Henry uses Treasury modelling. That modelling uses assumptions. Those assumptions would have to be strange, either in long term prices or the share of marginal versus non-marginal mines, to produce the results he is relying on.
In econometrics, there is the term of spurious estimation.
It seems in Treasury modelling, there should be a similar term existing and applying, that is, spurious modelling.
Further, his arguments seem to be confusing. For example, he said "In the last four decades numerous predictions have been made of large scale unemployment and the death of manufacturing, decrying deregulation, decrying tariff cuts and decrying mineral booms," and "The dire predictions of the past have not eventuated, and it's unlikely that similar predictions today will fare any better."
There are reports in the last few days that stated that the government's claim that the PRRT did not affect the growth of the oil and gas industry was wrong and the growth has been from projects that do not have that tax.
So what henry is talking about? Why does he use facts, if he has, to counter those reports?
See below for Henry's arguments.