Strangling the golden goose
Date: Tuesday, March 16, 2010
Author: Henry Thornton
Boom and bust is a feature of capitalism.
We have had the Dutch tulip mania, the Mississippi bubble, the South Sea speculation, the Railway booms, property booms, share booms and new economy booms. All these booms and others caused great disturbance and almost all ended badly.
We tend to assume booms and busts are undesirable, worthy of 'reforms' that dampen booms and therefore decrease the busts.
Henry is coming to the view that the 'reform' process is strangling the golden goose that is capitalism.
The benefits of booms are many and varied.
Great things get achieved, whose benefits sit beside the costs of idiotic projects started.
Melbourne became a great city in the property boom of the 1880s. The Railway booms opened new territories and greatly increased the efficiency of existing industries.
People of an innovative mindset get their best chance in a boom, even though some innovative villains get away with other people's money.
Some poor people of talent, or merely lucky, rise during booms, just as some foolish, or merely unlucky, wealthy people miss out.
The busts weed out the seriously incompetent, some of the crooks and unlucky people generally.
The busts break up the entrenched oligopolies, as Schumpeter's gale of creative destruction breaks over the previous boomtown.
Cautious, sensible people usually survive the downturn and find serious bargains when the bust has run its course.
The calculus is far from certain, but history shows that boom and bust is an inherent part of capitalism. Inherent features of any system tend to have some beneficial role.
It is clear that there are many benefits of boom and bust to offset the costs. More work is needed to document and if possible to quantify the costs and benefits. Henry has a strong intuition that the benefits outweigh the costs, with one important caveat.
The chief cost of the busts may be increasingly intrusive and restrictive regulation of business. This may eventually outweigh the net benefits, if indeed it has not already done so.
'Let the buyer beware' has long been forgotten as a catch cry of capitalism. Globalised and harmonised accounting standards failed to stop Lehman Brothers from rorting this intrusive and clumsy set of standards. Friends say that the revamped Sarbanes-Oxley Act is an absolute nightmare.
Existing regulations failed to stop the boom of the noughties.
As the salarymen and women of global governance strive to 'reform' the rules of capitalism, this stark fact should not be forgotten.
The demise of Lehman Brothers, lamented as a mistake due to the trouble it caused, may have been a blessing in disguise. At least it disposed of the myth that bad banks would always be bailed out.
One hopes the re-regulators will put in place a system that does not let such enterprises become too big to fail, and has real costs for crooked, incompetent or merely unlucky managers.
'WHEN a 2200-page legal report on the collapse of Lehman Brothers landed with a thud in New York last week, exposing the grand deception the firm used for years to mask its perilous financial situation, many were left wondering how so many of its top executives could have been so bloody stupid. What made them think they were so special that the normal rules of the market, of the law and of common sense did not apply to them?'
Date: Wednesday, May 14, 2014
Author: Nick Raffan
Crikey, the Raff has never before encountered so much hostility towards a budget. Not just from the opposition side of the fence but from all political divides. From the opposition side of the great divide the Liberals were just being bastards as they always are, mean, uncaring and more protective of the well-off. From the Liberal quarter there was a complete rubbishing of most of JH’s budget items. The view all round is that TA and JH got it all wrong. But why?
It wouldn’t have taken much of a survey in the streets to find out in advance what was going to be the general view of the public on JH’s effort. JH and TA shouldn’t shoulder all the blame, a large part of which is probably attributable to advisors in Treasury, Finance and the Prime Minister’s office. We might well ponder the credentials of the advisors that have probably grown up in a cocoon masquerading as Canberra.
One thing is almost certain that most of the advisors, although probably well educated, have never worked in private industry, have never employed people and have never ever tried to run their own business. If you have a clodney or many of them responsible for providing advice to any government it’s a recipe for disaster. For Henry’s readers not familiar with the term, a clodney is someone most suitable as a potato digger, perhaps Irish in origin.
With so much hostility towards the budget from every corner, it’s difficult to see JH seeing much of the budget passing the Senate. The States are crying poor because of cuts in funding and education. This is clearly the start of the process to get the States to agree to a hike in the GST. Whilst on this subject it is notable how well New Zealand is doing after increasing the GST from 12% to 15%.
Jeff Kennett got it right in a recent interview on ABC’s Lateline that the procedure should have been TA saying “I am going to break ONE promise to rectify the budget and that is I am going to hike the GST”. By the way, pretty well all the Table of Knowledge participants thought that hiking the GST was the best option for the Libs. We might well ask ourselves how come TA and JH couldn’t see same.
