Quote:

Fitch Ratings said Australia had remained one of the strongest performing economies since the global financial crisis began. "Australia has built up the capacity to absorb shocks due to a combination of low public debt, a free floating exchange rate and liberal trade and labour markets," the agency said. This allowed authorities to run strong countercyclical policies during downturns, and the economy to adjust. Fitch said its rating assumed Australia's high level of political stability and governance was maintained, supporting the country's "attractive business climate".

http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/3/29/australian-news/swan-praises-gold-plated-aust-economy

Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated.

MOTR wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:02pm:

Quote: Fitch Ratings said Australia had remained one of the strongest performing economies since the global financial crisis began. "Australia has built up the capacity to absorb shocks due to a combination of low public debt, a free floating exchange rate and liberal trade and labour markets," the agency said. This allowed authorities to run strong countercyclical policies during downturns, and the economy to adjust. Fitch said its rating assumed Australia's high level of political stability and governance was maintained, supporting the country's "attractive business climate". http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/3/29/australian-news/swan-praises-gold-plated-aust-economy

You got a graph for that lower public debt than when liberals were in power?

You got a graph or common sence something for that attractive business climate. Would love to see it when we have so many businesses failing.

Of course it's not lower, progs, what do you think they meant by countercyclical policies.

Are you really that dull?

MOTR wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:07pm:

Of course it's not lower, progs, what do you think they meant by countercyclical policies. Are you really that dull?

I want to see why I shouldnt be pizzed off with this AAA rating from 3 agencies.

I want it to make sense. You are pointing out areas where they say "this is the reason why". Then I want to see a comparison to what was different to liberals and why they didnt get it.

But to be fair, it isnt your responsibility, but im calling it bunk until I work it out, because as of now, I see no reason or logic for the disparity. I say that because this isnt the first ive raised it.

Starting to sound really desperate MOTR...
But good for you I'll give you, Julia and Swanny a wave as the bridge slips beneath the waves...who am I kidding it's going to go down like a rock.

MOTR wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:02pm:

Quote: Fitch Ratings said Australia had remained one of the strongest performing economies since the global financial crisis began. "Australia has built up the capacity to absorb shocks due to a combination of low public debt, a free floating exchange rate and liberal trade and labour markets," the agency said. This allowed authorities to run strong countercyclical policies during downturns, and the economy to adjust. Fitch said its rating assumed Australia's high level of political stability and governance was maintained, supporting the country's "attractive business climate". http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/3/29/australian-news/swan-praises-gold-plated-aust-economy Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated.

So what?  The public debt is low by global standards because of the Howard Govt not because of the current Labor one.  Labor haven't had a surplus budget for 20+ years FFS... ;D

...and couldn't even deliver one when Swan said that he would deliver a surplus “come hell or high water”.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D       

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0UJGwj3c8E

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:10pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:07pm: Of course it's not lower, progs, what do you think they meant by countercyclical policies. Are you really that dull? I want to see why I shouldnt be pizzed off with this AAA rating from 3 agencies. I want it to make sense. You are pointing out areas where they say "this is the reason why". Then I want to see a comparison to what was different to liberals and why they didnt get it. But to be fair, it isnt your responsibility, but im calling it bunk until I work it out, because as of now, I see no reason or logic for the disparity. I say that because this isnt the first ive raised it.

Perhaps this might have something to do with it.


Quote:

AUSTRALIA’S most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found. The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies. It identifies only two periods of Australian “fiscal profligacy” in recent years, both during John Howard’s term in office – in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007… The IMF study mirrors findings of a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession.

Perhaps there were question marks over how the government might cope with an external shock.

It's a good question, progs. Perhaps the Howard government was entitled to AAA rating, despite its wasteful spending, because it was still able to pay down debt.

I'd like to know the answer myself. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that we are considered to have low levels of public debt.

We clearly don't have a debt problem. However, I'd want to see a plan for debt reduction outlined in the next budget.

I'm really looking forward to the next budget. 

Swagman wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Quote: Fitch Ratings said Australia had remained one of the strongest performing economies since the global financial crisis began. "Australia has built up the capacity to absorb shocks due to a combination of low public debt, a free floating exchange rate and liberal trade and labour markets," the agency said. This allowed authorities to run strong countercyclical policies during downturns, and the economy to adjust. Fitch said its rating assumed Australia's high level of political stability and governance was maintained, supporting the country's "attractive business climate". http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/3/29/australian-news/swan-praises-gold-plated-aust-economy Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. So what?  The public debt is low by global standards because of the Howard Govt not because of the current Labor one.  Labor haven't had a surplus budget for 20+ years FFS... ;D ...and couldn't even deliver one when Swan said that he would deliver a surplus “come hell or high water”.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0UJGwj3c8E

The reply took a while to get going but a good laugh at the end.

Swagman wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:31pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Quote: Fitch Ratings said Australia had remained one of the strongest performing economies since the global financial crisis began. "Australia has built up the capacity to absorb shocks due to a combination of low public debt, a free floating exchange rate and liberal trade and labour markets," the agency said. This allowed authorities to run strong countercyclical policies during downturns, and the economy to adjust. Fitch said its rating assumed Australia's high level of political stability and governance was maintained, supporting the country's "attractive business climate". http://www.businessspectator.com.au/news/2013/3/29/australian-news/swan-praises-gold-plated-aust-economy Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. So what?  The public debt is low by global standards because of the Howard Govt not because of the current Labor one.  Labor haven't had a surplus budget for 20+ years FFS... ;D ...and couldn't even deliver one when Swan said that he would deliver a surplus “come hell or high water”.   ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r0UJGwj3c8E

FFS, this bloke doesn't even look like he's started shaving. I guess in the echo chamber  some wet behind the ears pollie with a vested interest in exaggerating the facts has a better understanding of economics than three international credit rating agencies.

MOTR wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:39pm:

FFS, this bloke doesn't even look like he's started shaving. I guess in the echo chamber  some wet behind the ears pollie with a vested interest in exaggerating the facts has a better understanding of economics than three international credit rating agencies.

