• Welcome to the Green and Gold Rugby forums. As you can see we've upgraded the forums to new software. Your old logon details should work, just click the 'Login' button in the top right.

Conservatism and intelligence

Status
Not open for further replies.

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
Who knew Ross Gittins read G&GR? He's weighing in on Joe Mac's theory that Labor are worse economic managers than the Liberals.

Prejudices rule when judging Labor
Date
July 16, 2012

Ross Gittins
The Sydney Morning Herald's Economics Editor

I've realised we won't be satisfied with the state of the economy until the Liberals get back to power in Canberra. That's not because Labor's so bad, or because the Libs would be so much better, but because so many people have lost confidence in Labor as an economic manager.

The conundrum is why so many people could be so dissatisfied when almost all the objective indicators show us travelling well: the economy growing at about its trend rate, low unemployment, low inflation, rising real wages, low government debt - even a low current account deficit.

And yet the media are full of endless gloom, not to mention endless criticism of the Gillard government. Last week the NAB indicator of business confidence dropped to a 10-month low. And while the Westpac-Melbourne Institute index of consumer confidence recovered almost to par, that's a lot weaker than it ought to be.

Admittedly, the good macro-economic indicators do conceal a much greater than usual degree of structural adjustment going on. But these adjustments - which are generally good news for consumers - seem to be adding to the discontent rather than the root cause of it.

The Gillard government has been far from perfect in its economic policy, but you have to be pretty one-eyed to judge its performance as bad. Similarly, only the one-eyed could believe an Abbott government would have much better policies. It's likely to be less populist in government than it is opposition but, even so, Tony Abbott is no economic reformer.

Gillard's problem is not bad policies, it's Labor's chronic inability look and act like our leader and command the public's respect and comprehension. This is a government that doesn't believe in much beyond clinging to office, and the punters can smell its lack of principle.

To be fair, on the question of economic competence Labor always starts way behind the ball in the public's mind. Decades of polling reveals the electorate's deeply ingrained view the Libs are good at running the economy and Labor is bad.

This is what feeds both the Libs' born-to-rule complex - their utter assurance that all Labor governments lack legitimacy - and Labor's barely concealed inferiority complex.

The Hawke-Keating government did manage to turn the electorate's conventional wisdom on economic competence around for most of its 11-year term.

Labor in its present incarnation has never been able to pull this off. It's lost its race memory of how to govern. All this is compounded by the manner of Gillard's ascension, her non-maleness, her inability to make the punters warm to her and the uncertainties (and broken promises) of minority government. But the problem was apparent before Labor decided it could stomach Kevin Rudd no longer.

It's true the media environment is more unhelpful than it was in Hawke and Keating's day. Increased competition has made the media more relentlessly negative - more uninterested in anything but bad news - which must eventually have some effect on the public's state of mind.

In their search for a new audience in response to the challenge of the digital revolution, part of the media has become more partisan and more unashamedly hostile to all things Labor.

You see this in the radio shock jocks, but also in the national dailies, which have adopted the Fox News business model of telling a section of the potential audience what it wants to hear, not what it needs to know.

It seems a universal truth of the commercial media that the right-leaning audience is both more numerous and better lined than the left-leaning.

So, for instance, a favourite commercial tactic at present is to search for, and give false prominence to, all stories that portray our almost-dead union movement as a threatening monster about to engulf big business.

Boosting productivity equals making industrial relations law more anti-union. End of story. When Treasury people give speeches that fail to echo this infallible truth it's a clear sign they've been ''politicised'' and we need to find a few hyper-ideological economics professors to misrepresent what they said.

When Hawke and Keating were in power, business leaders judged it wise to keep their natural political sympathies to themselves and work with the elected government.

But with Gillard so far behind in the polls, so ineffective in maintaining relations with big business, with the general media so anxious to accentuate the negative and a significant part of the serious press telling them how badly they're being treated and holding out a microphone, it's not surprising big business people have become so unusually vocal in their criticism of Labor.

When God's in his heaven and the Libs rule in Canberra, business people jump on anyone they consider to be ''talking the economy down''. But so great is their loathing of the Gillard government that business is leading the chorus of negativity. How they see this as in their commercial interest I'm blowed if I know.

While John Howard was in power, the index of consumer sentiment showed respondents who intended voting for the Coalition to be significantly more confident about the economy than those intending to vote Labor. At the time of the 2007 election, however, the two lines crossed and Labor voters became significantly more confident than Coalition voters.

The latest figures show the overall confidence index at 99, while the Labor voters' index is up at 124 but the Coalition voters' index down at 79. Since Coalition voters far outnumber Labor voters, it's clear a change of government would do wonders for measured consumer confidence.

