This is a mobile optimized page that loads fast, if you want to load the real page, click this text.

The Abbott Government

Jump to new
Whiskers said:
No what the prof is on about is arguably right, but what he is talking about and what you were talking about are two different things
Click to expand...

Go on ... just admit you were wrong and you got monkey trapped.

You do understand what plagiarism means don't you?

Bwahahahahaha (insert maniacal laugh here) hahahagagahaaaaaaaaaaa

P.S. It was the prof that said this and not me "It was not fiscal stimulus that prevented a technical recession, but a combination of other macroeconomic factors. The evidence can be found in Australia's national accounts."

If you clicked on the link and read it you would understand but but but that would require some due diligence now wouldn't it?
 
trainspotter said:
P.S. It was the prof that said this and not me "It was not fiscal stimulus that prevented a technical recession, but a combination of other macroeconomic factors. The evidence can be found in Australia's national accounts."
Click to expand...

Hence the reason I said "arguably"...because it was a "politicafact" as in political.

I said:
So lets get the facts... and cause and effect, straightened out.​

Your post quoted the prof: The RBA sharply lowered the official interest rate which facilitated the exchange rate depreciation, and scope existed for further interest rate reductions.

That was clearly a misrepresentation of the historical facts.

I said:
Actually it was the GFC that "facilitated" the RBA to lower interest rates.

It was the GFC that caused the AUD to crash, which caused the RBA to sharply lower interest rates. See the middle chart that clearly shows interest rates following not leading the RBA cash rate.

...and further explained in my original post that there was in fact a fall in volume demand which the net demand ($ value) could not fully offset by the exchange rate fall.​

It's a bit of a dud argument when you rely on a quote that is clearly wrong in context.

Who got monkey trapped
 
So RBA and the professor of economics is wrong and Whiskers is right? You really do have some issues in comprehension about obvious facts don't you? You have changed the story several times now to cover you glaring mistakes. :



You might need to go and read the RBA link as well for a better understanding of macroeconomics. Or are they wrong as well?
 
Whatever its imperfections, whatever mistakes is has made or will make, I like this new gu'mint.


The Australian has seen part of the document and it declares that, while Australia will remain “a good international citizen” and remains “committed to achieving the 5 per cent reduction” by 2020 of the 2000 levels of emissions, it will not sign up to any new agreement that involves spending money or levying taxes. - The Australian
The government’s document also says that Australia “will not support any measures which are socialism masquerading as environmentalism”.

The document’s commitment that the government “will review its commitment in 2015 in light of the science and international developments” deliberately allows a range of policy outcomes.

In the unlikely event that all major economies move in a concerted way, Australia could join in. However, the language provides that if the science becomes more unclear, and if nations move away from their earlier enthusiasm for action, then Australia also could wind back its efforts.

The timing of the Warsaw conference on climate change is difficult for the government. It has decided that neither Environment Minister Greg Hunt nor Foreign Minister Julie Bishop will attend.

The Abbott government does not expect any significant progress to occur at the Poland meeting.

Ms Bishop will be at the Commonwealth Heads of Government Meeting while part of the conference is on, and then at the annual AUSMIN talks as the Warsaw conference draws to a conclusion.

The government regards AUSMIN, the annual foreign and defence ministers’ meeting between Australia and the US, as vastly more important.

Mr Hunt will be in parliament supervising the introduction of the legislation to repeal the carbon tax while the Warsaw conference is on. However, the government would most likely not have sent a minister in any circumstances as it does not believe the meeting will be of great significance.

Mr Abbott has been strongly critical of agreements in which Australian funds are used to buy permits that are meant to fund cuts to greenhouse gas reductions in other countries – a key mechanism in the global talks.

The Coalition based its criticism of Labor policy on official forecasts showing Australian emissions would rise over time and that the 5 per cent target was only reached by purchasing overseas permits at an eventual cost of $150bn a year in 2050.

“This is by far the biggest wealth transfer from Australians to foreigners that’s ever been contemplated,” Mr Abbott said of purchasing offshore carbon permits.

Read the full story at - The Australian

via http://joannenova.com.au/2013/11/au...t-socialism-masquerading-as-environmentalism/

NB I agree with basilio that CC policy should be discussed here, but if we can please limit it to policy and leave science, advocacy and propaganda for the other thread
 
trainspotter said:
So RBA and the professor of economics is wrong and Whiskers is right?

You might need to go and read the RBA link as well for a better understanding of macroeconomics. Or are they wrong as well?
Click to expand...