The young fella was absolutely right though wasn't he Motr? ;D

Swan didn't deliever on his promised "come hell or high water" surplus did he? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

MOTR wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:35pm:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:10pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:07pm: Of course it's not lower, progs, what do you think they meant by countercyclical policies. Are you really that dull? I want to see why I shouldnt be pizzed off with this AAA rating from 3 agencies. I want it to make sense. You are pointing out areas where they say "this is the reason why". Then I want to see a comparison to what was different to liberals and why they didnt get it. But to be fair, it isnt your responsibility, but im calling it bunk until I work it out, because as of now, I see no reason or logic for the disparity. I say that because this isnt the first ive raised it. Perhaps this might have something to do with it. Quote: AUSTRALIA’S most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found. The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies. It identifies only two periods of Australian “fiscal profligacy” in recent years, both during John Howard’s term in office – in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007… The IMF study mirrors findings of a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession. Perhaps there were question marks over how the government might cope with an external shock. It's a good question, progs. Perhaps the Howard government was entitled to AAA rating, despite its wasteful spending, because it was still able to pay down debt. I'd like to know the answer myself. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that we are considered to have low levels of public debt. We clearly don't have a debt problem. However, I'd want to see a plan for debt reduction outlined in the next budget. I'm really looking forward to the next budget.

No. That may be legit, but that is not what the ratings agency said "this is why"

You did say they said "this is why"

Comparisons to known reasons, not someone somewhere said.

What worries me about the conundrum, is the ratings agency would seem that they are very interested in you, as long as you have debt. A false sense of success.

You want more, sure, because you can keep paying it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:54pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:10pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:07pm: Of course it's not lower, progs, what do you think they meant by countercyclical policies. Are you really that dull? I want to see why I shouldnt be pizzed off with this AAA rating from 3 agencies. I want it to make sense. You are pointing out areas where they say "this is the reason why". Then I want to see a comparison to what was different to liberals and why they didnt get it. But to be fair, it isnt your responsibility, but im calling it bunk until I work it out, because as of now, I see no reason or logic for the disparity. I say that because this isnt the first ive raised it. Perhaps this might have something to do with it. Quote: AUSTRALIA’S most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found. The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies. It identifies only two periods of Australian “fiscal profligacy” in recent years, both during John Howard’s term in office – in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007… The IMF study mirrors findings of a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession. Perhaps there were question marks over how the government might cope with an external shock. It's a good question, progs. Perhaps the Howard government was entitled to AAA rating, despite its wasteful spending, because it was still able to pay down debt. I'd like to know the answer myself. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that we are considered to have low levels of public debt. We clearly don't have a debt problem. However, I'd want to see a plan for debt reduction outlined in the next budget. I'm really looking forward to the next budget.  No. That may be legit, but that is not what the ratings agency said "this is why" You did say they said "this is why" Comparisons to known reasons, not someone somewhere said. What worries me about the conundrum, is the ratings agency would seem that they are very interested in you, as long as you have debt. A false sense of success. You want more, sure, because you can keep paying it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE

Yes a little bit hypocritical Motr...thread after thread of dire predictions of catastrophe from just a few ppm in carbon increase and when it's debt it's "clearly we have no debt problem". Why do you hate children so much and the childrens children and the childrens childrens children.... ::)

Good videos - we'll all end up like Cyrprus.

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 8:16am:

progressiveslol wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:54pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:35pm: progressiveslol wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:10pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:07pm: Of course it's not lower, progs, what do you think they meant by countercyclical policies. Are you really that dull? I want to see why I shouldnt be pizzed off with this AAA rating from 3 agencies. I want it to make sense. You are pointing out areas where they say "this is the reason why". Then I want to see a comparison to what was different to liberals and why they didnt get it. But to be fair, it isnt your responsibility, but im calling it bunk until I work it out, because as of now, I see no reason or logic for the disparity. I say that because this isnt the first ive raised it. Perhaps this might have something to do with it. Quote: AUSTRALIA’S most needlessly wasteful spending took place under the John Howard-led Coalition government rather than under the Whitlam, Rudd or Gillard Labor governments, an international study has found. The International Monetary Fund examined 200 years of government financial records across 55 leading economies. It identifies only two periods of Australian “fiscal profligacy” in recent years, both during John Howard’s term in office – in 2003 at the start of the mining boom and during his final years in office between 2005 and 2007… The IMF study mirrors findings of a 2008 Australian Treasury study that found real government spending grew faster in the final four years of the Howard government than in any four-year period since the 1990s recession. Perhaps there were question marks over how the government might cope with an external shock. It's a good question, progs. Perhaps the Howard government was entitled to AAA rating, despite its wasteful spending, because it was still able to pay down debt. I'd like to know the answer myself. However, this has nothing to do with the fact that we are considered to have low levels of public debt. We clearly don't have a debt problem. However, I'd want to see a plan for debt reduction outlined in the next budget. I'm really looking forward to the next budget.  No. That may be legit, but that is not what the ratings agency said "this is why" You did say they said "this is why" Comparisons to known reasons, not someone somewhere said. What worries me about the conundrum, is the ratings agency would seem that they are very interested in you, as long as you have debt. A false sense of success. You want more, sure, because you can keep paying it. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Li0no7O9zmE Yes a little bit hypocritical Motr...thread after thread of dire predictions of catastrophe from just a few ppm in carbon increase and when it's debt it's "clearly we have no debt problem". Why do you hate children so much and the childrens children and the childrens childrens children.... ::)

There is nothing hypocritical about basing my opinions on expert advice. I've an economics background so I can work out for myself we don't have a debt problem. But you don't have to take my word for it, the three most prestigious international credit rating agencies are telling you the same thing.

But you obviously know more. Just like you know more than the climate scientist who are telling us it's warming dangerously and and most certainly it's us. I've made significant sacrifices to reduce my personal carbon footprint, because I respect children and will do what I can to protect their future. I clearly dont hate children, but God save them from the docile stupidity of men like you.

MOTR wrote on Mar 29^th, 2013 at 8:02pm:

Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated.

By how much?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:31am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much?

80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles.

We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point.

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:41am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point.

You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated

You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80%

So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:44am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%?

Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg

What measure do you use to identify a debt problem?

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:47am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%? Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa.

You said public debt was exaggerated

By how much?

For example:

If the debt level was $300B and people are reporting it as $600B then the debt levels have been exaggerated by 100%

So based on this - your assertion is debt levels' been exaggerated by 80% ie you are claiming that people are saying the current debt level is $540B

Show me proof where this exaggeration is reported

Don't be obtuse, Maqqa.

Great graph.
I don't want Australia to end up on the same path as the other countries.


http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg

Neither do I, bobby. But that's not a real threat at the moment.

