The one that was in power during the GFC. Regardless of who was in power it would have happened and is largely irrelevant to the political debate. The course of action had to be taken.Digger said:I wonder which party got the debt so high?
The course of action being to give everyone a grand to buy a Chinese made flat screen T.V? No wonder he speaks fluent Mandarin he's a commie spy.koich said:
Well it is miniscule especially when compared to US fast approaching 17000,000,000,000,000 :lol:kraley said:In reality - the small debt (and it is tiny by any measure) that australia has today was arrived at thru prudent fiscal policy. .
... but are still listed 'High' on the global debt clock - $17,184.42 per head of population.bildad said:Well it is miniscule especially when compared to US
Its a means of keeping inflation down, although you dont want to end up like Japan with negative inflation growth. Works much better than high interest rates.......well that would depend if you were an investor or paying off a mortgage.kraley said:but they live on a diet of fear.
I don't think the level of debt is a concern for anyone at the moment. Around the time immediately before the GFC, I saw a similar graphic of all the top economies. At the time, Australia was the only country I recall whose debt was actually reducing. The reduction was slow and cent-by-cent but was moving in a direction that proved it to be fiscal genius. The problem now isn't the size of the debt. The problem is a planned surplus gone badly wrong. Debt is increasing despite action said to have been be taken to reduce it.kraley said:Can you point me to any serious economist that maintains that debt is a concern here? I would love to hear the rational.
Not so popular these days, but wish you were running Euroland.kraley said:I'm a Keynesian.
I am with this. There are problems though.kraley said:I believe that we should tax more when the economy is flourishing, and that we should spend more when the economy is floundering. The type of spending should be targeted to enhance the multiplier effect - I am not concerned about debt levels as a primary measure - I am primarily concerned with growth, interest rates and employment.
We tend to spend too little to counteract recession and a sluggish economy and want to cut tax revenues in the good times to try to 'reward' business. This is exactly opposite of what good fiscal policy would do if you believe in the theory.
If the debt is caused by revenue shortfalls because business revenue's are falling - then the clear path would be to spend enough to get the multiplier effect going - not to get all crazy about deficits because of folksy wisdom and the shouts of the shockjocks.