A worrying outcome from this mess is high probability of a double dissolution. If current sentiment exists into the next election the Libs will get wiped out, and they will only have themselves to blame. One view from a Labor stalwart was god forbid a continuation of Labor failures. A ghastly thought are Libs switching to The Greens or Palmer’s United Party. It’s a nightmarish thought but the very worst imaginable outcome would be hello President Clive.
Ed: Roy Morgan Research reported: 'A special combined Roy Morgan Business Pulse and Roy Morgan Consumer Pulse survey conducted today (May 14, 2014) shows large majorities of both Australian consumers (88%) and businesses (74%) overwhelmingly feel last night’s Federal Budget will not benefit them – this is little changed from pre-Budget expectations measured by Roy Morgan last Friday'.
Saturday Sanity Break, 10 May 2014
Date: Saturday, May 10, 2014
Author: Henry Thornton
Budget week. What fun, when all the leaks, inventions and outright lies are put to rest. It will be tough, and it will be fair, with a deficit levy on the well-to-do, it seems, despite all the wailing and gnashing of teeth, implants rather than removable plates in these times of advanced dentistry.
Local Tea Party Libs, however, deserve their chance to let off steam. Here is a nice snippet from 1888, from Representative Thomas R Hudd of Wisconsin, when taxes were miniscule by today's standards..
Taxed on the coffin, taxed on the crib On the old man's shroud, on the young baby's crib To fatten the bigot and pamper the knave We are taxed from the cradle plumb into the grave.
Henry's efforts in this pre-budget week have focussed on the radical fix-it budgets of President Reagan and Prime Minister Thatcher. Desperate times, the dismal 1970s, produced strong, self-confident leaders. Henry's conclusion should give succor to Tea Party Libs.
'Despite the set-back in October 1987, the great asset boom of the 1980s was to continue until the Japanese crash in December 1989. In the USA and UK the October set-back was greater, but the 1990s were to produce one of the greatest share booms in history. Budget policy in both cases was non-standard, even totally at odds with conventional (Keynesian) standards. The question that must be answered is this: "Was it improved economic performance or simply the psychological effect of strong-minded, self-confident leaders willing to shake up entrenched economies?"
'Tony Abbott and Joe Hockey, over to you'.
A regular reader and occasional critic, Tiresias of Canberra, found Henry's question unconvincing or irrelevant.
'Your question on how best to account for the Great Recovery under Reagan and Thatcher (“Was it improved economic performance or simply the psychological effect of strong-minded, self-confident leaders willing to shake up entrenched economies?”) is a great conversation starter or examination topic … but real-life national economic policy is neither a dinner party or an exam. The thrilling days of the 80s are not about to return in time to rejuvenate those who remember them. Policy is a desperate struggle to get it right that takes place in the knowledge that even the best answer will turn out to be wrong after a while … which would make a great epitaph for either Reaganomics or Thatcherism'.
Another contribution this week also questioned another conventional wisdom. Craig Milne of the Australian Productivity Council accepts that freer trade has made us richer, but invites us to recognise the costs, which include: * unemployment now much higher than it was in the trade regulated era; * replacement of Australian manufactured goods with imports has been the main contributor to the deterioration of the nation’s external account; * as manufacturing contracted, the share of the economy commanded by government has grown in response; and * the loss of large numbers of manufacturing firms, and even entire industries, that has resulted from trade liberalisation, has substantially diminished Australia’s technological status and capability.
As an overall result, Milne says 'we have lost the mastery of the art and science that underpins this broad expertise that is, more than anything else, the measure and defining characteristic of a technical civilisation, the engine of its forward movement and the ground of its futurity'.
Thanks go to David Uren & the Oz for the nice overview of deficits on debt since Federation, along with the Prime Ministers who presided. The roll call includes Henry's favourite deficit crisis, the 'Banana Republic'.
The article is linked here, and its graphic clearly deserves to be image of the week, if not the year.
There are three tests for the budget which is to be presented next week; * Is it tough enough? * Is it fair enough? and * Does its narrative make sense, and include plans to reduce Australia's double-digit cost overhang?
Fiona Prior has visited the 19th Biennale of Sydney and her report can be accessed here.
Clearly a mind-blowing experience.
