"Labor isn't a big economic risk" (1 Viewer)

[Ribbon]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/26/1096137098498.html?from=storylhs

 

[Ziff]

http://www.smh.com.au/articles/2004/09/26/1096137098498.html?from=storylhs

Many economists and banks have been saying this and have proved it several times over. It's just the Liberal party propaganda campaign that's keeping it. But if we want to look at the past then maybe someone's going to reintroduce the White Australia Policy whilst they're at it - because historically...

 

[mervvyn]

Two points to note. First, no one in the media or elsewhere has bothered to bring clearly to your notice this news that fits so ill with our prejudices about who are the good economic managers and who aren't.

Rather, everyone's kept a straight face while Peter Costello's tried without ceasing (and so far without success) to find the Black Hole in Labor's costings. It's occurred to no one to point to his double standard: his side doesn't really have savings measures to be costed.

Second, when you look at these figures you realise that, in terms of minimising the call on future surpluses, Labor has defied our ingrained expectations by being more fiscally responsible than the Libs.

It follows from all this that, because the public and the economic elite are so convinced of his economic rectitude, Mr Howard always gets the benefit of the doubt and doesn't have to live up to his reputation. He can be as politically expedient as he chooses.

The other side of the coin is that Labor is always treated with suspicion and never gets the benefit of any doubt. (See, for instance, the commentariat's wild overreaction to Labor's industrial relations policy.)

So Labor always has something to prove. It's always got the public, business, the markets and the media commentators on its case. It must always be on its best behaviour.

See the point? Our beliefs about who's good on the economy and who isn't are so deeply held that, in practice, they're almost self-defeating. The Libs don't bother trying, whereas Labor lives in fear of being judged irresponsible.

That's why, contrary to all his emotional button-pushing, electing another Labor government would not involve any greater risk to the economy than re-electing the hugely complacent John Howard.

I thought the end of the article was worth highlighting, it's definitely an interesting one. Most of it seems pretty sound in terms of facts and analysis.

 

[ohne]

*cough* labor's industrial relations policy *cough*

 

[Ziff]

You know, as soon as a Liberal party stooge read it they'll just yell bias

 

[mervvyn]

I think one just did...

 

[ohne]

You know, as soon as a Liberal party stooge read it they'll just yell bias

what makes you think I'm a liberal supporter?

perhaps I just hate Latham and the ALP?

Vote 1 Sam Bargshoon in Werriwa!

 

[mervvyn]

it was just a joke...
but the article is as much about biases against Labor's economic management as it is about biases in favour of Liberal economic management

 

[loquasagacious]

Yeah it must really suck being a 5 year old and not having the god given right to work in a dangerous coal mine and be paid pittance. Interferring unions can only make things worse, who knows maybe workers might be given bargaining power.. Shock! Liberals in the room have a heart attack.... fortunately their expensive private health cover well covers them against heart attacks induced by suggestions of 'fairness'.

Ok maybe that rant was a little harsh.

I do primarily economics and histories at school and will be doing economics and politics at uni... Ross Gittins is spot on.

If you want a quick laugh, heres some things to consider:

When he won power Howard commented on the good shape that Keating had left the economy in.

Peter Costello had NO experience in financial management before becoming treasurer.

Howards performance as Treasurer was nothing short of abysmal, Hawke/Keating were a vast improvment.

Australias current financial position after years of 'sound economic policies' of the liberals is shaky to say the least.

And finally, Howard is trying to sell himself as a friend of Medicare........ ROFL LMAO

 

[ohne]

So what...it ensures standards of living to a number of blue collar families around Australia...

The liberal party idea that unions are evil..that striking costs millions a year... an d unions are bad is just pure crap

1. strikes are presently at their lowest level since records began thanks to the ALP being out of power.

2. because industrial relations are not being completely run by the unions, we have seen real wage growth of 14% over the past 8.5 years compared to a dismal 2% wage growth under 13 years of the ALP

why the ALP wants to return to this situation exept for reasons of union cronyism, i have no idea

 

[ohne]

And finally, Howard is trying to sell himself as a friend of Medicare........ ROFL LMAO

It appears no one else is laughing as the only party commiting to take something away from medicare is indeed the ALP......ROFL LMAO

 

[everpopularmark]

*cough* labor's industrial relations policy *cough*

As opposed to "labour market reform" under the Howard government.
I.e. Reduce power of unions and introduce AWAs in order to reduce worker bargaining power and help employees increase profits. N.B. This is to be disguised under the banner of "increasing workplace flexibility"

Oh and the aim of this "labour market reform" is to increase productivity. Oh what does that mean? Have people working 20 hours a week of unpaid overtime and thus increase profits for entrepreneurs while robbing staff of leisure time.

