White lies?

[curious]

This is so errrr...arrogant is the only word that seems to fit, that' it's hilarious. Growing musgrooms comes to mind ;D
It's part of an article in today's Sydney Herald about Costello denying comments at a meeting with journos, with Abbotts comments below.
Not sure if it's regarded as political stirring..if so delete it.
I think it comes under the heading of jokes.
Here is the complete article for reference if you don't think someone could be so stupid.
www.smh.com.au/news/national/tuckey-blames-staff-for-howard-fax/2007/08/15/1186857563104.html
_____________________________________

However, Health Minister Tony Abbott said the conversation was off the record and therefore did not exist.

"If [the remarks] were off the record in 2005, they should also be off the record in 2007," Mr Abbott said.

"And if something is off the record it in effect doesn't exist and there's nothing wrong with denying something that didn't exist."
________________________________________

Said by a good catholic boy, whilst the glare from his his halo blinded the eyes of the reporters. "It's a miracle" he exclaimed.
Then asking as he ajusts his halo. "Would I tell a Lie?"

[Pete]

Abbott's comments must have been made after lunch, sounds like him after way too many wines.

[marinermick]

I love all the garbage coming out now that higher interest rates are the fault of the US.

Certainly true that the world economy affects our monetary policy, but if they take that line then they cannot claim that interest rates will be higher under a labour government.

And it also means that the whole of the last election campaign was a complete lie.

[dru]

marinermick said:

And it also means that the whole of the last election campaign was a complete lie.

Geez who would of thought.

If they were trying to keep interest rates down they would of curbed the government spending and not given us any tax cuts. last word goes to the reserve bank so who knows if that would of had any effect anyway.

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

marinermick said:

I love all the garbage coming out now that higher interest rates are the fault of the US.

Certainly true that the world economy affects our monetary policy, but if they take that line then they cannot claim that interest rates will be higher under a labour government.

And it also means that the whole of the last election campaign was a complete lie.

[disclaimer]i'm interested in this because i'm hopelessly biased as a very active ALP member...[/disclaimer]

an article from the economics editor of the SMH in the 2004 campaign pretty neatly expresses that view.

Howard economical with truth on rates
By Ross Gittins
October 9, 2004

One of the travesties of the Howard Government's reign is the way it has dumbed down the economic debate.

When Paul Keating was Treasurer he worked away at raising the public's economic literacy, trying to convince people of the need for micro-economic reform.

Peter Costello and his master, however, haven't just abandoned the education effort, they've actually sought to exploit the public's ignorance.

We've seen that in spades in this campaign. The worst instance is the unceasing claim that interest rates are certain to be higher under a Labor government.

This claim has won no support - and a surprising degree of rebuttal - from the nation's economists, but that hasn't stopped it being one of the most successful scare campaigns in ages.

(The question the punters don't stop to ask themselves is just why they're so appalled by the thought of a rise in rates. It's because, while interest rates have halved, the amount people have to borrow to cover today's house prices has more than doubled - thereby cancelling out the advantage to borrowers.)

As a bald assertion, John Howard is allowed to claim that the Libs deliver lower interest rates, just as Persil is allowed to claim it washes whiter. What's objectionable is the way he and his boys have made up economic principles to embroider that assertion.

More fundamentally, Mr Howard has sought to exploit the swinging voters' ignorance of how the economy is managed these days.

He's played on the now-superseded view that "the economy's run by the government", declining to acknowledge that, partly due to his own reforms, the most important instrument of macro management - the rate of interest - is now run by the Reserve Bank, independent of the government of the day.

Next, since the time he was Treasurer in the high inflation, high interest rate Fraser Government, Mr Howard has always sought to misrepresent the relationship between the budget balance and interest rates.

He makes out there's a quite direct, mechanical and powerful link between the two: an improvement in the budget balance pushes interest rates down; a deterioration pushes them up.

This is hopelessly simplistic. But at least in the old days his emphasis was (correctly) on the change in the budget balance. In this campaign his emphasis switched to the absolute level of the budget balance.

So we found him claiming that government spending isn't inflationary unless it pushes the budget into deficit. "It becomes inflationary if you go into deficit and that is not going to happen, and we have been in surplus," he said disingenuously.

The trouble with making up economic principles as you go along, however, is that one of your mates may make up something different.

So we had Mr Costello claiming that the minimum level of budget surpluses that needed to be maintained to keep downward pressure on interest rates was $2.5 billion.

Arbitrary nonsense. Time for a quick reacquaintance with the truth.

As anyone who takes the least bit of interest should know, the Reserve Bank moves interest rates up and down according to what believes necessary to achieve its target of keeping the inflation rate between 2 and 3 per cent on average over the cycle. (It also worries about asset-price inflation - such as the price of homes - particularly when asset booms are fuelled by borrowing.)

