When will the Coalition stop blaming Labor for their actions and behaviour?

[madmug]

Labor blame the Libs, Libs blame Labor. No Government ever takes responsibility.

Yes they all live a sort of 'denial' to some extent.

The interesting one for me is the Liberal 'political denial' of the effects of the GEC. Despite their being no acknowledgement by this government, It did happen & most countries were a lot worse off than us. Yes you can argue the toss about how it should have been handled, but the bulk of economists believed that supporting the economy was the best policy.

Also the 'deficit' was really not from overspending, it was from the national reduction in income. Again if they had reduced spending too quickly, the economy would probably have hit a brick wall. The US maintained its supportive spending for much longer than we did.
The deficit figures bandied about by Government as the fault of the previous Government have been shown to be rubbery at best, perhaps even deceitful.

Any way what this country really needs is more slogans,---oh,--wait!

 

[pokerspiv]

The interesting one for me is the Liberal 'political denial' of the effects of the GEC. Despite their being no acknowledgement by this government, It did happen & most countries were a lot worse off than us. Yes you can argue the toss about how it should have been handled, but the bulk of economists believed that supporting the economy was the best policy.

This isn't true at all. Keynesian stimulus obviously does create economic activity, but it's only robbing Peter to pay Paul if you pay for it by borrowing or printing money (aka "inflation"). What it *is* very good at though, is making the people who delivered the stimulus look like saviours. Which is why almost every government in the world does it.

Keynesian stimulus is fine if you fund it by running a surplus in boom cycles, so you have government savings rather than debt. But if you are funding the stimulus by the wrong methods it hurts more than it helps.

The problem is that running a surplus (AKA "austerity") is liable to get you voted out of office, because voters are addicted to their free stuff.

That said the main reason we werent affected by the GEC was the mining boom rather than the stimulus. Stimulus effects aren't typically that noticeable, whereas the price of your major exports quadrupling in the space of a year is.

 

[madmug]

This isn't true at all. Keynesian stimulus obviously does create economic activity, but it's only robbing Peter to pay Paul if you pay for it by borrowing or printing money (aka "inflation"). What it *is* very good at though, is making the people who delivered the stimulus look like saviours. Which is why almost every government in the world does it.

Keynesian stimulus is fine if you fund it by running a surplus in boom cycles, so you have government savings rather than debt. But if you are funding the stimulus by the wrong methods it hurts more than it helps.

The problem is that running a surplus (AKA "austerity") is liable to get you voted out of office, because voters are addicted to their free stuff.

That said the main reason we werent affected by the GEC was the mining boom rather than the stimulus. Stimulus effects aren't typically that noticeable, whereas the price of your major exports quadrupling in the space of a year is.

The stimulus helped to keep people in work in their own communities, so as a short term measure it was an important economic & social policy. Mining doesnt employ all that many people, except perhaps in the development phase. The mining boom has benefited us by allowing some tax reductions, but its benefits are not evenly spread.

The high $A is what has really has hurt the country. That & the effects of economic globalisation are damaging just about every major sector of the economy.
I dont believe we need 'austerity' as such. I do believe we need to reduce our middle & upper class welfare.

Things like education must be considered vital for the nations future. Not just for those 'well off' groups. We need to maximise the opportunity for all. The nation will be much better off if it focuses on giving an opportunity for all our children to improve & contribute back into their community.

 

[Jiska]

The mining boom has benefited us by allowing some tax reductions, but its benefits are not evenly spread..

A good discussion. Must disagree on this point though. I'm not sure the extra $2 a week (in one of the financial years) in tax cuts benefited anyone in reality. Realistically the country would have been much better off if we had funnelled that money in to building infrastructure for the future rather than throwing it away on tax cuts no one really noticed.

 

[Dry Rot]

Is Politics a new concept to you?

They all do it.

This.

Maybe the OP is 12 years old and never saw the rhetoric of the Hawke and Howard govts about the previous govt.

And a pretty big criticism of Rudd, Swan etc was that they never put the boot into the Howard govt.

 

[madmug]

This.

Maybe the OP is 12 years old and never saw the rhetoric of the Hawke and Howard govts about the previous govt.

And a pretty big criticism of Rudd, Swan etc was that they never put the boot into the Howard govt.

Its just that Abbott et al, has made an art form of it. Its cheap politics, something of which he is an expert. That & slogans anyway

 

[mottrain]

Its just that Abbott et al, has made an art form of it. Its cheap politics, something of which he is an expert. That & slogans anyway

Isn't Rudd's legacy tacky slogan???

