Australia stimulus: Wildly successful. Yet another victory for Keynesian economists

Page 5 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
Phokus. Care to show us the actual returns on the different parts of the stimulus?

Oh, wait...

Amused, you've been proven wrong throughout the whole thread and everything and i mean *EVERYTHING* has backfired on you.

You literally look like a baby right now.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Great info on the state of Australia Rocket!

How has prices of food, gas, consumables in general been the last 6 months there?

Inflation is starting to take hold. Nearly at 3%. Interest rates are on the way up.

We reached parity with the US dollar. LOL.
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,230
146
Amused, you've been proven wrong throughout the whole thread and everything and i mean *EVERYTHING* has backfired on you.

You literally look like a baby right now.

You missed my edit, dumbass.

Your Moody predictions are on a long list of Zandi's FLUBS!!!

ROFL!!!
 

Amused

Elite Member
Apr 14, 2001
56,512
16,230
146
That's 'national defense' against terrorism you idiot. They could give a damn about mexicans running across the border.

I would say Mexican gangs running wild are a danger to the population.

And the libertarian party's position makes sense. How many would be here if there wasn't a welfare state? Probably only the ones that really wanted to work and assimilate. Why gee, then we wouldn't HAVE a damn problem, now would we?
 

JS80

Lifer
Oct 24, 2005
26,271
7
81
I would say Mexican gangs running wild are a danger to the population.

And the libertarian party's position makes sense. How many would be here if there wasn't a welfare state? Probably only the ones that really wanted to work and assimilate. Why gee, then we wouldn't HAVE a damn problem, now would we?

Don't extrapolate too far like that, you will make their heads explode. Baby steps.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
You missed my edit, dumbass.

Your Moody predictions are on a long list of Zandi's FLUBS!!!

ROFL!!!

If you're going to disqualify economists for the past few years housing bubble, then you might as well disqualify almost all economists because they were almost all wrong and only a handful saw it coming.

The funny thing is, you're essentially arguing against marginal propensity to save/marginal propensity to consume which is a fairly fundamental idea in economics.

Edit: Forgot to mention, My textbook on economics, which was written by Greg Mankiw mentions that Spending increases have a higher multiplier than tax decreases.
 
Last edited:

Throckmorton

Lifer
Aug 23, 2007
16,829
3
0
The rightwingers have gotten so good at sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "LALALALALALALA" that they're now winning elections with that strategy. Our nation is in serious trouble if this kind of stupidity keeps up.
 

bamacre

Lifer
Jul 1, 2004
21,029
2
61
Another thing RocksteadyDotNet mentioned, Australia had no debt before the downturn. They can afford the stimulus without too many negative consequences. Same with China. And RocksteadyDotNet then mentioned that interest rates are headed back up. Now, if that were the case here, interest rates had to go up to prevent further inflation, what would that do to the interest payments on our debt? They would explode. Too many people here (Phokus) are trying to look at one or two facets of the US and/or Australian economy, and you can't do that, you have to look at the big picture. Keynesian economics works. For a while. But eventually the bubble will not be able to be blown back up. Perhaps this is the case in the USA, but we don't know that yet.
 
Sep 29, 2004
18,656
67
91
The rightwingers have gotten so good at sticking their fingers in their ears and saying "LALALALALALALA" that they're now winning elections with that strategy. Our nation is in serious trouble if this kind of stupidity keeps up.

Sadly, this seems to be true. If rich people can convince poor people that they need tax cuts, they have already won.
 

QuantumPion

Diamond Member
Jun 27, 2005
6,010
1
76
“We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work.”

--Henry Morgenthau, secretary of the Treasury, 1938.
 

werepossum

Elite Member
Jul 10, 2006
29,873
463
126
Wow, wait a minute. You mean that each household got money BACK from the government and spent it? Kinda like a tax rebate??? Or a tax break??? You mean, in a time of crisis, the Australian government CUT TAXES???

You mean the stimulus was really a tax break for individuals???

It wasn't massive spending on "green projects" and unneeded road works and expanding government agencies?

Now correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it a rather Republican ideology to give tax payers a break, and give then rebates on their taxes???

I think this is kinda backfiring on you a bit. Even if you had a disagreement with ProfJohn a year ago, this does NOT bode well for your party's policies.

No, no! Nothing like a tax break! Only if government takes money and then gives it back is it stimulus.

It's the government handling that bestows the magic fairy dust of prosperity.
 

Atreus21

Lifer
Aug 21, 2007
12,001
571
126
I attended my Political Parties class this past Thursday.