So the Reserve raises interest rates when it thinks inflation pressure is building and cuts them when inflation pressure is easing.

This means it focuses on the factors that will do most to put upward pressure on prices: the strength of domestic demand (spending) and the degree of spare production capacity in the economy (the "output gap").

How does the budget balance fit into this? Well, the direction and size of the change in the budget balance is an indication of whether the government's activities are adding to or subtracting from the overall level of demand in the economy.

The point to note, however, is that the budget balance is just one of many factors that will influence the strength of demand. Other factors include consumer confidence, business confidence and various influences on us from the global economy.

In principle, the Howard Government's spending spree - in this year's budget and in the campaign - has been a factor that would add to demand, thereby adding to inflation pressure and the need to raise rates.

(Whether that spree would still leave the budget in surplus or would push it into deficit - as it may well do if Treasury's budget projections prove overly optimistic - doesn't matter. As I say, what matters is the change: its direction and its size.)

That's why it's been such a joke for Mr Howard to be making such bold claims about keeping interest rates low while spending like a drunken parrot.

(Not that Labor can talk - its spending spree has fallen just a little short of the Libs'. And its representation of the budget's role in influencing interest rates is just as knowingly ignorant as the Libs'.)

But now we move from principle to practice. In judging the prospects for the strength of demand, the Reserve has to focus on the bottom line (the combined effect of all factors), not just one factor.

So while the budget may be a factor putting upward pressure on inflation and hence on rates, this influence may be offset by other factors that are expected to weaken.

Yet another consideration is the size of spending spree's contribution to demand and to inflation pressure. And here you have to remember that the pollies have given us a quite exaggerated impression of the size of their proposed spending.

How? By multiplying the truth by four - by always telling us what their promises would cost "over four years". If their promise is to spend $1 billion a year for four years, it's the initial $1 billion deterioration in the budget balance that's relevant for present purposes.

Is $1 billion a lot? Of course, from the perspective of whether your and my money is being well spent. But from the perspective of an economy worth more than $800 billion a year in nominal GDP, it's a drop in the ocean.

So don't believe those critics who argue that the pollies' election spending spree will put upward pressure on interest rates to any significant extent.

But don't believe the Libs' claim that, simply because they've run a series of (relatively small) budget surpluses, they should get all the credit for the present low rates.

Ross Gittins is the Herald's Economics Editor.

and since, the chief economist at ANZ was quoted in the age, bagging the bejeezus out of the government:

ANZ chief economist Saul Eslake has done the sums. He found that in the past four years the Government's upward revisions on its tax haul - that is, revisions as a result of anything other than a policy decision - have totalled $97.5 billion.

But Mr Eslake found that even more was spent by the Government during that time. Policy decisions by the Federal Government over the same period cost $98.8 billion. He sees this as a huge missed opportunity by Treasurer Peter Costello.

"The resources boom has dropped $100 billion into the Government's lap that they hadn't expected in 2002 and they've spent all of it and a bit more," Mr Eslake says. "And I honestly and genuinely struggle to find anything that has been done with it bar win elections."

He says he wouldn't have minded if the Government had saved up to a half of this windfall, or had spent some of the money boosting the capacity of the economy so it could continue to grow after the period of strong commodity prices was over.

Mr Eslake says they could have improved Australia's long-term growth profile by boosting infrastructure - a national all-fibre broadband network is one option that could have been explored. Other areas include providing some money for the looming problem of an ageing population and funding fundamental reform that was particularly difficult to do, such as tax reform.

"I've got nothing against the Government as such but the resource boom has handed them a great opportunity on a plate. They've spent the money and as far as I can see they've not created anything of lasting value."

[curious]

marinermick said:

I love all the garbage coming out now that higher interest rates are the fault of the US.

Certainly true that the world economy affects our monetary policy, but if they take that line then they cannot claim that interest rates will be higher under a labour government.

And it also means that the whole of the last election campaign was a complete lie.

Since I started voting in the early 70's, I can honestly say I have not seen a government, liberal or labour, stoop to the gutter level standard of the present admin. Even it had higher standards in it's first term but has gradualy fallen away to be the poorest example of values to our kids in the history of Australian politics.
Examples for those too young to have the awareness of an adult life under any other government. Kids & teens only need to worry only about their, school, belly, football, booze & their crutch.

Tampa - used to gain the followers of a populist & racist One Nation Party in the lead up to an election.

Immigration detention centers - Another "populist" policy & the one we should be most ashamed of as Australians.
Never in my wildest dreams did I imagine I would be part of an Australia that would imprison refugees indefinitely & in particular, totally innocent children. Australian governments used to condemn other nations as third world human rights violators for treating children the same way. Has anyone ever noticed that you don't see an anglo face amoung those kids?

