Agree with some of this, but not much! What the government needs to do is lift the asinine, self-imposed embargo on nuclear energy.

That should take the wind out of inflation and put a brake on inflation/cost of living increases.

As for pensions and the NDIS. JC said, inasmuch as you do unto the least among you, you also do unto me.

Let those who want to and are able to earn more and even contribute to income tax.

Get rid of the server rorts and rip offs in NDIS.
Alan B.

Subsidies as government spending are overlooked; e.g the money being thrown at solar and wind developers.

Foreign aid to bludger Pacific Islands.

Mass immigration is lunacy.

NDIS is being scammed, but Bill Shorten is starting to notice some of the scams, particularly the sudden ‘growth’ in autism.

Increased, communistic, dependence on government will eventually make us all poor and under the absolute power of Big Brother.

WTF?

According to Richard Denniss from the Australia Institute.

"Privatisation has made a mess of Australia’s vocational training system.

Back before economic rationalism and neoliberalism entered the minds of Australian politicians, government-owned corporations employed tens of thousands of young apprentices each year, most of whom left to work in the private sector when they finished their on-the-job training supported by formal training in publicly run “tech colleges”.

These days most of the public corporations and public tech colleges have been replaced with private companies, but perhaps unsurprisingly, the privatisation of training has not delivered an increase in its quality, but a so-called skills shortage.

Given that companies like burger chain Grill’d were the largest recipient of the former Coalition government’s “boosting apprenticeships commencement” wage subsidy scheme, and that privatised training colleges had to be banned from offering free iPads to trick vulnerable people into enrolling in inappropriate courses, it should come as no surprise that despite spending record amounts on training, Australia needs to look overseas to provide workers with a huge variety of skills, including electricians, bakers and bricklayers."

Yet the myth of the greater efficiency of private ownership of once government run industries persists.

What WTF Not again says.
Alan B.

Yes all these things would help to alleviate the inflation disaster. But out-weighing all of the other eight is the issue of immigration.

600,000+ people per year (a new Brisbane every four years....isn't one enough!!) vying for housing, food, consumer goods, white goods etc. Sure these new folk add to the nations nominal GDP but our per capita GDP is lower now than it was back in the halcyon days of the Abbott government.

Rents make up 6% of the inflation basket and have exploded due to the competition for housing. Governments are throwing money at the problem but as with all such programmes the costs will inevitably outweigh the benefits.

Graeme Richardson pointed out that back in 2000 Australia's population by 2050 was projected to be 26 million. Instead we got there in 2023. BUT, despite having 2050's population, we didn't get 2050's infrastructure spend. Indeed we have the government cutting back on infrastructure in a vain attempt to fight entrenched inflation.

Its not entirely clear to me what the government sees as the advantage of bringing in 600K new mouths each year. If we need bodies to meet the various ambitions for industry in the country, perhaps we need to cut back on the ambitions. After all, the ultimate goal ought to be the welfare of the current population and that has been going backwards.

Tony Blair's government in the UK admitted that their immigration programme was all about bringing in future Labour voters. I fear we have something similar here.

WTF?

mhaze states: "but our per capita GDP is lower now than it was back in the halcyon days of the Abbott government."

This, of course, is a nonsense.

In 2014 (Abbott's first full year as P.M ) the GDP growth was -8.28%.

In his second year the GDP growth was -9.29%.

And as a result of his disastrous management growth was -12.05% in the year after he was given the boot. This was turned around in the following year with GDP growth of +8.13%.

Abbott came to power at the end of 2013 (September) where he inherited a per capital GDP that has yet to recover from his mismanagement.

Oh dear, some people are so easily triggered. I wasn't writing a hagiography to Abbott, merely pointing out that the period of highest per capita GDP was during his tenure.

Still I was somewhat critical of the ALP so their warriors feel compelled to leap to the defence.

OTOH, since the only critique of my point was a misunderstanding of what I was saying about Abbott, I can only assume full and furious agreement with the rest of the post.<smile>

WTF is lying again.

Support these figures with proof or admit you are a liar.

WTF?

shadowminister says: "WTF is lying again.

Support these figures with proof or admit you are a liar."

I got my Data from the Megatrends website. It is presented in table form.

http://www.macrotrends.net/countries/AUS/australia/gdp-per-capita

The World Bank also provides the same data but in graphical form and is accurate to a rounding of $0.10.

http://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD?locations=AU

So I now expect you to withdraw your accusation of lying.

I'll help you out:

"WTF is telling the truth again.

He has supported those figures with proof and I admit he is telling the truth."

WTF?

mhaze says: "my point was a misunderstanding of what I was saying about Abbott"

O.K so I'll clear things up for you to address your misunderstanding:

Abbott (and the coalition) inherited a per capita GDP of US$68,156 at the end of 2013. By end 2016 it had been reduced to US$49,877.

Poor old shadowminister then jumps in as your White Knight to make accusations of lying.

As for your other points - they are your points and I can comment, agree or disagree as I choose.

I am not entitled to a response to every post I make and neither are you.

"O.K so I'll clear things up for you to address your misunderstanding:"

Not my misunderstanding. Your misunderstanding of my point.

