If this guy is putting on an act he is a brilliant comedian.
If he is serious it would explain the current rise in popularity (from a very low base) for Tony Abbott.
Enjoy!
At times like this we all need a laugh. The video below is the funniest thing I've seen since the Jaymes Diaz interview. If this guy is putting on an act he is a brilliant comedian. If he is serious it would explain the current rise in popularity (from a very low base) for Tony Abbott. Enjoy!
0 Comments
While innumerates like Abbott and Hockey continue to bleat that we are in a budget crisis due to reckless spending, experts in the field are saying quite different things. In contrast to Abbott and Hockey who have recently said they will return to surplus in a Decade (that's an emergency measure according to 'Tin Pot' Tony), the World's economists have been saying that Australia's GFC period spending was on the money. Source: OECD research paper An excellent article by, Alan Austin appeared recently on the Independent Australia website. A summary of Alan's argument is provided below. It’s quite compelling. Alan reports that MOST ECONOMISTS worldwide believe Australia has the world’s best-managed economy. This is not a fact the Coalition debates. Their argument instead hinges on why our economy is in such good shape. The reasons that snake oil salesmen like Hockey and Abbott put forward include:
1. Howard’s surplus Denmark, Spain, Finland, Iceland and Chile all had strong surpluses in 2008, yet suffered severe reversals. In contrast, India, Israel, Poland and the Slovak Republic all had deficits, yet emerged pretty well. Neither debt nor deficit were primary factors, and it seems likely they were not significant factors either. 2. Mining? Brazil has strong iron ore exports but went into recession, along with other ore exporters and has barely recovered since. Russia, the USA and South Africa are big gold exporters, as is Australia. Of these, only one escaped recession. 3. Trade with China? The Euro Area, New Zealand, Russia and Japan all have substantial exports to China but none was spared the ravages of the GFC. It wasn’t even specific to Iron ore to China - Brazil, South Africa, Ukraine and Canada were in the same league, but suffered a great deal more than Australia. 4. Strong commodity prices? Few prices remained high through the critical period. Iron ore prices surged in 2008, but other prices collapsed. Aluminium – in Australia’s top four mineral exports – boomed in 2005 then plummeted in 2008. The price of crude petroleum – Australia’s second top energy export – rose steadily from 2004 then collapsed in 2008. Exporters, other than Australia, all enjoyed the same profit windfalls, but went backwards through the GFC. What about our strong banks? While strong banks are a good thing, the strength of our system is comparable to: Canada, Japan, Luxembourg, New Zealand and Norway who all experienced four, five or six quarters of negative GDP growth. It is clear that everything the Coalition cites has had no discernable effect on how well we made it through the GFC, but is there any evidence of what did make a difference? The evidence from an OECD research paper suggests that the 2009/10 stimulus packages were critical. Australia did two things differently to the rest of the world. Firstly, Australia moved swiftly with sizeable cash handouts to families. According to the OECD, in the early months of the GFC the Rudd Government gave 3.3% of its GDP to households. Next highest was the USA, which allocated just 2.4%. Not enough, it seems. The other 34 member nations of the OECD – the grouping of developed, free enterprise democracies – averaged just 0.7%. This was followed by even greater amounts spent on infrastructure. No other nation effected this twin strategy – handouts to households first, then building assets – to anywhere near the same extent. Most governments cut taxes to stimulate their economies. Only Japan, France, Denmark and Mexico joined Australia in giving more money out rather than taking less in. Economists call this spending versus revenue. Of those five, Australia spent by far the most and did so fastest. Figure 3.3 (above) shows the increase in investment spending as a percentage of GDP. Clearly, Australia’s was greatest. Poland was second — although its percentage was only half Australia’s. Of all 34 OECD countries, only two experienced just one quarter of negative growth in 2008, thus averting a technical recession — Australia and Poland. Authorities advancing this analysis include Joseph Stiglitz of Columbia University, UNICEF consultant Bruno Martorano, UBS chief economist Scott Haslem, World Bank managing director Juan Jose Daboub, Queensland University’s John Quiggin, Sydney University’s Rodney Tiffin, the Australian Trade Commission’s Tim Harcourt and most of Australia’s government, business and union peak bodies. Plus economics journalists outside Australia. Nobel Prize winning economist Professor Joseph Stiglitz The consensus outside Australia is compelling. As Prof Stiglitz wrote: ‘Kevin Rudd … realized that it was important to act early, with money that would be spent quickly, but that there was a risk that the crisis would not be over soon. So the first part of the stimulus was cash grants, followed by investments, which would take longer to put into place. Rudd’s stimulus worked: Australia had the shortest and shallowest of recessions of the advanced industrial countries.’ Why does this matter? Two reasons. First, Australians are entitled to base their vote on valid analysis rather than the falsehoods rife in the mainstream media. Second, according to the OECD, another severe downturn is likely. Will Australians stick with the managers who took Australia from 12th-ranked to top of the world during the last downturn? Or switch to the Coalition, whose proposed policies saw the nations which implemented them fare poorly? Despite what Old Rupert is telling us... the choice is ours. What was once the Coalition's worst policy (Fraudband), has been trumped by Abbott's signature policy, his Gold plated paid parental leave scheme. While Abbott claims the policy shows that he 'gets women' it instead shows that he 'doesn't get economics'. As the days go by, we see how Abbott’s ‘Great Big New Bribe’ is widely unpopular, wildly inequitable, support child birth but not children and families, is unfunded, and of less economic benefit than has been purported. Greg Jericho points out that extending the scheme from 18 to 26 weeks makes it much more costly, with greater benefits flowing to higher paid workers. It is public money that hardly needs to be spent on higher paid workers as they are more likely to have a maternity leave scheme that is funded by their employer. On the question of workforce participation, the rationale underpinning the scheme, higher income workers already have a high level of attachment to work, meaning the extra spend will make little or no difference to participation levels. And in relation to funding… the 1.5% levy on profits will lead to increasing shortfalls in funding as currently company tax receipts are falling. Meaning the policy is currently underfunded. Lenore Taylor points out that raising workforce participation among women is about more than the first 26 weeks. Addressing issues like Childcare and the costs associated with the many years that follow in a child's life are also important. Which is why their plan to remove the school kids bonus non-sensical and counter-productive. As Lenore suggests, unless there are more big spending policies to follow, Abbott's PPL scheme is just an electoral bribe. In contrast Labor has announced that it will be rebating some childcare costs and of course keeping the school kids bonus. And despite insisting that Big business will pay some of the costs, Robert Gottliebsen points out that those really paying will be all Australians who own shares or managed funds, as this will reduce the size of dividends that companies will be paying. This will have a disproportionate effect on older Australians and self-funded retirees who will have more of their money in this area, and will be relying more heavily on the the income it generates. The scheme has an interesting list of those who support it and those who don't. WA Premier Colin Barnett DOESN'T. But Campbell Newman DOES. It's difficult to say that Newman isn't playing politics when his support is based on 'promises' from Abbott that it won't cost Queensland much. Support he is unwilling to give to Gonski and NDIS proposals because it is unaffordable. It is also interesting to note that the Coalition's maths on this scheme has already been shown to be faulty. Modelling by the National Centre for Social and Economic Modelling (NATSEM) shows that the economic benefit Abbott claims is double the likely benefit. The Coalition hasn't funded their inequitable PPL scheme, it doesn't have the economic benefits they claim, it won't have the positive social effects they claim, and it doesn't have the support of those within the Party, or among the broader Australian community. If their policy and economic ineptitude wasn't so alarming, you could call it a joke. The last thing Australia needs in these challenging economic times is a bad dose of Hockeynomics! by Mark Enders Watching some of the events of the past week of the campaign.. from 'Sex Appeal', to 'Fashion of the Moment', to yet another LNP candidate not knowing the policy platform he is running on, to the disintegration of the Gold Plated PPL scheme, to Hockey's dodgy numbers, to Morrison's 'mine's nastier than yours' Asylum seeker policy... there has been much to lament. Thank goodness for our political cartoonists, and especially for Alan Moir, David Rowe and Matt Bissett-Johnson... who manage to keep us smiling through all this. The video below says it all.... it's brilliant! After last night's Leader's debate, the consensus seems to be that