In 1984, Anthony Albanese graduated from the University of Sydney with a Bachelor of Economics. In an ironic juxtaposition, this is the same year that US President Ronald Reagan delivered a speech pithily observing that, ‘Government does not solve problems; it subsidises them.’ Ironic because government subsidies seem to be the default policy response to every economic and social challenge before the Albanese government.

Cost of living too high? Provide cost-of-living subsidies. Manufacturing declining? Provide production subsidies. Energy costs too high? Provide energy subsidies. Salaries too low? Provide wage subsidies. Childcare costs too high? Enhance middle-class-welfare subsidies. Housing unaffordable? Increase rental subsidies.

Within the Albanese government it seems that there is a belief that no problem can withstand an assault from buckets of other peoples’ money; debt and inflationary consequences be damned. Actual policy development, reform, and advocacy to promote productivity, prosperity and tranquility is apparently for others not distracted by the in-flight movies on Toto 1.

Prime Minister Albanese’s partner in profligacy is his esteemed Treasurer Dr Jim Chalmers. David Pearl recently wrote, unfavourably comparing Chalmers to a Labor treasurer of an earlier time, that, ‘Chalmers is unmistakably a modern-day Jim Cairns, only without the PhD in economics. Both are dreamers, wishing the laws of economics and sound public finance were otherwise than what they are.’ Such comparisons are unfair. Unfair on Cairns.

Misguided as Cairns may have been, he at least had an economic vision for Australia. A vision shaped by his socialist beliefs of a fairer society delivered through government intervention and wealth redistribution. Chalmers’ vision, on the other hand, seems no more sophisticated than being there.

Unlike Cairns, Chalmers’ doctoral thesis was not on economics but on political science and specifically on the prime ministership of ‘Brawler Statesman’ Paul Keating. Perhaps portending his own treasurership, Chalmers’ thesis focused on the style rather than the substance of Keating’s leadership, ignoring Keating’s rich economic policy record, instead studying how Keating managed and exercised prime ministerial power.

In the first two years of his treasurership, Keating drove several important economic reforms including floating of the Australian dollar and financial deregulation. In Chalmers’ first two years, he championed two tax increases and a restructure of the RBA.

The first tax increase was a poorly considered and ill-designed tax on superannuation balances greater than $3 million. A particularly egregious reform which breaks an election commitment, introduces a tax on unrealised gains, and also privileges bureaucrats and politicians in legacy defined benefit pension schemes. Even Chalmer’s thesis subject Keating described key elements of this tax as ‘unconscionable’.

The second tax increase, and one Chalmers claims to be most proud of, was to increase taxes on middle and higher earners to finance a tax cut for low earners. And in doing so, he waged a direct assault on aspirational Australians. Financing tax cuts for all earners through cutting government spending would have been anathematic for Chalmers.

As Rome’s economy burns, Chalmers fiddles and diddles. Instead of investing his energies into reducing inflation and promoting economic growth, Chalmers pens indulgent essays on redesigning capitalism.  Instead of championing economic reforms, Chalmers theatrically performs, criticising anyone who refuses to engage with the government’s right-speak.

All the while, Australia’s economy is facing significant challenges. Although not technically in recession, Australia is in a secular stagnation with the longest per-capita recession in over 50 years and sluggish aggregate economic growth. Inflation remains high and persistent, while productivity declines.

Chalmers would have Australians believe that the essence of Australia’s economic troubles is the nasty RBA and its interest rate policies. Oh, and overseas factors too.  And the previous government. And climate change. And the dog eating his briefing book.

If Chalmers were to be believed, Australia’s economic malaise has nothing to do with record government spending and taxing, and certainly not with the multiple anti-prosperity and anti-productivity policies implemented by the government of which he is a senior member.

Commenting following the most recent disappointing economic growth data, Chalmers said, ‘Without government spending, there’d be no growth in the economy at all.’ The idea an ever-growing public sector was crowding out the private sector seems foreign to Chalmers. However, if all that is required to improve economic growth is increasing government spending, then why not just double or triple spending and make Australia the fastest-growing economy in the world?

Earlier this year, feigning reform zeal, Chalmers initiated discussions with the ACCC around launching an inquiry into alleged price-gouging by business. Perhaps more urgent inquiry is required into price-gouging by government.

The true measure of taxation is government spending because it is financed by taxes collected today or collected tomorrow. Under Chalmers’ stewardship, Commonwealth government spending has increased from 24.5 per cent of GDP to 26.4 per cent of GDP, an extra $100 billion per annum gouged from Australians. Where are the inquiries into this?

In the 1979 film Being There, the main character, Chance the gardener, becomes Chauncey Gardiner, a potential candidate for US President. Due to a series of misunderstandings, Gardiner’s simple comments about gardening are misinterpreted as deep insights. No better example being his remark that, ‘There will be growth in the spring’ being seen as a metaphor for an imminent economic recovery.

In his recent John Curtin Oration, Chalmers referred to a ‘new generation of opportunity in a new fourth economy for Australia and its people’. Whatever may be a new fourth economy, this vacuous comment was perhaps meant to also be a metaphor for economic recovery.

Australia is in dire need of economic leadership. Without it, there won’t be economic growth in the spring. Or in the summer, autumn, or winter.