The same would probably be true for measured business confidence. Suddenly, business would be back talking the economy up, and the partisan media would revert to backing up our leaders rather than tearing them down.

But how much difference that would make to the objective economic indicators is another question.



Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/business/prejudices-rule-when-judging-labor-20120715-224cu.html#ixzz20ibdqnXQ
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
A good read thanks Cutter.

Totally agree about Tony Abbott. The thought of him running the country is a little scary from an economic point of view. Hopefully he makes Turnbull his treasurer.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
OK, it's satire only, but I liked it.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/shortcuts/2012/jul/15/pass-notes-george-w-bush



Pass notes 3,210: George W Bush

The former president has some financial advice to offer. It's called The 4% Solution and it promises to put an end to the US's money troubles

George-W-Bush-008.jpg


Age: 66.

Appearance: A chimp in a bomber jacket. Surrounded by bombs. With more bombs in reserve.

I'm still recovering from the weekend. Where might one encounter this militaristic monkey? He's the chap who invaded Iraq, slashed civil liberties in the name of freedom, allowed the banks to gamble their way into insolvency, and left the mess for someone else to clear up. And now here he is again, sharing his "wisdom".

Used to be prime minister, now helping Ed Milithingy with his policy review? Not that one, the American one. After three years in the wilderness, "Dubya" has returned to save the US from financial collapse.

By lending it some of the billions his cronies creamed off during the war on terror? By backing a book called The 4% Solution.

Sounds like something you'd put on a rash. No it doesn't. If I may quote his publishers …
It's the purest form of research. "Millions of Americans owe more on their homes than they are worth, long-term unemployment is alarmingly high, and … unless a turnaround comes quickly, the United States could be mired in debt for years to come."

None of which is George's fault, no siree. So what's this "solution"? To sweep away all those pesky "government constraints". Then Americans will be able to "save, invest, and create the jobs that the United States needs".

I didn't realise he had such a detailed grasp of finance. He doesn't. The book comes from his policy research outfit, the George W Bush Institute. But the foreword's all his.

Unless he got someone to write that too. Well, yes. The illustrious contributors include five Nobel laureates, one of whom, economist Myron Scholes, laid the groundwork for the huge growth in financial derivatives.

And in a way helped to bring down the world financial system? W-e-e-e-l-l.

That sounds like Dubya's kind of expert. Officially he's one of "the best minds in the business".

Just like the 43rd President of the United States of America? Er…

Do say: "You sure can write, Mr Bush."

Don't say: "… and I didn't even realise you could read."
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
I know Bush is a massive knob and this is satire but some points worth noting;

Myron Scholes is a genius and has been invaluable in helping businesses manage market risks with derivatives. Derivatives are actually good things and very important to the economy.

What's not good is when banks get too heavily involved in them and risk peoples savings. This used to be illegal and largely impossible until Bill Clinton repealed the Glass Steagall act in 1999. Before this, banks could either be a savings and loans bank or an investment bank but not both. Now that they can be both and if they go down we all go down, which is what we saw in the GFC. So its not Bush's fault that the GFC occurred- it's Clintons.
 

Scarfman

Knitter of the Scarf
:)

Oh, seriously?? o_O

Yes, I disagree with the nutjob. I only quoted him to make the neocons look silly. Feel free to defend this nonsense, but as of now I'm ignoring you. No offence, but life is just too short to do anything but make fun of this stuff.
 

Cutter

Nicholas Shehadie (39)
A good read thanks Cutter.

Totally agree about Tony Abbott. The thought of him running the country is a little scary from an economic point of view. Hopefully he makes Turnbull his treasurer.

You need to read the George Megalogenis and Peter Hartcher books I've mentioned before.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
:)

Oh, seriously?? o_O

Yes, I disagree with the nutjob. I only quoted him to make the neocons look silly. Feel free to defend this nonsense, but as of now I'm ignoring you. No offence, but life is just too short to do anything but make fun of this stuff.

You are so mature. Everyone who holds a different viewpoint to you gets ignored, and you refuse to respond to even the simplest of questions.

Have you ever thought that there could be valid viewpoints that don't match your own? You certainly don't appear to give them any time.
 

Schadenfreude

John Solomon (38)
You are so mature. Everyone who holds a different viewpoint to you gets ignored, and you refuse to respond to even the simplest of questions.
Have you ever thought that there could be valid viewpoints that don't match your own? You certainly don't appear to give them any time.

You posted a "4% Solution" which was just basically "Hey lets just make our growth 4%".

This solution is really "Pander to my our base"

Summary:
  • Cut Government spending (which would be a negative for growth) all that analysis is bullshit.
  • Simplify Tax Code (code for "reduce taxes")
  • Drill and Dig (AND I SAY UNTO YOU - RAPE THIS LAND!)
  • Import the skilled (Rather than invest in local education)
  • Let technology transform education and health care (they don't support the latter, and don't understand the former)
What a massive pile of unadulterated glitter covered shit. The exact same shit they've been spouting for 30 years.