most people won't be lining up for episode 2 and 3. Cartoon by David Rowe (Click to enlarge) The problem with the Debate seems to be how controlled it is, how sterile it is, how artificial it is, and how little is actually said. This is highlighted by the cries of the LNP 'intelligensia' that Rudd cheated by referring to notes... as if quoting a few facts has no place in a debate. Most commentators seem to believe that the debate didn't shift one vote, and I'd tend to agree. If you're at all interested in the commentary around performance, and 'who won'.. the best and broadest range of opinions that I came across was at The Conversation... you can access that here. I didn't go searching for video of what the worm was up to last night, but I'm sure it will start to appear on YouTube in the near future (if it isn't already there). I look forward to the day when no one talks about the worm as there is too much contrasting policy detail to discuss, but that may be some way off. Cartoon by David Rowe (Click to enlarge) My assessment of the proceedings were as follows: It was clear to me from Abbott's answers that he is short on policy detail and plans to maintain the small target approach right up to the last minute. He doesn't have a policy on aged care (he wasn't even sure what the current government policy is), he plans to stick to the slogans and the negativity, and he believes in Joe Hockey's 'magic pudding' economic theories. Rudd in contrast had a great deal of well developed policy detail and was able to speak about it at great length.. but often came up against the bell. Abbott in contrast wasn't troubled by the bell... repeating slogans, talking very slowly, and staring down the camera was only able to fill so much time for him. Rudd was however somewhat wooden, and during the debate his dislike for Abbott seemed almost visible. While some journos liked Abbott's talking down the camera approach, appealing to us, the voting public, directly... it made me laugh out loud. It was ridiculous and entirely confected. If only I was watching the debate for the comic relief. I'd suggest that what the public wants is to see more Q&A style forums. Situations in which the public gets to ask more of the questions which concern them, and circumstances in which politicians can be pushed to answer the questions. Mr Abbott is badly overdue for a Q&A appearance having avoided regular invitations onto the show since 2010. What is clear is that the Leader's debate format (as witnessed last night) is broken, and if they want the voting public to tune in, to listen deeply, and to use the debate as a part of their decision on how to vote... it needs to be changed substantially. If it's going to be more of the same, the voting public are rightly saying 'Don't Bother'. by Mark Enders
Given how many hopeless members of parliament the LNP managed to have elected in Queensland, you'd forgiven for thinking things couldn't be worse. But as bad as it is for the people in many of our state electorates, it could potentially be much worse for the hard working people covered by the seat of Greenway in Western Sydney. The current Coalition candidate is Jaymes Diaz, a man who very nearly took the seat in 2010 and someone who is no novice to campaigning. And given the experience of a previous campaign, it makes you wonder why he comes across as an inept novice. His recent efforts under what could only be called some very basic questioning are intriguing. To see the interview yourself, click on the video below. It left me feeling like I'd just watched an episode of the British TV show... 'The Office'. I hope all the eligible voters in Greenway are given the opportunity to see this performance, because the Coalition likely won't trot him out again before the election. Look what at what a great job they done of hiding Tony Abbott for 3 years. I don't believe Jaymes is the worst candidate out there. I just hope all the other candidates get sufficient exposure so voters can decide for themselves who will be a capable representative for them and their issues.. by Mark Enders
The train wreck that is the 'Shambles' Newman led LNP state government just keeps throwing up scandal after scandal. And just when you think there can be no greater depth to which their incompetence and dishonesty can descend, another scandal hits the headlines. Just two months back there were the revelations provided courtesy of the Courier Mail and Bruce Flegg's secret recordings. The LNP were prepared to offer any inducement to get Campbell Newman into a safe seat. If not for Dr Flegg's somewhat misguided belief he was ministerial and possibly premier material, Flegg would be in a plush trade post and Newman would be the member for Moggill. There has also been former Minister Ros Bates' false claim she was a Registered Nurse. This follows her resignation as Arts Minister as a result of scandals which included the hiring of: her son to a highly paid position, Communities