Talk:Economy of Australia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article contains material from the CIA World Factbook (2005 edition) which, as a U.S. government publication, is in the public domain.
To-do list for Economy of Australia: edit · history · watch · refresh


[edit] Checklist

Cross-off as completed

  • Implement economy table (as per United States and United Kingdom).
  • Convert statistics to prose or relocate to table.
  • Create Economy of Australia series, encompassing articles in its category (similar to Life in the United States).
  • Expand article and refactor into sections.
  • Areas requiring coverage include: history; economic structure; bilateral arrangments (FTA's and the CER).
  • Update GDP and other statistics for 2004/05 numbers when released (7 September 2005, 11:30am AEDT).
Flag
Portal
 Economy of Australia is within the scope of WikiProject Australia, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Australia and Australia-related topics. If you would like to participate, visit the project page.
B Quality: B-Class
Top Importance: top
Assessment comments
This article is within the scope of the Business and Economics WikiProject.
B rated as B-Class on the assessment scale
High rated as High-importance on the assessment scale
Other languages WikiProject Echo has identified Economy of Australia as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the French language Wikipedia.

Contents


[edit] first sentence regarding GDP

the first sentence reads: "The Economy of Australia is a prosperous, Western-style market economy, with a per capita GDP slightly lower than United Kingdom, France and Germany (in nominal terms but higher Purchasing Power Parity|PPP]] terms; [14])."

however the wikipedia articles for the economies of all three countries (france germany and UK) clearly list that the nominal GDP per capita is also lower. i also could not find relevant information by following the supplied link (14). what say all of you?

i have altered the sentence slightly until something credible is cited and the GDP figures for the wikipedia articles mentioned is changed to reflect this, if this statement is actually credible.

203.214.77.87 08:32, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Excised text

moved from article, pending wikification, NPOV and sources/fact-checking. clarkk 20:40, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Australia has continued to prosper during the following years of 2001, 2002, 2003, and 2004. It has done so by continuing to privatize industries and by relying on increasing domestic consumption and Chinese demand for resources to bolster its economy. The state of Western Australia in particular has benefited from the Chinese caused resources boom, with its economy growing at an annualized rate of 7.5% during 2004. The national economy however, has been growing at an average rate of just above 3 % a year. New economic problems come from a trade deficit caused by increasing amounts of cheap Chinese imports and overspending by Australian consumers. In 2005, Australia is projected to reach an important milestone : more than 1,000,000 new cars will be sold in Australia. In recent years the federal government and many of the Australian states have also enjoyed substantial budget surpluses.

[edit] CER and FTA

It's a little odd that the Australian economy article does not discuss the Australia-New Zealand Closer Economic Relationship (which essentially creates a market of 25 million people) nor the more recent bilateral free trade agreements. Is there a reason why?--Cyberjunkie 23:22, 16 May 2005 (UTC)

  • why must everything (in this case land mass) be related to in terms of the U.S? we should attempt to use something a bit more international, frustrating to see that an article about the economy of Australia has some bits geared to U.S user's.
  • Like it or not, the US is the benchmark against which a lot of things are measured. I personally find it an acceptable standard to use.
  • Although I find the above comment quite disgusting, it is true that the U.S. is an international standard now. Globalisation at work, cultural influence, etc., etc. Besides, the entirety of Australian foreign policy is geared towards the U.S., why not our wikipedia information as well? Also, this page doesn't mention the 1987 recession at all, or the recovery in the 90s. It probably should.

[edit] Improvements required

I think that this article should be longer and in greater depth. I'd to remove some of the binary statements that assume a situation is 'either/or', such as:

Australia commenced a basic reorientation of its economy in the early 1980s and has transformed itself from an inward looking, import-substitution country to an internationally competitive, export-oriented one.

The reference to 'full financial deregulation' is in the same category: financial deregulation is an ongoing process, and certainly hasn't got to a point that could be described as 'full'. Too many sectors of Australian industry still enjoy cosy protection, subsidy, or regulation, at the expense of more efficient productivity, to make that statement.

In the interests of Wikipedian neutrality and clarity of explanation, I'd also like to see party politics and individual politicians' names removed from the discussion, except where it appears to be central to the discussion. The evolution of the economy is larger and is occurring over too long a period to warrant reference to these phenomena. In addition, economic management now appears to be reasonably bipartisan throughout the capitalist world. Tony 09:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I created a to-do table listing some improvements that could be made. Feel free to add to it or even undertake some of the suggestions.--Cyberjunkie | Talk 10:23, 31 July 2005 (UTC)

I think It'd be pretty safe to nuke the content of this article and start again. The summary table is a good idea, and it should use ABS statistics. I think a useful way to divide the content would include

  • Economic history; with discussion of micro and macroeconomic reform in the last 30 years (there is probably the potential to spin off an Economic history of Australia at some point)
  • Economic structure; industries, imports/exports etc; workforce; financial and stock markets
  • Economic poilcy (current); taxation, fiscal policy, monetary policy, supply-side Policy, RBA; issues of governemt intervention in the economy
  • National debt; prominent section in the US economy article - also relevant for Australia
  • Currency; value since the float and so on
  • Free trade; relevant agreements; significant issue for Australia