 

[madmug]

Isn't Rudd's legacy tacky slogan???

No, never heard it.
Anyway Abbott is a one man slogan. Here's it in a nut shell, The budget,

' good for me, good for my mates, good for my boss'

Thanks Rupe

 

[mottrain]

No, never heard it.
Anyway Abbott is a one man slogan. Here's it in a nut shell, The budget,

' good for me, good for my mates, good for my boss'

Thanks Rupe

That one about families yeah??

 

[Todman]

A good discussion. Must disagree on this point though. I'm not sure the extra $2 a week (in one of the financial years) in tax cuts benefited anyone in reality. Realistically the country would have been much better off if we had funnelled that money in to building infrastructure for the future rather than throwing it away on tax cuts no one really noticed.

The tax cuts mean't that everyone who contributed to the wealth of this nation, (ie. the taxpayer) got some small benefit from the mining boom. The ones that didn't got more of the same.

 

[madmug]

The tax cuts mean't that everyone who contributed to the wealth of this nation, (ie. the taxpayer) got some small benefit from the mining boom. The ones that didn't got more of the same.

So aged pensioners who worked all their lives & got no super are left on the slag heap, Invalidity pensioners who have had accidents, some of them workplace injuries, are dumped too. But someone who was born to well off families get a benefit. That is just pathetic & unfair, underhand & 'unAustralian' (ooo! a slogan!!)

Wait 'till the revolution comes comrade

 

[Mofra]

This isn't true at all. Keynesian stimulus obviously does create economic activity, but it's only robbing Peter to pay Paul if you pay for it by borrowing or printing money (aka "inflation"). What it *is* very good at though, is making the people who delivered the stimulus look like saviours. Which is why almost every government in the world does it.

Keynesian stimulus is fine if you fund it by running a surplus in boom cycles, so you have government savings rather than debt. But if you are funding the stimulus by the wrong methods it hurts more than it helps.

The problem is that running a surplus (AKA "austerity") is liable to get you voted out of office, because voters are addicted to their free stuff.

That said the main reason we werent affected by the GEC was the mining boom rather than the stimulus. Stimulus effects aren't typically that noticeable, whereas the price of your major exports quadrupling in the space of a year is.

(Keynesian) Stimulus is simply about cushioning any fall in aggregate demand in the economy by boosting government demand in times of recession, and reducing government demand in boom times as overall aggregate demand necessitates less government spending during these times. It's simply about government response to the economic cycle.

Austerity is complete bollocks - Reinhart & Rogoff had spreadsheet errors (!) in their famous paper upon which the theories of austerity are based. Greece's performance under austerity measures has been woeful and as a theory it is largely debunked. The fall in general revenue has shown to be much greater than the modeled "60% of every unit cut in the following year" for example.

"Running a surplus" is not "austerity" - they are completely different economic concepts.

Treasury modeling indicates a 1.6% cushion in the unemployment rate due to Australia's GFC stimulus - it is worth considering the ongoing effects of a 1.6% increase in the unemployment rate on tax receipts & welfare spending in any stimulus discussion, especially in light of the fall in general revenue the following year that correspond to cuts.

 

[madmug]

(Keynesian) Stimulus is simply about cushioning any fall in aggregate demand in the economy by boosting government demand in times of recession, and reducing government demand in boom times as overall aggregate demand necessitates less government spending during these times. It's simply about government response to the economic cycle.

Austerity is complete bollocks - Reinhart & Rogoff had spreadsheet errors (!) in their famous paper upon which the theories of austerity are based. Greece's performance under austerity measures has been woeful and as a theory it is largely debunked. The fall in general revenue has shown to be much greater than the modeled "60% of every unit cut in the following year" for example.

"Running a surplus" is not "austerity" - they are completely different economic concepts.

Treasury modeling indicates a 1.6% cushion in the unemployment rate due to Australia's GFC stimulus - it is worth considering the ongoing effects of a 1.6% increase in the unemployment rate on tax receipts & welfare spending in any stimulus discussion, especially in light of the fall in general revenue the following year that correspond to cuts.

Yes, what you said

 

[Todman]

So aged pensioners who worked all their lives & got no super are left on the slag heap, Invalidity pensioners who have had accidents, some of them workplace injuries, are dumped too. But someone who was born to well off families get a benefit. That is just pathetic & unfair, underhand & 'unAustralian' (ooo! a slogan!!)