Minister Tracy Davis' daughter Alexandra Davis, among others. All three no longer work for the Government since being subjected to public scrutiny. Today, we have the chair of the Queensland government ethics committee being accused of acting in a manner which is inappropriate and unethical for a person in such a position. As reported by the ABC, Peter Dowling is accused of 'Sexting' and claiming travel allowances in order to rendezvous with his mistress. The pattern of the Newman government's response to these scandals seems to be strong denial, followed by quiet resignations, in an effort to put these issues to bed. Time will tell how this latest scandal will play out. But it seems that the current strategy is not enough. Perhaps because the scandals are too large and all too frequent. It is believed they are now planning to go one step further There are reported plans by the Attorney-General Jarrod Bleije to introduce legislated changes to the Right to Information Act (2009) which will restrict access to information about government appointments. Following the scandals which followed the appointment of Michael Caltibiano, and the family, friends and associates of Ros Bates, this seems like LNP damage control rather than an effort to better serve Queenslanders. I guess one way to stop a scandal rid government from spending every second day on the front page (for all the wrong reasons), is to limit access to information about nepotism, to reduce accountability, and diminish the average Queenslander's right to know what is happening in government. The current government has been accused of bearing a striking resemblance to the Bjelke-Petersen regime, and day by day the resemblance seems to be growing. by Mark Enders
I welcome the rise in the tax on cigarettes, it is an unambiguously good move. There is no doubt that every cigarette smoked does harm to someone, and in turn costs the health service a great deal, as well as delivering a significant and measurable hit to productivity and profitability for companies and for the economy as a whole. Smokers on average do have more health issues and more sick days, and are distracted about every 2 hours by their need to feed their addiction. An excellent article on the benefits of the recently announced tax rise was published recently in The Conversation. The article by Becky Freeman has been reproduced below with their consent. The Rudd government’s forthcoming tobacco tax increase is the single most effective way to cut smoking and reduce the thousands of premature deaths that smoking causes each year. It’s a gold star public health policy that is employed universally in nations that have successfully reduced smoking rates. The body of evidence that price increases reduce smoking quickly and effectively is bulletproof. In short, tax increases induce smokers to quit, reduce the initiation and uptake of tobacco use among young people, and lower the consumption of tobacco products among continuing users. For every 10% increase in price, consumption of tobacco reduces by about 4%. Half of this decrease is due to adults quitting smoking and young people not taking up smoking. The other half is due to people who continue to smoke, smoking fewer cigarettes. The planned series of four 12.5% tax increases should lead to about 210,000 fewer Australian adults and 40,000 fewer teenagers smoking. That means around 2.5 billion fewer cigarettes will be smoked each year. By the end of 2014, a typical pack of 25 cigarettes will likely cost upwards of A$20. Myths and facts As with any tobacco control reform, the tobacco industry and its allies will immediately respond with a series of predictable myths to instill doubt about the policy intent and effectiveness. Myth: Australian tobacco taxes are already too high Just last week, the World Health Organization (WHO) released a report recognising Australia as a world leader in tobacco control, rated among the top 20 nations for its work in mass media education, smoke-free policies, health warnings and support for smokers. But Australia is lagging behind international best practice on tax policy, with total tobacco taxes making up less than 60% of the final price. The WHO benchmark is set at tax comprising a minimum of 70% of the total price. The announced tax increases mean that Australia will be catching up to New Zealand. Tax increases reduce the likelihood of young people taking up smoking and continuing to smoke. Myth: This is just a government grab for revenue Over the past 13 years, there have been just two real increases in tobacco excise duty. In comparison, during the 1990s, there were ten large real increases in price; these tax increases were the most important factor driving reductions in smoking over the 1990s. Governments failing to raise tobacco taxes means that smoking rates fall at a much slower rate. Myth: Tobacco tax increases hurt the poor Tobacco tax increases are one of the few policy measures that