Australia Institute: Turnbull/Abbott worst economic managers of the post Menzies period

[Play by Numbers]

The Australia Institute has labeled the most recent government the worst economic managers since Menzies. Even with cries of senate recalcitrance and drops in commodity prices, it looks pretty bad when your major pitch is the economy.

I'm not sure what this does for their case as being better economic managers than Labor? Given an uninspiring budget and a reluctance to battle on substance, more throw slogans like a party in opposition, the lack of a comprehensive economic plan to drive growth is pretty concerning.

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ull-the-worst-economic-managers-since-menzies

New research: Abbott and Turnbull the worst economic managers since Menzies

https://www.theguardian.com/busines...ull-the-worst-economic-managers-since-menzies

http://www.tai.org.au/sites/defualt/files/Jobs and Growth And a Few Hard Numbers.pdf

 

[JoseMourinho]

"As Stanford concludes, “it is clear from the comparison of the successive governments that broader, often global forces have more effect on Australian economic performance than discretionary policy”.

Generally speaking if you wish to be a government that presides over strong economic growth, is pays to govern at a time when the world economy is growing strongly."

That is all you need to read from this article.

I don't even know why comparisons between government are even being made when Stanford clearly said that more broader global economic forces have more impact on Australian than our discretionary policies.

It is true that Liberals have said that they are the better economic managers but stating that the current government are worse than Gillard while in same breath stating the above quote is contradictory.

 

[Play by Numbers]

"As Stanford concludes, “it is clear from the comparison of the successive governments that broader, often global forces have more effect on Australian economic performance than discretionary policy”.

Generally speaking if you wish to be a government that presides over strong economic growth, is pays to govern at a time when the world economy is growing strongly."

That is all you need to read from this article.

I don't even know why comparisons between government are even being made when Stanford clearly said that more broader global economic forces have more impact on Australian than our discretionary policies.

It is true that Liberals have said that they are the better economic managers but stating that the current government are worse than Gillard while in same breath stating the above quote is contradictory.

Very selective reading. A dishonest one in fact.

You have cherry picked a mitigating factor, not the sole factor, but given it influences economic health not controls it, and discretionary policies do have a significant impact your post reads as spin.

Or are you suggesting no microeconomic or macroeconomic policy has any effect? That the liberals are not better economic managers? That discussions over spending, taxation and cuts to services are unimportant?

If the business tax cuts have no economic impact, given the vagueries of international markets, the policy should be abandoned. Likewise, health and edu spending should be substantially increased.

Global markets do influence economic health, everything from warfare, commodity prices to demand. Likewise, macroeconomic policy, so monetary policy set by the reserve bank arguably has a larger impact than any microeconomic policy, as do inter bank lending rates.

But discretionary spending, taxation and so on, so microeconomic policy still matters.

 

[JoseMourinho]

Very selective reading. A dishonest one in fact.

You have cherry picked a mitigating factor, not the sole factor, but given it influences economic health not controls it, and discretionary policies do have a significant impact your post reads as spin.

Or are you suggesting no microeconomic or macroeconomic policy has any effect? That the liberals are not better economic managers? That discussions over spending, taxation and cuts to services are unimportant?

If the business tax cuts have no economic impact, given the vagueries of international markets, the policy should be abandoned. Likewise, health and edu spending should be substantially increased.

Global markets do influence economic health, everything from warfare, commodity prices to demand. Likewise, macroeconomic policy, so monetary policy set by the reserve bank arguably has a larger impact than any microeconomic policy, as do inter bank lending rates.

But discretionary spending, taxation and so on, so microeconomic policy still matters.

Dishonest? Reads as spin? I've said plenty of times that I do not know why the Liberals tout that they are the economic managers because what they do has little impact.

The entire article is basically a hit piece on the current Liberal Government when it is something largely out of their control.

As you said the RBA manage most of their monetary policy and the rest of it is up to the current government. Unless the current government is unbelievably stupid then they won't have an impact on the economy.

I'd be saying the exact same thing if the shoe was on the other foot and they were doing this to a Labor Government.

 

[ClokesShankedIt]

The Australia Institute bagging the Liberals? Really? Wow!

 

[Fire]

Dishonest? Reads as spin? I've said plenty of times that I do not know why the Liberals tout that they are the economic managers because what they do has little impact.

The entire article is basically a hit piece on the current Liberal Government when it is something largely out of their control.

I'd be saying the exact same thing if the shoe was on the other foot and they were doing this to a Labor Government.

If this was the case then the Rudd government would have been the worst. After all we haven't faced a global economy anywhere near as negative as the GFC in this term.

So clearley government policy matters. And he article is not implying your conclusions from that one snippet.

 

[JoseMourinho]

If this was the case then the Rudd government would have been the worst. After all we haven't faced a global economy anywhere near as negative as the GFC in this term.

So clearley government policy matters. And he article is not implying your conclusions from that one snippet.

And it was, the GDP only went up 0.4% under Rudd but that doesn't mean the Rudd government was terrible.

That takes the GFC into account soooo......

I'm stating that global factors and the RBA play a bigger role than any government has in the economy which the article clearly says.

 

[Ratts of Tobruk]

I mentioned this in another thread, so will quote the graphs here should people not feel like clicking through:

The Liberals' two batches of rookie Treasurers (Hockey, Morrison) and rookie leaders (Abbott, Turnbull) continue to show a lack of talent.

The Australia Institute has looked at a bunch of economic indicators and it's all bad news for the current mob - they're in the bottom two throughout:

View attachment 256667 View attachment 256668
View attachment 256669 View attachment 256670

View attachment 256671
View attachment 256672 View attachment 256673

The impact of the GFC is fairly profound and Rudd/ would no doubt want to highlight that:

View attachment 256666


The only thing the current Liberals win on was debt, where they are clearly following on from Howard's property price bubble legacy:

View attachment 256675

An awful set of numbers for the rookie Liberal teams. They lied to get in and did an awful job once in. They're now asking for another term because they couldn't negotiate with the Senate and in all likelihood they will have even more cross-benchers to deal with in the next government. Incompetent.

 

[rodney hoo]

It would be nice to see the MSM cover this story but won't happen, the alp have clearly been better manages of the economy and delivered more when in power.
It's a myth that the liberals are better, spread by their big end town mates.

 

[Play by Numbers]

It would be nice to see the MSM cover this story but won't happen, the alp have clearly been better manages of the economy and delivered more when in power.
It's a myth that the liberals are better, spread by their big end town mates.

Kenny and co at smh, need to reasses.

They backed Malcolm big time and have been sore about performance, but unwilling to stop backing him.

Kenny is now trying to call the election early, citing unnamed sources from all camps reckoning Shorten has peaked.

This to counteract Shortens quanda performance. Thing is, the libs keep stuffing it. Today was one bit of bad news after another and their key platform is weakening.

The guy has some nerve and I think is suffering from blinding ego, obscuring clear assessment.

Question is, will him and their business editor bight the bullet and start reporting with less churlishness.

 

[madmug]

I think after July 2 we could have some real fun in Canberra.
Just think. Turnbull survives with a 3 seat majority but a loss on the popular vote.
The Senate proves to be a bloodbath for the LNP.
So on July 3, we see the stunned, shocked & screwed up faces of Turnbull etc, All realising the complete stuff up they created over Senate reform & the DD call.
I cant wait

 

[rodney hoo]

Question is, will him and their business editor bight the bullet and start reporting with less churlishness.

I doubt it.

 

[medusala]

The Australia Institute has labeled the most recent government the worst economic managers since Menzies.

They whitewashed the 70s. When real men played footy.