Its a far cry from the record taxation and personal debt levels of pre 2007 under Howard and who can forget the interest rate increases during Howards last election campaign

adelcrow wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 10:09am:

Its a far cry from the record taxation and personal debt levels of pre 2007 under Howard and who can forget the interest rate increases during Howards last election campaign

adel does not understand the GFC so has no clue about economics

move on

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:52am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%? Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa. You said public debt was exaggerated By how much? For example: If the debt level was $300B and people are reporting it as $600B then the debt levels have been exaggerated by 100% So based on this - your assertion is debt levels' been exaggerated by 80% ie you are claiming that people are saying the current debt level is $540B Show me proof where this exaggeration is reported

bump for MOTR

you made a claim the debt level is exaggerated

show us where this exaggerated debt level you are harping on about

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:47am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%? Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa. http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg

And to the graph cave....

http://barnabyisright.files.wordpress.com/2010/03/myefo_netdebt_800x600.jpg

Entirely manageable. What's your point, nam.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4329992-3x2-940x627.jpg

So Motr how quickly do you think we will have a problem given the rate of increase of debt we have had under Rudd and Gillard? 
And yes you do hate kids and old people and are quite happy to see them freeze and go hungry...as long as you get to keep your dogma.

You live in a world if hyperbole, nam. Net interest payments as a percentage of GDP are well in hand.

As long as low income earners are adequately compensated for the regressive nature of a carbon tax, who is going cold and hungry.

Now, on what grounds do you believe we have a debt problem.

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:33pm:

Entirely manageable. What's your point, nam. http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4329992-3x2-940x627.jpg

Oh you seem to have Swanny's estimates at the end of the graph...you know...the one where he guarantees a surplus... and prosperity just over the hill.
You might like to stick to actual figures rather than doodles on toilet paper.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:10pm:

adelcrow wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 10:09am: Its a far cry from the record taxation and personal debt levels of pre 2007 under Howard and who can forget the interest rate increases during Howards last election campaign adel does not understand the GFC so has no clue about economics move on

and you continue to pretend the GFC had no effect ..... despite the fact that the libs proposed alternative to labors wasn't that far off what labor was proposing in $ terms .....

I got a first in economics.

Going from 9.7% net debt ratio to 22.9% in 5 years is pretty far from good economic management.

John Smith wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:44pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:10pm: adelcrow wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 10:09am: Its a far cry from the record taxation and personal debt levels of pre 2007 under Howard and who can forget the interest rate increases during Howards last election campaign adel does not understand the GFC so has no clue about economics move on and you continue to pretend the GFC had no effect ..... despite the fact that the libs proposed alternative to labors wasn't that far off what labor was proposing in $ terms .....

From John "I'm not biased to Labor, honest guv" Smith.....

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:43pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Entirely manageable. What's your point, nam. http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4329992-3x2-940x627.jpg Oh you seem to have Swanny's estimates at the end of the graph...you know...the one where he guarantees a surplus... and prosperity just over the hill. You might like to stick to actual figures rather than doodles on toilet paper.

Quote:

Fitch also noted the Government's plan to bring the budget back to surplus had been abandoned due to the strong Australian dollar and volatile commodity prices. But the agency took the view that the process of fiscal consolidation has slowed rather than reversed.

You need to look at the figures with a tad more objectivity, nam.

As far as the projections go, let's have a good look at the upcoming budget.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

John Smith wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:44pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:10pm: adelcrow wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 10:09am: Its a far cry from the record taxation and personal debt levels of pre 2007 under Howard and who can forget the interest rate increases during Howards last election campaign adel does not understand the GFC so has no clue about economics move on and you continue to pretend the GFC had no effect ..... despite the fact that the libs proposed alternative to labors wasn't that far off what labor was proposing in $ terms ..... From John "I'm not biased to Labor, honest guv" Smith.....

is there any point to that Andrei? other then you proving what a d1ck you are? 

Merely pointing out you continually support a Labor action yet refuse to admit bias.

I would have forgotten more about economics than you know.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

Merely pointing out you continually support a Labor action yet refuse to admit bias. I would have forgotten more about economics than you know.

You were born an idiot and you'll die an idiot .....


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

you continually support a Labor action yet refuse to admit bias.

I've admitted I'm a labor guy to you many times ... if you have trouble with english maybe I can try put it in another language


Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:51pm:

I would have forgotten more about economics than you know.

good ... then explain why if the GFC had no effect like Maqqa keeps trying to imply, why was the libs proposed stimulus package almost as much as labors in $ terms?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:47pm:

I got a first in economics. Going from 9.7% net debt ratio to 22.9% in 5 years is pretty far from good economic management.

Sure, Andrei.

What ratio are you talking about here.

Net debt to GDP

9.7% in 2007
22.9% in 2012

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:48pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:43pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Entirely manageable. What's your point, nam. http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4329992-3x2-940x627.jpg Oh you seem to have Swanny's estimates at the end of the graph...you know...the one where he guarantees a surplus... and prosperity just over the hill. You might like to stick to actual figures rather than doodles on toilet paper. Quote: Fitch also noted the Government's plan to bring the budget back to surplus had been abandoned due to the strong Australian dollar and volatile commodity prices. But the agency took the view that the process of fiscal consolidation has slowed rather than reversed. You need to look at the figures with a tad more objectivity, nam. As far as the projections go, let's have a good look at the upcoming budget.

Now there's objectivity for you.  No in actual fact you look at the last couple of budgets and see how they panned out...in the real world. Then you have a much more realistic view. Unless I'm wrong are we now in surplus?...yes or no?

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:59pm:

Net debt to GDP 9.7% in 2007 22.9% in 2012

What net debt are you talking about.

http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-04.htm

You're certainly talking about a different measure to us.

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Net debt to GDP 9.7% in 2007 22.9% in 2012 What net debt are you talking about. http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-04.htm You're certainly talking about a different measure to us.

thats why he finished first ....

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:47am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%? Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa. http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg

Also using a graph that says "we are here" that has figures for 2009 GDP% is a measure of your honesty...but it is consistent.

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:00pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:48pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:43pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Entirely manageable. What's your point, nam. http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4329992-3x2-940x627.jpg Oh you seem to have Swanny's estimates at the end of the graph...you know...the one where he guarantees a surplus... and prosperity just over the hill. You might like to stick to actual figures rather than doodles on toilet paper. Quote: Fitch also noted the Government's plan to bring the budget back to surplus had been abandoned due to the strong Australian dollar and volatile commodity prices. But the agency took the view that the process of fiscal consolidation has slowed rather than reversed. You need to look at the figures with a tad more objectivity, nam. As far as the projections go, let's have a good look at the upcoming budget. Now there's objectivity for you.  No in actual fact you look at the last couple of budgets and see how they panned out...in the real world. Then you have a much more realistic view. Unless I'm wrong are we now in surplus?...yes or no?