reduce smoking more in low- than high-income groups. Smokers who are unable to quit following an increase in taxes can also avoid paying the extra cost by smoking fewer cigarettes per day. In Australia, there are now far more ex-smokers than current smokers, proving that quitting is an achievable and common accomplishment. The vast majority of smokers want to quit, and tobacco taxes are an additional incentive that help smokers quit their addiction for good. Besides spreading these myths, tobacco industry apologists are already crying “nanny state” at the announced tax increases; suggesting that voters are somehow tired of governments taking effective action to improve the nation’s health. In reality, the public is highly supportive of tobacco tax increases, particularly if they know the measures are coupled with increased health education and quit-smoking support. What works in tobacco control? Tobacco taxes combined with high profile, hard-hitting mass media education campaigns, like the one below, have been shown to be critical in reducing smoking rates. Everybody knows smoking kills Additionally, tobacco advertising bans, smoke-free public spaces, graphic health warnings on packages, and quit-smoking support programs are all part of a comprehensive package of initiatives that countries should adopt to reduce the harms caused by tobacco use. There are also strategies that we know have no impact on smoking rates, or worse – actually increase smoking-related harms. Allowing the tobacco industry to run youth smoking prevention education campaigns has been found to leave young people with a lower perception of harm from smoking, stronger approval of smoking and intentions to smoke in the future and a greater likelihood of having smoked in the past 30 days. Equally, tobacco industry developed voluntary self-regulatory codes have proven to serve only to delay the adoption of effective government legislation. What’s next for tobacco control? Australia is clearly a world leader in tobacco control. Being the first country in the world to implement plain packaging is testament to the government’s commitment to ending the 15,000 deaths per year due to tobacco use. But in order to continue to pave the way in global tobacco control, Australia will need to continue to be innovative. Allowing the tobacco industry to run youth smoking prevention education campaigns leaves young people with a lowered perception of tobacco-related harm. Image from Shutterstock.com Changing the tobacco retail environment is a largely untapped source for further reforms. Cigarettes are sold on virtually every street corner in Australia with limited restrictions on where and when it can be sold, who can sell it, how much they can sell, and who they can sell it to. While some Australian states require retailers to have a license, they are easy and inexpensive to acquire and never revoked. Emerging evidence suggests that reducing the density of tobacco retail outlets may be an important tobacco control policy. And while it can be easily dismissed as “radical”, perhaps in the not-so-distant future, smokers themselves will need to obtain a license in order to purchase tobacco. Acknowledgments: A huge thank you to Michelle Scollo for her invaluable assistance in preparing this article. One of the more common arguments I hear against raising the tax on cigarettes is that alcohol also causes harm, or that obesity (and diabetes) does the same and we should tax sugar or fast food and to be consistent the government should be raising tax on it to... anything else is just a cash grab.. They're both flawed arguments. While I acknowledge that alcohol wreaks as much (if not more) damage, the fact remains that one drink does not do any measurable harm, and programs for responsible drinking and responsible service of alcohol are likely as effective as tax increases. Diabetes is a significant problem... but we all have to eat.. three (or preferably 5) times a day. Added salt and sugar, reduced activity levels, the pace at which we eat, and poorly controlled portion sizes are the main reasons for the obesity epidemic. The solutions are bigger than tax, they are about making suburbs more walkable or bikeable, they are about bigger and better food labelling, they are about ongoing public education campaigns. We should get serious about health issues, but we should stick with strategies which are evidence based (like plain paper packaging), rather than use the tax everything argument to push for a tax nothing outcome. by Mark Enders
|
Blog InformationEmail: [email protected]
Other BlogsAustralian Labor Party
Queensland Labor Townsville Blog Antony Green's blog Café Whispers Feeding the Chooks firstblogonthemoon Official LNP NQ blog Only the Depth Varies Pollytics Poll Bludger Readfearn The Failed Estate The Monthly The Stump The Political Sword Media: ABC NQ Magnetic Times Townsville Bulletin Townsville News Online Archives
September 2014
Categories
All
|