The Bump that stopped a nation, correction, footy lovers in that nation, has been resolved in accord with Australia's ANZAC tradition of bravery and strength under pressure in a lost cause. Melbourne's Jack Viney is free to play this weekend, a clearly stoopid decision by the AFL tribunal having been overturned.
Last night's epic battle between a depleted Hawthorn and a revitalised Swans was one for the ages. The Swans now have not one but two superstar forwards, and it really isn't fair Andrew Demetriou.
Sadly, Henry will be on a plane returning from Sydney when Caaaarlton! plays St Kilda on Monday in the late afternoon. If only we had one superstar forward, plus Cyril Rioli, Gary Ablett and that superstar ruckman we let go to Adelaide we'd be competitive. But we got crucified by the AFL for rorting the salary cap, another poor decision by Andrew Demitriou. (In the Thornton household, Mr Demetriou gets blamed for all things wrong with the AFL, just as Bill Shorten blames Tony Abbott for all things wrong with Australia.)
A highlight of Henry's week was a short conversation with legendary Beer and Jam mogol, John Elliot.
Henry. 'What's up with our footy team, John? John. 'We've got seven of our best players out injured. We lack depth'. Henry. 'How's Mick going?' John. 'Mick's doing fine. The players are right behind him!' Henry. 'Good. Enjoy your smoke, Comrade.'
Image of the week
Courtesy David Uren & the Oz
Mrs Thatcher`s budgets
Date: Thursday, May 08, 2014
Author: Henry Thornton
‘This week, [Feb 3-10, 1979] capitalists have been fleeing from securities. Almost all the major stock markets went into reverse’.
The Economist said: ‘This is not an encore of 1974; UK industry and government are in better shape, and there is (not yet) any liquidity crisis. The UK was still grappling with ‘wages policy’, with 12 % inflation! • In 1974, oil prices quadrupled, now price rises only 15 %. • However, non-oil producing OECD nations, especially the USA, started out in balance of payments deficit, and it was feared may impose import restrictions
Before long, as we have seen, US inflation was 12 %.
Chancellor Dennis Healey started in 1974 with the unfair disadvantage of world inflation and slump, and ended in 1979 with the unfair advantage of North Sea Oil. Almost everything he did to navigate out of the morass he inherited was wrong. Economic policy-making was 'all over the place'.
Commons vote of no confidence came before what would have been his ‘final disgrace’. Healey’s final budget was described as a ‘Caretaker Budget’.
As in the United States, a strong leader took over from a failed government. Margaret Thatcher’s government took over on 4 May 1979 and ran to 28 November 1990.
It was the judgment of most respectable economists and commentators that the world economy was going to sink into recession.
The world’s finance ministers packed their bags for an IMF meeting in Belgrade in a mood described as ‘uncooperative'. This was due to a widespread feeling that governments were helpless to counteract the blow to their economies from the new oil-price increase.
A newspaper said: ‘Well meaning platitudes from the IMF and broad hints of stronger measures from Washington were enough to blow the head off the bull market in gold’.
Gold soared to 'lunatic and unsustainably high levels'. The US Fed was reportedly selling gold.
When Mrs Thatcher took office in May of 1979, Britain’s inflation was 8 %. By February 1980 it was 18 %, due to both parties’ pre-election promises, higher VAT, higher interest rates, demanding unions and ever more demanding oil sheiks.
It is commonly believed that Mrs Thatcher introduced tight monetary and fiscal policies. For her first term, this was not the fact, though it was the rhetoric.
When Mrs Thatcher cut income tax in her first budget, she balanced this by rises in VAT. It became clear, at least with hindsight, that they should have been balanced instead by cuts to government expenditure. Increasing VAT put inflationary expectations up and an axe to civil service costs would have put inflationary expectations down.
The second Thatcher budget was predicted to send unemployment over 3 million. The budget was expected to add 2 % to British inflation, which exceeded 10 % when wage bargaining started in the autumn; ...
Extra taxes on drinkers, smokers and drivers increased retail prices by 2 % and Charcellor Sir Geoffrey Howe increased income tax by another 2.5 billion pounds. The Economist described it as ‘decidedly unKeynesian’ also unconservative, even socialistic.
Another description was ‘Private slimming and public fat’.
Private inflations had soon fallen from 20 % to 7 %, strikes had virtually stopped, Britain produced the biggest balance of payments surplus in the world, inflation in the nationalised industries was three times that in the private sector and public service wages had risen by 50 % in two years. Failure to cut numbers of civil servants was to be a consistent criticism of the Thatcher government.
