View Poll Results: How long will Tony Abbott be Prime Minister?

Voters
21. You may not vote on this poll
  • He will resign or be replaced before the next election

    3 14.29%
  • He will lead the party to the next election but lose it

    4 19.05%
  • He will win the next election but not be PM at the one after it

    5 23.81%
  • He will win the next election but lose the one after it

    1 4.76%
  • He will win the next two elections

    7 33.33%
  • He will win the next 3, 4 or 5 elections

    1 4.76%
  • He will be there longer than Menzies

    0 0%
Page 4 of 22 FirstFirst ... 2345614 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 328
  1. #46
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Reagan did spend his way out of recession! He ran massive budget deficits, just as Labour did! These are facts, Jono!
    Only partially. He cut the tax which pushed the economy forward. He didn't cut the spending, even though he should have.
    In other word, he took a half step in the right direction and Labor half step in the wrong direction.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  2. #47
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    No, it wouldn't have been "better off with an economy in the doldrums". It would have been better off if it had been left to recover on its own, without KRudd spending the Howard/Costello surplus and landing Australia with a huge debt. It's so often true that the economy would work fine if only the government would get its foot off the economy's throat.
    Is this based on some argument that you will expound or are we just supposed to conclude that since your faith in free market economics is so ardent that it must be true?
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  3. #48
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg View Post
    Only partially. He cut the tax which pushed the economy forward. He didn't cut the spending, even though he should have.
    In other word, he took a half step in the right direction and Labor half step in the wrong direction.
    Remember this table, Igor? Have a look at the 'Revenue' column below - Labour collected much less revenue (as a % GDP) than the Coalition did.

    Attachment 2352

    In other words, both Reagan and Labour reduced taxes and increased spending, and both had deficits.

  4. #49
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Remember this table, Igor? Have a look at the 'Revenue' column below - Labour collected much less revenue (as a % GDP) than the Coalition did.

    Attachment 2352

    In other words, both Reagan and Labour reduced taxes and increased spending, and both had deficits.
    Not really. Reagan indeed reduced taxes, but did not increase spending (just failed to decrease).
    As for Labor, I don't remember them lowering tax rates (apart from Howard's income tax cut that Labor promised to match and, surprisingly, delivered). Accidently, it must've been the major factor preventing recession.
    Reagan was slashing regulations, Labor drastically increased them.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  5. #50
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Is this based on some argument that you will expound or are we just supposed to conclude that since your faith in free market economics is so ardent that it must be true?
    [Irony meter breaks, because of RW's blind faith in big government.] Actually I provided reasons. One was the common sense analysis by Bastiat that "stimulus" money must come from somewhere, and "what is not seen" is what this money could have done if not soaked up by politicians and spent in ways to benefit them politicially rather than what people would freely choose to buy with their own money. Another included the lessons from real history when the "do nothing" policies of Harding/Coolidge and Reagan allowed the economy to rebound on its own, and without the huge debts of the spendulus programs. After trillions of dollars of more debt under Obamov, the unemployment figures are even worse than they look because they exclude those who have just given up looking for work. And back in the Depression, where again both Hoover and FDR tried spending their way out it, in 1939, FDR's friend and his Secretary of the Treasury, Henry Morgenthau, Jr., told the House Ways and Means Committee:

    We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises … I say after eight years of this administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started … And an enormous debt to boot!
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  6. #51
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Actually I provided reasons.
    Actually you didn't. You provided some hand wavy comments that money that wasn't stimulating the economy through government programs would be be of more benefit stimulating the economy on it's own. However there was not justification that this is true. Certainly when stimulus is financed through debt or though spending government surpluses then in neither case is that money in circulation and doing the sort of things your arguments says it is. It just not so. The money did not come out of the economy at the time in question. Either it had already been collected (and hence was out of circulation) or it was borrowed from overseas.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Another included the lessons from real history when the "do nothing" policies of Harding/Coolidge and Reagan allowed the economy to rebound on its own, and without the huge debts of the spendulus programs.
    Yes if you do nothing economies recover eventually. However the same is true of headaches, they tend to go away eventually. However that is not a reason to not alleviate the symptoms with a efficient painkiller like aspirin. Unless of course you are a ultra right-wing free market zealot.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    After trillions of dollars of more debt under Obamov, the unemployment figures are even worse than they look because they exclude those who have just given up looking for work.
    Now you are talking efficacy and I have already demonstrated the efficacy of the Australian stimulus packages under Rudd and Swan. Furthermore the economics division of the Reserve Bank said at the time (as reported in the Australian)...

    Dr Lowe, who heads the bank's economics division, said the cash handouts in December 2008 and early last year were accompanied by a significant increase in consumer spending.

    "I think it's undeniable that that helped support the economy through that period," he said.

    Dr Lowe said the boost to the first-home buyers grant and the business investment allowance also had had obvious benefits.

    However, he said the economy was now gathering momentum and it was unlikely growth would slip back as stimulus measures were unwound.

