The question of which side of politics will best "manage the economy" may well decide the election, but it's being assessed in a bizarrely narrow way.

Canberra insiders are playing gotcha politics over whose policy "costings" will shave more slivers off the budget deficit in the next four years.

The political debate is overhyped.

Trivial differences in forecasts over years — estimates, not outcomes — are being presented as a guide to credentials on economic management, when they don't say much at all.

This week, the Coalition trumpeted an estimated saving of $1.1 billion in the budget bottom line over the four years of the forward estimates.

Let's put that $1.1 billion saving in context.

Government payments over the forward estimates are forecast to be around about $1.8 trillion.

So that estimated saving — not a fact, just a projection — is less than 0.1 per cent of government payments. So trivial it's barely a rounding error.

Inevitably, politicians will spin it to suit themselves but one wonders about the numeracy of press gallery journalists who present a billion dollars as a sum of significant magnitude, relative to $1.8 trillion is government spending and the economy's annual output of $1.6 trillion.

What about Labor's additional $16 billion in spending? That's less than 1 per cent of forecast government payments over that period.

Again, it's a rounding adjustment. And these numbers are just estimates in an uncertain world.

We've seen what an economic shock like Brexit can do in blink of an eye.

A small change in the iron ore price could either blow out the deficit or rein it in.

Any number of factors could lead either side to scrap spending measures, or leave whoever wins government with more room to move.

Keep in mind, too, that Scott Morrison's budget had $18 billion in revenue booked from unlegislated policy measures — money that's not there.

Even allowing that Labor now looks like it'll pass some of those measures, there are still billions the Coalition is relying on it may not get.

When you take that into account, the differences between the two sides' "costings" over the forward estimates are tiny.

Yet senior political journalists have presented Labor's disclosure that its measures would cause a slight rise in the deficit in the near term — despite a reasonable estimate that additional revenue measures will have the budget $10 billion to $20 billion a year better off 10 years on — as a serious political gaffe and a major policy error.

"Did you feel sick that day at that press conference when you had to concede that you would have higher deficits in the forward estimates?" Sarah Ferguson asked Bill Shorten on the Four Corners election special.

"Is that the moment you lost the election?"

That may indeed cost Labor the election, and certainly seems to have undermined its prospects — because the public has been schooled in achieving a surplus the budget is the be-all and end-all of sound economic management.

Space to play or pause, M to mute, left and right arrows to seek, up and down arrows for volume. Watch Duration: 50 minutes 50 m Sarah Ferguson interviews Malcolm Turnbull and Bill Shorten on Four Corners

Animal Farm economics: 'Deficit ba-a-ad, surplus go-o-od'

Both sides of politics are formally committed to balancing the budget over the economic cycle, but whether it's appropriate to deliver a surplus will depend on the economic circumstances prevailing at the time.

But neither side of politics are willing to make the savage cuts to spending or levy the tax increases you'd need to swiftly bring the budget into balance.

Nor would it necessarily make economic sense to do so — the economy is relatively weak, and in the midst of a difficult transition from the resources boom to whatever follows, with 700,000 people unemployed and large numbers under-employed.

A tougher fiscal policy would shift the burden to the Reserve Bank, forcing it to cut interest rates even further from record lows, and leaving it little room to move if we do experience a serious downturn.

What's rarely acknowledged is that it's possible to deliver surpluses and manage the economy badly.

Peter Costello was fortunate enough to be treasurer while a once-in-a-lifetime resources boom delivered a massive revenue windfall.

He made political capital out of delivering years of budget surpluses and, in net terms, making the Commonwealth "debt free" (though household debt soared to record highs).

But the surpluses were far smaller than they could have been.

Government spending helped to drive up interest rates and added heat to an already overheated economy, while policy measures during this time paved the way for a structural budget deficit we have now.

Personal income tax cuts which may not have been affordable; increases in family payments and other tax transfers which are now being wound back.

Former Treasurer Peter Costello allowed people to put up to $1 million a year into retirement savings. ( Mark Graham, file photo: AAP )

Mr Costello's decision to allow people to put up to $1 million a year into retirement savings helped to turn superannuation into a huge tax dodge for the rich that became fiscally unsustainable; Labor and the Coalition are both proposing measures to deal with the problem.

It's passing strange that, in the public consciousness, balancing the budget is the leitmotif of economic responsibility, when Australian households are carrying a burden of debt unparalleled in history and, on many measures, unparalleled in the world.

So how should the public judge the economic credibility of the major parties, if it's not by how many slithers of savings they can shave in the short term off the budget bottom line?

Well, 10-year plans are in vogue and both sides have given us one.

At the core of the Coalition's, a trickle-down economy theory which maintains that a 5 per cent company tax cut phased in over a decade will, in the long run, flow through to higher productivity, higher wages, and increase the size of the economy by about 1 per cent in 20 to 30 years time.

The costs in lost revenue start small, at about $300 million, but builds to more than $14 billion (a year) in a decade's time. This article outlines the assumptions the policy relies on.

Labor is arguing that investing in health, education and infrastructure can build the productive capacity of the economy in the long run — committing $37 billion in spending on education alone over 10 years and sacrificing revenue by unfreezing the Medicare rebate to preserve bulk billing.

It plans to shore up revenue by, among other measures, limiting negative gearing tax concessions for real estate to new dwellings and cutting back on capital gains tax concessions.

There is no spin in the claims of politicians from both camps that voters have a clear policy choice.

Australians would be well advised to focus on the policies, rather than the costings minutiae.