--Peta putting her half finished BEcon to good use

Both excellent ideas; except that perhaps currency should be treated in economic policy, which might treat macro- first and then micro- (?), or is the distinction now too blurred for that? Tony 06:28, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

I was thinking of having currecy in both the policy section and its own section (which would say that the AUD is the official currency, look briefly at historical exchanges rates, mention factors affecting the exchange rate that Australia is especially susceptible to, mention the possibility of a common currency with NZ etc.). However, I don't mind if that kind of content is covered in policy. --nixie 06:38, 8 August 2005 (UTC)

Economy of India is probably the best article of this type currently on Wikipedia, and may serve as a good model.--nixie 10:26, 10 August 2005 (UTC)

I agree with Peta that pretty substantial improvement could be made to this page. I'd suggest starting with a broad description of the economy, with history mainly referenced in its own article. Australia's economic history is fascinating, and certainly deserves its own page (which I do plan to do something about...). EcoRat 12:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)==Statistics formatting==

OK, I'm about to start (in the next day or so) updating a bunch of the statistical information here. However, I had a question on which to seek input from other wiki folk here...

Most economy articles quote economic stats such as GDP, inflation, etc on a calendar year basis. But Australia normally uses a financial year base for most stats (e.g. 2003-04 is the period from 1 July 2003 to 30 June 2004). Should statistics here be in calendar year or financial year terms? (My preference is for the latter, but other views would be welcome). A lot of statistics are only available on a financial year basis, including a lot of the national accounts and historical information. EcoRat 12:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Financial year statistics are perfectly fine. They are usually indicated by split year references like, say, 2003/04 or 2005/06. As you say, most statistics will actually be determined by the financia year. Quarterly figures are usually referenced to the year of the quarter, sometimes leading to confusion with the calendar year. Most of the stats in this article were taken from the CIA, so it would be great to have more accurate (ie, Australia) figures. Happy editing, --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:22, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] query

I wonder what the source of this statement is:

'The government is pushing for increased exports of manufactured goods'.

I'd like to see broad brush strokes at the opening, characterising the Australian economy in relation to others. Tony 13:46, 24 August 2005 (UTC) DF but I would say it is, or was, broadly true. The age-old goal of Australian governments has been to establish and maintain a manufactures industry. Economists see the lack of elaborately transformed manufactures or ETMs in our exports as a fundalmental weakness. --Cyberjunkie | Talk 15:29, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

OK, but I'd like to know the source! Otherwise, I think it has to be removed. Tony 04:24, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

The source was the CIA Word Factbook. However, that statement has since been removed from the latest edition. Personally, I see no evidence at all that the Federal Government is pushing for increased exports of manufactured goods. In fact, Australia's manufacturing sector continues to decline and is now one of the smallest in the OECD. This is largely because Australia invests only 1.6 per cent of GDP in research and development, compared with between 2.5 and 5 per cent in the tiger economies of comparable size, such as Finland, Sweden, Singapore and Ireland. ZwickauDeluxe

[edit] Other sources

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/New_Zealand_Economics

Might be of some use, although its structure appears to be idiosyncratic. Tony 04:25, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

This might also be useful.

http://en.wikibooks.org/wiki/DDDDDDDDDDDDDDDDD==AUD/USD in table==

The figures shown in the table make it heard to discern what numbers are in relation to both USD and AUD. Would it be possible to either:

A) List both AUD and uSD

B) Or simply do all figures in one type, IMO USD (PPP) as it seems to be the common standard used

-G 07:40, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

  • We should probably be consistent with the rest of Wikipedia, and use a common currency. It doesn't help a lot to express these things in domestic currency terms, as it doesn't allow for any comparisons. The only problem with using USD (PPP) is that the numbers are often quite out of date, and don't always reflect the most up to date information about the economy. EcoRat 11:38, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge

I think the Economic history of Australia should remain its own article. Many other countries have their own articles for their economic history.--Bkwillwm 23:05, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Merge or Not?

Merge or don't merge, it doesn't bother me, but could someone plese fill in the last 30 years of Australian History? The Article is useless without talking aobut the "recession we had to have" or the GST

I'd throw it in. Just get rid of all the headers. They make it unreadable. - Gt 11:19, 23 January 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the merge is necessary.--nixie 01:12, 27 January 2006 (UTC)


[edit] introductioin

very confusing and slightly misleading: "Australia has a prosperous, Western-style market economy, with a per capita GDP slightly higher than, France and Germany in nominal terms as of 2006, but thanks to the lower cost of living, slightly higher in terms of Purchasing Power Parity."

slightly higher? depends who you ask, and whats with the "but thanks to the lower cost of living" bit? this introduction makes no sense and lacks clarity 203.214.25.139 10:17, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Emphasis on agriculture

This article seems to me to contains a very heavy emphasis on Australia's agricultural sector. How do others see the following statement: "Economists often refer to Australia as the 'world's farm'. The agriculture and natural resources sectors contribute significantly to GDP."

