SA Footy

Interesting letter!

Not really.

Starts with a non-sequitur and finishes with a lack of economic understanding.

Standard conservative fodder.

redandblack wrote:Not really.
Starts with a non-sequitur and finishes with a lack of economic understanding.
Standard conservative fodder.

It all made sense to me.
It is interesting how the left always think fiscal responsibility equals a "lack of economic understanding."

Sure our debt level is low by "International standards" but look where "International standards" have gotten most of the world...

OK, Psyber, I'll give more detail.

PIcking out some awards given in one year (2006) which subsequently proved wrong, due to a Global Financial Crisis, doesn't invalidate an award given by the same people in 2011. I note he didn't refer to any awards other than those in the year before the GFC.

Referring then to an increase in Government debt without discussing at all whether that had been a good thing or not is similarly one-sided. The fact is that that debt increase insulated Australia from the worst effects of the GFC and meant that our economy is now one of the very best performing economies in the world. That debt kept people in work and the economy in good shape.

To quote Mr Abbott, "we have serious bragging rights" about our economy.

It's not just that 'The Left' blame it on a lack of economic understanding, it's that we give 'The Right' too much credit at times, thinking they can see the obvious deficiencies in such offerings.

Why do you keep quoting Abbott, when you think he knows noting?

redandblack wrote:... The fact is that that debt increase insulated Australia from the worst effects of the GFC and meant that our economy is now one of the very best performing economies in the world. That debt kept people in work and the economy in good shape.

I'd be inclined to dispute whether the debt increase did anything, or was anything but an attempt to buy good will and appear to be doing something.

Although I'm not a big fan of Paul Keating, I respect the fact that he didn't resort to this populist policy in the 1987-88 crisis when shares dropped 40%, and property values dropped more than they did this time.
In my view it was the mining boom, and the fact that we didn't already have debt that insulated us, not the so called "stimulus".
Promising to support the banks to prevent panic was the one good common sense thing the ALP did.

smac wrote:Why do you keep quoting Abbott, when you think he knows noting?

Because the people I'm addressing think he does know something.

Psyber wrote:

redandblack wrote:... The fact is that that debt increase insulated Australia from the worst effects of the GFC and meant that our economy is now one of the very best performing economies in the world. That debt kept people in work and the economy in good shape.

I'd be inclined to dispute whether the debt increase did anything, or was anything but an attempt to buy good will and appear to be doing something.

Although I'm not a big fan of Paul Keating, I respect the fact that he didn't resort to this populist policy in the 1987-88 crisis when shares dropped 40%, and property values dropped more than they did this time.
In my view it was the mining boom, and the fact that we didn't already have debt that insulated us, not the so called "stimulus".
Promising to support the banks to prevent panic was the one good common sense thing the ALP did.

Yes, I agree with most of that, mate. Whether the debt increase helped is a matter for legitimate debate on both sides, hence I don't accept that it's just obviously bad, as the letter writer does.

I think just as legitimate a matter for debate is whether Mr Howard and Mr Costello squandered the fruits of the mining boom in their time on middle and upper-income welfare, which is now hard to reverse?

Swan is just very lucky he got the job with a very full piggy bank and he could throw so much money around with such gay abandon.
In fact, he wasted most of it on ill conceived projects.
He was a pig in a trough and he welcomed fellow pigs to eat with him.

That's one opinion.

Suits an agenda, I suppose

redandblack wrote:That's one opinion.

Suits an agenda, I suppose

As is yours champ.

No agenda
What would Swan have done if he didn't have all that money in the bank?
He was a very lucky man
World's greatest treasurer - my ass.

Media Park wrote:

redandblack wrote:That's one opinion.

Suits an agenda, I suppose

As is yours champ.

Agree totally, champ

Jimmy_041 wrote:No agenda
What would Swan have done if he didn't have all that money in the bank?
He was a very lucky man
World's greatest treasurer - my ass.

Well, he didn't have much in the bank when he took over.

He immediately had a GFC to deal with.

World's greatest Treasurer - Yes. If he's not, who do you think is?

redandblack wrote:

Jimmy_041 wrote:No agenda
What would Swan have done if he didn't have all that money in the bank?
He was a very lucky man
World's greatest treasurer - my ass.

Well, he didn't have much in the bank when he took over.

He immediately had a GFC to deal with.

