It is amazing how many commentators ignore the reality of the global situation. Our economy and the economies of most of the developed world has fallen for the mantra and propaganda of the right wing think tanks and business 'policy' councils.

Contrary to the Reagan/Thatcher nonsense of "trickle down" the more egalitarian the society the easier it is for a sovereign (money issuing) government to ensure a smoothly running economy and provide a reasonably high standard of living for all citizens.

People who do not understand want a balanced budget or austerity, both sure to cause a turn-down in the economy. Any budget surplus means the private sector loses financial assets if the current account is in balance. That does not mean that real assets can not increase in value particularly if the banks lower their lending criterion and take more risks, such as led to the GFC, and which under Howard and Costello started to price young working people out of the housing market.

Both major parties advocate a balanced budget over the business cycle whereas the budget deficit over the business cycle can at least match the total growth over that cycle. Every comment so far today shows that the commentator needs to read up on money theory. The primer by Professor Randall Wray might be a start.

Please, Foyle, there is absolutely no need to introduce either facts or common sense into this discussion.

>>Every comment so far today shows that the commentator needs to read up on money theory<<

This thread is for one-eyed, rusted-on ideological bigots only, providing a vehicle that allows them to parade their blind allegiances and media-fed preconceptions. The blustering braggadocio of armchair triumphalists, or the bitter backlash of trashed expectations - that's all we can expect, I'm afraid.

In other words how about giving the rest of us readers value for money?
csteele,
I do constantly you just fail to comprehend. Do you think it value for money to build a school for 42 million dollars for a 400 strong community with some 85 children ? Do you think it value for money to pay half a million to the CEO of a 5000 strong community which has no internal revenue i.e. no ratepayers etc ?
Btw that's our inheritance from a dumbcrap Labor Government.

Gee Pericles, get out of bed on the wrong side did you lovey. Never mind we love you, & your fool mate Foyle, even if you can't understand you can't spend money you don't have forever.

Oh, & Foyle you have to try to understand that governments can't hold the hands of everyone forever. Their job is to set the scene for everyone to prosper, and then get out of the blood way, & let them. The more they interfere the more the system fails.

I would have thought you would still be able to remember communism, it was not that long ago it failed, using those ideas you now push.

There is one group who are very happy with the labor government - namely the approx 2,000 WELFARE FOR LIFERS WHO HAVE ARRIVED THIS MONTH ALONE, THIS IS THE MONSOON SEASON - I DREAD TO SEE WHAT WILL COME WHEN IT IS OVER IN APRIL.

All the homeless will be unhappy because these 2,000 will now be given priority housing at taxpayer expense thus putting further pressure on the cost of renting for average Australians.

GOODBYE JULIAR FOREVER.

I'm wondering what organisation with a monopoly and or the ability to force compliance ever delivers real value for money.

I think the original thread was targeting relative value for money along partisan lines but I suspect that debate will be largely lost along the lines of political preferences. For the record as someone who normally votes for the coalition voter I'm not convinced they give me value for money either.

I think there is a tendency for any group that is able to use other peoples money without the other have much effective choice in the matter to fail to deliver value for money.

I don't think that's just about government inefficiency either, outsourcing (or selling) to private companies never seems to genuinely drive costs down or deliver improved services, at best it's a short term cash injection to the government of the day and maybe a sweet deal to mates running the companies involved.

While people don't have real choice about the services they use there is little motivation to really deliver value for money.

R0bert