Mega Thread All things Tony Abbott

[carnthemlions]

Contra, as always, on the money.

Nothing about this Govt. is as on the nose as the Loughnane / Credlin piece.

I don't have any inside knowledge, but I've always had the impression that Credlin was the one who got Abbott elected. In the lead up to the election he stayed on message and wasn't allowed to deviate in any way. He was kept in controlled situations with the media at all times. It was ugly, but it was effective. You can't govern like that, but Tony is a loose cannon when you let him off the leash. Similarly, Credlin appears have no other way of doing things. She's also trying to micro-manage the rest of cabinet. You just can't do that.

 

[Gibbke]

and the way that Rudd avoided a recession in 2008 is something that Abbott will never do as it goes against the right wing philosophy.

I was watching Sunrise before heading out to work one Friday while Rudd was PM (the first time), and you might recall they would have Lib leader Turnbull and deputy PM Gillard slugging it out each week in a little segment. I nearly spat out my coffee when Turnbull was asked the direct question, after a good session slamming Rudd and his economic stimulus measures (flatscreen tv money that went on my rego, free roof insulation, etc), asking "what would you have done differently?"

He said nothing - he would have done it the same way. If not roof insulation, then something else, but the advice of the world's leading economists, which was what Rudd was following, was what Turnbull was also an advocate of...

This is the bit that's really pissed me off with the current government and the ease they've had in duping the public...how quickly they forget the GFC when bitching about "Labor's debt"...

 

[Docker Clint]

It's Labor's fault

 

[Power Raid]

I was watching Sunrise before heading out to work one Friday while Rudd was PM (the first time), and you might recall they would have Lib leader Turnbull and deputy PM Gillard slugging it out each week in a little segment. I nearly spat out my coffee when Turnbull was asked the direct question, after a good session slamming Rudd and his economic stimulus measures (flatscreen tv money that went on my rego, free rook insulation, etc), asking "what would you have done differently?"

He said no - he would have done it the same way. If not roof insulation, then something else, but the advice of the world's leading economists, which was what Rudd was following, was what Turnbull was also an advocate of...

This is the bit that's really pissed me off with the current government and the ease they've had in duping the public...how quickly they forget the GFC when bitching about "Labor's debt"...

I guess that makes two guys who would have over cooked the economy. Unfortunately it is our youth, over the next decade or two, who will pay the biggest price for the F up.

 

[Pessimistic]

I have participated in a couple of meetings with her - she could not have shown more contempt for the people I went with - she said "why on earth would the Prime
Minister meet with you" . What we were asking for was a fair hearing. It's happened twice

Strikes me as someone who raises donations and makes sure the donors get what they ask for.

Maybe you should have stumped up a pony or two

 

[Gibbke]

I guess that makes two guys who would have over cooked the economy. Unfortunately it is our youth, over the next decade or two, who will pay the biggest price for the F up.

It's this insular and simplistic way of looking at it that makes it so easy for Abbott to spin the s**t that he does, and anyone else in power probably would. Australia is a small part of a global economy, and is subject to all of the pitfalls experienced overseas. I can't recall anyone in the ALP denying that measures taken back then weren't going to have an impact later on, but according to their best advice they needed to be taken or the country at the time would be in massive trouble then and there. Australia will be paying the debt for a while, and believe me, as a 40-something teacher safely knowing I own a house and a secure job watching kids walk out the door who have no idea how the f### they will pay for theirs, I'd like to see this handled properly. Slugging the unemployed, sick and students won't do this, but I digress...lets not turn this into a billboard slogan...

The point is, whoever was in charge at the time would have racked a debt trying to combat the GFC, or they would have probably led the country into years of severe hardship by doing nothing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and our economy, which is heavily dependant on exports and imports, would always have been subject to forces outside our shores. The party in charge would have acted upon the advice given by financial experts worldwide who analysed previous recessions and proposed theories as to how to combat it - because obviously what they did in 1929 and 1987 didn't work...and whatever happened would have been happily seized upon by the opposition later on...there is no simplistically labelled "f### up...there's no "budget emergency" either, but that's another story...