We are certainly in surplus. The report from Fitch is from this month. They were well aware of our current economic realities.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 12:11pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:52am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%? Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa. You said public debt was exaggerated By how much? For example: If the debt level was $300B and people are reporting it as $600B then the debt levels have been exaggerated by 100% So based on this - your assertion is debt levels' been exaggerated by 80% ie you are claiming that people are saying the current debt level is $540B Show me proof where this exaggeration is reported bump for MOTR you made a claim the debt level is exaggerated show us where this exaggerated debt level you are harping on about

bump for MOTR

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:11pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%? Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa. http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg Also using a graph that says "we are here" that has figures for 2009 GDP% is a measure of your honesty...but it is consistent.

To be honest, I actually linked the wrong graph. This is the graph I wanted to post.

http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2013/03/Kouk-debt.jpg

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:00pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:48pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:43pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Entirely manageable. What's your point, nam. http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4329992-3x2-940x627.jpg Oh you seem to have Swanny's estimates at the end of the graph...you know...the one where he guarantees a surplus... and prosperity just over the hill. You might like to stick to actual figures rather than doodles on toilet paper. Quote: Fitch also noted the Government's plan to bring the budget back to surplus had been abandoned due to the strong Australian dollar and volatile commodity prices. But the agency took the view that the process of fiscal consolidation has slowed rather than reversed. You need to look at the figures with a tad more objectivity, nam. As far as the projections go, let's have a good look at the upcoming budget. Now there's objectivity for you.  No in actual fact you look at the last couple of budgets and see how they panned out...in the real world. Then you have a much more realistic view. Unless I'm wrong are we now in surplus?...yes or no? We are certainly in surplus. The report from Fitch is from this month. They were well aware of our current economic realities.

What a relief the overall government position is not a 22.3 billion deficit and worsening as reported in the middle of last month and that's now a surplus...I don't think anyone must have told Swanny...he and Gillard will be so pleased. You would have thought it would be in all the papers...but not seeing anything... How big is this surplus anyway Motr? You didn't say...fingers and toes crossed for a couple of trillion.

Of course we're not in surplus, nam. That's been obvious for months.

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:35pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:11pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%? Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa. http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg Also using a graph that says "we are here" that has figures for 2009 GDP% is a measure of your honesty...but it is consistent. To be honest, I actually linked the wrong graph. This is the graph I wanted to post. http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2013/03/Kouk-debt.jpg

...and still from 2009...

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:19pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:00pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:48pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:43pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Entirely manageable. What's your point, nam. http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4329992-3x2-940x627.jpg Oh you seem to have Swanny's estimates at the end of the graph...you know...the one where he guarantees a surplus... and prosperity just over the hill. You might like to stick to actual figures rather than doodles on toilet paper. Quote: Fitch also noted the Government's plan to bring the budget back to surplus had been abandoned due to the strong Australian dollar and volatile commodity prices. But the agency took the view that the process of fiscal consolidation has slowed rather than reversed. You need to look at the figures with a tad more objectivity, nam. As far as the projections go, let's have a good look at the upcoming budget. Now there's objectivity for you.  No in actual fact you look at the last couple of budgets and see how they panned out...in the real world. Then you have a much more realistic view. Unless I'm wrong are we now in surplus?...yes or no? We are certainly in surplus. The report from Fitch is from this month. They were well aware of our current economic realities.

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:46pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:35pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:11pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%? Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa. http://www.abc.net.au/news/linkableblob/3727694/data/possum-graph-8-government-debt-as-gdp-data.jpg Also using a graph that says "we are here" that has figures for 2009 GDP% is a measure of your honesty...but it is consistent. To be honest, I actually linked the wrong graph. This is the graph I wanted to post. http://catallaxyfiles.com/files/2013/03/Kouk-debt.jpg ...and still from 2009...

At the end of the 2008/2009 financial year our net debt was negative. Why do you think it was from 2009?

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:49pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:19pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:00pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:48pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:43pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Entirely manageable. What's your point, nam. http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4329992-3x2-940x627.jpg Oh you seem to have Swanny's estimates at the end of the graph...you know...the one where he guarantees a surplus... and prosperity just over the hill. You might like to stick to actual figures rather than doodles on toilet paper. Quote: Fitch also noted the Government's plan to bring the budget back to surplus had been abandoned due to the strong Australian dollar and volatile commodity prices. But the agency took the view that the process of fiscal consolidation has slowed rather than reversed. You need to look at the figures with a tad more objectivity, nam. As far as the projections go, let's have a good look at the upcoming budget. Now there's objectivity for you.  No in actual fact you look at the last couple of budgets and see how they panned out...in the real world. Then you have a much more realistic view. Unless I'm wrong are we now in surplus?...yes or no? We are certainly in surplus. The report from Fitch is from this month. They were well aware of our current economic realities.

Whoops. I was trying to say the exact opposite. The point I was trying to make is that it is well known we are in deficit. This did not stop Fitch giving us a triple A rating because they understood the economic circumstances. They also understand our net debt to GDP ratio is still very healthy.

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:57pm:

namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:49pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:19pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:00pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:48pm: namnugenot wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:43pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:33pm: Entirely manageable. What's your point, nam. http://www.abc.net.au/news/image/4329992-3x2-940x627.jpg Oh you seem to have Swanny's estimates at the end of the graph...you know...the one where he guarantees a surplus... and prosperity just over the hill. You might like to stick to actual figures rather than doodles on toilet paper. Quote: Fitch also noted the Government's plan to bring the budget back to surplus had been abandoned due to the strong Australian dollar and volatile commodity prices. But the agency took the view that the process of fiscal consolidation has slowed rather than reversed. You need to look at the figures with a tad more objectivity, nam. As far as the projections go, let's have a good look at the upcoming budget. Now there's objectivity for you.  No in actual fact you look at the last couple of budgets and see how they panned out...in the real world. Then you have a much more realistic view. Unless I'm wrong are we now in surplus?...yes or no? We are certainly in surplus. The report from Fitch is from this month. They were well aware of our current economic realities. Whoops. I was trying to say the exact opposite. The point I was trying to make is that it is well known we are in deficit. This did not stop Fitch giving us a triple A rating because they understood the economic circumstances. They also understand our net debt to GDP ratio is still very healthy.

as compared to economic cot cases.

Economic cot cases don't get three AAA ratings. It is so patently false, all you are doing is diminishing your own credibility.