Government spending rose from Labor’s 41.5 % of GDP under Labour to 44.5 %, despite falling capital spending
One wag described this as‘letting sewers rot to keep bureaucrats' jobs’.
The public sector borrowing requirement (PSBR) had overshot and Sterling M3, was supposed to grow in the range 7-11 %, but actually grew by 20 %. The Economist said: ‘The Bank of England has been trying to control the wrong indicator by the wrong methods with the wrong information through the wrong institutional mechanisms’. If the budget was unKeynesian, monetary policy was unmonetarist.
In 1982, budgetary and monetary policy was still at sixes and seven, with what Bob Dylan called ‘mixed up confusion’ (in another context) in his Masterpieces album released in Japan, Australia and New Zealand in 1978.
Confrontation with unions was the issues of the year. A bill to curb union power was seen as just a good start. ‘One day Britain will have to follow the rest of the civilised world and make its collective agreements legally enforceable like any other contract’. Any local resonance, gentle readers?
It was time for the Thatcher govt to open up the ‘union citadels’ of British Telecom, British Airways, British Gas, British Steel and all the rest.
The budget speech offered “substantial reductions in taxation, while at the same time reducing the government’s borrowing requirements”, the parliamentary equivalent to “doing the splits”.
It was remarked that it would be odd if UK’s deficit at 3.5 % of GDP would let British interest rates ‘continue to thump down’ while USA’s 3.75 % drove rates up. Was President Reagan at this stage trusted more than Prime Minister Thatcher?
Money growth target was meant to drop from 6-10 % in 1981-2 to 5-9 % in 1982-3, but instead rose by 14.5 %. More confusion.
But by 1984, the economy ‘was settling into a third year of growth that many people said could not happen’.
By 1987, Britain’s growth exceeded had exceeded that of almost every European nation for the first time in decades. But it was pointed out that UK growth was still well behind US or Japan, which provided the standard to aspire to.
The Economist reported that Charles Mackay would have enjoyed the boom that the world’s top three stock markets had enjoyed at the start of the year – New York, London, Tokyo. (Since Jan 1, Wall Street +20 %; Tokyo +13 %; London +21%)
‘Yet there has been little economic news to justify a surge of optimism’.
Despite the set-back in October 1987, the great asset boom of the 1980s was to continue until the Japanese crash in December 1989. In the USA and UK the October set-back was greater, but the 1990s were to produce one of the greatest share booms in history. Budget policy in both cases was non-standard, even totally at odds with conventional (Keynesian) standards. The question that must be answered is this: 'Was it improved economic performance or simply the psychological effect of strong-minded, self-confident leaders willing to shake up entrenched economies?'
Consumer confidence plunges
Date: Wednesday, May 07, 2014
Author: Roy morgan Research
The ANZ-Roy Morgan Consumer Confidence fell a further 4.2% to 106.3 in the week ending 4 May. Confidence is now down a sharp 8% over the past fortnight; a large move for the index.
This is most likely to have been driven by policy leaks in the lead up to the May 13 Federal budget, with the Commission of Audit’s report and the mooted ‘deficit reduction levy’ covered extensively in the media in the past week.
Consistent with this, the weakness in the week was driven by another sharp fall in consumers’ perceptions of ‘economic conditions next year’ (-10.8%) and this sub-index is now down over 20% over the past fortnight. Perceptions of ‘economic conditions in the next five years’ fell 3.8% after declining 4.6%.
However, there was a silver lining in the report. The sub-index of confidence - perceptions of ‘financial situation compared to a year ago’ - which is most correlated with households’ spending decisions, rose modestly last week (+1.9%) after falling a more modest 3.7% in the previous week compared to other sub-indices.
As such, and together with signs that the labour market is beginning to strengthen, ANZ’s bottom line for the household consumption outlook remains that consumer spending will improve this year and next, although next week’s budget has the ability to drag on the speed of that recovery.
ANZ Chief Economist (Australia) Ivan Colhoun said: 'The ANZ-Roy Morgan weekly consumer confidence is providing the first read of the impact of the Budget on consumers. Confidence has fallen sharply over the past fortnight, to be down over 8% over that period, which coincides with a number of policy leaks in the lead up to the May 13 Federal Budget.
