Mike Secombes excellent an analysis of the LNP Budget "Economic Plan" is behind a pay wall in "The Saturday Paper", so I will just have to quote the juicy bits. (Reagan ‘voodoo economics’ at the heart of Scott Morrison's budget). I am trialling a 6-month subscription with digital content access, and so far there has been quality content every issue.

Following a sponsored visit by Reagan adviser Arthur Laffer, Malcolm Turnbull’s budget is based on the fallacy of his trickle-down economics. There's no jobs or growth in it at all, just more handouts to the rich.

The Laffer Theory, if it can be graced by that label, is about as good as the state of the original serviette that it was sketched on in a posh restaurant in the posh "Hotel Washington". Its a LOL theory.

The evidence has been in for a long time. There is no correlation whatsoever, between economic production, and giving more tax-breaks to the rich, who move their income around to minimise tax anyway possible.

The rich stay well below the taxation point at which they might become less-rich by contributing to public wealth.

. . . You may have heard economist J. K. Galbraith’s famous quote that conservatives are engaged in one of mankind’s oldest exercises in moral philosophy: “that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness”. .  . .

The Laffer curve provided one. Give the wealthy more, it said, and all will benefit.

Most likely only Malcolm Turnbull and Scott Morrisons rich friends will benefit. Malcolm and Scotts concern for the welfare of their rich friends (LNP voters all) is as touching as their defence of their negatively geared property investments. A lot of Australian voters still seem to think they belong to this category, which is what the LNP is vote counting on. Its a true class warfare budget. It reflects the aims of the Capitalists to still have "more".

An OECD study from last year, “Sovereign Debt Composition in Advanced Economies: A Historical Perspective”, illustrates the phenomenon graphically.

The debt-to-GDP ratio of all major nations had fallen sharply from its peak in World War II until the 1970s. Then, coincident with the ascent of the supply-siders, it began to rise. And then rise even faster after the global financial crisis. By 2010 – the end point of the OECD numbers – it had trebled. It continues to zoom upwards even as economies sink into deflation.

Mike Seccombe mentions the findings of a 2012 report by the US Congressional Research Service.

There was no conclusive evidence, the report found, of “a clear relationship between the 65-year steady reduction in the top tax rates and economic growth. Analysis of such data suggests the reduction in the top tax rates have had little association with saving, investment or productivity growth.”

But the report was even more damaging for supply-siders. It also found that “the top tax rate reductions appear to be associated with the increasing concentration of income at the top of the income distribution”.

In other words, tax cuts did not encourage growth but did promote inequality.

In Australia, according to analysis from the Australian Council of Social Service, inequality grew more rapidly between 2000 and 2008 than in all but two other developed countries.

Stiglitz’s answer: “An increase in government spending matched by increased taxes stimulates the economy.”

Mike Secombe quotes an OECD report that says Social and wages inequality is a drag on long term economic growth.

That's enough on Mike Secombe's article. It had no mention of sustainability, and there is only so much scope per article. The key driver it found, was the growing gap between the bottom 40 percent of income earners and the rest.  This chimes with another explanation from the intrepid personal studies of debt, energy  and economic growth of Gail Tverbert explained many times over at ourfiniteworld.com. Our economies are failing because the bottom levels of poorly paid non-elite workers are affording to buy less and less of the outputs of the economy. Many costs of materials and resources are rising in terms of themselves, with less remaining for the rest of the economy. Here is a key illustrative graphic.

This also more or less, the "stagnation" period in our "secular cycle" leading to economic collapse, similar to many historical examples studied by Turchin and Nefedov. The LNP are deluding us that their budget helps jobs and growth. Its is more likely to help push our economy into collapse.

The real evidence is that production and jobs, in any sustainable economy, are limited by the amount of cheap renewable energy and material resources available.   This is needed to supply production, and the drivers are consumer needs, and ability to pay. The real costs of materials and energy are increasing, and the ability of consumers to pay is decreasing. Of course the economy is collapsing.

If we had less wastage, looked after our non-renewable resources better, and had enough renewable clean energy, we could have the essential necessities for everyone, and more time to enjoy life, and plenty of jobs to go around, while "saving" something for the future. We only need things for which "more" makes no sense, unless we are still growing more people.

Of course Mike Secombe fails to mention "Limits to Growth" features. Nature gets the last laugh. We have declining primary resources, rising numbers of people, and increased costs of pollution, including the growing angry beast of global warming. We are being hit by limits now. Increased production costs of getting material resources and energy, are putting enough brakes on economies to kill economic growth, and cause demand destruction.

Nothing of the above dynamics appear to be understood or discussed , by society, politicians or media, and future economic plans do not explicitly take them into account. This is an Australian government election without coherent meaningful content or displayed understanding of the dynamics of our future. It is full of so much bullshit, with a risk of brain-damage induced by listening to politician-speak. The electorate vote for the party with the most appealing delusions.