Jump to content

Talk:Economy of Australia

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Untitled

[edit]

Where has 'Socialism in Australia' gone?? I'm interested in the history of socialism in Oz and the page redirects here - which is not helpful at all. ANZLitLovers (talk) 06:59, 19 October 2013 (UTC)[reply]


relevance of the GDP stat in the table

[edit]

it shows the GDP growth for the last known quarter at the time of writing, but with such a volatile figure is this really valuable at all? shouldn't it show the GDP growth averaged over say the last 5 years ? or 1 year at least? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.144.244.107 (talk) 01:11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

first sentence regarding GDP

[edit]

the first sentence reads: "Hi my name is RYAN JUMP 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)[reply]

Excised text

[edit]

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.

CER and FTA

[edit]

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)[reply]

  • 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.

The reason Australia and the United States are related in economic circles is because the formula of the economies are exactly the same, the economies are a formula which divides the average incomes of all on a Nationl Scale their, which then formulates a index of percentages based on the 100% total, the only difference between Australia and the United States of America is the size of the population, the reserve bank of Australia uses the 50% benchmark which is then divided by 10, minimum wages are established at 36% of the 100% total providing a rate of 7.25%.

The recent problems in the Australian economy is due to a anomoly occuring which has now occurred, GST does the economy recognize this tax and what are the effects and these are the questions which need to be answered. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 219.90.251.67 (talk) 05:54, 1 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The main article is Goods and Services Tax (Australia). Maybe this article should link to that page, but if all taxes were discussed or their pages linked, then this article would be quite long indeed. However, it is strange that there is no linked information on the progressive PAYG income tax system in the "Taxation" section. How should it be incorporated into this article: should the "Taxation" section in "Economy of Australia" link to the "Australia" section in "Pay-as-you-go tax", or should the information in that article be moved here, leaving a link behind? The latter option would better fit in with the rest of the page in the PAYG tax article, considering the UK and Ireland sections only link to PAYE without further elaboration. However, deleting all that information would also reduce that article to Stub-class. Phlyght (talk) 18:01, 16 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Improvements required

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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==[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]
Nearly 4 years later: The article seems to have been neglected. Some updating would be helpful. Ombudswiki (talk) 12:26, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

query

[edit]

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)[reply]

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

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

How about some info on the economy of each state (eg Vic: manufacturing, NSW: services)? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.155.137 (talk) 11:55, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Other sources

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

  • 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)[reply]

Merge

[edit]

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)[reply]

Merge or Not?

[edit]

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)[reply]

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


introductioin

[edit]

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)[reply]

Emphasis on agriculture

[edit]

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)[reply]

opening sentence

[edit]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Effect of Drought

[edit]

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)[reply]

Nuclear power figure

[edit]

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).[reply]


I'm certain the only nuclear reactor we have is a research reactor in Lucas Heights, Sydney. There are no electricity producing reactors. Mckenzie 00:35 5 May 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.112.85 (talk) 15:39, 4 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Australia has no nuclear power plants and one research reactor in New South Wales. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.222.229.186 (talk) 13:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]


there actually sites in SA where electricity is produced using nuclear materials though they are not reactors or powerstations but take advantage of nuclear contaminats that resulted from UK nuclear testing in the 1950s — Preceding unsigned comment added by Digmores (talk • contribs) 05:22, 30 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Incorrect Statistics

[edit]

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).[reply]

Public Debt

[edit]

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)[reply]


I was just reading the page aswell. where did 585 come from? thats way to high. that sounds more like our foreign debt. Xiroth is completely right here, almost all of the debt was paid off (it even says so in the article)-User:mckenzie 00:35, 5 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.112.85 (talk)

Actually as far as I'm aware the government never got rid of all of our public debt. A portion was always maintained for secure investments for private business. In other words, the government is a more stable and safe payer of interest rates then most private enterprise in Australia so the government kept a small portion, under that excuse to give investment plans a safe place to put money. I'm also not too sure on the figure, but I'm pretty sure its increased recently.--Senor Freebie (talk) 12:31, 10 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Australia 02.gif

[edit]

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)[reply]

Incorrect Statistics

[edit]

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)[reply]


GDP Contradiction

[edit]

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)[reply]

End of first paragraph

[edit]

I noticed something odd about the last sentence of the first paragraph, as if something had dropped off during a revision: "Service industries have expanded in recent decades at the expense of the, which now accounts for just under 12 per cent of GDP" At the expense of the what? Does anyone know what this was getting at? 165.228.204.121 (talk) 05:48, 13 August 2008 (UTC)ADrunkenMan[reply]