'The policies of most concern to the consumer spending outlook at this stage are the mooted temporary deficit reduction levy and the proposed changes to the eligibilities for welfare and pension payments. These policies, if introduced, would impact consumption both directly and indirectly. This index will be important to watch for the likely magnitude of the policy’s indirect hit to consumer spending – and how sustained the impact from any other Budget-related news will be on consumer confidence more generally'.
The graph shows the effects of facts, fictions and the occasional barefaced leak.
Henry draws your attention to an important article - linked here - on the benefits and costs of trade liberisation, written by Craig Milne of the Australian Productivity Council.
President Reagan's budgets
Date: Tuesday, May 06, 2014
Author: Henry Thornton
1979 was a dismal year. After two decades of strong post-war boom, OPEC’s two rounds of oil hikes had reduced the leading nations to virtual despair. But new administrations were in place, or in the wings, and radical change to economic policies were coming soon.
In Australia the Fraser government was struggling with ‘monetary projections that could not be achieved, except by chance, with a fixed exchange rate and heavily restricted domestic financial markets.
In the USA, President Carter was overwhelmed by the problems he was facing on all fronts.
Early in 1979 there began the second oil price crisis. Tremors from Iran spread around the world. Rumours of a new ceiling on Saudi oil production compounded oil companies’ warnings of shortages and cuts. The dollar plunged while gold shot up to $254 per ounce almost immediately (with further increases to $400 plus) and other metals soared.
A newspaper said: ‘This week, capitalists have been fleeing from securities. Almost all the major stock markets went into reverse’.
Investors were switching, sometimes indiscriminately, into anything that offered some shelter against the stagflationary fall-out from Iran.
President Carter appointed Paul Volcker as Chairman of the US Fed in August 1979, in perhaps his finest contribution to global economics. Mr Volcker blamed inflation on excessive monetary growth and said at Senate confirmation hearings “there is no substitute for monetary discipline”. By October, the American economy was experiencing an inflation rate near 12 % and a trade deficit almost $2 billion a month and a weak dollar, itself adding to inflation.
‘Strong-arm tactics were planned, including ‘sand in the wheels of finance’, with changes in operating procedures for monetary policy. These changes were widely seen as a major gamble. As someone said at the time: ‘Instead of the Fed setting cash rates and hoping for the best, it will cap ‘base money’ and let banks sort out interest rates’. When the new approach was implemented, interest rates oscillated wildly.
Ronald Reagan won in late 1980 and was inaugurated in early 1981. His brash young budget director, David Stockman, was described as David confronting the budgetary Goliath. ‘The hope was that, with the Fed’s monetary action, the combination of budget cutting and tax cutting might alter expectations of continuing inflationary spiral.
But, in America, the President proposes while Congress disposes. The subsequent struggles was described by one venerable journal as ‘a game of chicken’. Reagan and Stockman kept advocating three things: cutting taxes, increasing defence spending and radically cutting other sorts of spending, especially spending on welfare. Broadly speaking, congress accepted lower taxes and higher defence spending but not the other spending cuts that would have reduced the budget to anywhere like zero.
By early 1983, interest rates were rising while inflation had fallen to around 4 %. In fact, three month money cost 9 %, meaning ‘real’ (inflation adjusted) rates of interest were probably higher than they were in 1979. With President Reagan facing re-election in 1984, the Federal government’s budget deficit had risen from 2 % of GDP to 6 %. Mr Reagan renewed his call for constitutional amendment to ban budget deficits and to allow him to veto spending plans from Congress.
This call was ignored by Congress, and by 1985 the outlook was for ‘budget deficits as far as the eye could see’. Interest rates were rising. Paul Volcker called for the budget deficit to be cut ‘quickly’.
Make what you will of it, gentle readers. Almost any economist one could find would have predicted cast rates of 20 %, fluctuating wildly, and persistent, apparently unfixable, budget deficits would have wrecked the American economy. Yet the years following saw a massive global share boom, a short-lived bust (readers may recall October 1987) and further rises in what was one of the greatest share booms of history.
Henry's review of Prime Minister Thatcher's budgetary policy is available here.