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 7:11pm:

Economic cot cases don't get three AAA ratings. It is so patently false, all you are doing is diminishing your own credibility.

which part of the words 'compared to' did u miss?

BTW Lehmann Bros had AAA rating on the day it went under. excuse me for being more than cynical about rating agencies. Howard didnt get a AAA rating with all of his economic credentials and yet now, these same agencies have finally worked out that all their criteria in the past have been wrong. talk about an epic fail.

and a AAA rating is probably worth an extra 3 votes nation wide for labor. I cant adequately express how underwhelming the news is for joe average voter.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 7:11pm: Economic cot cases don't get three AAA ratings. It is so patently false, all you are doing is diminishing your own credibility. which part of the words 'compared to' did u miss? BTW Lehmann Bros had AAA rating on the day it went under. excuse me for being more than cynical about rating agencies. Howard didnt get a AAA rating with all of his economic credentials and yet now, these same agencies have finally worked out that all their criteria in the past have been wrong. talk about an epic fail. and a AAA rating is probably worth an extra 3 votes nation wide for labor. I cant adequately express how underwhelming the news is for joe average voter.

who said anyone would vote for anyone based on our ratings?   stick to the point longy ... your attempts at cheap shots always seem to fall short of the mark making you look like a bigger fool than normal.

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 7:20pm:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 7:11pm: Economic cot cases don't get three AAA ratings. It is so patently false, all you are doing is diminishing your own credibility. which part of the words 'compared to' did u miss? BTW Lehmann Bros had AAA rating on the day it went under. excuse me for being more than cynical about rating agencies. Howard didnt get a AAA rating with all of his economic credentials and yet now, these same agencies have finally worked out that all their criteria in the past have been wrong. talk about an epic fail. and a AAA rating is probably worth an extra 3 votes nation wide for labor. I cant adequately express how underwhelming the news is for joe average voter.

The fiscal position of a government and the economy is much more open to public scrutiny. The comparison you are making is ridiculous.

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 7:35pm:

longweekend58 wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 7:20pm: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 7:11pm: Economic cot cases don't get three AAA ratings. It is so patently false, all you are doing is diminishing your own credibility. which part of the words 'compared to' did u miss? BTW Lehmann Bros had AAA rating on the day it went under. excuse me for being more than cynical about rating agencies. Howard didnt get a AAA rating with all of his economic credentials and yet now, these same agencies have finally worked out that all their criteria in the past have been wrong. talk about an epic fail. and a AAA rating is probably worth an extra 3 votes nation wide for labor. I cant adequately express how underwhelming the news is for joe average voter. The fiscal position of a government and the economy is much more open to public scrutiny. The comparison you are making is ridiculous.

just more drivel from you. the point was that these ratings you profess to love so much come with a particularly bad history and the current method of assigning ratings is exceptionally different to how it was 5 years ago in line with their realisation that they got so much of it wrong in the past.

The AAA rating for Australia, came in spite of the Labor Government and certainly not because of it.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:27pm:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:11pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:52am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%? Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa. You said public debt was exaggerated By how much? For example: If the debt level was $300B and people are reporting it as $600B then the debt levels have been exaggerated by 100% So based on this - your assertion is debt levels' been exaggerated by 80% ie you are claiming that people are saying the current debt level is $540B Show me proof where this exaggeration is reported bump for MOTR you made a claim the debt level is exaggerated show us where this exaggerated debt level you are harping on about bump for MOTR

bump for MOTR

you made a claim the debt level is exaggerated

show us where this exaggerated debt level you are harping on about

red baron wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:16am:

The AAA rating for Australia, came in spite of the Labor Government and certainly not because of it.

With respect to the Fitch rating I beg to differ.

Firstly, the current government's willingness to run countercyclical policies in the face of external difficulties is clearly identified as a positive.

And, secondly, the current government commitment to fiscal consolidation is also recognised.

A government that was hell bent on pursuing austerity measures is more likely to have taken us into recession and thrown the budget into a cyclical deficit.

Are you seriously suggesting our government was in a position to pay down debt without some serious economic consequences.

So why am I pursuing  MOTR over this issue?

Lefties have continued to try and justify Swannie's incompetence

First it was a measure against OECD countries

Then they tried to measure it against the Budget

Now they want to say that the debt level is exaggerated.

When confronted - they try to weasel their way out of it by accusing me of being obtuse!!!

Facts are
(1) 2007 net debt = ZERO
(2) 2013 net debt = $300B

There's nothing exaggerated by this

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:23am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:27pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:11pm: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:52am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:47am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:44am: MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:41am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? 80% of GDP is a common benchmark. However, I certainly wouldn't want to even approach the zone where we are susceptible to self reinforcing cycles. We have three AAA ratings because we are miles away from this point. You made a statement that public debt is grossly exaggerated You won't give the numbers in real term but now you are saying it's been exaggerated by 80% So you are accusing who of exaggerating the public debt level by 80%? Are your comprehension skills really that poor, Maqqa. You said public debt was exaggerated By how much? For example: If the debt level was $300B and people are reporting it as $600B then the debt levels have been exaggerated by 100% So based on this - your assertion is debt levels' been exaggerated by 80% ie you are claiming that people are saying the current debt level is $540B Show me proof where this exaggeration is reported bump for MOTR you made a claim the debt level is exaggerated show us where this exaggerated debt level you are harping on about bump for MOTR bump for MOTR you made a claim the debt level is exaggerated show us where this exaggerated debt level you are harping on about

Do you need pictures, Maqqa.

Net government debt is running at about 10% of GDP. Interest payments at about 0.5% of GDP, well below the average for the last 40 years. To advocate the need for austerity measures in response to our low levels of debt is exaggerating the problem and putting at risk our continued economic prosperity.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:37am:

Do you need pictures, Maqqa. Net government debt is running at about 10% of GDP. Interest payments at about 0.5% of GDP, well below the average for the last 40 years. To advocate the need for austerity measures in response to our low levels of debt is exaggerating the problem and putting at risk our continued economic prosperity.

You said debt levels are exaggerated - then you quote some 80% figures

So show me where the $300B debt level have been exaggerated!!

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:42am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 8:37am: Do you need pictures, Maqqa. Net government debt is running at about 10% of GDP. Interest payments at about 0.5% of GDP, well below the average for the last 40 years. To advocate the need for austerity measures in response to our low levels of debt is exaggerating the problem and putting at risk our continued economic prosperity. You said debt levels are exaggerated - then you quote some 80% figures So show me where the $300B debt level have been exaggerated!!