Wait 'till the revolution comes comrade

You'd be one of the first to fall. Your death would be sold as a martyr to the great cause.

 

[pokerspiv]

"Running a surplus" is not "austerity" - they are completely different economic concepts.

Ok

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

 

[Mofra]

Ok

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austerity

Thanks, now once you read it you will agree with me

 

[pokerspiv]

Thanks, now once you read it you will agree with me

Yeah, nah. You seem to miss the point that running a surplus is just a more extreme form of austerity. You can just cut the deficit and call it austerity, or you can take it into surplus and it's still a form of austerity. It's sad that you can't understand that.

Don't take my word for it though (might cause extreme cognitive dissonance). Feel free to google "surplus" and "austerity" together on your own, and pick a source who you know already confirms your biases (which will still show you are wrong), and then come back and admit you're wrong.

 

[Mofra]

Yeah, nah. You seem to miss the point that running a surplus is just a more extreme form of austerity. You can just cut the deficit and call it austerity, or you can take it into surplus and it's still a form of austerity. It's sad that you can't understand that.

Actually, austerity has more to do with the timing of cuts and the cyclical nature of macro-economics than merely (incorrectly) asserting that cuts = austerity.
In the most simplistic terms possible, Keynesians would advocate for spending cuts during 'boom times' and an increase in government spending during times of recession to make up the shortfall in aggregate demand across the economy.
Here's a MM media article that raised a few point in plain language, again referencing Reinhart and Rogoff (whom I mentioned earlier):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/reinhart-rogoff-debunked_n_3361299.html
Getting personal is something I would describe as "sad" - but again, we are all allowed to hold our own opinions provided we can argue for them

 

[Todman]

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2014-08-...ction-christmas-island-asylum-seekers/5696836

A Melbourne law firm has launched class action against Immigration Minister Scott Morrison and his department on behalf of a six-year-old girl held in detention on Christmas Island.

The case would accuse the Commonwealth of breaching its duty of care by failing to provide adequate health care for asylum seekers and not enrolling children in school. Maurice Blackburn lawyer Jacob Varghese said the class action would also cover any asylum seeker injured or pregnant on Christmas Island in the past three years.

Another mess that arrived while Kevin and Julia were fighting over the PM ship.

 

[mottrain]

Actually, austerity has more to do with the timing of cuts and the cyclical nature of macro-economics than merely (incorrectly) asserting that cuts = austerity.
In the most simplistic terms possible, Keynesians would advocate for spending cuts during 'boom times' and an increase in government spending during times of recession to make up the shortfall in aggregate demand across the economy.
Here's a MM media article that raised a few point in plain language, again referencing Reinhart and Rogoff (whom I mentioned earlier):
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/05/30/reinhart-rogoff-debunked_n_3361299.html
Getting personal is something I would describe as "sad" - but again, we are all allowed to hold our own opinions provided we can argue for them

Depends how you interpret and define austerity.

 

[Maggie5]

LNP still think that they are in opposition. Someone should tell them that on Sept 9 it will be one year since they won the election.
They can now stop blaming Labor.

 

[pokerspiv]

LNP still think that they are in opposition. Someone should tell them that on Sept 9 it will be one year since they won the election.
They can now stop blaming Labor.

Some decisions have ramifications that last decades or more. Our beef industry will never recover from the decision to ban live exports, for example. Indonesia has since committed to finding permanent alternatives to Australia.

 

[medusala]

A good discussion. Must disagree on this point though. I'm not sure the extra $2 a week (in one of the financial years) in tax cuts benefited anyone in reality. Realistically the country would have been much better off if we had funnelled that money in to building infrastructure for the future rather than throwing it away on tax cuts no one really noticed.

How do you figure that out? The return on investment for tax cuts at the top end is many multiples of the ROI on infrastructure which is typically under 10%.

Tax cuts do not equate to throwing money away, it is merely giving money back to it's rightful owners.

In the most simplistic terms possible, Keynesians would advocate for spending cuts during 'boom times' and an increase in government spending during times of recession to make up the shortfall in aggregate demand across the economy.

Yet Abbott cuts spending by circa 1% (in real not cash terms) and the Magic Pudding crowd go beserk.

 

[Todman]

Tax cuts do not equate to throwing money away, it is merely giving money back to it's rightful owners..

Truer words have never been typed.

 

[Todman]

LNP still think that they are in opposition. Someone should tell them that on Sept 9 it will be one year since they won the election.
They can now stop blaming Labor.

Labor helps block bills in the senate, the blame will continue.