I have never heard any economist describe Australia as "the world's farm". Agriculture's share of GDP has fallen from a peak of 30 per cent in the early 1950s to 14 per cent in the early 1960s and to well under 5 per cent in the early 2000s. Mining has a higher share and has grown both in the long and the short term. Manufacturing is larger still but has been falling since the early 1960s. Services dwarfs them both and parts of the services sector are growing rapidly - notably finance and business services. See this Treasury analysis and this from the Australian Bureau of Statistics.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Walkerdage (talk • contribs) 09:57, 14 August 2006.

I think the emphasis on agriculture derives not from its contribution to GDP but to exports – primary industries are the principle contributors to Australian exports.--cj | talk 05:08, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] opening sentence

concerning GDP per capita, it says that Australia's is "slightly lower" than the UK, but i can't find any corroborating information, everything (including wikipedia) points to Australia's GDP per capita being slightly higher (if not significantly higher) what do you guys say? can anyone find any information to back up the assertion that the UK has a higher GDP per capita? Shrewd.user 10:19, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

nobody has responded so i went ahead and changed it, as it specifies nominal and not ppp (an argument for ppp could be contended) if you want to change it back do so, and please post a citation here.
I've done so using these stats: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/DATASTATISTICS/0,,contentMDK:20399244~menuPK:1504474~pagePK:64133150~piPK:64133175~theSitePK:239419,00.html
i don't know about the data there, and those titles are ambiguous, i couldn't find a solid yes/no

here's a table via answers.com compiled from data in 2005 (the same year) by the international monetary fund (IMF)

http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-countries-by-gdp-nominal-per-capita http://www.answers.com/topic/list-of-countries-by-gdp-ppp-per-capita

in both Australia is ranked higher than the economies of france and germany, and is ranked ahead of the U.K. in terms of PPP. i think the statement should be reverted to reflect this. 203.214.89.181 12:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Effect of Drought

The large drought currently being experienced in Australia doesn't seem to be of any danger to our economic strength and prosperity.

One would assume to start with that agriculture must not contribute all that much to the economy then, but this article mentions how Primary products is Australia's main production market and therefore you'd think the drought on the farms would mean a downfall in economic strength, but not so??

Just how does this work exactly then? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.239.203.34 (talk)

Do you have references for the drought not affecting the economy? I've seen something (don't recall exactly when/where) that the mining boom is counterbalancing the drought to some degree in the total economy, although of course it affects different people. Also, borrowing to keep farms going keeps the economy turning over until the lenders stop providing more money, which hasn't happened on a wide scale yet. --Scott Davis Talk 13:08, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nuclear power figure

Electricity - production by source:

   "* fossil fuel: N90.8%
   * hydro: 8.3%
   * nuclear: 0%"

I know for a fact Southern Australia has nuclear power plants and they account for some power production. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Australia —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MitchKliev (talk • contribs) 12:49, 31 March 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Incorrect Statistics

Hia ll; im rather new to Wikicontirbutions, but have noticed some discrepencies between Cited statistics and factual statisticsin regards to the Economy of Australia. According to the CIA factbook (as referrenced), the Statistical analysis of Australian key Exports should read;

Exports: US$117 billion Ecport goods: coal, gold, meat, wool, alumina, iton ore, wheat, machinery & transport equipment Main Export partners: Japan 20.3%, China 11.5%, South Korea 7.9%, US 6.7%, NZ 6.5%, India 5%, Germany (5.6%)

Import values are,however, correct.

Thanks; kyle —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Kylesaltmarsh (talk • contribs) 05:46, 16 May 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Public Debt

Hi all. Does anyone know where the $585b figure for the Australian national public debt come from? I've been reading over the ABS's year book, and apparently there was only $16b public debt in 2004 [1] - and that was before the Commonwealth government paid off its debt. Where's the large public debt being held? I could understand if it were combined private and public debt, but there's no indication that this is the case. -Xiroth 05:54, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Fair use rationale for Image:Australia 02.gif

Image:Australia 02.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 22:04, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect Statistics

The "Main export partners" and "Main import partners" in the "Economy of Australia" table are erroneously the same. Could someone please change them? I don't know how. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Britney-Boy (talk • contribs)

Hey guys the Australian economy article has some incorrect info.

Its public debt isnt as high as to be close to 500 billion US dollars.

The GPD for 2007 in US dollars was 881.2 billion US dollars!

Come on guys lets fix the article by the way how do edit the table!?

Samerin (talk) 23:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)


[edit] GDP Contradiction

the gdp ppp is quoted as $718.4 Billion on the main australia page, but different on here, presumable change it to the newer one!!--86.31.151.24 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)--86.31.151.24 (talk) 21:30, 27 April 2008 (UTC)