Labor vs Liberals: Who’s Had Better Economic Results? | AUSPOL EXPLAINED 

Because he could not help himself talk garbage knowing there r morons out there that believe it

Not at all, probable motive explaining why these basic facts are ignored, misrepresented or given scant coverage or ignored is totally obvious if you analyse amount wealth and the rate at which that wealth increases by the news media proprietors under Labor and Liberal governments then the reason for media proprietors would be inclined to giving one side of politics favourable coverage & misrepresenting the other side unfavourably. Then look at the overall income & wealth of the news media industry as a demographic and it's increase under either side of politics and the overall numbers of people employed in the industry & you will see possible motive for their inclination to support their proprietors possible inclination consciously or otherwise. Combine that analysis with an analysis of the rate of increase in profit margins by corporations that donate to labor and liberal governments add up the total amount of donations in dollars and calculate the percentage that went to Labor or Liberal governments. Finally look at the amount of wealth by various demographics and the decrease or increase in inequality between the demographics & speed with which that occurs under Labor or Liberal governments. If you do all of those things you'll see the reality of what has being happening, why been happening, how it is possible and so difficult to change.

As soon as you look at the actual facts. No wonder the media and liberals are so afraid of facts.

Yeah it's surprising how much propaganda we've been fed

Wouldn't it be great to have an honest 4th estate based on data and facts.

Labours biggest weakness is we don’t make propaganda against or for anyone typically liberals run off it

Yep and they look great even though the morrison government data was removed from the subset

Not to mention the $50 billion structural deficit Howard left in the Budget with Negative Gearing and halving Capital Gains. However on the note of Howard era selling of assets, the Knee himself Peter Costello sold billions of Australian reserve gold at a significantly lower price than the price of gold at the time. Hurried it out the door at the discount to show a budget surplus no doubt.

Facts and statistics are great. But can be misleading. Pretext and context absolutely matter. 👍

Howard really Fucked us good

@@bofty I thought Howard's reign was somewhat 'the golden age'. I was still in school, then into the defence force during that time so I had zero clue how shit he was in many ways.

@@Jim-yk9zw unfortunately many, many(too many) aussie's thought the same as you did Jim :( cut our noses off to spite our face we did....

absolute bawse

Amazing how good it makes Labor look.

Hi Michael

Crossover!

Props from the man himself!

Your work is dam great too

He needs better thumbnails.

Well I do encourage people to share my vids so maybe people should email it to his office

@@AuspolExplained done 😉

The problem with the false claims is so many people "know" them to be true. How does one change that?

Yes, it is strange how Labor doesn't capitalise on the really good talking points which can be verified and that people care about (like climate change, or federal integrity). Instead, they seem to restrict themselves to the same cliché ones which people have heard and are desensitised to and are often harder to back up (like future Medicare cuts). It's like they want to fulfil their stereotyped role and defeat themselves sometimes. Obviously, we have to blame the concentrated media environment we have too, who distort the image. I recommend the channel Knights in Shining Llama who does a good job on explaining some past scandals (which, if they were committed under Labor, one alone would result in a political death sentence).

@@liam3284 yeah, this is the real reason Albo didn't just spit facts. There's only so much time to undo the propaganda that every voter has buzzing around in their head. You have to pick your battles.

@D Chapo 😂😂😂😂😂

Fair point. This kind of extra nuancd and detail is exactly what lacks from public discussion of debt and there's so much to say on the subject. Thank you for teaching me a new thing

A lot of Japanese debt is also domestically held. To paraphrase Mark Blyth, "If I borrow money from myself and sell that debt to myself, how much do I owe myself?" *shrug*

Liberals also cut funding to public services that labor put in in the first place thus having even more money to blow elsewhere.

Came here to say this.

This video is pretty poor at looking at nuance in general. When working or middle class voters say they want lower taxes, they generally mean for themselves, so taking the total taxes against GDP ignores the deficit between the median tax rate and the mean tax rate, as well as many other taxes that won't apply to most people e.g. on investment properties.

@@DuringDark Do you know which government is better in that sense, just curious

I think he avoided in saying something like this because it could stretch unbiased and neutral, because one side (likely lnp voters) will say, ‘but those services still existed under us, don’t they?’ And I think the person is trying to avoid certain nuances like this for that reason. But, at the start though he did mention that labor introduced Medicare, the NDIS & more sustained educational funding , and Howard introduced one thing (I forget and I’m too lazy to go back and find it) compared to 3, so an inference can be made.

Thanks! Hopefully people share it and help it get seen

This plus endless covid mandates

Tax to GDP ratio was the best way to present overall data. However, if I analysed specific taxes and cuts vs increases I'd have to then argue their impact. They definitely have an impact - but for the sake of not criticising any government I had to exclude some justifiable conclusions that would earned me accusations of bias

Hilarious. Liberals are in bed with the iron ore companies. Most of these mega corporations (and Australian billionaires, who made more money than any billionaires in the world in 2020) pay zero tax. As an Australian, I'm constantly hearing the Liberal party rabbiting on about 'saving the economy', and to hell with everything else. The only thing they're saving is a very few companies & individuals who already have too much money. They only talk about one dimension. That's why this video addresses it.