Saturday Sanity Break, 3 May 2014
Date: Saturday, May 03, 2014
Author: Henry Thornton
More budget news today, especially 'No dole before 25: youth will have to earn or learn'. Smaller front page article on cutting down on politician's gold passes, with two reported cases of former pollies spending big to take their families to holiday houses in the sort of places others would like to bask in the sun if it were free to get there - Broome and Lord Howe Island. Nice one Tony'n'Joe, but what about taking a notch in the belt of current pollies? For example: 'Every Australian must share the pain, which includes a modest levy on marginal rates of tax above $xxx K. It will include a 20 % temporary cut in politicians' salaries (or, if this is not feasable, a voluntary cut in government salaries or equivalent payments to a recognised charity. The government also urges all Australians who feel they can afford to do so to increase their contributions to recognised charities.)'.
This is part of Henry's proposed draft outline of a coherent narrative from government that we believe our most senior journalists are in effect calling for. The draft outline is available here.
The budget is understandedly very important, if not yet a 'national emergency'. Regular readers will recognise that a bigger, more urgent, problem is double-digit cost disequilibrium. This is a problem that the proposed temporary 20 % salary cut for pollies is so important, once the problem is put on the table, which so far it has not.
Naturally, readers will make up their own minds about all this. Here is a link to a wonderful contributation by former crusading state premier Jeff Kennett. I really like his attack on penalty rates, which directly deals with the cost overhang.
Also valuable is his proposal to broaden the GST and (if needed to fix the budget) raise its rate, as the relatively brave New Zealanders have done.
And for a second independent opinion, see Paul Kelly, including another video. If you hang about you will see Alan Kohler interviewing the Chair of the Audit Commission.
Last night Henry and a co-religionist in the camp of Caaarlton! watched the AFL satanists Collingwood destroy the season of our (previous) one true footy team. It is very rare for Caaaarlton!'s season to be over after seven games, but with a 5(loss)/2(wins) record, only a miracle will see Caaaarlton! feature in September. The good news is there will be a lot of previous footy viewing time to use in more productive areas, like reading and writing, painting and hanging about with the family. Coach Mick the Merciless said afterwards that there were 'passengers' in the team, and one suspects there will soon be a 'youth policy' at Caaarlton!
Not much other sport to watch. NZ's Rugby League team gave the rampaging Aussies a fright, and our world champion heavy-weight boxer got belted. The good news is that a nation's sporting prowess is inverse to its sporting performance, so our sporting decline foretends a better economic performance.
Image of the week
The economy - proposed narrative
Date: Wednesday, April 30, 2014
Author: Henry Thornton
Treasury has told us that economic growth will be the weakest for 50 years. A key question is why they did not tell Rudd'n'Gillard'n'Rudd that the commodity boom they enjoyed so much would end soon (as all previous commodity booms had) and they should therefore not spend like drunken sailors? If such a message was delivered, it would be good to know, Dr Parkinson, preferably now but at least as soon as you are free to write your biography. Today's blog aims to provide a draft narrative to position the tough decisions needed now to minimise future misery for many Australians.
Of course, it seems highly likely Treasury did not sound the relevant warnings. If they had, Treasurer Swan would presumably not have constantly predicted a strong economy whose budget would whirr back into surplus not too long into the future. Did Treasury and/or successive governments really think Australia was a 'miracle economy' owed a living high on the hog for the feasible future?
Now it is time to sort it out, and Messrs Abbott and Hockey are hard at work telling us it is a whole lot worse than Treasury and Treasurer Swan believed only 6 or so short months ago. Gor blimey, comrades, it now looks pretty gruesome.
We have been told, correctly, that budget repair is going to take a unified effort from all Australians. Rich folk will cop a tax levy. While pensioners will have their pensions left alone, future pensioners can expect to work for longer. Families earning over $100 K will have to manage without handouts, which seems fair enough to the Thornton family.
Big spending schemes will need to be downsized/implemented more slowly, as even the PM's paid parental leave plan has been trimmed. Since Tassie has turned its back on the NBN, the largest and least useful white elephant of the Rudd'n'Gillard'n'Rudd administrations, why not just cancel the whole idea and let people make their own arrangements for fast internet? Radical, perhaps, but the simplest way to save a lot of money Henry can imagine.
Henry has been privileged to be the recipient by email of a lovely punch-up between Terry McCrann on one side and John Stone and Des Moore on the other. McCrann has supported the mooted 'tax levy' even if it will raise a relatively small amount, perhaps $2 to $3 billion. Messrs Stone and Moore say this is tiny relative to the overall budgetary problem and suggests it indicates lack of appropriate resolve to cut spending. Whilst one can agree with them on the size of the proposed levy, the political imperative of 'sharing the pain' is presumably the reason it is in the mix.