 

[Xsess]

Lol. Labor competently stuffed the economy and is blocking every single attempt to repair it with their communist green mates in the senate. Now, with record debt to show for it our key commodity prices have halved, recording the highest drops in more than a century.. blowing the budget out ever further within spitting distance of an IMF intervention that will include a drop in our credit rating (meaning higher interest) and enforced austerity.

But its all Tony Abbotts fault and a union boss Shorten will fix it.

 

[Windhover]

Lol. Labor competently stuffed the economy

Please, do remind us again of this so-called "stuffed" economy. By which metric you judge the economy to have been stuffed under Labor has the economy now improved under the firm and steady stewardship of the Libnats?

. . . and is blocking every single attempt to repair it with their communist green mates in the senate. Now, with record debt to show for it . . .

Factually you are wrong. The blocked legislation is being treated in MYEFO as having been passed. The "record debt" belongs firmly in the hands of a Government that, in opposition, failed (politically) to recognise revenue shortfall was the chief cause of the debt and wrongly, for purely political spin, blamed ALP spending as being the cause. Now they assert, correctly, that revenue shortfall is a major contributor to debt but because they haven't recognised this until now they have done nothing to increase revenue and much to destroy it (i.e. removing the carbon price and paying polluters to not pollute).

In other words the Libnats were utterly misguided in their criticism in opposition and, for the first 15 months of their stewardship, governed in the same way. No one, but you, is saying . . .

But its all Tony Abbotts fault and a union boss Shorten will fix it.

What is being said is that a clueless government is clueless. Time for a government that demonstrates understanding of the problems and actually address them. Not just play political games "its all Labor's fault" and "big, bad unions" that the Libnats (and you) seem to prefer.

 

[Brown Bottle]

Lol. Labor competently stuffed the economy and is blocking every single attempt to repair it with their communist green mates in the senate. Now, with record debt to show for it our key commodity prices have halved, recording the highest drops in more than a century.. blowing the budget out ever further within spitting distance of an IMF intervention that will include a drop in our credit rating (meaning higher interest) and enforced austerity.

But its all Tony Abbotts fault and a union boss Shorten will fix it.

Labor saved this nation.

The LNP is destroying it.

The reverse of your idiocy in a tl;dr succinct format.

 

[Power Raid]

It's this insular and simplistic way of looking at it that makes it so easy for Abbott to spin the s**t that he does, and anyone else in power probably would. Australia is a small part of a global economy, and is subject to all of the pitfalls experienced overseas. I can't recall anyone in the ALP denying that measures taken back then weren't going to have an impact later on, but according to their best advice they needed to be taken or the country at the time would be in massive trouble then and there. Australia will be paying the debt for a while, and believe me, as a 40-something teacher safely knowing I own a house and a secure job watching kids walk out the door who have no idea how the f### they will pay for theirs, I'd like to see this handled properly. Slugging the unemployed, sick and students won't do this, but I digress...lets not turn this into a billboard slogan...

The point is, whoever was in charge at the time would have racked a debt trying to combat the GFC, or they would have probably led the country into years of severe hardship by doing nothing. Damned if you do, damned if you don't, and our economy, which is heavily dependant on exports and imports, would always have been subject to forces outside our shores. The party in charge would have acted upon the advice given by financial experts worldwide who analysed previous recessions and proposed theories as to how to combat it - because obviously what they did in 1929 and 1987 didn't work...and whatever happened would have been happily seized upon by the opposition later on...there is no simplistically labelled "f### up...there's no "budget emergency" either, but that's another story...

I agree with your sentiment, especially as I am in my 40s and immune to the debt position but I really feel for our youth.

I do disagree with the idea that it was the only way. The problem with over cooking and stimulating the economy is the fact our interest rates had to then be kept higher than they should. In turn, our higher interest rates meant our dollar remained stronger than it ordinarily should have and as a result it was the "final" nail in our manufacturing and refining industries. Long term pain for short term gain. This then lead to a desperate government circumventing the constitution and introducing a failed mining tax and in addition a carbon tax to hide their mistakes.