Honestly, Campbelltown is a working class area, I thought you'd know better about industrial relations. Oh well I guess your one of Howard's "aspirational voters".

 

[Ziff]

1. strikes are presently at their lowest level since records began thanks to the ALP being out of power.

2. because industrial relations are not being completely run by the unions, we have seen real wage growth of 14% over the past 8.5 years compared to a dismal 2% wage growth under 13 years of the ALP

why the ALP wants to return to this situation exept for reasons of union cronyism, i have no idea

Maybe you're just not looking in the right places or don't realise the gravity of some of the strikes going on at the moment.

The two biggest ones are:
1. Stiking in the Pilbera (WA Mining Districts)
2. Teachers

In WA they have huge problems with unionists striking, they stuck all the miners onto AWAs but the construction workers are still in unions. The major problem there is the construction workers are striking about the appalling conditions. Just because Howard has made it harder to be part of a union by sticking everyone on AWAs doesn't mean there isn't any discontent. If I had the AFR article (and if AFR didn't make you pay for their online articles!) I'd show you. The main reason no major outlets have reported it is because 1. This undermines Howard's assertion that he's a good economic manager and 2. Labor doesn't want any connection between it and the unions. It's a potentially ruineous strike because there are huge investments with China at stake with it.

2. Most people know about the striking Teachers.

The point is that even though union clout has been reduced, it doesn't mean that the problems they should be campaigning against aren't still there. The problems are still there, it's just that the workers can't organise and have no want to organise because they're locked into AWAs.

---
Taking away from Medicare? Labor want to keep medicare functioning as healthily as it always had. Latham does make a strong point about the SafetyNet being bullocks - it is. You don't need all of these extra things if Medicare is working properly, which is hasn't been under Howard.

I think it's possible that both parties probably have similar goals, they've just got different ideas about how to get there.

 

[ohne]

Honestly, Campbelltown is a working class area, I thought you'd know better about industrial relations. Oh well I guess your one of Howard's "aspirational voters".

Funny you should say that because the last time the ALP was in power, unemployment was twice as high as it is now. The ALP IR policy will return us to those days.

If you came out here you would realise how devastating the ALPs policies are on the people of Western Sydney. From Paul Keating's 18.5% interest rates, to the apathy of the Carr government through cityrail/Campbelltown and Camden Hospitals/Orange Grove to Latham's incompetant management of Liverpool council.

 

[ohne]

1. You know mr Western suburbs...maybe one day you will move up the north shore to liberal party heartland and see the kind of people that the ALP is up against...

2. AS for Keating economic policy you can put that all to the prevaling economic climate...and economic thought at the time...

3. You really hate unions...What do your parents do for a living?

I do not hate unions. I have made it clear in previous posts that I support their existence. What I do hate is forcing people to join unions and collectively bargain. If people wish to bargain collectively, that's fine, they can do that. If, however, a person wants to negotiate their own wages and conditions they should also be allowed to do that themself.

The problem with forcing everyone to bargain collectively is that it does not promote productivity and reward for hard work. A person who works extremely hard will get the same wage rise as someone who does the exact opposite. We should not be giving people a disincentive to work hard.

The high interest rates under the Hawke and Keating governments were essentially a result of bad industrial relations policy.

A am not about to divulge details about my parents occupations, but I concede that if it is true your dad is an electrician and your mum is a cleaner, I may come from a more priveleged background than yourself. Quite ironic given that we both live in completely different locations in Sydney. I conceed that my parents could probably afford a fee-paying uni degree like yourself after making some sacrifice. Given that I have now been given the opportunity of a univeristy education I may well live on the north shore one day, until then, however, I will only be able to observe the clear examples of the ALP letting down Western Sydney.

 

[nesstar]

As an economics student, Ross Gittins is my fave writer...but the one thing I can't stand is the way he leans towards the labor party...i realise that he's writing an opinion, but he always leans towards labour and it appears noone in the herald makes ne attempt at balance...as a young person attempting to make a decision here, i think there are more helpful things that could be said...

i laughed at this article because it reminds me of my dad, who consistantly reminds me that the labor party has always cost him a lot of money...

i see the stereotyping, but in some ways im inclined to agree with it...labor party governments have a tendency to spend a lot of money and i wonder where they think its going to come from...

i really don't think the party will make that much diffrence this term in regards to economic conditions...

the arguments about interest rates really annoy me...keep the budget in surplus and leave the rest to the RBA damnit!

 

[spell check]

incompetant

did you mean "incompetent"?

 

[spell check]

consistantly

did you mean "consistently"?

 

[nesstar]

sorry to offend spell check...
but i figure small spelling errors are acceptable, considering the nature of most msg boards and chats on the net.......