I'm clearly saying the consequences of this level of debt are being exaggerated. The large number might blow the ability of your mind to think rationally, but some of us have been educated to have a deeper understanding of the issue.

How about you read a couple of economic papers on the issue.

How about we start with baby steps, Maqqa. Is government debt a problem per se. And if it is, what policy response would you have implemented in response to the GFC.

MOTR wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 1:07pm:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Net debt to GDP 9.7% in 2007 22.9% in 2012 What net debt are you talking about. http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-04.htm You're certainly talking about a different measure to us.

Australia Government Debt To GDP averaged 19.9 Percent reaching an all time high of 31.7 Percent in December of 1994 and a record low of 9.7 Percent in December of 2007.

http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/government-debt-to-gdp

Note the large increase since the Labor Party took power..

---

.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:11am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Net debt to GDP 9.7% in 2007 22.9% in 2012 What net debt are you talking about. http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-04.htm You're certainly talking about a different measure to us. Australia Government Debt To GDP averaged 19.9 Percent reaching an all time high of 31.7 Percent in December of 1994 and a record low of 9.7 Percent in December of 2007. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/government-debt-to-gdp Note the large increase since the Labor Party took power..

So you're not talking about net debt, you want to talk about gross debt. Does that mean Howard didn't really get us out of debt?

So did you deliberately try and exaggerate the amount of net debt, the best measure of the government's overall indebtedness, in this post, or were you simply confused.

Perhaps since you came first in Economics, you can explain to us why you think we should be looking at gross debt rather than net debt when we attempt to get a handle on our overall level of indebtedness.

Perhaps you could start by explaining the difference.

Yes, its gross debt.

The trend is exactly the same when comparing the gross and net, merely differing % figures.

---

.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 8:50am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 8:42am: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 8:37am: Do you need pictures, Maqqa. Net government debt is running at about 10% of GDP. Interest payments at about 0.5% of GDP, well below the average for the last 40 years. To advocate the need for austerity measures in response to our low levels of debt is exaggerating the problem and putting at risk our continued economic prosperity. You said debt levels are exaggerated - then you quote some 80% figures So show me where the $300B debt level have been exaggerated!! I'm clearly saying the consequences of this level of debt are being exaggerated. The large number might blow the ability of your mind to think rationally, but some of us have been educated to have a deeper understanding of the issue. How about you read a couple of economic papers on the issue. How about we start with baby steps, Maqqa. Is government debt a problem per se. And if it is, what policy response would you have implemented in response to the GFC.

Clearly you DID NOT say that

There's a difference in saying the impact of the debt level is exaggerated than to say the debt level is exaggerated

And it is clear you said the debt level is exaggerated

You may back down now MOTR

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:27am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 8:50am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 8:42am: MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 8:37am: Do you need pictures, Maqqa. Net government debt is running at about 10% of GDP. Interest payments at about 0.5% of GDP, well below the average for the last 40 years. To advocate the need for austerity measures in response to our low levels of debt is exaggerating the problem and putting at risk our continued economic prosperity. You said debt levels are exaggerated - then you quote some 80% figures So show me where the $300B debt level have been exaggerated!! I'm clearly saying the consequences of this level of debt are being exaggerated. The large number might blow the ability of your mind to think rationally, but some of us have been educated to have a deeper understanding of the issue. How about you read a couple of economic papers on the issue. How about we start with baby steps, Maqqa. Is government debt a problem per se. And if it is, what policy response would you have implemented in response to the GFC. Clearly you DID NOT say that There's a difference in saying the impact of the debt level is exaggerated than to say the debt level is exaggerated And it is clear you said the debt level is exaggerated You may back down now MOTR

If you had of provided the wrong figures I would have said as such.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:11am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 1:07pm: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 12:59pm: Net debt to GDP 9.7% in 2007 22.9% in 2012 What net debt are you talking about. http://www.budget.gov.au/2012-13/content/bp1/html/bp1_bst10-04.htm You're certainly talking about a different measure to us. Australia Government Debt To GDP averaged 19.9 Percent reaching an all time high of 31.7 Percent in December of 1994 and a record low of 9.7 Percent in December of 2007. http://www.tradingeconomics.com/australia/government-debt-to-gdp Note the large increase since the Labor Party took power..

So you're not talking about net debt, you want to talk about gross debt. Does that mean Howard didn't really get us out of debt?

So did you deliberately try and exaggerate the amount of net debt, the best measure of the government's overall indebtedness, in this post, or were you simply confused.

Perhaps since you came first in Economics, you can explain to us why you think we should be looking at gross debt rather than net debt when we attempt to get a handle on our overall level of indebtedness.

Perhaps you could start by explaining the difference.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30^th, 2013 at 9:31am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much?

bump for MOTR

you may back down now MOTR

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:33am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? bump for MOTR you may back down now MOTR

Maqqa wants a recession...dont worry..he'll get his wish next year  :D
Oh yes..and there is a difference between net and gross debt, record taxation and record personal and business debt and record housing unaffordability..all of which Howard gave us  ;D

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:33am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? bump for MOTR you may back down now MOTR

O.K. Maqqa I apologise for assuming you had the comprehension skills required to engage in an intellectual conversation.

Now, explain to us very clearly why you think our debt levels are a major problem.

You can start by telling us if you think going into debt is always wrong per se.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:38am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 9:33am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 30th, 2013 at 9:31am: MOTR wrote on Mar 29th, 2013 at 8:02pm: Like I've been consistently saying, our public debt levels have been grossly exaggerated. By how much? bump for MOTR you may back down now MOTR O.K. Maqqa I apologise for assuming you had the comprehension skills required to engage in an intellectual conversation. Now, explain to us very clearly why you think our debt levels are a major problem. You can start by telling us if you think going into debt is always wrong per se.

You say the debt level is exaggerated!

So show me where this is the case or retract your statement as false - then we will discuss the other questions

Forget it, Maqqa, you are behaving like a child.

I never said Howard got us out of debt, ever.
I am not a rusted on voter and have no side, hence there is no reason to exaggerate anything for me.

But, within that 5 year period the country asset pool will not have adjusted by any base amount to significantly impact the gearing position ratio trend between gross and net.
As is basically proven by my two graphs which trend exactly the same.

Labor have increased the debt position both net and gross. Unnecessarily so in my opinion.
That is my point.

You can increase debt at the gross level and reduce net debt by increasing the asset position off which you borrow, nothing wrong with that.
Labor haven't done that, they just borrowed off a reasonably static asset reduction and therefore increased net and gross debt.
Poor management.

