Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy

[sptrawler]

Was there enough labour during that period for that? From memory the unemployment rate at that time was around 5-6%.

With the initial surveying, mapping and the procurement of machinery and logistics running on a similar timeframe. I feel it would have resulted in a ramp up in labor, many of a semi skilled nature in about 2011. The bonus would be many of the jobs would be of a semi skilled nature, thereby giving employment to the people that most need it ,at this point.
The problem we have, is a lack of skilled trades people. Therefore instigating infrastructure initiatives that require more skilled trades people, again was an immature policy initiative.
Spending more on funding something that was going to compound the problem, was silly and didn't make sense.
To underline the foolishness, I don't see China buying into our telecom system.
But they sure as hell are buying the Ord River irrigation land also !00,000 hectare farms to grow food.
Maybe I'm missing something.
Obviously Blind Freddie isn't in the Labor party, because I'm sure he would have seen a missed opportunity.

 

[Calliope]

Much kudos to sails and Some Dude for your capacity to extend understanding. It's often difficult with the typed word to pick up the finer nuances which correctly explain what the poster is meaning..

"Finer nuances" in Dude's posts? You're joking. Perhaps he has some "finer nuances" on the topic of this thread which is "Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy."

 

[cynic]

Was there enough labour during that period for that? From memory the unemployment rate at that time was around 5-6%....

Some time ago I encountered this unemployment definition:

Australia adopts the standard international definition of unemployment: people are unemployed if they did not work for at least one (paid) hour in the previous week, were actively seeking work and were able to accept a job in the next week if it were available.

Given the aforesaid definition, I fail to understand how anyone could reliably utilise this statistic in determining the availability (or lack thereof) of additional labour.

 

[Some Dude]

"Finer nuances" in Dude's posts? You're joking. Perhaps he has some "finer nuances" on the topic of this thread which is "Wayne Swan - Economic Pygmy."

Do you mean other than my initial post in which I recast the allusion to illustrate that GG inadvertantly got it right?

 

[sydboy007]

Admittedly not by design, but the Labor Government has been a far lower taxing one than Howard ever achieved in over a decade.

If anyone thinks Hockey is capable of better economic management, please provide some evidence.

All I've heard from the LNP is they will:

* lower taxes

* provide bigger surpluses than Labor

Not sure how you cut taxes from the relatively low levels by recent history, and produce bigger surpluses.

Will be very interesting to se what an Abbott Govt would do to spending, as I'm sure they wont touch the sacred cows of family tax benefits or child care rebates. For all their claims to small Government, the LNP have been the biggest nanny statists in decades!

 

[noco]

Admittedly not by design, but the Labor Government has been a far lower taxing one than Howard ever achieved in over a decade.

How about you give some evidence that Labor has been a far lower taxing one than Howard. They may have promised but like everything with Labor the promises are always broken.

All the evidence shows Labor has taxed peoplel more. Just look at the impact of the carbon tax alone.

 

[Calliope]

Do you mean other than my initial post in which I recast the allusion to illustrate that GG inadvertantly got it right?

Your initial post where you "recast the allusion" is your only post on the topic of the thread. However it was completely lacking in "finer nuances."

 

[McLovin]

How about you give some evidence that Labor has been a far lower taxing one than Howard. They may have promised but like everything with Labor the promises are always broken.

All the evidence shows Labor has taxed peoplel more. Just look at the impact of the carbon tax alone.

The current government takes a smaller share of GDP than previous one. Coincidentally, the difference between the two explains most of the deficit. So, as sydboy007 said, it wasn't by design but the government is taking less tax revenue.