Whoever did the change before mine got it right - it was indeed at the expense of manufacturing. With my recent edit, I took the last sentence of para 1 and created a new paragraph dealing with the main trend changes between '93 and '07. The source I referenced for the entire paragraph was ABS instead of CIA yearbook although the CIA appears to have based on ABS data anyway. I couldn't source the numeric values so the numbers I've used are based on a visual inspection of the ABS chart (!?). I've only been editing in Wiki for less than a week but don't let that stop any of you from critiquing what I've done to this article! Glen Dillon 16:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
made more changes to intro paragraph. The 63% figure was clearly wrong and was unsourced. I did some quick sums from the Treasury excel sheet using 12 months to March '08 and got a figure of 57% for Ag+Mining. The 4.7% GDP contribution of those two sectors was WAY OFF and in any event unsupported by the old CIA factbook citation. It's actually around 10% according to the ABS reference I added in my previous edit. Tidied up the stuff about our main export commodities (added LNG, gold and iron-ore) though I have not got a citation to support that specific part of my edit. Its getting late... Hope my changes are acceptable.Glen Dillon 17:33, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

New image?

[edit]

The graph in the infobox looks pretty bland (not to mention that there's no legend saying which line represents which economic indicator).

I think a montage of the principal economic activities in Australia would be a better idea. Perhaps four images, one in each quadrant, with the following images:

Thing is, I'm not sure how Wikipedia's fair use and image licencing templates work for montages. All except the Sydney photo are on Wikipedia Commons (the Sydney one is Creative Commons attributed licence). Anyone here know? --TripleThree (talk) 16:36, 27 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

US dollars or australian dollars?

[edit]

Logically by context the GDP figure should be in Australian dollars. However at British economy the figure is in $ so I assume they're both $US.

It should specify which dollars are being used - AUD/AU$ or USD/US$. -Chriswaterguy talk 20:06, 1 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

POV statement?

[edit]

"goods and services tax (GST) sought to encourage the level of saving amongst lower income earners"

Typical of articles on the Australian economy, this one seems to be replete with bias towards the Liberal parties policies. Last I checked, taxing everyone at an equal rate was designed to hurt lower income earners who face less income tax and this was the opinion of the overwhelming majority when the GST was introduced. In fact this was such a big deal at the time that the Liberal Party was unable to introduce the GST without help from other political parties in the Senate who forced them to make concessions for lower income earners.

There should be plenty of sources regarding this and as the original statement is not properly sourced I would suggest it is deleted until the correct statement can be made.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:18, 11 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

GDP growth over time

[edit]

After searching for 1.5 hours all over wikipedia and the internet for a graph of Australian GDP over time, and not even finding anything even slightly close, I'm guessing this sort of information does just not exist. But seriously, wtf. Jason McConnell-Leech (talk) 12:46, 2 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Population below poverty line

[edit]

Just getting up on my high horse here but can we add this section to the box on the right like other countries. Seems misleading that it is omitted. I appreciate that there aren't any values in the CIA Factbook, maybe a link to Poverty in australia instead or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.59.100 (talk) 09:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Largest companies in the world?

[edit]

The introductory paragraphs states that the ASX is home to some of the largest companies in the world and includes in that list LJ Hooker, Billabong and Rip Curl. By what measure are these three companies among the largest in the world? Suggest they be removed. In addition Australia is no longer the home of NewsCorp. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Funkywinders (talk • contribs) 00:21, 26 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree, if anything BHP Billiton & Woolworths are more significant as when measured by revenue they're pretty high up the list.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:56, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Reference number 13 (to the Australian Bureau of Statistics is broken). From the look of the URL it looks like it is supposed to point to the 2006 version of document 5204.0 (Australian System of National Accounts). However, this doesn't seem to be available any more. I can only see the 2009-2010 version on the ABS web site. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dburr (talk • contribs) 17:55, 21 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Average wealth per adult

[edit]

Should we include the second place ranking of Australia according to average wealth per adult in 2011. - Shiftchange (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Roy Morgan as source

[edit]

Does anyone know if these guys are reliable? They're being trumpeted as such and it seems a bit peculiar that a polling company can be classed as equally reliable when its statistics vary so much from the generally trustworthy ABS.--Senor Freebie (talk) 14:54, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

++Casualisation of workforce++ Under - Employment

Stats listed here make no sense, claims 2 million casually employed (probably correct), but goes on to claim that this is %40 of the workforce, not possible considering the workforce is 13 million. 2 million is thus about 17-16%. Better stats ought to be found on this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.64.104.94 (talk) 09:35, 19 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Messy reference list

[edit]

Most of the references are just the url without any complete information and do not reflect Wikipedia's Manual of Style. Alishakitty (talk) 11:55, 24 July 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Remove renewable energy figure from energy section?