And on another point of political economy, every responsible commentator agrees that Labor's drunken sailor spending is most of the reason for the budgetary mess, along with the end of the best part of the commodity boom. Current attempts by Labor (and Labor's coalition partners, the Greens) to frustrate the government's attempt to fix the budgetary mess is full of contradictions and illustrates either blind stupidity or gross hypocricy.
The government is taking a beating in the polls and one hopes by budget time it has sorted out the 'narrative' into a few simple propositions.
Here is a first draft:
1 The budget is in big trouble, and Australia has become very uncompetitive. (Provide examples.)
2. Australia's strategic mistake was to assume record terms of trade would last forever, which produced overspending by governments and unsustainable increases in incomes, including welfare payments generally.
3. The Labor Green alliance boosted government outlays with a number of overly-ambitious spending programs. (Specify)
4. The current government is responsible for fixing the budget, which involves cancelling programs we cannot afford, slowing and/or making less ambitious programs Australia currently cannot afford in their current form.
5. Every Australian must share the pain, which includes a modest levy on marginal rates of tax on incomes above $xxx K. It will include a 20 % temporary cut in politicians' salaries (or, if this is not feasable, a voluntary cut in government salaries or equivalent payments to a recognised charity. The government also urges all Australians who feel they can afford to do so to increase their contributions to recognised charities.)
6. Companies whose costs are making them uncompetitive are urged to talk with their workforces to seek changes to remuneration practices, either temporary or permanant, to restore competitiveness. Top managements should take the lead in accepting cuts to their remuneration of a similar proportionate magnitude they wish their staff to adopt. To the extent that productivity can be improved, remuneration cuts can and should be smaller.
7. Specific promises made before we knew the magnitude of problems facing the nation may need to be postponed in whole or in part. We apologise for this but note that officials did not warn of the size of the problems we are now dealing with, nor did the major business representative groups, or indeed most economists or journalists.
Give us your thoughts.
Readers are invited to contact Henry here if you wish to contribute to the debate we have to have.
Saturday Sanity Break, 26 April 2014
Date: Saturday, April 26, 2014
Author: Henry Thornton
Treasurer Joe Hockey has said that all Australians have to share in the task of producing a sustainable budgetary position. David Uren of the Oz has discussed the productivity slide that is part of Australia's double-digit competitiveness handicap.As he says: '...many of the household income gains of the past decade may have to be surrended if commodity prices drop back to the long-term trend, as they have after every previous mineral boom in the past 150 years. In the same report, linked here, Uren says: 'Insiders say [Tony Abbott] was dismayed by his first reading of the Commission of Audit Report. He knew the budget was in poor shape but had no idea the turnaround would demand such a profound rethink of so many things government does'.
David Uren also tackles the challenge of productivity reform, with the help of Australia's productivity supremo.
'Productivity Commission chairman Peter Harris says he has never worked for a government that did not want to undertake productivity reforms. “The great difficulty they have is not what to do but how to do it.”
'Reform, he says, must be sequentially structured, with the people most affected having the reasons carefully and clearly explained in ways they appreciate. He says you can’t succeed by telling people they should “eat their greens” because it will be good for them'.
“You can’t jam it down people’s throats.”
Henry's favourite hound from hell, Grace Collier, provides another example of why business leaders do not have to bargain with truculent union officials. Put your case direct to the workforce, business leaders, and if you win the union will very likely go away. More than two decades ago, Henry conducted such a dialogue with his staff of almost 1000 souls. From over 60 % of the workforce when Henry took over, the percentage in unions had dropped to 16 when Henry moved on.
Read on here - 'If bargaining is killing your business, just stop doing it'.
Essendon blitzed Collingwood for the first quarter, then Collingwood blitzed Essendon to catch up by half-time. From then it was an arm wrestle eventually won going away by the Magpies. A stirring victory for the black'n'whites, one that sets them up for a potentially tough fight with Caaaarlton! if the Blues can play like they did against Julia Gillard's Doggies and beat West Coast this afternoon.
At long last, Australia has a boxer with a realistic chance of becoming world heavy-weight champ. Go Alex Leapai, we will be watching and cheering you on.
The visit of the Royals has moved the nation, especially the appearance of baby royal, boy George, coinciding as it does with the deep thoughts caused by the occurrance of ANZAC Day.