Please stop saying about me coming first in economics. It makes you look like you don't understand the university honours system.
Getting a first and coming first are not the same.
One of the Indian girls probably came first with 99% given those guys probably get beaten if they score any less.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:48am:

Forget it, Maqqa, you are behaving like a child.

Maqqa only has one strategy..repeat what his masters say despite how far from reality it is.
All of the facts and historic comparisons have always eluded him.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:56am:

I never said Howard got us out of debt, ever. I am not a rusted on voter and have no side, hence there is no reason to exaggerate anything for me. But, within that 5 year period the country asset pool will not have adjusted by any base amount to significantly impact the gearing position ratio trend between gross and net. As is basically proven by my two graphs which trend exactly the same. Labor have increased the debt position both net and gross. Unnecessarily so in my opinion. That is my point. You can increase debt at the gross level and reduce net debt by increasing the asset position off which you borrow, nothing wrong with that. Labor haven't done that, they just borrowed off a reasonably static asset reduction and therefore increased net and gross debt. Poor management. Please stop saying about me coming first in economics. It makes you look like you don't understand the university honours system. Getting a first and coming first are not the same. One of the Indian girls probably came first with 99% given those guys probably get beaten if they score any less.

Apologies, Andrei, I thought you were talking about fifth grade. But thanks for the Gish Gallop, Andrei, I needed a good laugh.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:48am:

Forget it, Maqqa, you are behaving like a child.

So you are wrong and you try to weasel your way out

You may back down now MOTR

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:56am:

I never said Howard got us out of debt, ever. I am not a rusted on voter and have no side, hence there is no reason to exaggerate anything for me. But, within that 5 year period the country asset pool will not have adjusted by any base amount to significantly impact the gearing position ratio trend between gross and net. As is basically proven by my two graphs which trend exactly the same. Labor have increased the debt position both net and gross. Unnecessarily so in my opinion. That is my point. You can increase debt at the gross level and reduce net debt by increasing the asset position off which you borrow, nothing wrong with that. Labor haven't done that, they just borrowed off a reasonably static asset reduction and therefore increased net and gross debt. Poor management. Please stop saying about me coming first in economics. It makes you look like you don't understand the university honours system. Getting a first and coming first are not the same. One of the Indian girls probably came first with 99% given those guys probably get beaten if they score any less.

And without all of the tax cuts we've had since Howard was chucked out we would still be in surplus.
But those cuts have stimulated the economy during a world wide recession and meant a dramatic cut to household and business debt. All we need now is an end to all welfare unless its to the most needy and we would be back in the black overnight. A surplus is simple its how you do it and if it creates a debt bubble somewhere else in the economy eg: record household and business debt.

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:59am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 9:48am: Forget it, Maqqa, you are behaving like a child. So you are wrong and you try to weasel your way out You may back down now MOTR

My position hasn't changed. We don't have a debt problem, we don't have excessive debt. There is no need for me to back down from that position because you lack poor comprehension skills. There is no need to back down from a position that is held by the three most prestigious international credit rating agencies, the Reserve Bank, The Treasury, the Depatment of Finance and just about every other reputable economist I have read.

Now if you want to go beyond a ridiculous game of semantics, you can explain to me why you have a differing view.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:56am:

I never said Howard got us out of debt, ever. I am not a rusted on voter and have no side, hence there is no reason to exaggerate anything for me. But, within that 5 year period the country asset pool will not have adjusted by any base amount to significantly impact the gearing position ratio trend between gross and net. As is basically proven by my two graphs which trend exactly the same. Labor have increased the debt position both net and gross. Unnecessarily so in my opinion. That is my point. You can increase debt at the gross level and reduce net debt by increasing the asset position off which you borrow, nothing wrong with that. Labor haven't done that, they just borrowed off a reasonably static asset reduction and therefore increased net and gross debt. Poor management. Please stop saying about me coming first in economics. It makes you look like you don't understand the university honours system. Getting a first and coming first are not the same. One of the Indian girls probably came first with 99% given those guys probably get beaten if they score any less.

What you have failed to take into account Andre is the lost revenue from lower commodity prices and the higher Australian dollar hurting our exports.....The massive tax cuts used by Howard and Rudd to bribe the electorate plunged the budget into structural deficit reducing revenue intake due to lower prices and lower tax receipts.....The Coalition proposed larger tax cuts instead of a one off stimulus to combat the GFC which would have plunged the budget further into structural deficit.....Revenue has plunged due to the GFC and tax measures introduced by the ALP to address this problem will be dumped by an Abbott Government.....During the Howard years commodity prices and tax receipts increased above expectations providing a surplus with little or no fiscal restraint by Howard and Costello.....When the GFC hit the budget could not sustain the spending Howard and Costello had locked into the forward estimates.....Providing massive incentives and tax payer funding to high income earners during the Howard years has become unsustainable and wasteful.....Unless this basic imbalance is addressed taxpayers will continue to fund the lifestyles of the rich and famous......Is that really what a Government should claim is an achievement???

:-? :-? :-?

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 10:14am:

What you have failed to take into account Andre is the lost revenue from lower commodity prices and the higher Australian dollar hurting our exports.....

In 2007 - Swan promised a surplus 1.5% of GDP

GDP have remained the same if not higher since 2007

Same blame lower commodity prices all you want - but Swan based his promise on GDP

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 9:59am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 9:56am: I never said Howard got us out of debt, ever. I am not a rusted on voter and have no side, hence there is no reason to exaggerate anything for me. But, within that 5 year period the country asset pool will not have adjusted by any base amount to significantly impact the gearing position ratio trend between gross and net. As is basically proven by my two graphs which trend exactly the same. Labor have increased the debt position both net and gross. Unnecessarily so in my opinion. That is my point. You can increase debt at the gross level and reduce net debt by increasing the asset position off which you borrow, nothing wrong with that. Labor haven't done that, they just borrowed off a reasonably static asset reduction and therefore increased net and gross debt. Poor management. Please stop saying about me coming first in economics. It makes you look like you don't understand the university honours system. Getting a first and coming first are not the same. One of the Indian girls probably came first with 99% given those guys probably get beaten if they score any less. Apologies, Andrei, I thought you were talking about fifth grade. But thanks for the Gish Gallop, Andrei, I needed a good laugh.

I am not interested in trading personal comments etc, but you would admit that the country is in a worse position economically than when Labor took over?