Nothing new - nothing saying any of those things work (there's a good reason for that) and NOTHING in it for average citizens.
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
:)

Oh, seriously?? o_O

Yes, I disagree with the nutjob. I only quoted him to make the neocons look silly. Feel free to defend this nonsense, but as of now I'm ignoring you. No offence, but life is just too short to do anything but make fun of this stuff.

That's an incredibly immature response Scarfy. I'll elaborate further on what I agree with in that article but only bother to respond if you are going to have a debate and not attack me personally.

The US has enormous reserves of oil. The oil is less profitable to drill than the middle east and that's why they haven't really started taking their own reserves seriously until the last five years when prices have been so high. There is also a lot of investor interest in investing in local energy projects due to the political instability in the middle east. Production has actually quadrupled in the last ten years with the US to be oil sufficient within another 15 years. The increased supply in a politcially stable place will make oil cheaper at the pump and stimulate the US economy.

Simplifying the tax code will stop the current exodus of high earners handing in their passports and leaving the US who are moving to a more accomodative country. More high earners means a bigger tax take for the government and it means that the US can pay off more of its ballooning debt. It will also make starting a business or running a business more profitable and easier to do if the taxes are simplified and require less billable hours to accountants. Can't fault his argument again there...

The US will go Bankrupt this decade unless they reign in their spending. They are fast heading toward a Greece style crisis however, unlike Greece, they will have no EU to bail them out. It's a tough balancing act between cutting spending and trying to grow the economy but there are likely many facets of the economy they can cut fat from without pushing themselves further into recession. One of those is probably their military spending.

The other two points I have disagreed with in my previous post but 3 out of 5 aint bad. So what is your logic behind 96% of this article being bogus?
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
You posted a "4% Solution" which was just basically "Hey lets just make our growth 4%".

This solution is really "Pander to my our base"

Summary:
  • Cut Government spending (which would be a negative for growth) all that analysis is bullshit.
  • Simplify Tax Code (code for "reduce taxes")
  • Drill and Dig (AND I SAY UNTO YOU - RAPE THIS LAND!)
  • Import the skilled (Rather than invest in local education)
  • Let technology transform education and health care (they don't support the latter, and don't understand the former)
What a massive pile of unadulterated glitter covered shit. The exact same shit they've been spouting for 30 years.


Nothing new - nothing saying any of those things work (there's a good reason for that) and NOTHING in it for average citizens.

Cheaper petrol, a simpler and more cost efficient system for starting a business, and avoiding a Greece style crisis with 60-70% youth unemployment sounds pretty good for the average citizen...

Agreed that these measures arent going to be nearly enough to get back to 4% growth but there are some good points in there...
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
You posted a "4% Solution" which was just basically "Hey lets just make our growth 4%".

This solution is really "Pander to my our base"

Summary:
  • Cut Government spending (which would be a negative for growth) all that analysis is bullshit.
  • Simplify Tax Code (code for "reduce taxes")
  • Drill and Dig (AND I SAY UNTO YOU - RAPE THIS LAND!)
  • Import the skilled (Rather than invest in local education)
  • Let technology transform education and health care (they don't support the latter, and don't understand the former)
What a massive pile of unadulterated glitter covered shit. The exact same shit they've been spouting for 30 years.


Nothing new - nothing saying any of those things work (there's a good reason for that) and NOTHING in it for average citizens.

Actually I didn't post it at all.

Simplify the Tax system is not code for reducing taxes, just simplifying them, which is actually code for reducing government spending by making tax collection more efficient.
 

barbarian

Phil Kearns (64)
Staff member
They are all admirable ideas, and most have been spouted by every Presidential hopeful for the last fifteen years (and probably the 200 before that).

The actual reality of implementing them is very difficult indeed, as the actual performance of said Presidential hopefuls has shown. That is what the article does not deal with.

So it's all very well to say 'cut spending' and 'increase growth', but I can't really take the article seriously when it does not propose any tangible solutions, other than digging and drilling.
.
 

Scotty

David Codey (61)
Scotty and Joe Mac, what are you hoping to achieve with economic growth?

Apart from simplifying the tax system I never said I agreed with the article - just don't like the way Scarf treats people with such disdain.
 

Joe Mac

Arch Winning (36)
Scotty and Joe Mac, what are you hoping to achieve with economic growth?

The same thing that any moral person wants for society. However in this instance, it would be particularly helpful in us decreasing the chances off the great depression that we are all heading towards due to sovereign debt issues in Europe, Japan and America.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top