Comments on Alan Kohler “Don't waste the boom, Mr Rudd”, 13/04/2010, http://www.businessspectator.com.au/bs.nsf/Article/GFC-budget-Australian-recovery-pd20100413-4FS9H?OpenDocument&src=sph
Further, while some people including you are saying in hindsight that Howard / Costello didn't do this or that with revenue, they set up the future fund, they reduced tax, as opposed to Rudd / Swan wasting taxpayers' money in house insulation, in BER, in NBN, and etc.
It is so easy to criticise the past, but why don't people focus on what is happening now?
Is it purely trying to please the current government and the people in charge now?
It is so low politics and not looking good for media commentators.
Showing posts with label Howard. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Howard. Show all posts
2009-10-10
Cities, state and federal policies
Comments on George Megalogenis “Property chip may cripple the country”, 10/10/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/meganomics/index.php/theaustralian/comments/property_chip_may_cripple_the_country/
George, it is an interesting article touching some profound issues.
However, I have a few comments or questions.
First, the stories of Sydney relative to Melbourne and Brisbane do have an element of reversion to average or mean, as Phil H suggested.
No individual city could monopoly the leader status forever, and sooner or later there would be changes in relativity.
Secondly, the stories of the three cities or states can have a couple of implications in terms of policies.
One is that if it was purely a shift or switch from one to another without any effect on the totality, that is, a zero sum game, then there are virtually no implications for national policies.
However, if the game was a non-zero sum, as it was probably the case, then there are implications not just for national policies but also for individual states as well.
Carr's policy towards immigration was a cause for Sydney's relative decline. If he had implemented a better policy, then the relative decline might have been smaller, that would have had an effect on not only Sydney and NSW but also the total welfare of Australia.
So effectively it was an issue of the quality of policies by a State government on the welfare of that state and the nation.
Thirdly, while Carr and his government's policies were obviously a reason to that case, it is far fetch to link any of the stories to Howard and the federal government back then. On this, you are incorrect that reflects your bias towards the previous government and blaming it for everything even for this completely unrelated issue. Few would think that Howard was involved in particular local issues, especially one state relative to another.
Fourthly, your story of the relative virtues of the Howard and Rudd governments is a bit bordering nonsense. Again you have strong bias - it is your way of seeing through the telescope through the wrong end, not the public.
Don't get me wrong, you may have a better knowledge in economics than the average. But yours is still very limited, it seems.
As one of the commentators argued that the Howard government cut taxes when they could afford to and at the same time reduced the national public debt to zero, while the Rudd government spent the money it did not have and increased the national public debt.
There is no defence of the Rudd government's fiscal recklessness. Yes, no one would argue against fiscal stimulus when the economy needs it. However, it is a completely different story when the money was wasted, as the Australian has exposed in many articles of the wastes in the school spending program, not to mention whether the magnitude of the stimulus was appropriate.
Your argument of the so called structural budget deficit is a recycling of what some others say for convenience without own critical analysis at the best. Why should a government keep taxpayers money when it does not need?
If you have an issue with Howard government's spending or bribes as you like to put it, why don't you blame the Rudd government when it had the opportunities to reduce spending and to stop some tax cuts but it chose not to do so in their first and second budgets?
The structural arguments is no different from arguing that the inventions of electricity, engines, cars etc were responsible for the global warming now we have and they should have not been invented.
Isn't that argument extremely ridiculers and completely nonsensical?
George, it is an interesting article touching some profound issues.
However, I have a few comments or questions.
First, the stories of Sydney relative to Melbourne and Brisbane do have an element of reversion to average or mean, as Phil H suggested.
No individual city could monopoly the leader status forever, and sooner or later there would be changes in relativity.
Secondly, the stories of the three cities or states can have a couple of implications in terms of policies.
One is that if it was purely a shift or switch from one to another without any effect on the totality, that is, a zero sum game, then there are virtually no implications for national policies.
However, if the game was a non-zero sum, as it was probably the case, then there are implications not just for national policies but also for individual states as well.
Carr's policy towards immigration was a cause for Sydney's relative decline. If he had implemented a better policy, then the relative decline might have been smaller, that would have had an effect on not only Sydney and NSW but also the total welfare of Australia.
So effectively it was an issue of the quality of policies by a State government on the welfare of that state and the nation.
Thirdly, while Carr and his government's policies were obviously a reason to that case, it is far fetch to link any of the stories to Howard and the federal government back then. On this, you are incorrect that reflects your bias towards the previous government and blaming it for everything even for this completely unrelated issue. Few would think that Howard was involved in particular local issues, especially one state relative to another.
Fourthly, your story of the relative virtues of the Howard and Rudd governments is a bit bordering nonsense. Again you have strong bias - it is your way of seeing through the telescope through the wrong end, not the public.