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 10:40am:

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 10:14am: What you have failed to take into account Andre is the lost revenue from lower commodity prices and the higher Australian dollar hurting our exports..... In 2007 - Swan promised a surplus 1.5% of GDP GDP have remained the same if not higher since 2007 Same blame lower commodity prices all you want - but Swan based his promise on GDP

Swan and Treasury were not expecting the decline in commodity prices to leave the dollar untouched. If the dollar had fallen as expected nominal GDP would have grown in line with expectations and the Treasury would have been the beneficiary of normal bracket creep.

So while the governmen's bottom line isn't where we expected it to be, it's been good for households who have been able to hold onto a larger chunk of their real wages.

philperth2010 wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 10:14am:

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 9:56am: I never said Howard got us out of debt, ever. I am not a rusted on voter and have no side, hence there is no reason to exaggerate anything for me. But, within that 5 year period the country asset pool will not have adjusted by any base amount to significantly impact the gearing position ratio trend between gross and net. As is basically proven by my two graphs which trend exactly the same. Labor have increased the debt position both net and gross. Unnecessarily so in my opinion. That is my point. You can increase debt at the gross level and reduce net debt by increasing the asset position off which you borrow, nothing wrong with that. Labor haven't done that, they just borrowed off a reasonably static asset reduction and therefore increased net and gross debt. Poor management. Please stop saying about me coming first in economics. It makes you look like you don't understand the university honours system. Getting a first and coming first are not the same. One of the Indian girls probably came first with 99% given those guys probably get beaten if they score any less. What you have failed to take into account Andre is the lost revenue from lower commodity prices and the higher Australian dollar hurting our exports.....The massive tax cuts used by Howard and Rudd to bribe the electorate plunged the budget into structural deficit reducing revenue intake due to lower prices and lower tax receipts.....The Coalition proposed larger tax cuts instead of a one off stimulus to combat the GFC which would have plunged the budget further into structural deficit.....Revenue has plunged due to the GFC and tax measures introduced by the ALP to address this problem will be dumped by an Abbott Government.....During the Howard years commodity prices and tax receipts increased above expectations providing a surplus with little or no fiscal restraint by Howard and Costello.....When the GFC hit the budget could not sustain the spending Howard and Costello had locked into the forward estimates.....Providing massive incentives and tax payer funding to high income earners during the Howard years has become unsustainable and wasteful.....Unless this basic imbalance is addressed taxpayers will continue to fund the lifestyles of the rich and famous......Is that really what a Government should claim is an achievement??? :-? :-? :-?

Phil when Wayne Swan announced his infamous "hell or high water" about a surplus.
Rio Tinto and BHP both said the forward forecasting of ore prices was too high and they had used much lower in their budgets.

Swan pressed ahead and the Government continued with their spending based on too high projections.

Now you've got the situation where we as a company have been told by the Australian Federal Government they are cutting our R&D tax offset on fracking of shale gas off the coast because of budget cuts?? Cuts needed as a result of over spending caused by debt increases.

We understand though a Liberal Government will reinstate our grant.
It's worth millions.

MOTR wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:06am:

Maqqa wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 10:40am: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 10:14am: What you have failed to take into account Andre is the lost revenue from lower commodity prices and the higher Australian dollar hurting our exports..... In 2007 - Swan promised a surplus 1.5% of GDP GDP have remained the same if not higher since 2007 Same blame lower commodity prices all you want - but Swan based his promise on GDP Swan and Treasury were not expecting the decline in commodity prices to leave the dollar untouched. If the dollar had fallen as expected nominal GDP would have grown in line with expectations and the Treasury would have been the beneficiary of normal bracket creep. So while the governmen's bottom line isn't where we expected it to be, it's been good for households who have been able to hold onto a larger chunk of their real wages.

Households who in polling have said they feel cost of living pressures than ever before?

Australians have a cost of living almost 130% of the middle income US family.

This Government has done little to ease cost of living.
I know I felt it living there.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:03am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 9:59am: Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 9:56am: I never said Howard got us out of debt, ever. I am not a rusted on voter and have no side, hence there is no reason to exaggerate anything for me. But, within that 5 year period the country asset pool will not have adjusted by any base amount to significantly impact the gearing position ratio trend between gross and net. As is basically proven by my two graphs which trend exactly the same. Labor have increased the debt position both net and gross. Unnecessarily so in my opinion. That is my point. You can increase debt at the gross level and reduce net debt by increasing the asset position off which you borrow, nothing wrong with that. Labor haven't done that, they just borrowed off a reasonably static asset reduction and therefore increased net and gross debt. Poor management. Please stop saying about me coming first in economics. It makes you look like you don't understand the university honours system. Getting a first and coming first are not the same. One of the Indian girls probably came first with 99% given those guys probably get beaten if they score any less. Apologies, Andrei, I thought you were talking about fifth grade. But thanks for the Gish Gallop, Andrei, I needed a good laugh. I am not interested in trading personal comments etc, but you would admit that the country is in a worse position economically than when Labor took over?

Andrei, that's an impossible question to answer. Considering, Swan and the Rudd government had to cope with the aftermath of the GFC, why wouldn't you expect the economy to be in a worse position on some measures. On other measures our economy is in a stronger position.

However, with respect to fiscal policy I think Swan has performed quite competently. Even his insistence on delivering a budget deficit in the face of changed economic circumstances is admired by some in treasury who believe it was vital in maintaining fiscal discipline within cabinet. So while he lost some political capital in the process his obstinance has left us in a better position to start paying down debt.

Andrei.Hicks wrote on Mar 31^st, 2013 at 11:19am:

MOTR wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 11:06am: Maqqa wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 10:40am: philperth2010 wrote on Mar 31st, 2013 at 10:14am: What you have failed to take into account Andre is the lost revenue from lower commodity prices and the higher Australian dollar hurting our exports..... In 2007 - Swan promised a surplus 1.5% of GDP GDP have remained the same if not higher since 2007 Same blame lower commodity prices all you want - but Swan based his promise on GDP Swan and Treasury were not expecting the decline in commodity prices to leave the dollar untouched. If the dollar had fallen as expected nominal GDP would have grown in line with expectations and the Treasury would have been the beneficiary of normal bracket creep. So while the governmen's bottom line isn't where we expected it to be, it's been good for households who have been able to hold onto a larger chunk of their real wages. Households who in polling have said they feel cost of living pressures than ever before? Australians have a cost of living almost 130% of the middle income US family. This Government has done little to ease cost of living. I know I felt it living there.

How do you measure that from year to year, Andrei?