Discussion in 'Markets & Economies' started by TheEnd, Sep 1, 2013.
Looks like Clive will become PM based on early polling.
I disagree with this bit, I'm a good guy, and I have several.
I have just read the article and the research paper published by NATSEM.
First let me preface what I am about the say with a direct quote from the report your statements and the article has been based on - NATSEM Household Budget Report: Cost of Living and Standard of Living Indexes for Australia - 2013
I quote page 15, paragraph 3
"It is not realistic to determine the impact of government policy or expenditure on the cost of
living or the standard of living with any degree of precision. The impacts of government cannot
realistically be unpicked from broader social and economic change. While the NATSEM cost of
living and standard of living indexes don't attempt to differentiate between the impacts of
government and broader social and economic forces we can measure the aggregate changes
to these measures that took place under the period for which each government led."
The report then goes on to say paragraph 4, page 15 -
Figure 5 shows that the three most recent governments all presided over exactly the same
changes in standard of living about 2.6 per cent per annum increases. The Hawke/Keating
governments presided over a deep and long recession that reduced the growth in the standard
of living during their period of government5. Disposable income increases were strongest
under the Rudd Government while cost of living increases were lowest under the Gillard
And here is Figure 5 from page 16
Back to the article that you quoted and referenced with the graph - http://www.macrobusiness.com.au/2013/09/dashed-expectations-to-punish-labor/
Quote - The principle remains, however, that while objectively Australians are better off now than they were six years ago, and are better off than individuals in many other OECD economies, Australians do not think they are as well off as they should be, or could be.
So putting all the pieces of information in their proper perspective, while the standard of living and incomes have risen over the past few years, the rise is lower than would be expected when looking at historical increases and projecting that forward. So simply, the red line represents where we should be and the blue line is we are.
So while you are technically correct, it is very apparent the standard of living and incomes have not risen in line with historical expectations, so Yippie is not wrong to feel like he has lost ground in the past 6 years either. And if you read the report, the researchers make it plainly clear the factors surrounding the cost of living, standard of living, and incomes were heavily impacted by lower interest rates, a stronger Australian dollar and the mining sector.
As they say, there lies, damn lies and statistics!
No, it just means your household and those of the people you know are not average households. If your household is down over the period, someone else's is up and then some.
That's also assuming you actually have complete records of what your household earned and spent over the last 6-7 years and have compared that data to what you're earning and spending now.
If you're just going on gut-feeling then, yeah, it's easy think you're doing it tougher. "Everything's good" doesn't sell newspapers or win elections as well as "Budget In Crisis!" does.
I don't care.
I ceased to care about 13 months ago.
I don't want to participate in our "Democratic" political system but am forced to, so when I turn up to vote I waste the ballot paper and my time.
But, I save myself $100 or so in fines.
Which I then place on sportsbet trying to anticipate the moves of the RBA.
The ballot paper was spoiled by the presence of the candidates on it, and the coercive nature of our "Democratic " electoral system long before it was given to me.
I'm merely returning it to the custodians of my freedom in the nearest possible condition in which it was placed in my care.
Imagine for a short while yippe if no one gave a shit.
Imagine if everyone turned up at the ballot box and did exactly as I did.
Our political system would be in disarray.
Our legal system would fall apart.
The fabric of society would be torn asunder.
In short, it would be a revolution with not a single shot being fired.
Then we would see change.
Until then, I don't care.
And I'm happier for it.
That happened to me as well. I told them my name was Julia Gillard when they said ID was not necessary.
More accurately, the red line indicates (roughly) where we would be if our standard of living increased in a linear fashion at the same rate as it did under Howard-Costello.
What Yippe and many others seem to forget is that we had the greatest economic crisis since the Great Depression immediately after Howard-Costello. Not only did our standard of living not fall off the chart like it did for most of the world's advanced economies, it basically flat-lined and then went up.
I did read the report and I'm not "technically" correct, I am correct: our standards of living have not fallen and Yippe is full of brown, smelly stuff in saying they have.
Frankly, if Yippe's "expectations" mean he thinks he "should" be at where the red line stops, he's simply off in his own little world that bears little resemblance to reality.
I honestly don't understand how people don't "GET" that the western world suffered during the GFC yet somehow Australia did not. Howard / Libs are responsible for the world wide economic good times (bubble), Labor responsible for the world wide bad times (Under Keating/Hawke) as well as responsible for the boom times not continuing during the GFC.
This is the weekend that Yip visits his uncle monthly, who happens to have an internet connection.
Your statement that caused the contention -
2. Our standards of living has increased significantly over the last 6 years, with the average household better of by around $5000 per year in real terms.
Fact - The standard of living has increased by annualised rate of 2.6% since the Howard government was elected. There is no data that you have referenced to substantiate your claim that 'Our standards of living has increased significantly over the last 6 years.' The annualised rate of increase has remained the same for the past 17 years according to the data, there has been no significant increase in the past 6 years.
Just stating the facts.
Edit: - Apologies to the original poster for taking this thread off topic.
Well, the polling booth doors are locked, tables being laid out and counters with scrutineers watching closely will be dumping boxes of papers onto long tables and putting pieces of paper onto a specific pile depending upon which box has a number 1 in it. Within 45 minutes the results from the smaller seats will start coming in.
A circa 2.6% compound annual rise in living standards for 6 years is a significant increase.
I see one raving lunatic on this thread and it's you yippee. You got rabies or something coz you're frothing at the mouth.
TheEnd is mysteriously absent. I hope he didn't take the term swinging voter too seriously
So when is the next double dissolution election? I'm fairly sure the carbon tax repeal bill won't get through the senate so another election coming up.
Hmmm, lets see, without going into too much detail 6-7 years ago I lived in a good suburb the equivalent of St Ives in Sydney. I now live the equivalent of the foothills of the Blue Mountains.
6-7 years ago I would travel overseas and eat in upmarket restaurants. Now I do not go out to eat except maybe once/twice a year for a celebration that I do not pay for.
My business of 21 years had to be closed down, through no fault of my own, and I am now a PAYE. No divorce or other unforeseen events either, and I am not a lavish spender.
I used to drive an upmarket imported car, now I drive a Ford utility.
All in all, I would consider that I was better off financially 6-7 years ago. Most with very few exceptions, that I associate with, business owners to hospital cleaners are doing it tougher than 6-7 years ago.
We obviously move in different circles.
But you obviously used to be?
You may "have" several weapons, but you're not allowed to use them for self defence. are never allowed to carry them on you = they must always be locked up and ammo locked up SEPARATELY, etc etc...
all designed to deny you the right to defend yourself - even inside your own home!
but i believe you already knew all that - you were just trying to be a smartass :lol:
Separate names with a comma.