Post election: Australian economy not travelling too well?

Dry Rot

My hat is better than yours
Joined
Feb 21, 2002
Posts
36,407
Likes
8,348
Location
Dead Snow of Norway
AFL Club
Western Bulldogs
Thread starter #1
Well, well, what do you know. The election's over and most of the economic stats are going south.

Poor current account deficit (anyone else remember Howard's debt truck?), waning housing approvals and consumer spending and talk of recession among independent economists.

Given the Liberal's campaign ads, does anyone else find all this grimly amusing?
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#2
Not at all. There was always a good chance of this happening. There's also a good chance that Latham would have us in a worse position. That's why people didn't vote for him.
 

Bomaz_Magic

Club Legend
Joined
Jun 1, 2004
Posts
1,031
Likes
0
Location
the lodge
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon Bombers
#4
All it will result in is interest rates being decreased if growth slows too quickly - hence, justifying the Liberals in saying that they keep interest rates low. however, a major reason for the reduction in the level of consumer consumption (spending) is the high level of oil prices, thus acting as a deflationary pressure reducing growth as the public have less income to spend on non-essential goods and services. That said the easiest way to incraese GDP would be to force the oil companies in AUstralia to reduce prices (oil has fallen 15% since mid year,w hilst the $AUD has appreciated against the $US, yet petrol has fallen 3%).
 

Mossie

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Posts
1,261
Likes
2
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon/Ceeeeeeeentrals
#5
bunsen burner said:
Not at all. There was always a good chance of this happening. There's also a good chance that Latham would have us in a worse position. That's why people didn't vote for him.

All the Libs doing and you still find a way to bag Latham ;)

(there's a surprise)

Keep swinging Bunny :rolleyes:
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#6
Mossie said:
All the Libs doing and you still find a way to bag Latham ;)
Just setting the thick people straight about why people voted for Howard and not Latham. How many times do they need to be told that the percentage play was that Howard was better equipped to run our economy than Latham under what ever prevailing exterior conditions.

To suggest people got it wrong because our economy is taking an inevitable downturn is ridiculous. Of course we will never know, but given the choice voters had you couldn't blame them.

Keep swinging Bunny :rolleyes:
I hardly need to but he lost and he's probably finished, and I'm happy that the said assclown is not running our country. Hopefully the ALP will actually give us a decent alternative next election.
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#7
Dry Rot said:
Well, well, what do you know. The election's over and most of the economic stats are going south.

Poor current account deficit (anyone else remember Howard's debt truck?), waning housing approvals and consumer spending and talk of recession among independent economists.

Given the Liberal's campaign ads, does anyone else find all this grimly amusing?
I find it amusing the backpedalling that is now and will keep happening. I also find it demeaning that for all the warnings people went ahead and believed a politician.

Remember if a politicians lips are moving......good chance he is lying

I hear what your saying BB about people making an economic choice between 2 parties but the spin (and you must agree) was that under a Liberal Government interest rates and the economy would be better off. Isnt that a subjective point? If Labour was in now wouldnt YOU be bleating about how Australia was sucked into voting for an''assclown'' and this is what they deserve blah blah blah?
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#8
PerthCrow said:
but the spin (and you must agree) was that under a Liberal Government interest rates and the economy would be better off.
Disagree with your sentiment, strongly. It was what they pitched but it was fair enough and justified. Many people have struggled to come to grips with this. Anyone who can't see that Howard was the percentage play (economy wise) is quite literally stupid. It just simply cannot be denied.

Isnt that a subjective point? If Labour was in now wouldnt YOU be bleating about how Australia was sucked into voting for an''assclown'' and this is what they deserve blah blah blah?
No. The economy is still in ok shape. No reason to panic or stick the boot in yet. Under either Govt, if IR go much above 10%, I'll be having a whinge.
 

Mr Q

Brownlow Medallist
Joined
May 27, 2002
Posts
10,984
Likes
29
Location
Wombling Free
AFL Club
West Coast
Other Teams
East Perth
#9
bunsen burner said:
Disagree with your sentiment, strongly. It was what they pitched but it was fair enough and justified. Many people have struggled to come to grips with this. Anyone who can't see that Howard was the percentage play (economy wise) is quite literally stupid. It just simply cannot be denied.
I find that odd, as from 1990-1996 Labor's economic credentials were impeccable - they're the ones that got the economy in the state on which the next eight years of economic stability have been based.

If you're going to go back further, then it is equally reasonable to equate the economic problems of the late Hawke government with those that occurred under the Fraser Government.
 