[edit]

I couldn't help but notice that the figure showing renewable energy in Australia looks a little out of place. Given how short the energy section is, and that it makes no mention of renewable energy, it doesn't seem notable enough to be given such a prominent mention. I think it would be better to either replace it with another figure showing Australia's energy generation by source, or to remove it entirely. If no one has any objections, I will remove the figure, and perhaps flesh out the energy section.192.87.183.43 (talk) 07:05, 16 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello everyone, I am working for the International Trade Centre (ITC), a UN/WTO agency that aims to promote sustainable economic development through trade promotion. I would like to propose the addition of an external link (http://www.macmap.org/QuickSearch/FindTariff/FindTariff.aspx?subsite=open_access&country=SCC036%7CAustralia&year=2014&source=1%7CITC) to this country economy page that could lead directly to our online database of customs tariffs applied by Australia. Visitors can easily look up market access information for the Australia by selecting the product and partner of their interest. I would like you to consider this link under the WP:ELYES #3 prescriptions. Moreover, the reliability and the pertinence of this link can be supported by the following facts 1) ITC is part of the United Nations, and aims to share trade and market access data on by country and product as a global public good 2) No registration is required to access this information 3) Market access data (Tariffs and non-tariff measures) are regularly updated

Thank you, Divoc (talk) 12:52, 30 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Economy of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Economy of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:39, 27 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Economy of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merging Retail into Services

[edit]

For some reason, this is the only "economy" article I've seen that lists Retail separate to services as a percentage of GDP, making Australia under 70% services, which isn't true. Retail work is service work - its not building, digging or farming. As a result, I have merged it into services. 118.208.63.206 (talk) 16:50, 30 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Economy of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:32, 27 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 external links on Economy of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:32, 16 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Economy of Australia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:28, 6 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That rectangle thing

[edit]

How come there is no GDP breakdown by sector for australia. Fucking Mali has one.

Data Table

[edit]

The data table has a red arrow if inflation is greater than 2%, a green if less. This is clearly subjective, and not consistent with the the aim of monetary policy pursued by the RBA. The RBA aims for an inflation rate of 2-3% across the business cycle. Green and red if used should be consistent with the aims of policy that is green if between 2-3% or red otherwise. Even better would be their removal as it is not like GDP or unemployment where growth or reduction is generally accepted as desirable, some lowish positive rate of inflation is really all that needs to be maintained. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 49.184.196.222 (talk) 06:48, 3 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

First sentence

[edit]

The first sentence makes no sense. It says the economy...is an economy. What? What is the economy of Australia? I can't tell what it is from the first sentence because it is a tautology. - Shiftchange (talk) 00:53, 18 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"total estimated value of natural resources"

[edit]

The article's lead contains (since 2017) the sentence:

Australia has the eight-highest total estimated value of natural resources, valued at Int$19.98 trillion in 2017.[1]

References

  1. ^ Anthony, Craig (25 June 2019). "10 Countries with the Most Natural Resources". Investopedia.

I have tried to verify this claim. tl;dr: I think it's bogus.

The current version of the linked Investopedia article says:

Australia has an estimated $19.9 trillion in natural resources that include coal, timber, copper, iron ore, gold, and uranium.[2]

and it cites:

2. Statista. "Leading Countries Worldwide Based on Natural Resource Value as of 2021."

Statista is paywalled, and even worse, requires payment to see what sources they cite (this is worse than scientific publishers). Statista might state the above, but even if so, I don't think it's at all credible (as I explain below).

An earlier version of the Investopedia page said:

Australia earns $19.9 trillion U.S. dollars from mining,

(a very different statement using the same number!), and at the time it cited:

World Atlas. "Countries With The Most Natural Resources." Accessed Oct. 14, 2019.

which sure enough says:

Mining is the primary industry in Australia and the main contributor to its economy which earns them over $19.9 trillion per annum.

citing no sources. That statement is patently false, since Australia's entire GDP is ~$1.5 trillion, not to mention is not primarily mining. (Even according to "WorldAtlas". [2][3])

The original version of the Investopedia article, which was in place when the content was added to Wikipedia, cited no sources, and simply read:

Australia, with $19.9 trillion in natural resources, comes in at number eight on the list.

I suspect that this $19.9 trillion number may have made it into Statista and WorldAtlas.com via Investopedia and/or Wikipedia, and then were cited by Investopedia (citogenesis). Also, how is the number identical in 2016, 2019, and 2021? Unfortunately, the number has been repeated all over the internet with the help of Wikipedia and otherwise (random example).

So what's the truth? I can't find any reputable source that estimates a "total value" of Australia's minerals or other natural resources. In "Australia’s Mineral Resource Assessment 2013," published by Geoscience Australia (government agency), they extensively list the amounts (tonnes) of resources in the ground.

[edit: removed comments of mine that were stupid (off by factor of 1000); see here if you really want (I'm not trying to hide anything).]

Conclusion: I'm removing the statement from the article. Also, IMO, any articles citing Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Perennial_sources#Investopedia, even Investopedia articles with footnotes, should be scrutinized.

One more thing: Special:Contributions/2405:204:4129:8F86:3C75:AE9F:F04C:3258 shows this person added corresponding statements to Economy of China and Economy of Saudi Arabia, which are still there.

Micler (talk) 18:48, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Economy_of_Australia&oldid=1194476263"