Australian politicians have descended into 'economic relativism'. Treasurer Wayne Swan is taking the credit for a relatively strong economy, and Joe Hockey, from the Opposition, wants to claim a share for John Howard....and perhaps Peter Costello.
The problem with this revisionism is that its less than accurate. One does not thank a slave master for relaxing the reins. Even then we would have to thank the Chinese slave masters for liberating their economy, along with other global emerging markets. China is not solely responsible...If they are only concerned with relativist performance, they should thank George Bush and Alan Greenspan for sabotaging the US economy.
Realistically speaking, we ought to recognise that we are not strong, just we are being rewarded for our hard 'commodity' currency, our plethora of commodity resources, our small population and China. If one considers the recent policies of both governments, increasing immigration to artificially stimulate the economy, we might accuse them of diluting Australian wealth....yet any claim to that is probably collectivism...depending on your framework for 'public ownership'.
Neither of the claimants mentioned - Swan or Hockey - has done anything to reform our political system. Rudd talked up human rights and did nothing. They are fascists and they ought to be condemned for the sufferance imparted on Australians...whether for retaining their coercive powers over the population, for wasting public funds, by failing to reform, by entering these childish and petty, blame and credit competitions. They are utterly useless and they ought not have the powers they have.
The Australian economy is relatively strong because the Chinese are financing the development of huge resources in the country, because the government has increased immigration (which increases economic demand), because the govt regulates land subdivision (which underpins property prices and credit growth), and because other countries are more exposed to the broader economy. Australia is doing better than NZ, Canada, Brazil, Chile, South Africa because we are more stable and resource-rich, with greater exposure to China by virtue of our proximity to China. I don't see these politicians featuring as much of an influence in those parameters.