Loudmouth,

"Gross debt was $50 billion when Howard lost, was $273 billion when Rudd lost; is [now] $353 billion.

(Stephen Koukoulas)

Which of those had a GFC to contend with?

At least we know now why Abbott is so unpopular, it’s labor’s fault.
He has not taken one ounce of the blame himself. He is frightened of what is going on while he is not around, and it’s business as usual.
His consultative ambitions are all on paper and I bet that is where it will stay.
He defended no telling any lies or broke any promises.

Poirot,

Obviously any government after the GFC. Any Treasurer would have known, keeping the GFC in mind, that he would have had to keep spending, i.e. any new spending programs (and certainly any Grand Schemes), within tight bounds, and any Treasurer suspecting an imminent drop in commodity prices would have steeled himself for a harsh, unpopular budget, with no new freebies and perhaps the termination of others.

Hence a spending of the surplus and the emergence, and rapid growth, of the deficit, which any government, Labor or Lib, has to confront.

It's not too late to enrol in Economics 1, at a university near you :)

Joe

'It's not too late to enrol in Economics 1, at a university near you :'

After Swan's promises of numerous surpluses I thunk unis have failed dismally.

Loudmouth,

Lol!...."It's not too late to enrol in Economics 1, at a university near you :)

There is no instance of a large economy getting to growth through austerity.

http://www.theage.com.au/business/in-praise-of-stimulus-20100808-11q8e.html

"THE great recession of 2008 reached the furthest corners of the earth. Here in Australia, they refer to it as the GFC - the global financial crisis. Kevin Rudd, who was prime minister when the crisis struck, put in place one of the best-designed Keynesian stimulus packages of any country.

He realised it was important to act early, with money that would be spent quickly, but that there was a risk the crisis would not be over soon. So the first part of the stimulus was cash grants, followed by investments, which would take longer to put into place.

Rudd's stimulus worked: Australia had the shortest and shallowest of recessions of the advanced industrial countries. But, ironically, attention has focused on the fact that some of the investment money was not spent as well as it might have been, and on the fiscal deficit that the downturn and the government's response created.

For an American, there is a certain amusement in Australian worries about the deficit and debt: Australia's deficit as a percentage of GDP is less than half that of the US; its gross national debt is less than a third."

(I'll let Stiglitz know about Economics 1:)

Hi Poirot,

Can you get into uni without the points ? Good luck.

Well, as for austerity, there's New Zealand. And Britain after about 1986. And, in reality, China from the year dot.

As for growing economies from a position of utter destitution and continued spending, there's ........

Nope, can't think of one economy. Nazi Germany maybe.

If you can't get officially into uni, try sitting at the back of the lecture theatre from March 1st, armed with a copy of Samuelson, Hancock and Wallace, or Lipsett, or anything by Frank Stilwell, or any standard first-year textbook. Stay for the bits about income and expenditure, and government revenue and outlay, they're worth the wait.

If only Wayne Swan had done the same :(

Joe