I have respect for my teacher, who, despite being a solid democrat, usually manages to keep things on an even-keel. He's also genuinely a smart guy with a PHD. But this was after the elections, and he was angry, just like I was after the 2008 election.

He said that the republicans have to get serious about how to fix an economy. He said that they need to get away from tax-cuts, which he claims show no measurable effect on an economy. He then said that there is no choice but to increase taxes.

I raised my hand and asked, "If tax cuts have no measurable effect on an economy, why should tax increases have any measurable effect on an economy?"

And he diverted.
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
Gee, i wonder why the US need a *MUCH* bigger stimulus per GDP than what Australia offered:


-2.6% (2009 est.)
0% (2008 est.)
1.9% (2007 est.)


vs.


1.3% (2009 est.)
2.3% (2008 est.)
4.8% (2007 est.)


While Australia was hurting, the US was in a MUCH deeper hole.

Also, your chart is for the 2008 stimulus. Australia had a bigger stimulus in 2010. Note: Australia's was mostly spending and they didn't really have 'tax cuts', they had one off rebates, even to those who weren't working.

GOP style tax cuts don't do shit for stimulating an economy:
So your strategy all this time was to look at countries on this list that has negative GDP growth and automatically conclude they need more stimulus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate

Even if you claim that Australia had a bigger stimulus in 2010, I'm sure if you compare 2008-2010 stimulus numbers on a % of GDP basis Australia would still lose in that comparison to many industrialized nations especially the US.

Australia
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0.7% of GDP (2008), 0.8% of GDP (2009)
United States of America
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 1.1% of GDP (2008), 1.9% of GDP (2009)
Canada
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0% of GDP (2008), 1.5% of GDP (2009)
Japan
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0.4% of GDP (2008), 1.4% of GDP (2009)
United Kingdom
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0.2 % of GDP (2008), 1.4% of GDP (2009)
Germany
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0% of GDP (2008), 1.5% of GDP (2009)
France
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0% of GDP (2008), 0.7% of GDP (2009)

In other words, Australia did a "Bush" stimulus.
Glad to see it worked out well for them. Obama should have done the same since you mentioned theirs was "wildly successful" in Australia.
 
Last edited:

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
For one thing, prove to me that the chief economist of moody's is biased.

Second, are you seriously suggesting that a well established economic idea of 'marginal propensity to save' and 'marginal propensity to consume', for which this chart is based off of, is somehow wrong? Interesting, perhaps you could write a paper about how the rich spend and the poor save and see if you don't get ridiculed for being an idiot.
The same company that rated almost everything under the sun AAA+ is now to be believed and trusted when it comes to economic policy?
Prove to me that Moody's is biased in their ratings of security issues?
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
what was Australia's fiscal picture prior to said stimulus?
Excellent before their stimulus, excellent now.

From what I know Australia hasn't experienced a negative GDP growth on a quarterly(and/or annual) basis since the early 90's(I think 1991).
Australia is still considered an "emerging" economy by the IMF, so they're in the same group as Turkey, Brazil, China, India, etc... Even if they did no stimulus, they probably would still have positive growth. China wouldn't need to waste money on stimulus if all they were trying to do was keep a positive GDP growth...Neither did Brazil, Turkey, etc...

Australia was spared from the crisis due to inflated commodity prices.
Remember the commodity bubble in 2008 when gold/oil/iron ore/steel/nickel/zinc and other natural resources were inflated and reached their highs?
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
Maybe you just use different lingo, but the '1k payment to individuals and $500 for familys' and the '21k for first home owners' weren't tax credits.

They're cash payments. You might have paid $100 tax that year but you'd still get the money.

Sorry, the payment only went to people who earn't under 80k.

Its not like a tax rebate because all the poor people wouldnt pay $1000 in tax, so they wouldnt get the payout.

In other words, Australia did a "Bush" stimulus.
We had ours. Every individual who earned under $75k recieved a $250 check from the Government. A check is the same as a cash payment. It wasn't a "tax deduction", "tax credit", or a "tax rebate".
 

lothar

Diamond Member
Jan 5, 2000
6,674
7
76
I attended my Political Parties class this past Thursday.

I have respect for my teacher, who, despite being a solid democrat, usually manages to keep things on an even-keel. He's also genuinely a smart guy with a PHD. But this was after the elections, and he was angry, just like I was after the 2008 election.

He said that the republicans have to get serious about how to fix an economy. He said that they need to get away from tax-cuts, which he claims show no measurable effect on an economy. He then said that there is no choice but to increase taxes.

I raised my hand and asked, "If tax cuts have no measurable effect on an economy, why should tax increases have any measurable effect on an economy?"