The RBA link... well it's all in the name, it's just a Research Discussion Paper about THE MINING INDUSTRY: FROM BUST TO BOOM, hardly a definitive commentary on fiscal, let alone monetary policy.

From your link to the prof he opens by stating Richard Holden argued in a post on the site last week that the fiscal stimulus did save us from recession. Your prof claims the opposite but gets his historical facts wrong as I pointed out, just for starters.

Just opinion, typical political spin claiming the evidence (that you don't and can't produce) is in the accounts. Your link to the ABS accounts just shows a list of reports, no quote or chart or particular figures to prove anything.

The facts are in the real reports and data from the ABS, DFAT, Treasury and the Parliamentary Budget Office, that I quoted from, not some politifact analyst that disagrees with someone else over the interpretation of the ABS figures, then can't get his historical facts right to start with.

Note the highlights, blue in particular, that you committed to that were completely uninformative, misleading or wrong!


Do you want to try some more links or references to prove what you happen to believe in?

You will also notice on the earlier post the chart with the Parliamentary Budget Office post 1038, clearly shows the more important point that the Structural Budget Balance was in deficit going down under Howard and regardless the quality of Labor budgeting and spending, the Structural Budget Balance DID turn around. https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=27364&page=52
 

Attachments

  • Aus exports to china.JPG
    43.8 KB · Views: 74
  • Interest rate AUD.JPG
    52.1 KB · Views: 10
  • Exports AUD.JPG
    52.9 KB · Views: 10
wayneL said:
Whatever its imperfections, whatever mistakes is has made or will make, I like this new gu'mint.
Click to expand...

I'll thoroughly support them for the abolition of the Carbon Tax and a few other things if their actual legislation turns out true to advertised policy... BUT, don't you dare think I'm forgiving of them (or Labor) for broken promises and fraudulent policy and legislative positions.
 
Just for a bit of credibility, this is the latest Treasury update on the Budget.

See how that reconciles with what your politicians (and their loyal followers) are telling you. My Bolds.

The structural budget balance estimates shown in Chart 3 indicate that, prior to the GFC, underlying cash surpluses were supported by temporary (cyclical) factors, including the high terms of trade, an economy operating above its long-run potential and strong growth in asset prices. The estimates suggest that the structural budget balance deteriorated from the mid-2000s, with the point estimate of the structural budget balance falling into deficit just prior to the GFC.
The underlying cash balance moved further into deficit with the onset of the GFC, as the sharp fall in nominal GDP growth and asset prices reduced tax receipts significantly. This coincided with a widening of the structural budget deficit, largely attributable to the Government’s temporary fiscal stimulus measures and some of the factors that drove the large fall in the tax share of GDP in this period. These include the increased share of profits coming from the resources sector (which pays less tax per dollar of economic income than other sectors), and the implementation of policy measures announced earlier, particularly successive large cuts in personal income taxes.7 The fiscal stimulus measures have since been unwound; however, the factors that have reduced the tax share of GDP continue to weigh on the structural budget position.
http://www.treasury.gov.au/Publicat...-budget-balance-for-the-Australian-Government​
 

Attachments

  • Structural Budget Balance.JPG
    61.3 KB · Views: 13
Whiskers said:
BUT, don't you dare think I'm forgiving of them (or Labor) for broken promises and fraudulent policy and legislative positions.
Click to expand...

Whiskers, how amusing.

What makes you think I give a flying f### what you think?

As far as I am concerned extreme argumentum verbosium here is nothing more than visual pollution and a criminal waste of bandwidth. I only bothered to read the one where you quoted me, the rest I scroll over for possibly interesting content from other members.
 

So Whiskers starts quoting Treasury documents as evidence to show how the underlying budget deficits unfolded.

On the face of it impartial evidence to bring to the discussion that adds (IMO) some value to the discussion.

And you , Wayne deride it as visual pollution and waste of bandwith ?

Want to know why this forum is now largely comprised of abusive, no brainers ? Look in the mirror.

____________________________________________________________________
Joe Blow. This is for you while you are trying to work out how to improve the quality of ASF..
 
Mea culpa WayneL and other ASFers ... I have been chumming the water, pouring fuel on the fire, stacking the fridge, feeding the monkey, wasting bandwidth and generally taking the piss. Wont happen again.

The link to the RBA was to evidence that mining exports had risen 300% and that China saved us from a recession and NOT the Labor government fiscal policy of wasting money on pink batts and school halls. Also the economic times assisted Australia through the GFC as we were debt free.

