.*it was significantly smaller when Labor left office.*

It was zero when Howard/Costello left office.

*we would have gone into recession and our debt would have been huge.*

Well no, as the mining boom and mining investment boom protected us from the GFC, despite the Labor Govt. Costellos appointment of a suitable banking regulator, also protected our banks, unlike US banks.

*because they have moved us to a much worse position.*

They have had to undo some of the damage caused by the last Labor Govt, who forgot that the mining boom would end. So forgot to reach trade agreements so that our other industries might export, who banned live exports for a time and nearly wrecked the Northern cattle industry. The list goes on.

Turnbull is doing what the last Labor Govt should have done, like encouraging innovation and new start ups, but the reward for that will take some years to show. Labor refuses to address the fact that we have some of the world's cushiest bells and whistles enforced by their so called fair work commission, which if we want to compete globally, are frankly a joke and a great way of encouraging employers to invest elsewhere. This is what happens when trade union leaders try to run a country.

With some due respect, Yabby, that's a load of cobblers.

This mob have no idea what they're doing.

Perhaps you can explain the woeful figures and the collapse in business confidence in a way that doesn't put this bunch of economic numbskulls in the forefront?

Tell us how a $50 billion gift to big business is going to trickle down and save us all.

0.6% growth over twenty years to the economy...Wow!

60% of it going offshore to overseas investors...Wow!

Morrison so desperate he's pulled out the "war rhetoric".

Pathetic....

Yabby,

Oh so it's the Labor govt who forgot the mining boom would end?

I thought that was Costello's big one.

Merrily he went along pork barreling for all he was worth...giving us the new meme of 'middle-class welfare' - whom he and Howard rebadged 'battlers'.

Costello's legacy is the structural problem we're left with now that the boom has ended. They sold off assets and gold reserves like a perpetual fire sale and passed on Fraser's debt from when Johnny Howard was his Treasuer to Labor - that's what they did.

Costello left a piddling amount in coffers considering the economic mores of the time.

I did catch Marvellous Mal touting his Start-ups the other day...apparently all the gleeful young fellas there to get in on the act were fresh from the young Libs stable.

Ok Poirot, do you think we can avoid a recession in the not too distant future, if not, how do you think we will cope now that so many owe so much more, having been encouraged to borrow on false promises. Do you remember Rudds $21K first home owner grant. Many who took that up are now in the same spot they were, about to fold, only they now owe hundreds of thousands and if Bill has his way, their home values will fall.

However, had Rudd not opened the flood gates to illegals, or had he actually stimulated the economy with brilliance, not waste-able cash, and had he realised his limited abilities and actually listened to industry experts, we would be in much better shape.

The insulation scheme had some merit, but the implementation was what turned it into a basket case.

But the doozy of all doozies was by far the removal of Howards border protection laws, laws that saw Rudd inherit about three detainees, while Abbott was left with thousands.

So, go and do your math Poirot, but don't forget to add the interest on labors debt, the costs associated with not only stopping the boats, but managing the debacle Rudd caused, the unfunded dreams left behind by Gillard, the wasted billions on other brain fart ideas labor came up with, then we can compare apples with apples. But until you do this you are simply wasting our time.

BTW, those middle class welfare recipients you despise are the same ones who contribute to the needs of those who don't, either due to uncontrollable circumstances, or lack of interest for which they get away with.

Even when Tony Abbott did try to curb the welfare waste he was shot down. How typical I say!

As for business confidence, the constant threat of IR reform from Labor and the unions takes its toll. A point in case being Bills apparent backflip on the FWC ruling, should he not like it.

Continued

Just to clarify...

http://www.marketeconomics.com.au/2024-labor-or-liberal-government-debt

"Debt" referred to was that which was inherited by the Coalition in 1996 was left over from Fraser's govt - 42% of it.

Got a bit ahead of myself when referencing the great Johnny Howard - and his most profligate govt!

A few lines from the article on economic competence - or not.

"Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle.

Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government.

So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983."

Dear rehctub,

You have split the two issues but let me explain why I think they are very much linked.

First however allow me to make this point. In 2011 Forbes did an article which asked the question why was Germany able to produce twice as many cars as the US while paying their workers twice as much. The answers are in the link below.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/frederickallen/2011/12/21/germany-builds-twice-as-many-cars-as-the-u-s-while-paying-its-auto-workers-twice-as-much/#116f16e4289f

If we had strong political, industrial and union leadership this may well have been Australia's future. It's not and that is a great shame.

You say we were subsidising car industry workers $50,000 per year. From my memory it wasn't that high but it was still a substantial figure. However that was when the dollar was equal to $1.10 US due to a mining boom everyone knew had to end sometime. It is now at $0.74. The cost to produce a car here compared to the US dropped 30%. My contention is this exchange rate would have seen manufacturers return to profitability.

Here is where the two are linked. Negative gearing, which is very much an anomaly in the OECD, cost Australians who don't negatively gear over $300 for every man, woman and child. It is a subsidy which outstrips that given to the car industry.
http://www.smh.com.au/federal-politics/political-news/election-2016-what-negative-gearing-costs-other-taxpayers-310-per-year-20160513-goubz7.html

Now I have no problem with you making the case that this subsidy is maintaining employment but what I am challenging is your inconsistency.

I contend that a subsidy to the car industry is more appropriate sector to subsidise as the beneficiaries were lower paid workers rather than the proportionally higher numbers of the well off who claim the greatest benefit from this housing subsidy.

Cont..