sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:24am:


maybe the liberal supporters are all at work? I know I am. I am interstate running a training course.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 9:28am:


I do find it quite funny, that during my evening and what would be the middle of the workday in Australia - there is an abundance of working-age people spending hours on here....

A) Im not presenting at this course. I am managing it.
B) I dont post on every thread and nor do you
C) most threads are variations on existing themes this one being the never-ending 'I hate tony'. after a awhile, it just gets old.

and most important

D) The coalition is leading by a country mile so suck it up, girls. Abbott will be PM in 6 months or less if the govt collapses early.

Australia has now had a price on carbon for a little over eight months.

Some people in positions of power and influence were expecting the carbon tax, as it has colloquially become known, to either "act as a wrecking ball across the economy” or be "absolutely catastrophic", "wipe out jobs big-time" while towns like Whyalla would be "wiped off the map" because of it.

Further, it would create "ghost towns” and "discourage investment” in mining.

Get the drift? There were forecasts that the carbon tax would completely undermine economic growth and market conditions.

How accurate have these projections been?

With economic data flowing in and financial markets trading over those eight months, it is possible to test the validity of forecasts of "wrecking balls” and catastrophe.

The facts below are all based on the latest Australian Bureau of Statistics or Reserve Bank data, unless otherwise indicated.

Since the carbon price was introduced:

– Real GDP has risen by 1.2 per cent (annualised growth rate of 2.5 per cent).

– Employment has risen by 53,400 people, made up of 30,000 new full-time jobs and 23,400 part-time jobs. The annualised rate of job creation is around 95,000.

– The unemployment rate has edged up to 5.4 per cent in January 2013 from 5.3 per cent in June 2012, just before carbon was priced.

– The stock market (All Ordinaries Index) has risen 25 per cent, adding approximately $296 billion to the value of Australian shares. A further $30 billion or so of dividends have been paid to shareholders since June 30, 2012.

– According to RP Data, house prices have risen 2.8 per cent since June 30, 2012, adding approximately $110 billion to the wealth of owners of houses.

At this point I might pause. Have a think about those last two points: the gains in stock market values and house prices alone have been nearly $410 billion in just over eight months. That is just under $50,000 per Australian household, on average.

– In terms of inflation, the CPI has risen by 1.6 per cent in six months, a figure which includes the boost to prices from the carbon price driven lift in electricity and gas prices. Underlying inflation has risen 1.3 per cent in the six months (annualised pace of 2.7 per cent) and this figure has also been inflated by the carbon price.

– The wages price index has risen by 1.5 per cent in six months (annualised pace of 3.1 per cent), locking in a period of moderate wage increases.

– Average weekly earnings have risen by $39.10 a week (from May 2012 to November 2012) with an annualised increase of $2035.

– The value of retail sales has risen by just 0.1 per cent (annualised rate 0.3 per cent).

– The number of new motor vehicle registrations has risen by 4.7 per cent with the six largest monthly number of new car sales ever recorded being registered in the last six months.

– The number of dwelling building approvals has fallen 10.1 per cent since June and the number of new housing loans for owner occupation has fallen 0.1 per cent over the same period.

– The NAB measure of business conditions has fallen from -1 points in June to -2 points in January, but business confidence has risen from -3 points to +3 points over the same timeframe.

– The Westpac measure of consumer sentiment has risen by 13.3 per cent since June to be at a 38-month high.

– The RBA index of commodity prices has fallen 5.4 per cent in Australian dollar terms since June and has fallen 2.1 per cent in US dollar terms.

– The RBA has cut the official cash rate from 3.5 per cent to 3 per cent.

– The 10-year government bond yield has risen a net 35 basis points to 3.40 per cent as of yesterday’s close.

– The Australian dollar has risen around 0.9 per cent as strong foreign inflows into Australia continue.

At the same time, Australia’s triple-A credit rating from all three ratings agencies remains unchallenged.

So a wrecking ball? Catastrophic? Wiped off the map?

The disconcerting thing is that all of those dire predictions from above were made by Tony Abbott, the man who studied economics at university and the man likely to be prime minister in a little over six months.

Read more: http://www.businessspectator.com.au/article/2013/3/7/national-affairs/australias...

The author of that article is a former Labor staffer and has frewuently posted anti-liberal articles that are at best one-sided and often factually incorrect. for example, this is the same fool that happily posts in his blog that Fraser left a $40B debt while treasury - the actual holders of the facts - says it was $9B. So articles by this jerk are to be taken with a grain of salt. he is your version of Andrew Bolt so dont expect me to take him seriously.

It seems that a day doesn’t go by without someone from the Coalition side of politics recounting the fact that the Howard Government inherited $96 billion of net Government debt when it won the 1996 election and that over the course of the next decade, it “paid it off”.

There is no denying the fact that net debt was $96 billion in 1995-96 and it was eliminated in 2007-08, the year that the Howard Government lost office.

It is useful and enlightening to look at some other facts behind that $96 billion level of debt “inherited” by the Howard Government, given that there is an implication that all of the $96 billion was racked-up under the Hawke and Keating Governments between 1983-84 and 1995-96.

Something that you never hear, until now, is the fact that almost half of the $96 billion of debt was sourced from the Fraser Government, which in its last few years had Mr Howard as Treasurer.

When John Howard was Treasurer, net Government debt rose at a steady pace, hitting 7.5% of GDP when Fraser lost the 1983 election.  In 1996 dollar terms, 7.5% of GDP is around $40 billion which is in fact the real level of net government debt “inherited” by the Hawke Government when it won the 1983 election.

Recall, by way of context, the fact that the Fraser Government “inherited” zero net government debt from the Whitlam Government in 1975-76, so all of the build up in government debt in the Fraser years was self imposed by the Coalition, its policies and the business cycle.

Coming back to the issue of the $96 billion net debt inherited by the Howard Government in 1996, it’s a fact that 42% of it was bequeathed from the Fraser Government and left for Labor to deal with during its term of government.

So next time you hear someone from the Coalition or elsewhere for that matter banging on about the $96 billion of Labor Government debt that was paid off by the Howard Government, remind them of the fact that $40 billion of it or almost half was a hangover of the debt left to Labor by the Fraser Government in 1983.

longweekend58 wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:15am:



The impressive part of the post is the listing of facts?

Bolt never uses this type of misleading tactic, imagine the nerve - posting factual material to support your case.

sir prince duke alevine wrote on Apr 12^th, 2013 at 10:55am:


that looks like the one. it is blatantly biased and chooses to redefine debt conveniently to support a political ideology. The actual and indisputable facts is that Fraser left $9B in debt.

This is an example of the writers blatant and significant bias and why the OP is so discredited. now if it were written by someone with a record for balance and non-partisan writing then perahsp it woudl be worthy of discussion. But you refuse to debate a Bolt article so it is the same thing here.