Non Footy Chat Thread II

[Bandwagon]

Phil Coorey in The Financial Review reported that the current Government has changed the calculations for the reporting of the Budget, and had the previous Government used the same calculations, they would have had two Budget surpluses in the two previous years prior to COVID.

That is not correct.

The future fund earnings and how they were treated for the purposes of the budget were legislated at the time of the creation of the future fund, those rules have not changed, and the introduction of future fund earnings into the budget from 2020/21 was legislated by the then coalition government.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Well yeah, and I've shown you long term consecutive deficits, and that it's been sustainable.

Medium term, and those deficits were small. Probably why the calculation methodology was changed to better reflect sustainability.

 

[Bandwagon]

Medium term, and those deficits were small. Probably why the calculation methodology was changed to better reflect sustainability.

From the late 1940's through to the mid 1990's is medium term?

 

[Chipmunk]

I'd like that fact checked bc Phil Coorey gives free hand jobs to libs in his free time.

The headline says "rule change" but the body of his work says ...

Rule change helps deliver first surplus in 15 years

A methodology change has enabled Labor to forecast a slender surplus for 2022-23, the first in 15 years. If the same rule has been in force a few years ago, Josh Frydenberg could have claimed bragging rights, too.

www.afr.com

That is not correct.

The future fund earnings and how they were treated for the purposes of the budget were legislated at the time of the creation of the future fund, those rules have not changed, and the introduction of future fund earnings into the budget from 2020/21 was legislated by the then coalition government.

I think that is what Coorey is getting at, the calculations have changed in relation to the Future Fund earnings, that if were in place prior would have lead to surpluses previously.

 

[Bandwagon]

It's also worth noting that the 20/21, and 21/22 budgets did include future fund earnings

 

[Chipmunk]

It's also worth noting that the 20/21, and 21/22 budgets did include future fund earnings

Yes, but no one was going to be running a surplus under any circumstances in those years were they.

 

[the phantom menace]

The AFR being biased toward the LNP.. imagine my surprise!

 

[Bandwagon]

Yes, but no one was going to be running a surplus under any circumstances in those years were they.

No, they weren't, however the deficit is also lower than that which would otherwise have been the case.

So swings and roundabouts.

Anyways, it's a nothing story, just more political cope from a member of the rusted on cheer squad

 

[Gronk]

The AFR being biased toward the LNP.. imagine my surprise!

Now just wait one minute - you can't say things like that !

I'm going to check my notes to see who the chairman of Nine (publisher of AFR) is.



Now I'm going to check to see who the chair of the Future Fund is.



OK as you were.

 

[Incorrect]

It's clear to me that the Coalition's treasurer in 21 and 22 was using a calculator with no '7' button... Figures need to be taken with a grain of salt....

 

[Poupou Escobar]

From the late 1940's through to the mid 1990's is medium term?

The world changed in the late 80s. You know this. Since then we have run some significant surpluses. It hasn’t been an uninterrupted string of dole bludgers and deficits.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

The AFR being biased toward the LNP.. imagine my surprise!

No different to left wing media being biased toward their preferred political parties. Yin and yang.

 

[the phantom menace]

Due to corporate self interest, there's really no "left wing" media - unless you count the Green Left Weekly

 

[Bandwagon]

The world changed in the late 80s. You know this. Since then we have run some significant surpluses. It hasn’t been an uninterrupted string of dole bludgers and deficits.

Economically the biggest changes were in the seventies, oil shock, stagflation, and the dropping of the gold standard, but still we ran deficits.

Obviously yeah the eighties saw a lot of reform, I think it's through the eighties that the economy came more to the forefront as a political issue.

But again we ran deficits, and come the late 90's early 2000's it took f**k all to eliminate what was left of nearly 100 years of accumulated deficits, with surpluses that were basically just a few points of GDP.

I'm sure you don't need a history lesson, but what I see here is you just clutching at straws to try and find an argument that suits a position you refuse to consider is flawed.

GDP:debt = some form of trickery, Things changed in the eighties, yadda yadda yadda, and around we go.

All I'm saying here is that the whole idea of deficit = bad is nothing more than a political idea, it's not even remotely controversial, and hardly earth shattering or revolutionary.

 

[Poupou Escobar]

Due to corporate self interest, there's really no "left wing" media - unless you count the Green Left Weekly

The left these days is about globalisation and big government. There’s plenty of media orgs (mostly American) catering to the world’s cultural elite (and wannabes).

 

[the phantom menace]

Yeah, sure thing...

 

[Poupou Escobar]

(and wannabes).

 

[Poupou Escobar]

All I'm saying here is that the whole idea of deficit = bad is nothing more than a political idea, it's not even remotely controversial, and hardly earth shattering or revolutionary.

If deficits weren't bad there would be no need to limit them. And if deficit-within-limits is sustainable then the calculations are wrong, which is:

Probably why the calculation methodology was changed to better reflect sustainability.

 

[Bandwagon]

If deficits weren't bad there would be no need to limit them.

Very poor logic, you could say the same about so many things, like say prescription drugs, or welfare payments, or players training between NRL games, the list goes on.

 

[Avenger]

Where is @Gary Gutful lately?

Gaz, are you ok?