All well and good. All true. Australia's problem though is not 'populism' or any other 'ism', as suggested: it is the poor quality of our self-serving politicians whose only goal seems to be self-promotion and votes. The very worst example of this type is Malcolm Turnbull, who usurped the position of PM with the help immature twits like Pyne and enough others wanting to make the Liberal party their creature, something that does not represent the true spirit of the party. There is nothing populist about Turnbull and his disgaceful gang, as the polls surely indicate. What we need is a complete overhaul, starting with a reduction in politicians, and a good look at federalism.

This article is rather inaccurate. For a start it was Rudd, not Howard, who was PM in 2008 when the unemployment got down to 4% (which some wrongly consider to be full employment, but a more detailed analysis shows is full employment in some areas but not others). And the economic boom was due to global conditions, and had very little to do with Howard's tax changes.

But the idea of short term pain for long term gain is misleading, because the policies that produce the long term gain are not the ones that produce the short term pain. Running a bigger short term deficit would, by getting the unemployment rate down and so strengthening the private sector, help us get back into surplus sooner. But it's not running a deficit that's painful, it's the cuts made by the politicians trying in vain to get the budget back into surplus!

In terms of false economies, government spending cuts are right up there with FTTN, and cutting government spending on science at the moment is even worse.

Hear hear Aidan and well said.

The article is based on an entirely false premise. Namely that we need short term pain for some mythical gain?

Every economist knows that the only way to redress the current fiscal position is via growth and sometimes the only way to kick start that is to helicopter money directly to the people who usually have no other choice than spend it on unmet need!

And via the federal reserve and the printing presses if there is nothing left in the government kitty (Surplus) to allow that to happen.

Whenever we hear a conservative thinker (patent oxymoron) extolling the virtues of austerity, it never ever applies to them?

Or those with their tight fist clenching their money with a tighter grip than that of a scotsman holding on to a one hundred dollar bill!

And when it comes to tax reform from them, all that seems to be on the table, is new levels of anti business complexity?

So that tax avoidance(the object of the exercise) becomes even easier for our TAX AVOIDING foreign guests and the local anti patriotic Benedict Arnold quislings?

Given the way the world is heading, all the UNMISTAKABLE signs are on the table for another GFC. Only this time we have no surplus to resist it with.

And we have obtuse obstructionist pollies with a absolute paucity of new ideas, who wasted the rivers of gold that flowed from the mining booms on creating welfare and unwarranted entitlements for the rich!

And consequently reduced to looking for what they can sell to avoid some permanent fiscal pain, or gain some very short term, (hugely counterproductive over the longer term) advantage, for a shrinking privileged few.

Thinking within a fixed circle of ideas limits the questions, and if the questions are limited, so also are the answers.

The definition of insanity is doing what you've always done and expect a different result!
Rhrosty.

Talk about poor memories! Don't you people remember Rudd?

He dropped billions into the economy in useless pump priming, & here is the result now. Not a single useful thing, or long term job came from all of it, & you lot want to do it again.

But you are right in one thing Rhrosty. "The definition of insanity is doing what you've always done and expect a different result", & you want to do a Rudd again. Get real.

Actually Has, it was mostly the creation of welfare for the rich when we had river of gold flowing into government coffers from the mining boom which is responsible for our current fiscal position, rather than the essential pump priming by Rudd!?

I wasn't suggesting the government delve into coffers, but use some quantitative easing to pluck funds from thin air, which should just be helicoptered to those with the greatest unmet need and no other choice than spend the money!

The other effect will be to create some healthy inflation, essential it would seem in a growing economy.

On the plus side and if we really wanted to save some money, we could take our one bucket of education money and distribute it directly to (ATTENDING) students, as a means tested endowment.

Meaning you'd eliminate any bureaucratic skimming; and allow unions to be sidelined, given all parents would be able to pick and chose and just on published results;; and apples with apples comparisons and benchmarked best practices excellence!

Which would be absent in schools forced to keep incompetent teachers protected by unions. Which would just die on the vine due to parents voting with their kids feet so to speak.

Given pragmatism prevails, principals would be handed complete autonomy, eliminate a virtual army of bureaucrats, who currently add as much as 30% to the education budget.

Most of what those folk actually accomplish outside of (thrice)administering a budget, could be accomplished by tuckshop volunteers/retired accountants/bank managers, needing to have an outside interest to keep them occupied, mentally alert and useful?

My parents told me that during the great depression, when Government money was tight/nonexistent, many of the things we now employ virtual armies of bureaucrats to manage, and from the most expensive high rise office towers, were replaced by unpaid volunteers, retired or semiretired professionals, working from home, their cars or on site, who made up water, hospital, and education boards!

And given the NBN, more doable nowadays! The olympic games proves the volunteer spirit is still alive and well here in Oz!
Rhrosty.

I'm right with you on that one Rhrosty. Every cent of education money, about half of what is wasted today, should go through the kids/parents, to the school of their choice. We would get rid of a heap of over educated, over paid, under worked public school teachers & other staff, who do nothing but go through the motions. We might end up with the great committed teachers we had in my day.

I got a great education in my younger days, in classes of 40 or so. Then in senior school, when only 6 kids did math 1 & 2 honours, we did it down the back of a junior math class. Fortunately 2 of my compatriots were so brilliant that they taught the other 4 of us what the teacher did not have time for. Imagine today's teachers doing 2 jobs at once.

Incidentally we had to do honours to equal city kids who could do math 3, which our country school just could not offer. We had no chance at scholarships without it.

Our teachers ran classes before & after school, as well as coaching numerous sports teams, the choir & debating teams, & the cadet corps. There were teachers in the place doing something with kids until dark most days.