Don't get me wrong, you may have a better knowledge in economics than the average. But yours is still very limited, it seems.
As one of the commentators argued that the Howard government cut taxes when they could afford to and at the same time reduced the national public debt to zero, while the Rudd government spent the money it did not have and increased the national public debt.
There is no defence of the Rudd government's fiscal recklessness. Yes, no one would argue against fiscal stimulus when the economy needs it. However, it is a completely different story when the money was wasted, as the Australian has exposed in many articles of the wastes in the school spending program, not to mention whether the magnitude of the stimulus was appropriate.
Your argument of the so called structural budget deficit is a recycling of what some others say for convenience without own critical analysis at the best. Why should a government keep taxpayers money when it does not need?
If you have an issue with Howard government's spending or bribes as you like to put it, why don't you blame the Rudd government when it had the opportunities to reduce spending and to stop some tax cuts but it chose not to do so in their first and second budgets?
The structural arguments is no different from arguing that the inventions of electricity, engines, cars etc were responsible for the global warming now we have and they should have not been invented.
Isn't that argument extremely ridiculers and completely nonsensical?
2009-09-11
Howard is correct on history
Comments on John Howard “Rudd demeans himself over history”, 11/09/2009, http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,26055356-7583,00.html
Howard is now calm and objective about history and he is correct except for a small point that is his IR reforms were too big and went a bit too far.
I think the number of big reforms over the past nearly three decades done by both sides of political sides in government that Howard described have really been outstanding. Both deserve credits for them. Denying either side is attempting to rewrite the history.
While Howard was politically very firm, both in opposition and in government, he become fairly pragmatic during government.
Rudd is in danger of being more politically stubborn by using the financial and economic crises to push outdated earlier Labour ideologies of big government and big spending and skewing too much against efficiency in favour of over playing equity.
He has already been exposed as having gone too far to the left. Whether he will be permanently remembered as that will depend on what he will do from now on.
The jury is still out.
Howard is now calm and objective about history and he is correct except for a small point that is his IR reforms were too big and went a bit too far.
I think the number of big reforms over the past nearly three decades done by both sides of political sides in government that Howard described have really been outstanding. Both deserve credits for them. Denying either side is attempting to rewrite the history.
While Howard was politically very firm, both in opposition and in government, he become fairly pragmatic during government.
Rudd is in danger of being more politically stubborn by using the financial and economic crises to push outdated earlier Labour ideologies of big government and big spending and skewing too much against efficiency in favour of over playing equity.
He has already been exposed as having gone too far to the left. Whether he will be permanently remembered as that will depend on what he will do from now on.
The jury is still out.
2009-08-26
Balance fairness with productivity in IR
Comments on Janet Albrechtsen “Rhetoric fails to tell whole story”, 26/08/2009, http://blogs.theaustralian.news.com.au/janetalbrechtsen/index.php/theaustralian/comments/rhetoric_fails_to_tell_whole_story/
For industrial relations, the most important issue is to get the balance right. Both the main political parties in Australia have strong an ideology on IR, but those relatively extreme ideologies are not the best for getting the balance right in IR between efficiency/productivity and fairness.
Howard government’s Work Choices went too far to the right and did not afford proper protections to employees, while the Rudd/Gillard Fair Work has gone to the left too far and bright collective bargains as the only means of making agreements. Both are unhelpful to having the right balance between efficiency/productivity and fairness.
The Howard government was voted out of office and its Work Choices was one of the main reasons. The Rudd government is still enjoying huge popularity, partly because the oppositions are impotent and error prong, not by its Fair Work.
While the day of reckoning may be still a long way off, there are indeed some signs that Fair Work is showing problems. The minister, Gillard, has given special treatment to the hospitality industry. What this means is that the Rudd government still has the opportunity to correct the shortcomings of its Fair Work to make it more productive.
It is up to the Rudd government to get this issue right.
For industrial relations, the most important issue is to get the balance right. Both the main political parties in Australia have strong an ideology on IR, but those relatively extreme ideologies are not the best for getting the balance right in IR between efficiency/productivity and fairness.
Howard government’s Work Choices went too far to the right and did not afford proper protections to employees, while the Rudd/Gillard Fair Work has gone to the left too far and bright collective bargains as the only means of making agreements. Both are unhelpful to having the right balance between efficiency/productivity and fairness.
The Howard government was voted out of office and its Work Choices was one of the main reasons. The Rudd government is still enjoying huge popularity, partly because the oppositions are impotent and error prong, not by its Fair Work.
While the day of reckoning may be still a long way off, there are indeed some signs that Fair Work is showing problems. The minister, Gillard, has given special treatment to the hospitality industry. What this means is that the Rudd government still has the opportunity to correct the shortcomings of its Fair Work to make it more productive.
It is up to the Rudd government to get this issue right.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
