer who pay taxes to support more and more simply cannot sustain the effort. So where does that end?

Finally, that old stand-by of the socialist left, affordable housing, needs special mention. "Affordable housing", like education, health, welfare and the rest, for the Ewins types means affordable to them, paid for by somebody else.

What a simple-minded fantasy Tristan inhabits. Time to grow up.

A few points:

Firstly welfare states as with the Nordics have broad based collective consumption. Improving areas like public health don't just help the destitute - they also help society more broadly. A single public provider brings costs down - as can be discerned when you compare some of the Nordics (Health Expenditure 9% of GDP) to the United States (Health expenditure 18% of GDP with only 40% private insurance coverage). Collective consumption through tax gives consumers of all different income levels a better deal - SO it makes sense for EVERYONE.

Secondly: Even the Business Council of Australia has recognised that the unemployed in this country are so-poorly-off that it interferes with their ability to look for work. That is not in anyone's interests! Work for the Dole is exploitation that delivers little in return in terms of employability... The Disabled have been vilified by Conservatives - But if they really cannot find appropriate work because of genuine disability are we really so mean as to condemn them to dire poverty? And if you want them to at least try - then remove poverty traps and work to provide flexible employment.

Thirdly: If students cannot fully apply themselves to their study because there is insufficient income support and they must work part-time.. Is it really in society's interest - or even business's interest - for them NOT to realise their full potential - through full application to their studies?

Finally: Increasing housing supply is also in most peoples' interest. There's a problem with young families being excluded from the housing market - so how can we address that?

The 'other peoples' money' argument also assumes that distribution which is arrived at through labour-capital relations, and through the labour market - is FAIR. Arguably it is NOT necessarily fair... There is a degree to which collective consumption delivers a better deal for EVERYONE. But yes there is also an ELEMENT of redistribution. Because unfairnesses arise in capitalism that need to be addressed. Furthermore: social insurance is potentially in everyone's interest - as we never know what is 'around the corner."

Idiotic article, calling for the rejection of austerity then saying "AND the deficit must be brought under control as well"!

At this stage in the economic cycle, running a large deficit is the economically responsible thing to do. Trying to cut the deficit results in economic decline, more unemployment, less government revenue, a weaker private sector, and so probably a bigger deficit. Although cutting the deficit by ensuring multinationals pay more tax would not have this effect, as the money would otherwise go overseas.

Australia has unlimited credit (as it owns the Reserve Bank and does not borrow in foreign currencies). Therefore there's never ever any danger of us running out of money. It's sometimes desirable to cut the deficit or even run a surplus to keep interest rates and/or inflation low, but at the moment that's not needed as we already have low inflation and low interest rates.

Aiden - There's a 'sweet spot' when you arrive at full employment ; and where who provide all the necessary infrastructure (to maximise production) ; and where your industry policy achieves as many high wage jobs as your labour force can manage. But beyond this public debt can still get out of control. Though private debt is the elephant in the room no-one talks about - because it is a form of 'corporate welfare' for the public sector to 'bear the costs' and be 'croweded out' by the private sector...

We've had the argument about issuing money before ; and I still insist if you take that to extremes you will end up with damaging inflation.

calmest you've got it backwards: Australia's current economic and budgetary problems are the direct consequence of the hysteria of trying to rush to surplus by the Gillard and Abbott governments. They really can be solved by spending more, and there are plenty of worthwhile things to spend the money on.

The NBN as Labor envisaged was money well spent. The Liberals plan improved on this by taking advantage of the hybrid fibre and copper that was already there. But they totally ruined it by wasting public money on the moronic Fibre To The Node plan. To justify FTTN they used a report that used an interest rate of 7% to reach the conclusion that it's good value (despite the official interest rate being 3%). Since then the official interest rate has fallen to 2%, yet they're still blowing money on this dead end technology.

The NDIS will increase Australia's productivity by enabling more disabled people to work, and Gonski will eventually pay for itself by enabling more Australians to do high value work.

Australia should avoid false economies. And wherever possible we should avoid putting Australians in a situation where they're forced to resort to false economies.