on 02-09-2013 09:21 AM
Joseph Stiglitz is a professor of economics at Columbia University and a recipient of the Nobel Prize in economics.
Yet another economist explains why Labor have done well why we're getting laughed at for whinging and thinking of voting out a government that has done well in tough times.
http://www.smh.com.au/comment/australia-you-dont-know-how-good-youve-got-it-20130901-2sytb.html
While other countries fell into the global recession, Australia maintained strong economic growth, low government debt and a triple-A credit rating. With this record, you might expect the federal election to be focused on how to convert the strength of today's economy into resilience for the future. But instead the political spotlight has fallen on the perceived problem of government debt, with alarming proposals to bring austerity ''down under''.
For an American, Australia's anxiety about deficit and debt is a little amusing. Australia's budget deficit is less than half that of the US and its net debt is less than an eighth of the country's gross domestic product.
Most countries would envy Australia's economy. During the global recession, Kevin Rudd's government implemented one of the strongest Keynesian stimulus packages in the world. That package was delivered early, with cash grants that could be spent quickly followed by longer-term investments that buoyed confidence and activity over time. In many other countries, stimulus was too small and arrived too late, after jobs and confidence were already lost.
..........................................................................
Instead of focusing mindlessly on cuts, Australia should instead seize the opportunity afforded by low global interest rates to make prudent public investments in education, infrastructure and technology that will deliver a high rate of return, stimulate private investment and allow businesses to flourish.
I was in Australia during the last federal election and noticed then that the tone of the economic debate was both far too pessimistic about the current economy and far too complacent about the risks in the future. Three years later, the obsession with public debt continues to be a distraction from the more fundamental question of how to establish sustainable long-run growth.
Rather than look through the rear-view mirror at public debt, this election should look forward to the challenge of maintaining Australia's economic success for the future.
on 02-09-2013 09:40 AM
We may be doing "Better than most of the developed world" but we could be doing a **bleep** sight better still. Just doing not quite as bad as many others, still doesn't make it good.
Bit like being in hospital with a broken back, 2 broken legs, ruptured spleen, and saying you're fit as a fiddle, in great shape, just because the person in the bed next to you has a broken arm as well.
Wonder when they'll finally give in, and compare our "growth" to the countries excluded from the "developed" world?
stimulate private investment and allow businesses to flourish.
And this is done by strangling them with red tape and one way free trade agreements?
the more fundamental question of how to establish sustainable long-run growth.
Yes, someone might eventually get to addressing that.
on 02-09-2013 09:42 AM
Ok, so a hole in the ground to store rainfall with an N on the end is a *bleep* word?
on 02-09-2013 09:46 AM
So the political threads are demonized if posted by Conservatives but if posted by Lefties it's OK? It's a bit like whinging about the media.
Never mind, the agony will end soon. so all the C&P re NBN & everything else defending Labor will stop?????
on 02-09-2013 10:43 AM
Wonder where we'd be if not for the holes in the ground full of stuff that the countries that are doing it well needed to buy? (The "developing ones" that we don't include in the comparisons)
on 02-09-2013 10:49 AM
@carls*world wrote:Wonder where we'd be if not for the holes in the ground full of stuff that the countries that are doing it well needed to buy? (The "developing ones" that we don't include in the comparisons)
we'd be about where we were before, possibly better off. we'd have manufacturing and everything else that moved offshore because of the high dollar that the miners gifted us. thats what a two speed economy is.. one sectors boom causing hardship to other sectors ..hence the offshore move. we've seen the results of attempts to take these people on.. abbott won't even try, so expect it to escalate further.
on 02-09-2013 11:06 AM
Workplace safety, food safety, super contributions, insurance all worthwhile red tape.
We more likely to establish sustainable long term growth by investment in innovation and infrastructure.
02-09-2013 11:14 AM - edited 02-09-2013 11:15 AM
@carls*world wrote:Wonder where we'd be if not for the holes in the ground full of stuff that the countries that are doing it well needed to buy? (The "developing ones" that we don't include in the comparisons)
Most studies do include those countries. Just because this nobel prize winning economist didn't mention it in this article dosn't mean he didn't take them into account.
So many of the manufacturers I've seen close down have done so because they have neglected to improve their practices and their infrastructure. Times have changed. We used to have many smaller factories which are no longer competitive because two small factories is not as efficient as one large.
I'd be interested to know how you think you'd be better off under Abbott.
on 02-09-2013 03:46 PM
Apparenty Zambia is doing really well, they too have had non stop growth over the GFC.... I think they are on 13 years of growth...
If not for previous goverments Labor would not have survived...
and personally I don't think we needed a huge spend like we had... I think we were pretty well protected. We were not at risk like the Americans or Europe...
on 02-09-2013 03:51 PM
zambia ? i guess we are a lot alike..