The biggest tax cut in recent years was a lift in the tax free threshold which if you're american is similar to the non itemised deduction that everyone gets. It means a tax cut of about $2300 per year for every person whos income is above $18200 per year, which is less than the minimum full time wage in Australia. This was a labor governments policy. They didnt even take it to the election. They just announced it one day. You're right though, noone cares if you tax mining companies. Howard didnt tax mining companies enough. He was also able to run surpluses without causing a recession due to these revenues and privatisation of major state assets. Think about your own country where the last govt surplus was followed shortly by a recession, because you dont have a silod outsized sector to tax.

@@AuspolExplained i dont agree that you removed bias. Stopped watching at 19:28 because you are clearly jabbing at the libs. The American cuts to the point. What being taxed is of huge significance and in 2007 Rudd fucked the people with his alcohol tax making a carton of beer TWICE as expensive overnight. Additionally.. liberals are typically better for businesses. Labor typically sell our countrys assets to foreign entities to find money. Everything is relative. I believe breaking down the state premier decisions will be a better representation for economic management. Including how the pandemic was handled by labor (victoria) and liberals (nsw). Everything is relevant.

THERES A WHOLE IN UR BUDGET-

And fu**ed up the country

whitlam was our last great PM, we are f*cked these days

@@joelanderson4899 seriously, Whitlam? 😂

@@Qatari2007 "Yes"

@@Qatari2007 look like you didn’t watch the video, either that or you don’t like numbers

But Rudd was a complete and utter dud.

@@bencohen6407 in rhyme alone. Otherwise rudd and swan were absolute stars on the global stage and hopefully albo takes us back there now that scomo is out on his ass

@@bencohen6407 yeah Rudd and Swan smashed it

Exactly

I think it was a combination of all types of taxes but I’m not 100% sure I’m still trying to learn too hopefully old mate replies

Also never said whether it was real or nominal gdp which makes a big difference

100% this, also matters who suffers the tax burden. A greater tax burden as a result of higher taxes on high income earners is probably better than a slightly lower tax burden that is the result of higher taxes on low income earners.

Those taxes were on paper lower under the liberals but they collected more revenue as a proportion of GDP

Become the educator you want to see in the world 🌎

Absolutely valid point and if/when I make an updated one in the future when there have been more PMs, I will take that into account. That makes sense and my apologies for not thinking about that

@@AuspolExplained does this significantly change the result?

I did cite an ABC fact check about how considerably large pre-covid Liberal debt was in the script so it's not a moot point. But also yes, debt isn't always measured one way so there is leeway in discussions of it

If you can provide solid links between policies and their impacts on economic growth, then go ahead. But that is a very, very difficult task to do.

The bookshelf has an entire shelf for Labor and an entire shelf of Liberal, just my body obscures half of it

@@AuspolExplained Haha, I thought so but was pretty funny

Oop. Remind yourself to watch it again in 3 years time

Precisely, read into the lies more!

Taxing the rich vs taxing the poor is a very interesting discussion. I always assumed that despite them trying their best to avoid taxation, if we just tax the rich enough then we'll at least get a fair chunk of that money. But sadly it is just too difficult to tax the rich like that, they almost always find a way to get out of paying it. And so you'll find that a lot of the highest HDI countries (pretty much all of scandinavia) in the world tax the poor and the rich equally. This is known as a regressive tax system, and it works so well because a.) lower-class people aren't able to avoid taxes as easily as rich people, and b.) there is a lot more people in the lower-class than the upper-class, and so a tax on the lower-class makes a ton more money than one on the upper-class, despite their immense wealth. The catch is that it needs to be ensured that this money is in fact going towards public services, and not being wasted on corruption, military, strengthening government power, or other frivolous/dangerous ventures. Scandinavian countries have amazing social programs that have been well-entrenched for a very long time, so having high tax really isn't a big deal, because you can very easily survive without it. Australia has pretty bad social welfare currently, tho here's hoping under labor it will get better again.

@@stoopidapples1596 I mean you could also... close the loopholes that allow the rich to evade paying their taxes. We are already aware of SO FUCKING MANY of the tricks they use, we just need the social and political pressure to push those restrictions through, and then whilst the rich are reeling, go all in on the progressive taxations. Yes it creates an arms race of loopholes and legislation for a couple decades, during which time we need to avoid losing power, or we'll end up back where we started, with centrist and right wing parties intentionally letting them exploit loopholes AND THEN ALSO lowering the taxes they need to pay. But the results are worth it.