    "As the economy strengthens, these measures will need to be wound back and under the government's plans they will be wound back," Dr Lowe said.

    "The issue is the speed and timing of that."

    So not trillions of dollars, in the case of the Australian economy only around 50 billion dollars was required, Rudd and Swan averted economic disaster by timely and appropriate intervention. The figures (posted above speak for themselves.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  7. #52
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Actually you didn't. You provided some hand wavy comments that money that wasn't stimulating the economy through government programs would be be of more benefit stimulating the economy on it's own. However there was not justification that this is true. Certainly when stimulus is financed through debt or though spending government surpluses then in neither case is that money in circulation and doing the sort of things your arguments says it is. It just not so. The money did not come out of the economy at the time in question. Either it had already been collected (and hence was out of circulation) or it was borrowed from overseas.
    The easiest way politically, because the cost is dumped on the next generation. But this has its own drag on the economy. In the case of the during the Hoover/FDR and Obamov recessions, going into massive debt didn't help.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Yes if you do nothing economies recover eventually. However the same is true of headaches, they tend to go away eventually. However that is not a reason to not alleviate the symptoms with a efficient painkiller like aspirin. Unless of course you are a ultra right-wing free market zealot.
    Yet the Harding/Coolidge and Reagan administrations saw very rapid economic bounce-backs when the government "did nothing". It's often the "doing things" that hinder this natural bounce-back, as with Hoover and FDR prolonging the Depression with their tax/spend/regulate policies that hindered investment and job growth. I.e. it's like trying to cure a headache by banging the patient's head against a wall. Only an ultra left-wing socialist zealot shows such distrust for the economy to manage itself without the big spending and micromanagement of big government.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  8. #53
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    The easiest way politically, because the cost is dumped on the next generation. But this has its own drag on the economy. In the case of the during the Hoover/FDR and Obamov recessions, going into massive debt didn't help.
    You're now moving the goalposts. You originally said the seen and the unseen. The unseen cost being the cost of that money not being in circulation. Now you have shifted into a drag on future generations.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Yet the Harding/Coolidge and Reagan administrations saw very rapid economic bounce-backs when the government "did nothing".
    Better no recession and hence no need to bounce back. Following the aspirin analogy, most headaches are short lived so why not put up with it? Yet aspirins are one of the most successful medications in history.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    It's often the "doing things" that hinder this natural bounce-back, as with Hoover and FDR prolonging the Depression with their tax/spend/regulate policies that hindered investment and job growth.
    Ipse dixit. Obviously the great depression was not averted. So that is an entirely different scenario (getting out of a depression rather than averting a recession). However the Australian recession that would have occurred with no stimulus was averted. So good job Rudd, Swan and their economic advisors.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  9. #54
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    4,643
    Quote Originally Posted by Igor_Goldenberg View Post
    Not really. Reagan indeed reduced taxes, but did not increase spending (just failed to decrease).
    Reagan definitely increased spending:
    Federal outlays (total spending) rose by 40 percent under Reagan’s first four budgets (fiscal year 1985 vs. Carter’s last budget for fiscal 1981). That was two-and-a-half times faster than the rate of inflation, which rose 16 percent during the same period, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.

  10. #55
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567

    Talking

    It is exceedingly fortunate that laissez-faire zealots like Jono don't work as automotive engineers otherwise no car would be fitted with brakes!

    Jono would argue that brakes are completely unnecessary since cars, left to their own devices, will stop eventually and it is often "doing things" (like applying brakes) which hinder cars from hitting solid objects which would cause them to come to a stop much more quickly than braking.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  11. #56
    CC Grandmaster
    Join Date
    Nov 2005
    Location
    Melbourne
    Posts
    5,531
    Quote Originally Posted by Patrick Byrom View Post
    Reagan definitely increased spending:
    Federal outlays (total spending) rose by 40 percent under Reagan’s first four budgets (fiscal year 1985 vs. Carter’s last budget for fiscal 1981). That was two-and-a-half times faster than the rate of inflation, which rose 16 percent during the same period, as measured by the Consumer Price Index.
    You are right, Reagan did increase spending.
    For private coaching (IM, four times VIC champion) call or SMS 0417519733
    Computer tells you what to play. Good coach explains why.

  12. #57
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    You're now moving the goalposts. You originally said the seen and the unseen. The unseen cost being the cost of that money not being in circulation. Now you have shifted into a drag on future generations.
    It is, and current investors consider future debts.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Better no recession and hence no need to bounce back.
    Of course, but recessions have occurred. Harding/Coolidge and Reagan were prepared to let the economy bounce back, which it did quickly. And Harding and Coolidged faced far worse problems than Obamov: the devastation of WW1 and the flu epidemic, unemployment at almost 12%, and a top tax rate of 73%. But they didn't pursue "stimulus" programs but instead cut tax rates so that the top rate was 25%. The result was unemployment slashed to 2.4%. Reagan likewise slashed income tax rates, and tried to slash spending but the Dem-controlled Congress reneged on its promises and vastly increased spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Following the aspirin analogy, most headaches are short lived so why not put up with it? Yet aspirins are one of the most successful medications in history.
    But you have yet to prove that aspirin is a good analogy to stimulus spending.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    Ipse dixit. Obviously the great depression was not averted.
    It wasn't, because Hoover and FDR kept "doing things", like taxing, spending, and regulating—just like Obamov.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    So that is an entirely different scenario (getting out of a depression rather than averting a recession). However the Australian recession that would have occurred with no stimulus was averted.
    Ipse dixit. You haven't the slightest proof that the economy would not have recovered without KRudd's boondoggles like home-insulation.