World's greatest Treasurer - Yes. If he's not, who do you think is?

You never cease to amaze me
I wont even bother responding

That's a relief

Amazed? I suppose that's because I don't just parrot 'accepted fact' when it's just not true.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/outlook- ... -b3ef.html

As I said, Messrs Howard and Costello squandered their money on middle and upper-income welfare and didn't leave much of a surplus.

The ALP have been in government for more than 4 years now. Interest rates are low and falling, unemployment is low, growth is better than most of the world and we're better off than almost all of the rest of the world. But you can't give an ounce of credit, even when the facts such as official figures show the position.

Presumably also you still don't have a candidate to challenge Mr Swann?

redandblack wrote:That's a relief

Amazed? I suppose that's because I don't just parrot 'accepted fact' when it's just not true.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/outlook- ... -b3ef.html

As I said, Messrs Howard and Costello squandered their money on middle and upper-income welfare and didn't leave much of a surplus.

The ALP have been in government for more than 4 years now. Interest rates are low and falling, unemployment is low, growth is better than most of the world and we're better off than almost all of the rest of the world. But you can't give an ounce of credit, even when the facts such as official figures show the position.

Presumably also you still don't have a candidate to challenge Mr Swann?

I dont believe anything published unless its from Crikey

i think the greece treasurer is doing a fair job

redandblack wrote:That's a relief

Amazed? I suppose that's because I don't just parrot 'accepted fact' when it's just not true.

http://www.smh.com.au/business/outlook- ... -b3ef.html

As I said, Messrs Howard and Costello squandered their money on middle and upper-income welfare and didn't leave much of a surplus.

The ALP have been in government for more than 4 years now. Interest rates are low and falling, unemployment is low, growth is better than most of the world and we're better off than almost all of the rest of the world. But you can't give an ounce of credit, even when the facts such as official figures show the position.

Presumably also you still don't have a candidate to challenge Mr Swann?

As one who dresses slightly to the left, I cannot find much criticism in the way Howard and Costello managed the economy when they had the levers.

Yes, they did have a resources boom in the later years, but they managed to return a lot of the wealth to middle (& unfortunately higher income) households in the form of tax cuts and welfare relief, whist at the same time delivering budget surpluses and and creating a future fund.

The tax cuts and welfare benefits were obviously delivered to win votes, and arguably could be considered as squandering the large benefits of the mining boom. In reality they did it in relative moderation without largely impacting on fiscal measures, the only exception being some pressure on inflation.

All in all, I think they did quite a good job in those years, and Costello would quite rightly be judged as one of Australia's best treasurers.

The current Labor government (Rudd and Gillard) have not achieved the same success. No doubt, the global financial crisis created an enormous problem that Howard and Costello didn't have to deal with, but I feel that Labor have overcooked the stimulus spending and continue to spend beyond their means. Whilst the debt ratio to GDP isn't high by current world standards, there is nothing left in the bank for bad times, which is something the previous Coalition government did consider and deliver successfully (at the time).

Also, the previous Coaltion government's fiscal policy was largely devoid of popularism (apart from affordable tax cuts and welfare benefits) and based on sound prudent management. Their social polices on the other hand largely disgusted me.

The current government is largely all popularism, with very little political conviction. This is bad for all of us. And unfortunately Abbbott has managed to steer the Coaltion along the same path.

I have no doubt that if the current Australian economy was being managed by Howard and Costello now, we would be no worse off today but with much less debt and more in the bank for upcoming bad times.

I also have little doubt that Costello would have been a very good PM, as he had some social conscience, as opposed to Howard. In any case, his older brother would have belted him if he didn't.

I agree with a lot of that, dedja, except I wonder if you've factored in why we have a deficit.

It seems that most on here automatically assume it's because of over-spending by a profligate government, but I'd be pretty sure it's mainly due to decreased taxation revenue. I think I read it was mainly from a drop in capital gains revenue. With the Stock Market going so badly, that would seem correct. Would you agree?

I can guarantee you that much of the Howard/Costello tax changes were very populist. Many weren't means tested and pork-barrelling was an art form. I'd be interested to know how you reach the conclusion that the current government's policies are pure populism?

You also say the current government hasn't had the same success. In what way? Inflation? Unemployment? Growth? Interest rates? (Remember the old 'always be lower under a Liberal Government'), or is that just the current line that we all slavishly follow?