Nowhere did I suggest that the Abbott government caused the pinnacle of our per capita GDP journey, just that it coincided with that pinnacle.

For what its worth, governments are rarely responsible for sustained increases in GDP (per capita or otherwise) and only then because they got out of the way eg Howard. Governments OTOH can and often do cause declines in per capita or overall wealth.

Still this is dragging us away from the primary issue which is that immigration is the major cause of our current inflation problems and, apart from hiking interest rates, one of the few areas where government can make a difference and get inflation under control.

Its difficult to understand why government thinks importing 600K new mouths each year is helpful or not detrimental in the current circumstances. My guess is that the uniparty continue to harbour dreams of leading a Big Australia, combined with the notion (for Labor at least) of importing a new cohort of loyal supporters.

WTF,

So you are just accessing crappy sites. Here's data from a far more respected site showing that per capita GDP increased continually from 2013 to 2020.

http://tradingeconomics.com/australia/gdp-per-capita

WTF?

shadowminister says: "So you are just accessing crappy sites."

I provided information from the World Bank.

The same information is provided from The International Monitory Fund.

Any reputable source would be quoting both these organisations.

The fact remains that Abbott (and the coalition) inherited a per capita GDP of US$68,156 at the end of 2013. By end 2016 it had been reduced to US$49,877.

The source you quoted claims that it uses information obtained from the World Bank. This data does not match that provided by the World Bank.

Why does your source data not match the World Bank data when it claims to be using that said data?

WTF,

The information you quoted is not from the World Bank. Trading Economics (probably the most referred to site in the world) gets its information directly from the ABS which is where the World Bank gets its information.

Secondly, your post indicates that you have zero economic knowledge, as with the minor population change, the drop in GDP of 30% in 3 years would be apocalyptic and worse than even the great depression of the late 1920s with mass bankruptcies, huge unemployment, riots etc. Somehow no one seemed to notice.

WTF?

shadowminister says: “….gets its information directly from the ABS”

Only partly true.

Your source does use the ABS for a lot of its data.

It clearly states, however, that information about GDP per Capita is sourced directly from the world bank not the ABS as you allege. .

http://tradingeconomics.com/api/indicators.aspx?country=australia

So you are wrong there and the data does not match the reported source, an inconsistency you cannot explain.

You also say “...the drop in GDP of 30% in 3 years .”

I have been talking about the GDP per Capita.

I was, after all, responding to mhaze’s comment and it is clear that the topic was GDP per Capita but for your sake I have clarified my statement.

So maybe I should have more correctly stated:

“In 2014 (Abbott's first full year as P.M ) the GDP per capita growth was -8.28%.

In his second year the GDP per capita growth was -9.29%.

And as a result of his disastrous management growth was -12.05% in the year after he was given the boot. This was turned around in the following year with GDP per capita growth of +8.13%.”

If trying to be brief has confused you then I will also restate from earlier using $US rather than percentages.

“Abbott (and the coalition) inherited a per capita GDP of US$68,156 at the end of 2013. By end 2016 it had been reduced to US$49,877.” - once again I’ve clearly been discussing GDP per capita.

WTF,

I will use small words because you are too stupid.

With the population growth at roughly 1.5% over the years in question a per capita growth of -9.3% in one year = a GDP growth of -7.8% or roughly -25.2% over 3 years. Which as I said before would be an economic disaster. Which again never happened. Hence the crappy information you posted.

Trading economics puts the PC GDP growth at 3% over this time and GDP growth at 7.5% over the 3 years.

The lesson for you is if what you read sounds stupid, check it before making yourself look stupid.

FYI

This is what happens when you lie to the voters and implement stupid policies.

"Labor’s primary vote has tumbled to below its 2022 election result for the first time with both major parties now neck and neck on a two-party-preferred basis as cost-of-living pressures escalate and the Albanese government faces a mounting list of political and policy crises.

An exclusive Newspoll conducted for The Australian shows Labor’s primary vote falling four points to 31 per cent in the past three weeks.

But the government has also been plagued with unexpected political events since the failure of the voice referendum in October which marked the beginning of a slide in electoral support for the government and the prime minister personally.

Since the last Newspoll, the government has stood accused of bungling the policy response to the High Court’s decision to overturn indefinite immigration detention, while the Prime Minister was criticised for his delayed and secretive response to the Chinese navy’s ­aggressive manoeuvres against Australian navy divers.

The opposition has also taken the government to task over a ­perceived slow response to rising anti-Semitism and pro-Palestinian protests against a backdrop of Mr Albanese’s frequent overseas travel.

While electoral support for Labor fell following the loss of the referendum, the latest Newspoll conducted between last Monday and Friday marks the single greatest fall in a single period for the government."

The government now heads into the final parliamentary sitting of the year with its primary support lower than its election result of 32.6 per cent. The Coalition’s primary vote has lifted a point to 38 per cent – its highest level of support since the election.

In two-party-preferred terms, this puts Labor and the Coalition at 50-50 for the first time, on the back of a four-point turnaround since the last Newspoll on November 3.