Mossie

Club Legend
Joined
Aug 5, 2001
Posts
1,261
Likes
2
Location
Brisbane
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Essendon/Ceeeeeeeentrals
#10
bunsen burner said:
No. The economy is still in ok shape. No reason to panic or stick the boot in yet. Under either Govt, if IR go much above 10%, I'll be having a whinge.
You having a whinge....Surely not ;)
 

Seb

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Posts
3,715
Likes
64
Location
Searching.
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Fulham + NJN
#11
Disagree with your sentiment, strongly. It was what they pitched but it was fair enough and justified. Many people have struggled to come to grips with this. Anyone who can't see that Howard was the percentage play (economy wise) is quite literally stupid. It just simply cannot be denied.
Since when was he seeking a 'justification' for the 'spin' the current Government put on during the election period?

Everybody knew, hell there were even facetious journalists spouting it around, that sooner or later, we'll be hearing 'this is the recession we had to have' again - that bloody infamous statement.

I'm not grimly amused. I'm just amused. In reality, the economy doesn't really do a lot for me, and it doesn't screw me over monumentally either. But, to think the majority of voters put their faith in 'protection' from terrorists and low-medium interest rates in the medium term is quite funny. If I/R do not do as the government stated in their election campaign, due to 'external' or 'other undesirable factors' ... then to me, the whole campaign has to be questioned. Maybe we aren't protected? ;)
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

finders

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Posts
6,078
Likes
349
Location
Brighton
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Cricket,Olympics,F1GP,Tennis,Boxing
#12
Yeah lets have some economic pain and see how the "greatest economic managers" of all time handle it
Howard and Costello are still living off the benefits and changing of our outdated economy that Keating and Hawke introduced in the 1980s and will s*** themselves if the economy goes belly up which with our massive personal debt it could easily do.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#13
Mr Q said:
they're the ones that got the economy in the state on which the next eight years of economic stability have been based.
Get your head out of your ass.

If you're going to go back further, then it is equally reasonable to equate the economic problems of the late Hawke government with those that occurred under the Fraser Government.
Not relevant. Howard and Costello have had strong and stable economic management for 8 years. To lay the credit on the ALP is just a little too convenient, don't you think?

C'mon, can you really look everyone in the eye and make that claim?
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#14
Shaitan said:
Everybody knew, hell there were even facetious journalists spouting it around, that sooner or later, we'll be hearing 'this is the recession we had to have' again - that bloody infamous statement.
1) John Howard made his claims on top of 8 years of strong and stable economic management. He had the runs on the board, Latham didn't. Very simple. Hard to fathom how people still don't get it.

2) As far as I could tell, it was the recession we had to have.

But, to think the majority of voters put their faith in 'protection' from terrorists and low-medium interest rates in the medium term is quite funny.
1) protection from terrorists had little to do with the election result

2) You are extremely ignorant. The average family is geared quite heavily and interest rates is a huge issue for them. I understand it may not be for you but to be puzzled as to why they are important to others is alarming. You have little understanding of the average household.

If I/R do not do as the government stated in their election campaign, due to 'external' or 'other undesirable factors' ... then to me, the whole campaign has to be questioned.
Their main attack was that they were better qualified to run the economy than Latham. And from both party's track record, Howard was the obvious percentage play.

You also might remember that Latham signed a gimmick cheque on a promise that he would keep interest rates low. I don't know why you're questioning one and not the other. It's politics and politicians lie and populise.
 

pazza

Hall of Famer
Joined
Feb 18, 2003
Posts
31,476
Likes
5,414
Location
Hoppers Crossing
AFL Club
Essendon
Other Teams
Liverpool
#15
Actually you probably could based on the figures..but it took longer to get from the 10% mark to 8% than from 8% to 5%.

On the Fraser era, with Howard as Treasurer, wasn't there a combination of high IR, high unemployment and for some reason, high inflation? Pretty lethal mix economically.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#16
finders said:
Yeah lets have some economic pain and see how the "greatest economic managers" of all time handle it
Quite well actually. Costello handled the economy very well through the Asian crash.

Howard and Costello are still living off the benefits and changing of our outdated economy that Keating and Hawke introduced in the 1980s
Get your facts right at least. Hawke introduced some short term policies to ease inflation which were ingenius at the time but had a long term downside that coincided with a world wide recession. keating introduced some good economic reforms but to give him the credit for 8 years of excellent economic management is nothing short of ridiculous.

and will s*** themselves if the economy goes belly up which with our massive personal debt it could easily do.
The real estate boom eased rather than busted. There's no question that Costello is by far the best candidate for the treasury.
 

Seb

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Posts
3,715
Likes
64
Location
Searching.
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Fulham + NJN
#17
bunsen burner said:
1) John Howard made his claims on top of 8 years of strong and stable economic management. He had the runs on the board, Latham didn't. Very simple. Hard to fathom how people still don't get it.

2) As far as I could tell, it was the recession we had to have.


