Discussion in 'Four Corners' started by whall15, Sep 14, 2015.
This threads gone quiet, nobody posting polls any more ?
We hit the magic number, and like magic, nothing happenned
30 polls... debt and deficit... pfft... yesterdays news....
Its the output that is different not the input. That makes quantifying it using algebra a little more difficult than just saying 2x. 2x actually implies that x in this case is half the size of the original x.
If you want to test it yourself (the answer should be x=10 and x=5)
Surely is correct that its all x percent of gdp. X has just gotten bigger under the coalition
Unless of course for the purposes of the equation x has been assigned a value, in which case, double that value = 2x
If x is just a random percentage then yes, x is whatever random percentage you would choose, however given the entire x% of gdp argument was based upon an actual percentage, which gave an ability to measure debt against that of other economies, it was never a random percentage, and did indeed have an assigned value.
X% = x%
Y may = X x 2
Then that would be y% of gdp
which could be x%, or indeed some other
However when x was assigned a value, it became a constant, and therefore could not be y, if Y =2x
Unless of course x = 0
Y=2x is a line with a slope of 2 going through the origin
So if we pretended for one moment that labor debt is the independent value (which it isnt) and the coalition debt is the dependent value (again not true) then we could model a system where the equation works
So on the x axis we would have "labor debt" and on the y axis "coalition debt" and graphed the function y=2x then it would be a matter of fact that when x=5 y=10
However these values are not dependent on each other in real life.
X was a variable
If I remember correctly it was 10ish.
At one stage it was 6 ish having risen from zero ish
We are however discussing values at points in time
And now it's rather more-ish
Yet magically the debt and deficit disaster has disappeared.
I don't think it has has it ?
The budget deficits have shrunk though, have to start somewhere after Kev blew our solid position.
Your boys took the f**king ball and ran with it though Doubling the ALP’s effort in just five short years
The Howard/Costello years were characterised by good economic times, with an extended period of strong revenue growth, yet this prosperity wasn’t matched with any significant spending growth. In fact, overall government spending fell as a share of GDP – from 25.7% in 2000 to 23.6% in 2006-07 – the lowest share since the start of the millennium. And the combination of strong revenue and limited spending commitments under Howard drove down public debt, and public debt interest payments.
We saw some pretty dramatic increases in real spending when Rudd came into power in December 2007. Rudd’s first budget in 2008-09 saw some substantial spending commitments in the area of education but nothing exorbitant.
However, the major turning point in government spending has been driven by the response to the global financial crisis. There were significant spending commitments over the course of the crisis, some of which are still present.
Spending on public debt interest has increased to A$15.4 billion since the global financial crisis - more than the spending on transport and housing combined. And it’s projected to increase further to A$18.7 billion by 2019-20. This just emphasises how high the stakes are for Scott Morrison in delivering a credible budget repair strategy.
The spending of incumbent governments inevitably draw from the commitments of previous administrations, especially for those programs – in infrastructure, education or housing - that involve medium-term funding commitments.
The growth in real spending in areas that directly affect households – social security, NDIS, health or pensions - is an issue that no government can ignore. NDIS costs have been hugely underestimated already, and social security and health spending will inevitably increase with the ageing population.
Set against this context, it’s clear that a piecemeal approach to budget repair is unsustainable. A drop in revenue has ramped up budget pressures, and highlights the compelling need to return to a sustainable spending path and a credible budget repair strategy.
The Turnbull government cannot shy away from making the big decisions that secure a sustainable future for Australia. And the roadmap towards a sustainable future has to include revenue as well as spending as part of the recovery narrative.
That's the end of the article , you should read the rest to see why we are where were today.
Whilst that's all rather interesting Sures, it aint exactly a definitive piece on the budget position, as it all but ignores the revenue side of the equation.
Further, all it really does is itemise spending, that's hardly an explanation of anything other than here's what the government has spent money on.
It shows when where and how expenditures have risen
So anyways, here's a graph that compares our budget position as a percentage of GDP with that of the US, the numbers on the left are for Australia, and those on the right for the US.
I post it because it displays pretty clearly the correlation between our budget position, and what's going on in the world's largest economy, and it demonstrates that there is very much a level of dependence upon what's happening globally, to that which happens locally.
Yes, it does, and that is all it shows. Now, if you are ideologically obsessed with the idea that "spending" is the be all and end all of a budget, then you might believe that tell's the whole story.
Forgive me if I find that to be a tad dumb.
Separate names with a comma.