I see that Malcolm Turbull says that "the Liberals would be better economic managers.
“The Labor Government's policies have made a difficult situation worse and the economy would be strong and therefore employment would be high if we were in government.”"
The truth of course, is "who knows?" However, what is Mr Turnbull's logic here? So far he has suggested:
- don't spend a "cash splash"
- don't introduce more regulation into the Industrial Relations laws.
Now, I don't see how the "cash splash" can actually destroy jobs in the short term. It might cause problems in the long term, but we haven't got there yet.
We could compare our IR laws with the land of deregulated labour markets, the USA, but they have even higher unemployment, so what does that prove?
Of course, if you want an example of relatively strong growth in these troubled economic times, we need only look to centrally controlled China. Today, Premier Wen Jiabao said
"We have loaned a huge amount of money to the United States," Wen said at a news conference in Beijing. "Of course, we are concerned about the safety of our assets. To be honest, I'm a little bit worried. I would like for you [a Western reporter] to call on the United States to honor its word and stay a credible nation and ensure the safety of Chinese assets."
So maybe we would be even better with the Communist party in charge instead of the Liberals?