    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    So good job Rudd, Swan and their economic advisors.
    Now once again, we need a conservative government that lives within its means to pay back the huge debts of the previous Labor government, that acted like a teenager given a parent's credit card.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  13. #58
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    It is, and current investors consider future debts.
    I'm not saying future debt is not an issue but it is not the issue you raised and you are just up to your old tricks of again shifting goalposts when you are on a hiding to nothing.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Of course, but recessions have occurred. Harding/Coolidge and Reagan were prepared to let the economy bounce back, which it did quickly. And Harding and Coolidged faced far worse problems than Obamov: the devastation of WW1 and the flu epidemic, unemployment at almost 12%, and a top tax rate of 73%. But they didn't pursue "stimulus" programs but instead cut tax rates so that the top rate was 25%. The result was unemployment slashed to 2.4%. Reagan likewise slashed income tax rates, and tried to slash spending but the Dem-controlled Congress reneged on its promises and vastly increased spending.
    What does any of this have to do with the Australian recession which was averted by sensible intervention by Rudd and Swan?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    But you have yet to prove that aspirin is a good analogy to stimulus spending.
    Your failure to comprehend is not my problem. Aspirin is simply an everyday intervention which people use to overcome the symptoms of various ailments by treating the symptoms rather than treating the cause. The stimulus package is analogous as spending money did not generate any new wealth. It just injected money in the economy to keep consumer confidence and activity high so that the feedback effects of a downturn in consumer confidence didn't put the whole economy into recession.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    It wasn't, because Hoover and FDR kept "doing things", like taxing, spending, and regulating—just like Obamov.
    What does this have to do with the Australian experience where Rudd and Swan averted the recession through their stimulus packages?

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Ipse dixit. You haven't the slightest proof that the economy would not have recovered without KRudd's boondoggles like home-insulation.
    I never claimed it would not have recovered. But there is plenty of evidence that we would have had a recession based on statements like the Reserve Bank's head of economics division I quote avove and also looking at GDP growth data of other similar economies.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    Now once again, we need a conservative government that lives within its means to pay back the huge debts of the previous Labor government, that acted like a teenager given a parent's credit card.
    To be saying such outrageously silly statements you must believe in Murdoch media inerrancy.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

  14. #59
    CC Grandmaster Capablanca-Fan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Posts
    19,368
    Quote Originally Posted by Rincewind View Post
    What does this have to do with the Australian experience where Rudd and Swan averted the recession through their stimulus packages?
    How do you know? The worst of the recession was averted thanks to the head start of the surplus generated by the Howard/Costello government. If KRudd had acted like the economic conservative he claimed to be in his campaigning, there is no evidence that the recession would not have been averted anyway, in the same way that Harding/Coolidge prevented depressions on their watch by "doing nothing"—except cut income tax rates.
    “The destructive capacity of the individual, however vicious, is small; of the state, however well-intentioned, almost limitless. Expand the state and that destructive capacity necessarily expands, too, pari passu.”—Paul Johnson, Modern Times, 1983.

  15. #60
    Reader in Slood Dynamics Rincewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    The multiverse
    Posts
    21,567
    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    How do you know?
    I've already supplied data and the testimony of the head of economics at the Reserve Bank. You on the other hand have done nothing except reiterate your mindless faith in laissez-faire economics.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    The worst of the recession was averted thanks to the head start of the surplus generated by the Howard/Costello government.
    Ipse dixit.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jono View Post
    If KRudd had acted like the economic conservative he claimed to be in his campaigning, there is no evidence that the recession would not have been averted anyway, in the same way that Harding/Coolidge prevented depressions on their watch by "doing nothing"—except cut income tax rates.
    Ipse dixit.
    So einfach wie möglich, aber nicht einfacher - Albert Einstein

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Similar Threads

  1. Worst Australian Prime Ministers
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 48
    Last Post: 07-01-2019, 07:45 PM
  2. Australian Prime Ministers
    By antichrist in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 21-10-2018, 06:27 PM
  3. Best Australian Prime Ministers
    By Kevin Bonham in forum Politics
    Replies: 187
    Last Post: 01-03-2018, 06:39 AM
  4. European migration issues (sf Tony Abbott)
    By Capablanca-Fan in forum Politics
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: 27-01-2016, 12:40 PM
  5. Tony Abbott
    By antichrist in forum Politics
    Replies: 273
    Last Post: 07-04-2013, 11:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •