In such an imaginary world, it wouldn't matter if the budget's return to surplus was a year or two earlier or later than the year first projected. In such a world, the punters wouldn't imagine a surplus of $1.5 billion was a totally different animal to a deficit of $1.5 billion, instead of the same thing: a near-as-dammit balanced budget.
In such a world, voters would not set the bar higher for Labor treasurers than Liberal treasurers.
In such a world, voters would laugh to scorn the efforts
of such reliable witnesses as Tony Abbott, Joe Hockey, Andrew Robb and Barnaby Joyce to convince them all budget deficits are bad and Australia's public debt is mountainous.
But the business economists so freely accusing the government of being ''purely political'' are guilty of more than naivety. Their political double standard is showing.
Where were they with their accusations of politicians being ''purely political'' when, almost from the first fiscal stimulus package, the Liberals began trying to inculcate their pre-Keynesian nonsense in the minds of an economically illiterate electorate?
I don't remember hearing from them. In fact, with the honourable exception of Saul Eslake, I can't remember ever hearing a business economist dare to criticise a Liberal government or opposition.
Under Abbott the Libs are at their most populist, protectionist and anti-rationalist in decades. They've been working overtime to exploit and frustrate any attempt by Labor to implement unpopular reforms. The notion of Abbott in government is frightening.
But do we hear a breath of criticism from the business lobbies or the business economists? Gosh no. The Libs might take offence.
But take a shot at a Labor government, especially one that's out of favour with big business and looks on the ropes? Sure, why not. How could the boss object to that?
Read more:
http://www.smh.com.au/business/econ...ver-surplus-20111204-1odh0.html#ixzz1feAaILVu