Excise taxes sting the upper class more ,it was labor dick Kevin Rudd that pushed up luxury car tax to 33% , the theshold went up under liberals . Labor worse for car buyers

@@stoopidapples1596 consumer pays the High taxes in Australia

There's an entire shelf of Liberal biographies (some of which I held up to demonstrate) the same size as that Labor shelf. It's admittedly not very visible so I understand why that doesn't get noticed

Lol. Typical liberal apologist. The facts are what they are. Feel free to cry into your overinflated double espresso

Go to bed

This comment. 👏

Alas i haven't read it yet - but maybe soon. His time as Governor is coming to an end so I'd love to get him on the show if I can

I agree with you. I touch on this a bit by pointing out Menzies, and the shift in NAIRU, but it's a bigger conversation that you're rightly pointing to. Whitlam was pro-public services and created Medibank, the predecessor to Medicare, but also Keating had a more neoliberal bent and had some selectively targeted privatisation - while Howard especially and Abbott to a lesser extent were quite pro-privatisation. Keating started the selling of Telstra, Howard finished it then sold off a bunch more assets. Menzies expanded public services - something Howard would know as he wrote a biography on him. Albanese campaigned heavily on strengthening the public services that were introduced by prior Labor governments, so it would be fair to say Labor is still more pro-public services and Liberals more pro-deregulation, but if I made that as a broad statement someone would go "but Keating privatised things too!" So yeah, broad statements about a party over a long period of time are difficult and often flimsy. That's really the core of this video. Liberals aren't inherently better economic managers - but I didn't declare anyone a "winner" either. Things are complicated, economic conditions, thinking, and how we respond, shift over time. You're completely right, but the popular attitude is to pick points of convenience and make sweeping statements for political point scoring, which I dislike.

Fraser had a recession. Whitlams wage growth wasn't sustainable and he also had high inflation (so wages were really climbing to be ahead of it). Inflation has generally gone downwards long term from Whitlam to Howard/Rudd, but rose recently under the government just passed. The point isn't to think Whitlam was the golden age of economic performance, just demonstrate that these indicators can change a lot over time and so broad statements like in the opening of the video are over simplified and can't be proven to be true

Working hard, or hardly working? Why not both

It's crazy how many people don't understand this - the deficit is not comparable to a household budget when a country issues its own currency.

among us

@@Chryosoar Correct. Even more silly when in many countries like Australia, most of the money in circulation is private bank created by the making of loans (credit creation process). See Prof Richard Werner for more info. Or Steven Keen.

MMT?

@@AuspolExplained Modern Monetary Theory. I'll give it my best shot at explaining it, but I'm not an expert. MMT is a heterodox economic theory. It states that governments that have currency sovereignty (create their own money) do not need to raise funds through taxation and bonds to pay for goods, services, and financial assets. This is because it is impossible for governments to go into a forced default, they can just print more money. MMTers do not judge fiscal policy based on debt and deficit, but on the inflationary effects that it will have, and see taxation and bonds as a way of decreasing any inflationary pressure that their spending incurs. They also support automatic stabilisers (Progressive taxation on the inflationary end and Job guarantee, unemployment insurance etc on the recession end) there are many critiques of MMT, the main one I agree with is mainstream economists, are actually already aware of the way that money is created and relates to inflation, and that MMT is a popular way of introducing these concepts to laypeople because it has the veneer of being new and radical (although in Australia you still see much of the political conversation centred around debt and deficit) The other thing that mainstream and MMTers disagree on is the effect of deficit spending on interest rates. Mainstream economists talk about government spending crowding out private sector investment, whereas MMTers believe that spending increases banking reserves which will decrease interest rates, causing an increase in private sector investment. Let me know if any of that is confusing

@@AuspolExplained Modern Monetary Theory. It recently became fashionable among some economists. It effectively advocates the idea that deficits aren't as important as has been previously emphasised. The ABC has a good explainer on it.

It’s total tax collected divided by GDP It allows us to compare taxes between governments when the GDP changes, because taxing 1 million dollars in the 30’s is essentially the same as taxing 200 billion today as our GDP has grown.

@@HIg-vq5jz I understand that. How does it compare business or personal income v gdp etc

Yes

Oh neat didn't know that I'll just go google that right now

thank god i'm corrupted because innocent me would've looked this up

It's a useful tool for comparisons for economists because it creates its own relative data point for one year vs another. Like if you wanted to be specific about a tax like say income tax and saw that in one decade it was 65% for anyone earning over $100,000 but down to 45% in another decade that looks like a lower tax burden on the surface - but then you'd need to adjust that $100,000 for inflation to compare to another decade, and then what's the average wage of the different time periods, and also that doesn't tell you how many people actually earned over $100,000, etc. Tax to GDP ratio shows you the overall tax "burden" as it's called - so if the GDP of a country goes down, but so does the collective taxes across the nation, then the relative tax burden to economic activity evens out. It makes it also easier to compare between countries because they also will have a relative tax to GDP ratio. It's not an all encompassing comparison, but it's a handy metric when comparing things over several years. Here's more info on the idea of tax to GDP ratios that will hopefully explain it better than me (apologies that it's American): www.investopedia.com/terms/t/tax-to-gdp-ratio.asp

I agree they are indeed conservative - and have been since they were made. There isn't a rule that party names need be accurate

Liberalism and conservatism are not mutually exclusive, especially considering liberalism has been the dominant political strand for the past several centuries. In fact every major party in Western democracy is a liberal party