Ruddonomics - Irrespective of your politics this is worth a read

[markTHEblake]

Got this article from the 'scene' today - interesting indeed.

[dc68]

If only everybody who is going to vote read that.....

[PeteyD]

But the people who should read it won't believe it. Policy vacuums and the admitted policy shift after getting to power is all Labor represents.

[markTHEblake]

Haha PeteyD

I am a Labour and Union man, and always have been. But I wont be voting for em and I didnt need to read that article to convince me, but it was nice to know.

However I still claim that the interest rates scenario of Labour = high and Liberals = low is a myth.

[PeteyD]

Definately a myth, although the HK government made the RB raise rates so they could lower em prior to an election. The RB is a lot more independant than it was in those days. Labor used to represent the workers through the unions. They now seem to have lost touch with that side of it all and just push buearocracy. Look at the mess that QLD Health is, and it is totally run by the pen pushers.

[poidda]

They're all as bad as each other, so for 3 years what difference does it make? It's the swing voters who elect the government at the end of the day, so if Labour screw things up in the next 3 years, than the swing voters will just swing back again.

[miro]

However I still claim that the interest rates scenario of Labour = high and Liberals = low is a myth.

Whilst I would say these figures prove nothing here I go:

Libs 1986 to today -average int rate -5.5%
Lab 1990 (earliest rate I could easily find) to 1986 -average int rate -9.8%

So I kow 17 years is not foolproof however there the number are.

[kpac]

However I still claim that the interest rates scenario of Labour = high and Liberals = low is a myth.

a time proven myth.

I agree it shouldn't be an affect, but always seems to be..

[Courty]

Kevin Crudd

[markTHEblake]

Whilst I would say these figures prove nothing here I go:

Libs 1986 to today -average int rate -5.5%
Lab 1990 (earliest rate I could easily find) to 1986 -average int rate -9.8%

So I kow 17 years is not foolproof however there the number are.

average rates is not a good indicator, but it does perpetuate the myth.

When Howard was first elected interest rates were on a downward trend. After a period the Libs were claiming 'their' economic management resulted in the lowest rates for decades.

Now that the Libs are favourites to lose, they are potentially leaving with interest rates on an upward trend. Lets say for example rates hit 9 or 10% (not unlikely). You can bet your bottom dollar that the Libs in opposition will be chanting "Told Ya Labour means high interest rates"

The same thing happened last time Labour won government, Interest rates was on an upward trend, when Keating got smashed they were on the way down.

In our lifetimes (well most of us) the result of Interest rates has been Labour-Highest, and Liberal-Lowest.

Who really should take the credit/blame for these, the government that started the trends, or the government that turned the trend around ?

[goughy]

Howard fan? I didn't understand most of what I read, except that the writer has a distinct dislike of Rudd. And will Costello keep things the way Howard has?

And what's a surplus anyway? Is it just our taxes sitting in a bank instead of funding our hospitals etc.

Don't anyone get on my goat too. I don't know crap about politics. I know I can't stand Costello, even though I've heard face to face he's genuine and a nice guy. I haven't even decided how I'm voting yet. Not that it matters, since the electorate I'm in has been staunchly Liberal/National since the dawn of time. My vote means nothing.

Get a bit of 'Barney' in ya!

[Scoot]

Howard fan? I didn't understand most of what I read, except that the writer has a distinct dislike of Rudd. And will Costello keep things the way Howard has?

And what's a surplus anyway? Is it just our taxes sitting in a bank instead of funding our hospitals etc.


Need a bit of clarification here.

I'm of the understanding that 'Hospitals' are the responsibility of State Gov, and Fed gov responsible for Medicare only.

The states get the GST revenue to play with (which is heaps), and they piss it up however they want.

Is this right? - Can anyone give THE CORRECT facts in a couple of paragraphs.

BTW Thanks for posting the article. I tend to agree with most of it.

[goughy]

I have no doubt you're right about the hospitals. I don't claim to be anything other than a political nave! Still think the money could be used for something.

[PeteyD]

Scottt. You are essentially right. some of the federal funding is required to be spent on health, this is the amount the State Governements claim is not enough. And yes they get heaps of GST revenue. It is also like the schools argument. The federal Governement gives more per student to the state government to pass on to state schools (so not directly funded but the federal government) then they do to the private schools.

[Scoot]

[quote=PeteyD;190608]Scottt. You are essentially right. some of the federal funding is required to be spent on health, this is the amount the State Governements claim is not enough. quote]

Thanks for that Pete.

Would like to point out that my name is Scott - Not Scottt, who some you may be aware is also on this site.

Think it might be time to change the username.

[PeteyD]

Too many Scotttttttttttttttttttts

[Moe Norman]

States are responsible for hospitals and schools. However the Federal government should provide significant funding. The states argue this isn't enough, but why throw good money after bad....?

The states recieve billions of dollars in GST revenue. The purpose of the GST was to remove alot of 'indirect' taxes and also remove or reduce certain state taxes like Stamp Duty. The Federal government held up their end of the bargain by wiping out a raft of indirect taxes, however the states didn't manage to abolish any existing taxes and increased stamp duty.

Goughy, the purpose of a budget surplus for the first 9 years of the Howard government was to pay off the $96 billion of government debt racked up by Labor Government. Beyond that, a budget surplus is merely the Commonwealth 'saving' for a rainy day. We won't always be one of the growth economies of the world, and its good to make hay while it rains....

The level if funding to everything, except perhaps infrastructure, is sufficient, it's just poorly administered by several levels of government.