It is indeed gratifying to note that a respected and economically literate academic sees through the Howard 'economic management' myth, and is prepared to write about it. As I have said elsewhere in these postings, it is high time that the Australian voter looked past the efforts of a publicly funded propaganda machine that has skillfully reduced economic debate to a mantra - ie 'labor can't manage the economy, only we can do that'- a use of mantra as an indoctrination tool that would do any esoteric eastern religion proud. The Howard years are a virtual litany of lost opportunities. We now have a country that is (as the treasures implies) 'balanced on an economic knife edge', tertiary education has reached the ultimate humiliation of relying on full fee paying overseas students to remain viable, research and development has been systematically starved of funding, individual Australian wage earners teeter on the edge of personal bankruptcy whilst the big end of town pockets ever increasingly massive bonuses for laying people off.
All this in the middle of an all time high commodities boom, a new federally centred tax system, huge budget surpluses, and an unprecedented sell-off of public assets - a 'never to be repeated' sale by definition. Vote them out Australia, and try to save what can be saved from the wreckage of a once proud independent nation.

Thanks Klaas,

This is a very comprehensive and informative overview of the fundamental state of the country under the stewardship of John Howard and Peter Costello.

However I do take some exception to the statement: "it is widely recognised that the economic management by the ALP in the early 1990s provided much of the groundwork on which economic progress could be built."

I don't share the enthusiam for Labor's past 'reforms' of the economy. Essentially, they paved the way for Howard's wrecking operation under way since 1996. Examples include:

* The deregulation of Telstra by Beazley led to partial and the full privatisaion of Telstra.

* Enterprise barganing, which has laid the groundwork for outlawing of 'pattern bargaining' under "WorkChoices" (See "WorkChoices and the future of unions" by Harry Glasbeek in the Spring 2007 Dissent magazine (http://www.dissent.com.au))

* The privatisation of retirement incomes in the mould of that undertaken by the Chilean miliatry dicatatorship under teh guidance of Milton Friedman.

* etc, etc.

I hasten to add that the choice between Labor and Liberal is still a very important one, notwithstanding these grave concerns about Labor's past record and have said so in the article "Can Labor bring about a just society?" of 24 September 2007 at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6395

Other than this minor bone of contention, it's still an excellent article.

An article, which I have written, which attempts to grapple with some of the same subject matter is:

"Living standards and our material prosperity" of 6 September 2007 at http://www.onlineopinion.com.au/view.asp?article=6326

The myth that the economic boom is entirely due to minerals is the only card that labor has to counter the 10 years record growth. That the minerals boom has only occured in the last 3 years, and has added only about 1% to annualised economic growth in this period, indicates that we would still have beaten the growth of any other country in the developed world without it.

The real engine of growth has been the increase in productivity in the work place and exposing the old state owned bureaucracies to the market.

The economy has become lean, mean, and highly tuned. Putting a P-plater at the wheel and an apprentice under the hood whose policies are best suited for gravy trains (however well meaning) is ill advised especially as you and I are sitting in the passenger seats.

A new labor goverment will probably have the effect of making houses, land, stocks and shares more "affordable" but probably not by Australians.

Labor may have the high moral ground on many issues, but their "feel good" measure to remove AWAs leaves me with serious concerns as to their economic competence and thus our future.

It's all very well to criticise Howard and Costello for their endeavours. This article only presents a negative view of their efforts and shows no balance what so ever. But that isn't it's major flaw.The author has not one iota of a critical analysis of the alternative. Gillard or Swan as Treasurer, and indeed Rudd, given their error ridden and substance lacking performances so far are a very iffy proposition as economic managers.

Should the author wanted to be taken seriously as an independant commentator he should have addressed this very real voter concern. While Labor's history is merely just that: history, the future is what most voters will assess before casting their vote. In the absence of any consistant economic policy and indeed in the obvious and demonstrated absense of an understanding of the ecomomic mechanisms Rudd and labor will be in dire straits when voters start the process of assessing the policy alternatives.

Currently their only major concern and publicity in this area is who is going to be their treasurer...and that is not a good look regardless of how voters will assess Howard and Costello's performance

Reply to Shadow Minister'
Presumeably then, if we turned to a full slave economy, productivity would go through the roof, and the government would be seen as an economic miracle maker - all very well if you are not one of the slaves.
Any economic advantage claimed by the Howard government has been totally dependent upon an on-going erosion of hard won family oriented conditions of employment, and the now totally necessary involvement in the work force of both family partners, a situation in itself that has spawned a plethora of child-minding centres, government sponsored employment agencies etc all of which are factored into the 'lean, mean' economy. The Howard brand of economic success story depends upon throwing out the baby with the bath water. What is next - children back in the mines?

"Necessary involvement in the workforce"? For what? The bigger house (with the even bigger mortgage), the two modern cars, the 'good work clothes', the child care fees (the rest of us please subsidise)etc etc.
A little thought would show some (not all) families that it does not pay both parents to go to work or that the amount earned after the expenses could be saved with home-cooked meals, a vegetable garden (water recycled), walking the kids to school, catching public transport etc.
Perhaps part of the problem began with the idea that women had the 'right' to go to work. I don't care if they want to or not but it has now become a demand that they do and that is a different story because that would seem to be about earning to buy, buy, buy. We should make it possible for one parent (either one) to stay at home if that is their wish and we should view bringing up the kids as a career (and a worthwhile one at that).
We need to get over the notion of the 'necessary involvement in the workforce' and start thinking about the 'necessary involvement in bringing up the children and being involved in society' - something that too often goes out the window when both parents work.