A very obvious position to be in but one that nonetheless was wasted on certain members. Oh well .... back to the batcave Robin.
 
Mean while back at the ranch the brainless................

Joe Hockey goes a step too far

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/joe-hockey-goes-a-step-too-far-20131115-2xll6.html#ixzz2kl3z59Ia
 

Just on the bolds the retail sector took us through the GFC the sector didn't shed jobs unlike mining (19%).

If they (retail) had fired 19% of the work force like mining then we would look more like the US regardless of our debt free situation.

Ken Henry acted ahead of the curve "go retail go early" gets little credit for saving Australia from deep recession.

All you hear is how good a couple of mugs who sold ever thing they could and built a structural budget debt.

Hockey now wants another 66% on the credit card how can that work?
 
IFocus said:
Joe Hockey goes a step too far

Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/joe-hockey-goes-a-step-too-far-20131115-2xll6.html#ixzz2kl3z59Ia
Click to expand...

The problem with the interim offer is that it is inadequate before we even get to MYEFO.

 
Basilio,

Unsurprisingly, you have missed the point altogether. It is not treasury data at issue, it is, which I repeat for your benefit, the argumentum verbosium and the poisonous,biased subjectivity contained therein..... and the delusion that it counts as any form of valid analysis.

The farcical fallacy of your post highlights the scientific validity of the canonical wayneL's Law, vis a vis a total absence of objective thought; as is your ability to recognize it as in self evidence in your komrade's ridiculous subjectivity.
 
drsmith said:
The problem with the interim offer is that it is inadequate before we even get to MYEFO.
Click to expand...

It is unbelievable that labor, who ran up the majority of this debt with wasteful spending, now refuses to give Australia a sensible financial buffer.

Labor and their supporters clearly have no idea on how to manage a budget in the first place let alone how to fix a budget mess.

The first thing to do is create a buffer to buy some time while bringing spending under control. It seems Labor simply does not care about the well being of this country and would happily see it trashed if that means trashing the coalition. Shameful stuff...
 
So a professor of economics is wrong and the RBA data is wrong and the ABS national accounts evidencing factual information is wrong BUT Whiskers is right.

Yerrrrrr rightio then. Crack on then shall we. :1zhelp:
 
Just get rid of this stupid debt ceiling nonsense. This isn't America, and no one is going to block supply anyway, so what's the point of wasting time and money debating it. And Hockey is a moron for talking up the possibility of shutting down the public service.
 
The problem for Labor in terms of their budget management is that it engaged in a range of policy settings that made the budget situation far worse than in needed to be and left itself in a situation where it simply had to become ever more reactionary to the unfolding budget situation during the latter part of its second term.

In short, Labor over promised and under delivered.

As examples of Labor's policy settings, I highlight the following,

1) Labor went along with most of the Coalition's tax cuts as part of the 2007 election campaign simply to get elected.
2) While some fiscal stimulation was appropriate in response to the GFC, Labor's response was perhaps excessive and some of it clearly ill directed (pink batts for example).
3) The mining tax and associated spending measures were a terrible fiscal miscalculation.
4) Loss of effective border control represent a further serious ideological and fiscal miscalculation.
5) The carbon tax and associated measures. This very policy is designed to slow economic growth and hence revenues.
6) The infighting within Labor itself while in government and the impact that had on the nation's confidence.

It's fair to say the Howard government in its latter years shares some of the blame for the present situation, but they at least were fiscally sound in the early years of their government which is much more than can be said for Labor's 6-years in office.

The lions share of the present budgetary situation lies with Labor and that's clear in the RBA graph above.

The question now is how the new Coalition government responds and to get a clear picture of that, we'll have to wait for its first budget. Some of their present policy settings in my view are not appropriate in the present budget situation (PPL and direct action for example) but we at least now have an administration that appears to be much more purpose driven with the business of actually running the country than Labor was in office.
 
Getting rid of the debt ceiling is hopefully what they will do and yes, Joe Hockey doesn't have to come down to Labor's level in this debate although I think he knows as well as Labor does that this is an argument Labor will lose and like many of these policy debates, the detail will matter little in the long run.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Give Tony the Job!
Replies
12
Views
944
sptrawler
Tony Abbott - Indigneous envoy
2 3
Replies
43
Views
4K
sptrawler
Superannuation pain must extend to politicians
Replies
14
Views
6K
sptrawler
The Environmental Nazi Hunter
Replies
6
Views
4K
Glen48
R
The American use of War Pretext Incidents
Replies
6
Views
9K
sptrawler
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more...