- Because our economy is not in recession and is actually growing strongly. Thoughts of stimulus were required when we thought we were driving off the GFC cliff.
If it is growing strongly, then so should govt revenue per capita, which means State assets shouldn't need to be sold, public services should be improving, headworks for sub divisions shouldn't need to be front loaded, stamp duty on houses shouldn't have to be escalated at the rate of house price inflation, BER shouldn't have been required (because schools would already have adequate facitliies).
Further, private debt has increased at a greater rate than GDP in the last 20 years. If that debt was as Treasury says, invested in the means of production, then why hasn't GDP increased at the same rate as debt?
If you want to argue the private sector should be providing more of the infrastructure, then why aren't they? Why isn't the water supply of Melbourne and Brisbane increasing at the rate of population growth?
- outside the NBN and even that gets criticised like there's no tomorrow.
But not by Treasury during an election campaign. Others criticized because govt were too arrogant to account for the cost transparently.
High speed rail will run into the same armchair critics and bigger and wider roads only encourage people to buy more cars. I'd rather see better bicycle paths and terrible roads!
Who exactly is supposed to benefit from HSR? Here's Gillard's election blurb...
High speed rail has the potential to cut travel times for people commuting between capital cities like Sydney and growing regional cities like Newcastle and Gosford.
Nearly 10 million people live along the east coast between Brisbane and Melbourne, which requires ongoing investment in modern transport infrastructure.
The feasibility study will build on previous preliminary work on this issue by identifying potential rail corridors, undertaking geotechnical and engineering investigations and doing the financial and economic modelling to determine the project’s viability.
It will examine the network between Brisbane and Melbourne, with a specific focus on the geotechnical analysis and preservation of the corridor between Sydney and Newcastle.
How is HSR between capitals supposed to compete with today's flight costs? What volume of passengers need to travel between regional coastal towns? Qld's tilt train had the some hyperbole thrown around about it, but it runs at a loss, and is used primarily by pensioners on heavily discounted fares for cheap holidays.
As far as I can see, HSR is just a high tech BS affair Labor like to throw around to make them seem like they are moving Australia 'forwards'.
Victorian Govt sold off their metro train operation rights because they couldn't manage it responsibly, so why should govt be trusted to know what they are doing with HSR? Qld wanted to sell off QR in its entirety.
- Do they? Really? Not over here in WA anyway - they've been up and down over the years but no consistent upward trend really exists, depending on the procedure in question of course. Anyway, public health is a State govt responsibility (only recently a Fed one) so drawing a parallel between it and the CAD is a long bow.
Public health is federally funded, which includes the supply of GPs. Why not ask your country cousins whether they feel they have adequate health care? In Qld hospitals, Category 2 patients waiting over 90 days for surgery has increased by 50% since 2006 while the total waiting list has increased by 38%. Why is there a waiting list at all? Community palliative care is grossly underfunded in Qld. WA must be getting too big a cut of Federal revenue if you get better health service than the east coast.
If the commonwealth was prepared to enter into a little debt we could afford first class health facilities but as it is already Australia is one of the best countries in the world to get sick outside Scandinavia.
We could only afford borrowing for health if the debt invested increased GDP adequately enough to cover the interest cost. But that's not how health works. The highest health cost is associated with caring for the non productive aged.
- Because the commonwealth govt places fiscal responsibility above indexing the pension. And because super is going to save us all in the end {sarcasm}.
If it is fiscal responsibility to erode the buying power of the pension, then the AUstalian std of living is being eroded....unless the private sector is going to provide the pension. Super isn't going to quite cut it for a workforce ever more casualized.
- Because the private sector should own assets, not governments. They're far better at it, remember? Competitive tension and all that. If you take the example of Victorian power stations, taxpayers got a fantastic deal out of that privatisation and the current owners are taking a real cold bath. A real master stroke by the Kennett govt. Privatisation should be seen as a positive for a right winger - govt having less of an influence in our lives.
Then let's privatize the police force and the army.
- Because it's becoming more flexible and responsive. The participation rate is increasing because of all the casuals who otherwise wouldn't be in the employment market at all and unemployment is dropping. You have to have a real hard look to find a negative in that story...
Off the top of my head, the negatives include that welfare benefits have replaced many public service wages (ask yourself which is better), job security is down, and super will be inadequate for a higher portion of the population.
- Because with the advent of desal plants, sustainability questions for population growth are at a minimum decades away, probably half a century at least. I'm not sure Treasury was thinking that far out when taking a look at the CAD.
Water from desal plants cost is extremely high. What other services are compromised to cover that cost?
Personally I find most of these issues as not particularly relevant to the sustainability of the CAD. We're discussing the govt fiscal situation when the topic is international trade? There's a link but it's not the main game, as the Treasury paper makes abundantly clear.
