Comments on: Nothing more stimulating than press gallery groupthink

By: simmobc

simmobc — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:45:10 +0000

the fact is, the stimulus has had very little to do with our recovery. I point to the fact that a number of the big ticket items, such as the schools program, are yet to even commence.

If the cash handout, not everyone got one don’t forget, was responsible for saving our economy I would be suprised. It was a short term adrenalin shot which has not provided any long term economic reform. Not all people that received the stimulus spent it either.

The tax rebate for the purchase of plant and equipment was a good idea but again, I would be suprised if that saved the economy.

At the end of the day, and lets be honest, our recovery is a result of (1) our strong starting position, (2) we are a resource based economy and (3) our relationship with China and their insatiable demand for our resources. Saying that the stimulus saved the economy is all political spin and I understand that, it is politics.

Given the above, pulling back or redirecting some of the stimulus is a worthwhile DISCUSSION to have. If 100% of the stimulus had been put to effect and the result was a mere 0.6% growth, there is no argument - more required. But given a minimal amount of the stimulus has been used, a bi-partisan discussion needs to be had. Wishful thinking, I know!

By: BH

BH — Fri, 04 Sep 2009 06:10:37 +0000

You’ve nailed it Bernard and thank goodness for you.

The boring ‘halt the stimulus’ line being run by the Oppn and many journos is aggravating when many people will rely on it for their jobs in the next year or so.

Put them all in a room and bang their heads together. No wonder I don’t bother to read the MSM journos any more.

By: Gratton Wilson

Gratton Wilson — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 09:12:16 +0000

The Opposition was wrong from the beginning, the “wait and see” policy the then Shadow Treasurer said was the right thing to do would have been a disaster. It would have destroyed confidence and closed down small businesses across the country.
Guaranteeing the banks saved them from wholesale panic withdrawals. Malcolm Turnbull was persistent in his condemnation of the guarantee but to do otherwise would have caused a disastrous run on the banks as it did in the Great Depression when banks closed their doors and millions of people were left without access to their savings. Wealthy people bought up bank savings books for only a percentage of their money value and caused real suffering at kitchen tables around the country.
The early stimulus packages to pensioners and self-funded retirees was a brilliant move, it was immediately effective and prevented small businesses feeling the first savage tightening of purse strings that could have spiraled and magnified until it would require a massive boost to turn it around.

By: Ben Aveling

Ben Aveling — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 08:03:03 +0000

@Tom: That would be a sound argument. But I don’t think it’s the argument they’re trying to make. Turnbull said that the government should have spent less but spent it in ways that gave greater value. When pressed on how to do that he replied to the effect of: that’s up to them to work out, they’re the government.

By: Tom McLoughlin

Tom McLoughlin — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:49:06 +0000

Eh? The Opposition argument is that by failing to let the corrections actually hurt people the economy can’t recover in a sound fashion and that knocking over unhealthy business is part of capitalism’s creative destruction.

At the very least they have an argument about postponing to future generations the debt burden.

Against that the argument is that the mummy party saved people all that suffering. There’s traffic both ways and merit in both. No doubt.

By: Ben Aveling

Ben Aveling — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 07:23:57 +0000

Anyone else hear Turnbull on the radio this morning getting his economic history wrong? He seemed to think that governments responded with make-work programs, whereas they actually, mostly, reduced spending and made things worse, much worse, as he would seem to be recommending the government do now. Is he as economically illiterate as he appears to be? Does he actually want the recession to be worse than it is? IDGI.

By: Tim Dunlop

Tim Dunlop — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 06:34:29 +0000

Swan’s interview with David Speers was the best. IN the first half, Speers was after him for not cutting back spending. Later, he was complaining that Swan had reined in spending in some areas. It was laughable — opposition for the sake of it, to fit a narrative — and in fact, I think Swan laughed at him. Worth a look if you can find it/didn’t see it.

By: Keith is not my real name

Keith is not my real name — Thu, 03 Sep 2009 05:54:05 +0000

In a word, or maybe two

Spot-on