1) protection from terrorists had little to do with the election result
I suppose the claims are valid, and yes he had the runs on the board...But people, or at least i do, struggle to fathom how it (the election result) can be based solely on economic-self interest.

2) You are extremely ignorant. The average family is geared quite heavily and interest rates is a huge issue for them. I understand it may not be for you but to be puzzled as to why they are important to others is alarming. You have little understanding of the average household.
Ignorant because i don't have the same opinion as you? Not once did i question the importance of I/R levels for the average household (which, i can tell you now, i am in that group potentially as my own family is attempting to buy a house in the next couple of months). I understand why people are concerned, but there's more to running a country than keeping a stable economy (domestically).


You also might remember that Latham signed a gimmick cheque on a promise that he would keep interest rates low. I don't know why you're questioning one and not the other. It's politics and politicians lie and populise.
Not really questioning either side, to be honest. I wouldn't vote Latham in either, but it wasn't because of his lack of ability in managing the economy.
 

bunsen burner

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 12, 2001
Posts
32,664
Likes
1,427
Location
Sydney
AFL Club
West Coast
#18
Shaitan said:
I suppose the claims are valid, and yes he had the runs on the board...But people, or at least i do, struggle to fathom how it (the election result) can be based solely on economic-self interest.
And that's why I called you ignorant.

Here's a common Australian scenario:

Husband and wife work their asses of for 10 years. Buy house with mortgage. Have kids. Property boom comes and their house value goes up. They access some equity and buy an investment unit with idea to fund children's education or retirement. For the first time in their lives they feel like they have done the hard yards and made it. This is the single most important thing in their lives (that a govt has any control over) and nothing is going to take it away from them if they can help it.

What they've achieved could be taken away by some bad economic managment by the govt. Howard has a proven record and is the less risky of the two choices.


Why you can't understand that is beyond me. You have a serious lack of empathy if you can't grasp that that's how a lot of people think and that there's absolutely bothing wrong with it.


Ignorant because i don't have the same opinion as you?
No. Ignorant because you can't accept that (many) others think different to you (and with good reason).

For the record: I don't think like the scenario that I outlined, but I do understand that it's how many people think, why they think it, and that it's perfectly ok to think like that. That'd make me not ignorant, and you ignorant.

I understand why people are concerned, but there's more to running a country than keeping a stable economy (domestically).
1. It's about priorities. Everything else is insignificant to most of those families who are geared. Once again you don't seem to be able to understand why people think different to yourself.

2. The economy is the single most important role of the govt. Without a good economy, there is high unemployment, or high inflation, or low growth, or a low SOL, or a combination of these. No point in having other desirable policies if a sound economic policy isn't in place first.
 

Seb

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Posts
3,715
Likes
64
Location
Searching.
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Fulham + NJN
#19
And that's why I called you ignorant.

Here's a common Australian scenario:

Husband and wife work their asses of for 10 years. Buy house with mortgage. Have kids. Property boom comes and their house value goes up. They access some equity and buy an investment unit with idea to fund children's education or retirement. For the first time in their lives they feel like they have done the hard yards and made it. This is the single most important thing in their lives (that a govt has any control over) and nothing is going to take it away from them if they can help it.

What they've achieved could be taken away by some bad economic managment by the govt. Howard has a proven record and is the less risky of the two choices.
I really, really dislike the situation as i don't think it is as common as you believe it to be. I'll grant you that in some cases, yes, such a situation exists and economic management would have been of some (hopefully not all) importance to those when voting in the election.

Why you can't understand that is beyond me. You have a serious lack of empathy if you can't grasp that that's how a lot of people think and that there's absolutely bothing wrong with it.
Bizarre. I do understand this concept (It's far too simple not to understand and is rather dull), but i also understand that there are many below the poverty line, on whom the economy would have little to no affect by adjusting interest rate levels and so forth. Those people need to be looked after and supported as well. Not everybody is thinking 'Gee, i hope I/R levels stay relatively low so i can invest in my second property, and my children can profit from that'. Many are hoping for a way out of their predicament such as impoverishment and yes some economic factors - like more employment.

No. Ignorant because you can't accept that (many) others think different to you (and with good reason).
Ahh, but in a democracy, shouldn't everybody's voice be heard, not just the majority? You are pretty much accusing me of not looking at the 'bigger picture' and you think i cannot understand why people would want I/R levels low. Quite funny really, you are doing the exact same as my saying you do not take into account those who cannot benefit from strong economic management, other than rising employment.

For the record: I don't think like the scenario that I outlined, but I do understand that it's how many people think, why they think it, and that it's perfectly ok to think like that. That'd make me not ignorant, and you ignorant.
Love the punch line. Your entire argument is a bitter one, refusing to actually consider my opinion.

1. It's about priorities. Everything else is insignificant to most of those families who are geared. Once again you don't seem to be able to understand why people think different to yourself.
Errr.... Yes, of course i cannot comprehend those who think differently to me [/sarcasm]. The fact i believe is that, many people who would have voted in Howard on strong economic management (which as i've said is quite justified) would have already been quite well off if they're considering an investment with a secondary home... Did they really need that extra $10,000 a year? A lot of people are business-corporate folk already earning quite a large sum of money.

I also find it interesting you seem to think i had a different stance on the election, given i told you in my first or second post that i'm currently in the 'family position' and am purchasing a house with a very restricted budget.

2. The economy is the single most important role of the govt. Without a good economy, there is high unemployment, or high inflation, or low growth, or a low SOL, or a combination of these. No point in having other desirable policies if a sound economic policy isn't in place first.
Ouch. SO let me get this straight, law enforcement, well-being and the health of citizens isn't of upmost importance to a government? That's what i cannot understand, as i put it in my original post - Why do people put the economy ahead of basic values, such as, education and health.

It is no good having a low rate of inflation, a low current account deficit, a stable dollar and low-medium interest rate levels, if there is increasing crime (due to lack of education and health) which promotes things such as drug use etc, which all have a negative impact on our society. You cannot simply turn a blind eye to this kind of stuff, as it is prevalent to many suburbs in Melbourne. And if such a situation exists, well it is almost impossible to have good employment growth, unless of course, one hour working per week for mum or dad in the garden (brushing up the area so their clients can come to see them at home) categorises you as an employed person.
 

ramjet

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
526
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
#20
Pessimistic said:
My take is this govt haven't really faced an economic crisis here and I suspect they will crash badly were it to happen
how quickly people forget the asian economic collapse which has such effect on our markets.
besides, the economy WAS in crisis when the coalition gained control in '96. happy to conceed credit to hawke/keating policy for some of that turn around but the ALP had sunk us well and truly in the brown stuff.
 

ramjet

Team Captain
Joined
Sep 14, 2002
Posts
526
Likes
0
AFL Club
Collingwood
#21
Shaitan said:
Ouch. SO let me get this straight, law enforcement, well-being and the health of citizens isn't of upmost importance to a government? That's what i cannot understand, as i put it in my original post - Why do people put the economy ahead of basic values, such as, education and health.

It is no good having a low rate of inflation, a low current account deficit, a stable dollar and low-medium interest rate levels, if there is increasing crime (due to lack of education and health) which promotes things such as drug use etc, which all have a negative impact on our society. You cannot simply turn a blind eye to this kind of stuff, as it is prevalent to many suburbs in Melbourne. And if such a situation exists, well it is almost impossible to have good employment growth, unless of course, one hour working per week for mum or dad in the garden (brushing up the area so their clients can come to see them at home) categorises you as an employed person.
mmm...sounds like a litany of STATE run failures to me. have a whinge to the ALP govt's around the country. primary federal responsibility is economy/trade, foreign relations etc etc.
 

Seb

Premiership Player
Joined
Apr 4, 2003
Posts
3,715
Likes
64
Location
Searching.
AFL Club
Geelong
Other Teams
Fulham + NJN
#22
ramjet said:
mmm...sounds like a litany of STATE run failures to me. have a whinge to the ALP govt's around the country. primary federal responsibility is economy/trade, foreign relations etc etc.
This is true, to a degree. But it is still the responibility of the federal government also. They can implement certain pieces of legislation within their jurisdictional powers.

Oh, and for the record, i wasn't really saying it was a reality. Although i mentioned those type of problems are prevalent to certain suburbs in the Melbourne area (I should have said Australia-wide) it was more of an all-round problem for the whole country to deal with.
 

- PC -

Hall of Famer
Joined
Sep 9, 2004
Posts
30,268
Likes
23
Location
Where No Birds Fly
AFL Club
Adelaide
Other Teams
Adelaide/Sturt/Wingfield
#23
ramjet said:
mmm...sounds like a litany of STATE run failures to me. have a whinge to the ALP govt's around the country. primary federal responsibility is economy/trade, foreign relations etc etc.
That is also another issue for another thread I guess but in the context of this one... every time I turned on during the election it was dont let labour get a hold of your schools, dont let labour get a hold of your hospitals...

If these are state run failures wtf were they using the scare tactic for?
 

finders

Norm Smith Medallist
Joined
Nov 24, 2004
Posts
6,078
Likes
349
Location
Brighton
AFL Club
GWS
Other Teams
Cricket,Olympics,F1GP,Tennis,Boxing
#25
Lets see how quickly the rodent retires if things start to go bad Internationally something neither he or Costello can do anything about.
 
Top Bottom