OK, great, Wayne Swan and Co., the March quarter GDP increase of 1.3% gives us a surprisingly good 4.3% annualised growth rate.
But much of the 0.8% increase in private investment was predictably in mining, and you’d have to admit the 0.9% growth in household consumption, largely on food and transport, isn’t all that jolly?
I’m still hearing that one-third of over 50s can’t afford to repair their homes.
I’m still hearing building construction continues its decline.
I’m still hearing jobs are also being lost in other trades, manufacturing and service areas.
I’m still hearing retailers are doing it hard.
I’m still hearing people are struggling to pay the mortgage, because the banks gouged them by refusing to drop their lending margins during the residential property bubble.
I’m still hearing we tax labour and capital for daring to earn an income.
I’m still hearing we continue to reward people with negative gearing for speculating in real estate (even as property prices begin to decline!)
I’m still hearing–with the exception of a watered-down mining tax–you’re still refusing to implement the recommendations of The Henry Tax Review to reinvigorate economy.
And I know we still have to face and deal with the $805 billion in our real estate bubble.
Me, unfortunately I remain one of your “doomsayers”, Mr Swan!
2 thoughts on “Australia’s great GDP growth?”
Or too put it another way. Its merely concealing that they bulked out the fridge with a 10 kg bag of unwashed potatoes (mining) and stuck some small goods in the front to conceal the it, as well as the lack of variety, flavour and choice.
So everybody put a new coloured rego sticker on their windscreen in June, and
Suddenly the economy is great, without anyone actually being able to afford to put petrol in it and go anywhere. Great recovery, don’t you think? And how about trying to blame the disappointing jobs data, as the cause, when its decades of bad tax policy and de-industrialisation that has the West in a mining hole of denial. The scary thing is they will
Take these good mixed results as further reason not to implement any of Henry Tax reforms