What should have been done was buy up overseas assets. We would have offset our currency and formed part of the solution to the global financial crisis and the drying up of capital. The benefits: low AUD, strong local economy, bigger returns on our exports in AUD terms (ie mining) which means bigger tax collection, reduced the two speed economy, kept our manufacturing and refining industries ticking over to fight another day and the biggest one......we would have walked out of the GFC owning assets and a positive net asset position. This would had been a short to gain for long term gains.

 

[Power Raid]

Labor saved this nation.

The LNP is destroying it.

The reverse of your idiocy in a tl;dr succinct format.

lol

what can you say other than lol

Labor loads the nation full of debt to remain in power. They were not nation building or nation saving. They were saving their own ass.

 

[Xsess]

Please, do remind us again of this so-called "stuffed" economy. By which metric you judge the economy to have been stuffed under Labor

By what metric do you not?

 

[Power Raid]

Please, do remind us again of this so-called "stuffed" economy. By which metric you judge the economy to have been stuffed under Labor has the economy now improved under the firm and steady stewardship of the Libnats?


Factually you are wrong. The blocked legislation is being treated in MYEFO as having been passed. The "record debt" belongs firmly in the hands of a Government that, in opposition, failed (politically) to recognise revenue shortfall was the chief cause of the debt and wrongly, for purely political spin, blamed ALP spending as being the cause. Now they assert, correctly, that revenue shortfall is a major contributor to debt but because they haven't recognised this until now they have done nothing to increase revenue and much to destroy it (i.e. removing the carbon price and paying polluters to not pollute).

In other words the Libnats were utterly misguided in their criticism in opposition and, for the first 15 months of their stewardship, governed in the same way. No one, but you, is saying . . .



What is being said is that a clueless government is clueless. Time for a government that demonstrates understanding of the problems and actually address them. Not just play political games "its all Labor's fault" and "big, bad unions" that the Libnats (and you) seem to prefer.

The Labor mess will take a generation to fix. 6 years of chaos and two decades of pain of which our youth will pay the highest price.

It is disgraceful that 10-18yo's who can't vote have been burdened with so much debt. I wonder if Labor will send out Christmas cards each year to these kids with a their individual debt balance?

 

[Contra Mundum]

I was watching Sunrise before heading out to work one Friday while Rudd was PM (the first time), and you might recall they would have Lib leader Turnbull and deputy PM Gillard slugging it out each week in a little segment. I nearly spat out my coffee when Turnbull was asked the direct question, after a good session slamming Rudd and his economic stimulus measures (flatscreen tv money that went on my rego, free rook insulation, etc), asking "what would you have done differently?"

He said no - he would have done it the same way. If not roof insulation, then something else, but the advice of the world's leading economists, which was what Rudd was following, was what Turnbull was also an advocate of...

This is the bit that's really pissed me off with the current government and the ease they've had in duping the public...how quickly they forget the GFC when bitching about "Labor's debt"...

It was a tough gig - no access to credit = death to the economy. Most recent historical precedent was Japan - the slow take up of Stimulus meant their economy flat lined and never recovered. What do you do - pump money into the economy and hope for the best. It was two standard deviations from normal market behaviour - hard to know what to do when you are entering into an area where no one had gone for seventy years

The stand back and wait for the economy to recover because that is what you do in free markets - that is what they did in the 30s and that caused the Great Depression. Lets face it it took a War Ecomony to cure that

The only point I take from Power Raid on this is that Labor spent the money on the wrong things - should have went on a state funded infrastructurre bonanza and a some immediate stimulus of consumer spending

 

[Play by Numbers]

The Labor mess will take a generation to fix. 6 years of chaos and two decades of pain of which our youth will pay the highest price.

It is disgraceful that 10-18yo's who can't vote have been burdened with so much debt. I wonder if Labor will send out Christmas cards each year to these kids with a their individual debt balance?

View attachment 97993

This is dumb, even for you.

If you were averse to burdening young people with debt, you would be averse to fee deregulation

 

[mottrain]

This is dumb, even for you.