IR leglslation - I can remember when we had to fight to have a 40 hour week reconised as reasonable work hours, pre work place safety laws to force employers not to skimp on safety to save dollars.
The present legislation has removed hard won rights over many decades to ensure a fair days pay for a fair days work & is turning the clock back 40 years to an American system of rich or poor, powerfull or weak, where the minimun wage is now around $5 hr. The American system has by the way, more worker protections than Howards IR legislation.

These are just a few & the tip of the iceberg.
I won't even bother going into detail regarding the so called terror legslation, political interference in the justice system & ignoring the most important principle of our system of government, the seperation of powers.

The comments by Abbott in the first post are typical of the level we have allowed our government to sink. It's now accepted as the norm rather then the exception, is a poor example of values for our kids who have known no other leaders & is an indictment on us as Australians. We sat on our hands & allowed it to happen.
Rant over (for now)

[curious]

Thanks for making my post look small Dibo ;D

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

curious said:

Thanks for making my post look small Dibo ;D

you wrote, i quote.

[curious]

Just when we thought it was safe to go back into the water.
www.smh.com.au/news/national/hanson-calls-for-halt-to-muslim-immigration/2007/08/16/1186857634226.html
Must be an election looming somewhere in the world huh
She is after that big financial gain she receives if she gets more than % 4 (Dibo?) of the vote & stir up the like minded rednecks along the way. She also called for a halt to African immigration a few weeks agp, white South Africans not included of course. Now Howard can have another populist scare mongering policy for his campaign. Some things never change.

[Rowdy]

And how was Treasurer Costello's form 'off-air' the other day when presented with a Birthday cake for his 50th, joking about 'would u like me to explain which bit's of this cake are GST affected and which aren't' etc. mocking former Federal Liberal leader John Hewson who couldn't explain years earlier and thus lost the election.

Straight away I think of Howard's 'there will never be a GST" for the record statement........ then he later introduces it "we have the mandate'

Lying little FCUK. No wonder recent opinion polls find him to be un-trustworthy.......really!

[Rowdy]

Pauline Pantsdown, the Oxley-moron @ it again.

This time it's 'gash-slashing', 'bible-pissing' and letting Coca Cola Amatil sell us water for the rest of our natural lives. ;D

Donny Parkes is a big fan of hers and I think may have even given her a kiss? but I don't hold that against him, he's a champion bloke.

[marinermick]

rowdyroddy said:

Pauline Pantsdown, the Oxley-moron @ it again.

This time it's 'gash-slashing', 'bible-pissing' and letting Coca Cola Amatil sell us water for the rest of our natural lives. ;D

Donny Parkes is a big fan of hers and I think may have even given her a kiss? but I don't hold that against him, he's a champion bloke.

donny and i havr an agreement that we should not talk politics when we see each other

he did give me a copy of the constitution though for which i am grateful

[Rowdy]

I had a headache at a game once and he gave me a couple of Panadol from an old tupperware container that was full of so many diferrent types of pills and creams etc that he could have been arrested. ;D

Donny prepares well for game day. Except when he misses the train and needs a lift from Andre

[curious]

Straight away I think of Howard's 'there will never be a GST" for the record statement........ then he later introduces it "we have the mandate'

& if he gets in again it will be IR mark11 "Because Mr. Speaker, I have a mandate".

[shelleybeach]

just think yourselves lucky you're not in britian where there is a police state coming - they are trying to introduce a system where satellites track your car to make you pay for the miles you drive, big bother or what? politicians are wankers

[curious]

just think yourselves lucky you're not in britian where there is a police state coming - they are trying to introduce a system where satellites track your car to make you pay for the miles you drive, big bother or what? politicians are wankers

I'd rather be a Brit than an Aussie if caught up in the American System.

[dibo (pron. "DIB-OH")]

shelleybeach said:

just think yourselves lucky you're not in britian where there is a police state coming - they are trying to introduce a system where satellites track your car to make you pay for the miles you drive, big bother or what? politicians are wankers

aside from the cost to implement, it's actually a perfectly sensible idea.

applied in much the same way as the safe-t-cam system for trucks here it would be a very effective solution. it takes photos of the number plates of trucks on the freeway at different points, and if someone has travelled the distance too quickly they've obviously breached the road rules.

when rbt and seatbelt laws were introduced, there were hails of complaint from all over the place. but the simple fact is that the use of seatbelts and the vastly lower prevalence of drink-driving has contributed to a massive cut in the road toll.

better enforcement of speed limits (and creating a method for assessing fatigue) would likely do the same, considering that too many fatal accidents are single vehicle accidents for speed or fatigue not to be an issue.