And he diverted.
You should have called him out on his diversion. :D
 

bfdd

Lifer
Feb 3, 2007
13,312
1
0
Can we get immigration rates along with this for Australia please? Australia I know brings in a lot of migrant workers to do skilled labor. Hell I could probably still get a visa to do some work there and it's been like two years since I've touched a compressor or pump or any piece of heavy machinery.
 

dank69

Lifer
Oct 6, 2009
36,093
30,446
136
I attended my Political Parties class this past Thursday.

I have respect for my teacher, who, despite being a solid democrat, usually manages to keep things on an even-keel. He's also genuinely a smart guy with a PHD. But this was after the elections, and he was angry, just like I was after the 2008 election.

He said that the republicans have to get serious about how to fix an economy. He said that they need to get away from tax-cuts, which he claims show no measurable effect on an economy. He then said that there is no choice but to increase taxes.

I raised my hand and asked, "If tax cuts have no measurable effect on an economy, why should tax increases have any measurable effect on an economy?"

And he diverted.
Did he 'divert' by explaining how epic deficits are a bad thing?
 

irishScott

Lifer
Oct 10, 2006
21,562
3
0
In the meantime, to get out of the "wildly successful" :)rolleyes:) Australian context and back into the American one, yeah the rest of the world thinks it's stupid. Germany in particular thinks it wouldn't work even as a domestic policy.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11697483

Germany's finance minister Wolfgang Schaeuble said on German television that "with all due respect, US policy is clueless."

"It is not that the Americans have not pumped enough liquidity into the market and now to say let's pump more into the market is not going to solve their problems."

He added that the German government was going to hold bilateral talks with US officials and also discuss the topic at the G20 summit in Seoul next week.

So by your logic, I have a western country saying our stimulus is "clueless" and "won't work" therefore all stimulus is stupid! :rolleyes:

Context. Get some.
 

Phokus

Lifer
Nov 20, 1999
22,994
779
126
So your strategy all this time was to look at countries on this list that has negative GDP growth and automatically conclude they need more stimulus?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_real_GDP_growth_rate

Even if you claim that Australia had a bigger stimulus in 2010, I'm sure if you compare 2008-2010 stimulus numbers on a % of GDP basis Australia would still lose in that comparison to many industrialized nations especially the US.

Australia
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0.7% of GDP (2008), 0.8% of GDP (2009)
United States of America
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 1.1% of GDP (2008), 1.9% of GDP (2009)
Canada
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0% of GDP (2008), 1.5% of GDP (2009)
Japan
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0.4% of GDP (2008), 1.4% of GDP (2009)
United Kingdom
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0.2 % of GDP (2008), 1.4% of GDP (2009)
Germany
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0% of GDP (2008), 1.5% of GDP (2009)
France
Size of stimulus relative to GDP: 0% of GDP (2008), 0.7% of GDP (2009)

In other words, Australia did a "Bush" stimulus.
Glad to see it worked out well for them. Obama should have done the same since you mentioned theirs was "wildly successful" in Australia.

Show me how Australia did a "Bush" stimulus. That's literally the 2nd most retarded thing anyone has said in this thread (right after Amused's posts)

In February 2009, the Rudd government implemented a A$42 billion stimulus package again with the support of the Senate crossbench. The package included:[26]
$12.7 billion for immediate one-off payments to working Australians, families with school-age children, farmers, single income families and for those undergoing training (A$950 for the average single worker)
$14.7 billion to be invested in school infrastructure and maintenance and bringing forward funding for trade training centres
$6.6 billion to increase the national stock of public and community housing by about 20,000
$3.9 billion to provide free insulation to 2.7 million homes and solar hot water rebates
$2.7 billion in small and general business tax breaks to provide deductions for some equipment purchases before the end of June 2009.
$890 million to fix regional roads and blackspots, to install railway boom gates and for regional and local government infrastructure.
 

RocksteadyDotNet

Diamond Member
Jul 29, 2008
3,152
1
0
Excellent before their stimulus, excellent now.

From what I know Australia hasn't experienced a negative GDP growth on a quarterly(and/or annual) basis since the early 90's(I think 1991).
Australia is still considered an "emerging" economy by the IMF, so they're in the same group as Turkey, Brazil, China, India, etc... Even if they did no stimulus, they probably would still have positive growth. China wouldn't need to waste money on stimulus if all they were trying to do was keep a positive GDP growth...Neither did Brazil, Turkey, etc...

Australia was spared from the crisis due to inflated commodity prices.
Remember the commodity bubble in 2008 when gold/oil/iron ore/steel/nickel/zinc and other natural resources were inflated and reached their highs?

LOL.

Australia is not an 'emerging' economy idiot.