This week in Editors’ Picks, we take a look at the carbon tax’s economic impact, graduate employment prospects, the empowering role of financial knowledge, Argentina’s default and economists’ reactions to the Australian government’s economic rhetoric.
Four Killer Facts That Show Why The Carbon Tax Has Not Damaged Australia – Stephen Koukoulas
Decried as an economic ‘wrecking ball’, whose toxicity would not only obliterate Whyalla and leave it ‘wiped off the map’, but send the price of an innocent Sunday roast to the astronomical heights of $100- few could claim to not have heard of the impending doom wrought by the carbon tax. Stephen Koukoulas examines the latest economic data to see if such claims check out.
It is an inevitable focus of university students’ dread and angst: securing a graduate position. Unfortunately, this task is becoming harder, according to the data presented in a new Graduate Careers Australia report. Tim Dodd analyses the deterioration of employment rates in the graduate labour market in different bachelor degrees and contrasts median starting salaries across industries.
Money Talks: Learning the Language of Finance – John Lanchester
‘Incomprehension is a form of consent’. Lanchester casts a philosophical eye over the intersection of financial language and human behaviour. While concisely unpacking some potentially baffling financial terms and associated concepts, he urges greater interest in the influence and mechanics of a global financial system.
Argentina Defaults for Second Time – BBC, Katy Watson
The news that Argentina has defaulted on its debt is another blow to an economy in recession. This article forecasts the financial and political fallout from a fruitless negotiation process between Argentina and bond-holders.
Tony Abbott Achieves the Impossible: Unity Among Economists – Warwick Smith
A budget emergency. The debt crisis. The carbon tax wrecking ball. All lies according to Smith, who dismisses three claims central to the policy platform of the Abbott-led Coalition government. Smith’s observation that all independent economists disagree with the government’s dramatic economic rhetoric is used to suggest current budgetary measures are inspired by vested interests, not informed public policy.