Hey, big spender: Howard the king of the loose purse strings http://www.smh.com.au/federal-polit...f-the-loose-purse-strings-20130110-2cj32.html
Howard's legacy questioned by IMF http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/01/howards-legacy-questioned-by-imf/
Typical Richard Denniss internally inconsistent nonsense that believes that a "responsibly managed" big Government can solve all of the purported problems of cycles and can make the poor wealthy. It completely disregards the source of growth in favour of Keynesian claptrap. Yes, he makes the right noises about Government "investing" in productive infrastructure/education etc but he is primarily talking about increasing recurrent welfare and hand-outs and trusting bureaucracies without a profit measure to actually know what people want and to be able to deliver the services efficiently. Things that have been consistently shown in the economics literature (and history) are simply pipe-dreams.
This has been discredited so many times it isn't funny. I would hope someone like you would at least try to filter what random stuff you decide to repost.
It's Richard Denniss's, not the IMF's opinions. But I'll list a few anyway: Comparing government debt to a company's debt is ridiculous. Companies enter into debt to make capital gains, governments do not. How's that for a fallacious argument? Richard Denniss should read bordsilver's link somewhere on this forum explaining the difference between private and public debt. Edit to add: here it is http://forums.silverstackers.com/message-822517.html#p822517 Do I have to go on?
Plenty of different reporters and papers reported on it. Attacking one reporter doesn't invalidate widely reported news.
Nothing interesting about it. What IMF figures are you referring to? The article linked to by Julie is by Richard Denniss, it's his version of how economics operates that we take exception to and will continue to do so until he eventually shuts up. You wanted inaccuracies and I did say you'd have to quote the whole article again. :lol:
Just google the refutations for goodness sake. I know you can do it. To start you off, here's two: http://www.theaustralian.com.au/opi...n-howards-record/story-fn7078da-1226553110377 http://catallaxyfiles.com/2013/01/11/howard-was-a-big-spender-who-knew/ And quoting some of the Ergas one which is less technical:
You've lost me, I can't see any mention of IMF statistics in the article by Richard Denniss. All I see is a load of shite.
You're not looking too hard: "According to economists at the International Monetary Fund (IMF), Peter Costello was Australia's most profligate treasurer of the past 50 years. According to global doyens of fiscal responsibility, the man described by John Howard as Australia's greatest treasurer spent like a drunken sailor when the economy was booming." Did he make that up?
SP - Did you even bother to read the refutations, or you're just content to continue to regurgitate disproven memes? The IMF study did not show any such thing and didn't even discuss Australia specifically.
Publish whatever articles from whatever papers you want but reality is reality - Massive prosperity and surplus under Howard/ Costello, Worst national debt in history under Rudd/Gillard/Swan. Reality wins.
Are we talking about the same report? Australia was covered and they even added more detail in the accompanying chartbook :