Talk:Economic history of Australia
|WikiProject Australia / History||(Rated Start-class)|
The expression needs a lot of work. Some of the time periods could be filled out more. A lot of the issues are common knowledge for many people. Given the amount of information publically available, merging it seems like overkill.
RyanCastle 07:32, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
- Extra emphasis needed on the 1974-present time period.
Also is heavily biased towards the eastern states. Just one example: the Victorian goldrush didn't lead to expansion in the colonies which suffered from a mass exodus of labour. 188.8.131.52 20:49, 10 May 2006 (UTC)
What really would tell a good story is the GDP per capita changes in relation to world levels. Someone with access to chart publishing software would be useful?
|It is requested that a template-based chart or charts be included in this article to improve its quality. Specific illustrations, plots or diagrams can be requested at the Graphic Lab.
For more information, refer to discussion on this page and/or the listing at Wikipedia:Requested images.
It would be useful to have a chart showing Australia's GDP and growth rate as far back as it has been tracked. -- Beland 07:04, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
Clearly, there are a lot of chronological gaps. -- Beland 07:11, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
the australian 1890's depression was a large slump in australias econimie and working buisnesses but it was also a g reat time in australian history as well wiomen finaly got to vote for parlerment and federation was nearly taking pace in the dry harsh soils of the newly discovered land we now call australia.
Global financial crisis
I think what would add to this document is something to do with Australia's activities and effects as a consequence of the GFC which started in 2007. If we could change the 1974 - present with 1974 to 2006 it would enable this article to be more relevent. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:46, 13 February 2009 (UTC)
Where the hell are the references in this article?
Note - I started this article many years ago as a basis for a small paper for a final year course in my bachelor of economics. I cannot source the original document containing my references, I'll have a look through later this week to see where I got them from. - Chef-d —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:17, 2 August 2010 (UTC)
Why are British colonisers referred to as 'European'?
Can anyone point to a reason why the first fleet should be treated as 'European' settlement of Australia - were there any reasonably significant number of non-British people involved in it?
From other reading, I see 'European' being used to legitimize a British colony established on the continent - which to date has had very little European about it (no more than a few Dutch or French names and very few actual continental Europeans arriving to Australia until the post WWII period). Architecture and customs of Australia up until WWII are very British with no recognizable European influence in law, cultural norms, organization of the society or political views.
In that context it seems misleading to claim that the 'in December 1792, the European population was 4,221, of whom 3,099 were convicts' - when this was really the count of people on the three British fleets arriving to Sydney - presumably a very English affair?