If you were averse to burdening young people with debt, you would be averse to fee deregulation

No because why should someone who isn't interested in Uni be required to pay back more by way of tax for something they are not responsible for?

 

[Contra Mundum]

No because why should someone who isn't interested in Uni be required to pay back more by way of tax for something they are not responsible for?

Sigh - a national economy is just like a home loan account. All we need to do is stay in surplus and we will live in Nirvana forever.

 

[Power Raid]

This is dumb, even for you.

If you were averse to burdening young people with debt, you would be averse to fee deregulation

No they are consistent.

Fee deregulation has two components:
1) it allows universities to generate the revenue they need to run the course and allows the university to charge a market rate fee based on the quality and reputation. Why should UWA cost the same as Edith Cowan for the same course? They are not the same quality and it forces Edith Cowan to lift its game. but point 1) is not really relevant to your debate.
2) HECS is a great idea as univesity students are receiving a privileged education for free and only incurring a liability once they earn over a certain amount. So it is not a liability but a contingent liability (contingent on income). It also happens that university students usually earn more so the burden is not great.
2a) Students will also then consider which course they choose as there is no point wasting 3-6 years at university on a degree that does not result in a market need. Sure it nice to study a fun course out of "interest" but students may reconsider if it results in no personal benefit.

The big difference is also one of choice. Students choose to be university students but 10yos don't choose to subsidise the asset values of baby boomers and they don't choose to be in debt. So deregulation is a fair fee for fair service and burdening kids with debt and unemployment is a very different matter. I am surprised you can't see the difference.

 

[Contra Mundum]

No they are consistent.

Fee deregulation has two components:
1) it allows universities to generate the revenue they need to run the course and allows the university to charge a market rate fee based on the quality and reputation. Why should UWA cost the same as Edith Cowan for the same course? They are not the same quality and it forces Edith Cowan to lift its game. but point 1) is not really relevant to your debate.
2) HECS is a great idea as univesity students are receiving a privileged education for free and only incurring a liability once they earn over a certain amount. So it is not a liability but a contingent liability (contingent on income). It also happens that university students usually earn more so the burden is not great.
2a) Students will also then consider which course they choose as there is no point wasting 3-6 years at university on a degree that does not result in a market need. Sure it nice to study a fun course out of "interest" but students may reconsider if it results in no personal benefit.

The big difference is also one of choice. Students choose to be university students but 10yos don't choose to subsidise the asset values of baby boomers and they don't choose to be in debt. So deregulation is a fair fee for fair service and burdening kids with debt and unemployment is a very different matter. I am surprised you can't see the difference.

Your 2a is (as usual for free marketeers) based on the assumption of perfect market knowledge. When I went through in WA there was one law school - now there is seven. This is based on the assumption that you earn the big dollars as a lawyer - a law degree is as useless as an undergraduate degree in philosophy these days. The market which they are deregulating is based on the perception of no nothing 18 year olds - that will not meet the needs of our Country. We will be a nation of dills until both sides of politics start to think of education policy as a long range economic policy - reduction of access to tertiary education is bad for that

You are more likely to get a job with a pure maths degree than a law degree these says - Goldman Sachs poach them out of first year undergrad level these days

 

[Power Raid]

It was a tough gig - no access to credit = death to the economy. Most recent historical precedent was Japan - the slow take up of Stimulus meant their economy flat lined and never recovered. What do you do - pump money into the economy and hope for the best. It was two standard deviations from normal market behaviour - hard to know what to do when you are entering into an area where no one had gone for seventy years

The stand back and wait for the economy to recover because that is what you do in free markets - that is what they did in the 30s and that caused the Great Depression. Lets face it it took a War Ecomony to cure that

The only point I take from Power Raid on this is that Labor spent the money on the wrong things - should have went on a state funded infrastructurre bonanza and a some immediate stimulus of consumer spending

Yep

The issue wasn't australia's economy, so we didn't need local solutions. What we needed was solutions to mitigate global problems on our soil but rather than mitigating them our solution was to delay them with interest. We didn't need big infrastructures here as our engineering companies were already stretched. We didn't need consumer spending injections as that too was OK.

