The problem we have with the carbon tax that has been implemented is the compensation to end users. A lower price would give a price signal and free up money to invest in green energy.

The Liberal direct action plan would be just that- direct action. An example is brown coal burning power stations would be given financial help to convert to natural gas. In this way carbon emissions would in reality go down because they wouldn’t get the money unless they made the conversion.

I’m surprised you can’t see this simple concept. The government pays for change in industry that reduces carbon emissions. By the way, just so we are clear, I’m not supporting direct action as a policy, I’m just explaining how it works.

I would have preferred a price on carbon to be lower than it is with very little compensation paid, thus allowing the market to shift to greener options by making coal more expensive. The bad scheme we have now creates a fiscal problem should generation shift to non carbon emitting technology because it would cause a reduction in carbon tax revenue but the government would still need to pay Labor voters compensation.

Rudd was absolutely right to run a deficit in 2009 and any politician from the right who thinks we should have maintained a surplus then is talking nonsense. If The Coalition had been in power I’m confident Costello would have run a deficit.

There is nothing untoward or even unexpected for a conservative politician to make a political point that his party is a better economic manager than the other lot. It’s up to voters to decide if they think he’s right.

“Jimmy, your metaphor about burning a house down is not relevant at all because less stimulous would not have destroyed the economy.” It may not have completely destroyed it but it would of been seriously damaged, the amount of damage to the house isn’t the relevant part of my metaphor, it is that we can accurately state as fact that without the stimulous damage would of been done and to try and claim the house wold of been in the same shape now and we could of kept the pool is just stupid.

Jimmy, your metaphor about burning a house down is not relevant at all because less stimulous would not have destroyed the economy.

I will come back to my original point and my reason for commenting here. Pyne’s opinion that a coalition government would be more likely to deliver a surplus is a valid one that people can agree or disagree with. It is not stupid and it is his way of promoting a political point that he hopes will resonate in the electorate.

Of course, that’s exactly why Keane and you lot are so fiercely critical of it.

Just because we are talking about the Libs hypothetical actions doesn’t mean the factual consequences don’t apply.

And yes you can pay down debt during a recession but just like Greece and elsewhere in Europe cutting govt spending deepens the recession - in extreme cases you can argue that the pain is worth it in the long run but Australia is a long way from that point.

And there is an end point to govt debt but that is not what we are talking about here - this is short term borrowing to protect from a recession during tough global economic conditions with a clear plan to get back into surplus (whether it be this year or next is really here nor there) and not habitual deficits for decades.

Keane’s dissection of aspects of the government’s stimulous packages in an attempt to unpick Pyne’s assertions are simplistic as well. I accept that the Rudd government’s stimulous packages protected Australia from recession but the arguments that recessions are counter productive to paying off debt have limits. Otherwise Greece would still be rocking merrily along collecting not much tax and paying huge social welfare payments for ever.

There is an end point to government debt and it’s not pretty.

If the Libs had less debt now they would have higher unemployment, lower growth and less govt revenue and more govt expenditure - those are facts the extent can be debated but the fact remains that if you want the got to have borrowed less since the GFC you are arguing for a worse economy now which would require greater stimulous.

But Pyne makes valid points too. The government was in the happy position of having no debt when the GFC hit. So the deficit spending here was from a zero base, unlike the rest of the western world. We are seeing the end game of deficit spending in some european countries right now and the hard truth is that eventually, the piper must be paid.

In that context, Coalition criticism of the extent of the stimulous packages, especially the second one, are valid.

“Socialism” is a derogatory term because it kills wealth creation, as demonstrated by every country in the world that has embraced it. You’ve got to create the wealth in the first place before you can share it out.

Incidentally, I’m a fan of Turnbull as well.

Oh, and this site is full of belittling and derogatory comment. Hey, it adds spice!

David Hand, of course, does not where to start in addressing the errors of all those who think that aversion to debt is simply an excuse to reduce the state so that it cannot redistribute income from rich to poor. We must not do that, since all good old Liberal Party ideologists know that laissez faire is ideally best as abstractions in economic theory show to them, if not to economists, like Joseph Stiglitz, who have a grasp of the real world.

The austerity policies of Europe reflect a number of problems in Europe that come from the Euro common currency and Germany’s insistence that inflation must be avoided at all costs. Germany insists that this is to avoid their hyperinflation of the late twenties of the last century, where people with money lost it all. Germany wants austerity because it wants too minimise losses for investors, of which the richest in Europe proper are German, although the British are just as rich but not part of the Euro. These policies have induced a 1930’s style depression in Greece and close to that in Spain, with recessions elsewhere. not sure why the media keeps talking about how unimportant or bad a surplus is. But what’s bad is when government continues to waste money, increasing welfare while cutting important programs such as scientific research grants, which infact takes Australia backwards.

On the ABC news the other night they compared todays 3% cash rate to the 2008 3% cash rate and govt sector contribution to growth - in 2008 the govt sector was adding
6% to growth, currently it is removing 3%. They aren’t hypothetical figures they are reality - so if you want to reduce that 6% back in 2008 it does have consequences.

So while you can argue about the specific level of stimulous the idea that a coalition govt would have run surpluses, ie contracting the economy, and we would be just as well off today is laughable.

Scott - The numbers might be hypothetical but the logic is clearly faulty - contracting the economy during the GFC would have had negative consequences - Pyne is trying to say we would of had exactly the same growth, unemployement levels etc under a lib govt but govt sector contribution to growth would of been significantly less, that doesn’t add up.

In recent times, one of the main weapons used by the conservative side of politics when discrediting or demonising a government program that they disagree with is to call it “socialist” (see Obamacare – USA and Rudd’s mining tax – Aust) to the point where the term has now become derogatory reference in modern day political commentary. As you are on the crikey site rather than spending all your time nodding sagely at Piers and Bolt, one would assume that you have an IQ greater than those of the Western Sydney persuasion, so I suspect that it was no accident that your description of the NDIS as a “great socialist programme” was not meant to be an unreserved endorsement of your support.

For the record, I am not a paid up member of the ALP nor the LNP. If the truth be known I am in the vein of the MTP – Malcolm Turnbull Party: true liberals who believe in a free market but still think the market can have a social conscience. If you want to argue about funding of the NDIS then that’s fine, however be clear about your views, don’t use belittling and divisive language when describing a concept that you support. The NDIS “programme” can exist under many different funding models so the debate surrounding each are totally different.

So if you want to know where to begin, you could try by ensuring that you use suitable contemporary adjectives in your posts and that you have a better grasp on the effects that this might have in the conveying of an argument.