We needed solutions to reduce our fx but unfortunately our government panicked because of its poor record with managing the economy after the hawke keating years (Keating is my favourite PM). So rather than risk a period of recession and the stigma that comes with it, we have two decades of debt just to save Labor's face.

 

[Play by Numbers]

No they are consistent.

The big difference is also one of choice. Students choose to be university students but 10yos don't choose to subsidise the asset values of baby boomers and they don't choose to be in debt. So deregulation is a fair fee for fair service and burdening kids with debt and unemployment is a very different matter. I am surprised you can't see the difference.

Terrible post.

It will only allow some universities to generate the required revenue and this is debatable. Government funding should be increased, to bring us in line with the majority of developed countries.

Universities exist in Australia for their social utility, they are not yet corporate entities, that have price dictated by scarcity. To do so would compromise the system and stunt our ability to maximise student utility. It becomes about wealth, not talent. The limiting factor now is performance, this is how it should remain.

Students do not receive a free education, they receive a low interest debt. The individual debt burden under deregulation could become prohibitive. Not all jobs in each industry, nor jobs period are high paying. The danger is also that a future government will change indexation for loans, or seek to privatise debt, this will be disasterous. Given the cost the future generation will bear for the largesse of the older, due to super concessions, CGT benefit, aging population, 80-150k debt will not only be prohibitive, but will deeply hurt the economy as their ability to consume will be lessenned.

Deregulation is not a fair fee, given the social utility and cost already inherent in undertaking study, students pay through dedication and time during their youth or adult life, much like a proffessional sports person. We already sit bottom of the table for funding amongst developed countries, per student, fee deregulation on top of this is social sabotage

 

[Power Raid]

Your 2a is (as usual for free marketeers) based on the assumption of perfect market knowledge. When I went through in WA there was one law school - now there is seven. This is based on the assumption that you earn the big dollars as a lawyer - a law degree is as useless as an undergraduate degree in philosophy these days. The market which they are deregulating is based on the perception of no nothing 18 year olds - that will not meet the needs of our Country. We will be a nation of dills until both sides of politics start to think of education policy as a long range economic policy - reduction of access to tertiary education is bad for that

You are more likely to get a job with a pure maths degree than a law degree these says - Goldman Sachs poach them out of first year undergrad level these days

are apple computers better than IBM compatibles? who cares, they are worth what the market is prepared to pay.

People will make their own choice based on research and price. Whilst universities will have to compete on price and quality.

 

[Contra Mundum]

Yep

The issue wasn't australia's economy, so we didn't need local solutions. What we needed was solutions to mitigate global problems on our soil but rather than mitigating them our solution was to delay them with interest. We didn't need big infrastructures here as our engineering companies were already stretched. We didn't need consumer spending injections as that too was OK.

We needed solutions to reduce our fx but unfortunately our government panicked because of its poor record with managing the economy after the hawke keating years (Keating is my favourite PM). So rather than risk a period of recession and the stigma that comes with it, we have two decades of debt just to save Labor's face.

Yeh but a recession was the upside risk - it could have lead to total melt down, a depression and a generation of young people who never had a job. I would have taken a punt on stimulus in those circumstances

 

[Play by Numbers]

No because why should someone who isn't interested in Uni be required to pay back more by way of tax for something they are not responsible for?

I know it may sound crazy, but that is how modern society works. Education is the backbone of a developed economy. Limiting access, places limits on growth.

 

[Contra Mundum]

are apple computers better than IBM compatibles? who cares, they are worth what the market is prepared to pay.

People will make their own choice based on research and price. Whilst universities will have to compete on price and quality.

You have ignored my basic premise - the choosers don't necessarily choose wisely. Why are there more law students than practising lawyers. What happened to the invisible hand perfectly matching supply and demand. The market for computers cures a glut pretty quickly.

The State has a stake in tertiary education because if there are not wise choices made we are into banana republic territory - the current iron ore price shows that if we are to be prosperous in the second half of this century we can't rely on what we can dig out of the ground or grow.