Lest we forget
Date: Friday, April 25, 2014
Author: Henry Thornton
Courtesy The Australian
Monetary policy - mixed up confusion
Date: Wednesday, April 23, 2014
Author: PD Jonson
Earlier this week we were told that Treasurer Joe Hockey was 'unhappy with' the RBA. Knowledgable RBA watcher, Terry McCrann, scotched this suggestion in a thoughtful article that also explained the Treasury Secretary's twice delayed marching orders. In both cases, McCrann concludes, 'just as Hockey has bonded well with Parkinson, he’s done the same with Stevens. Hockey’s personality is one of winning friends and influencing people; not barking pointlessly at key allies'.
But something odd is going on. Today the AFR's Economics Editor, Alan Mitchell says 'The IMF's tacit seal of approval for central bank intervention in asset booms can be seen as a concession to the RBA's approach'.
The RBA's approach, Mitchell claims, is one of 'leaning into' asset booms by raising interest rates. He claims this is what the RBA did succesfully at the start of the current decade - even though the politics of leaning against asset price bubbles is 'appalling' and its success - avoiding an asset crash by heading off an asset bubble - is impossible to prove.
Alert readers will recall John Howard as Prime minister say something like: 'Nobody comes up to me in the street to complain about increases in the price of their house'. Nor do many voters tell the PM or Treasurer, 'please get that nice Mr Stevens to raise interest rates to stop me getting rich'.
However, a policy of 'leaning into' asset boom by raising interest rates is not the answer to the logical contradictions now bedevilling Australian and global monetary policy.
In the countries which have have severe recession, interest rates have been set at record low levels, virtually zero, while share prices go through the roof. Should the US Fed have 'leaned into' the share boom with, say, cash interest rates at 2 %, while the real economy was struggling to avoid severe recession becoming depression? No way, Jose, is the sensible answer.
In Australia, while the Aussie dollar was widely perceived as too high, while the economy was struggling, cuts to cash interest rates were widely seen as a useful way to stimulate the economy while also reducing the currency, helped along by RBA's jawboning the forex market. This policy failed, as demonstrated by the subsequent revival of the Aussie dollar as the economy improved somewhat. Now another set of asset prices, house prices, are widely perceived to be booming again. Should the RBA 'lean into' house prices, even if this damages the real economy and pushes the Aussie dollar even higher? Jose says 'don't be silly, comrade'.
The answer, of course, is that seperate targets require seperate policies. I have proposed a variable tax on capital inflows to tame the dollar, and (automatic) variable asset ratios for banks and other financiers to take the sting out of housing booms and to encourage new spending in busts. This approach would leave cash interest rates to focus totally on the state of the economy, and not provide the ugly dilemmas that have been the focus of much useless discussion.
Of course, Mr Stevens, if perfectly unzipped, might say there are other ways to influence asset prices. House prices might be lower if governments simplified planning laws and made land more quickly available to build houses. The Aussie dollar would be lower if the budget deficit were lower, and reduced spending or higher taxes in a tough budget might also have a useful impact on house prices. Both points are fair enough, but we are where we are. Glenn Stevens must indeed be hanging out for a tough budget, in the reasonable expectation that it would take pressure off both the currency and the housing market.
But unless and until policies other than cash interest rates are brought to bear, there will be a natural (but painful) end to asset booms. My fear is that the US Fed will not be able to prevent a big fall in global share prices as it seeks, ever so slowly, to normalise US monetary policy. I also fear that when the Aussie dollar finally corrects its current overvalued levels, it will undershoot , producing another destructive lurch in the structure of the Australian economy. Ditto for the eventual but inevitable correction of house prices.
Milton Friedman, a far greater economist than anyone mentioned in this blog, famously said 'monetary policy cannot serve two masters'. I must confess I did not fully understand what he meant at the time. My greatest fear is that no-one now in power in Australia yet understands this point.
Today's news, consumer inflation slightly less than feared, still within the RBA's target zone, does not dispose of the issues canvassed above. It does provide time for the RBA to rethink its 'one instrument, multiple targets' approach. This writer had the searing experience of abandoning support for the 'monetary projection' approach to setting cash interest rates, and it would be no disgrace if the RBA adopted a multiple aims, multiple policies approach to monetary policy and macroprudential policy.
Professor Warwick McKibbin, 2/5
I agree that interest rates should NOT be used to bring down the dollar. The RBA has already probably injected an asset bubble into the economy so that foreigners will want to hold appreciating Australian assets which hurts the original goal of lowering rates to bring down the exchange rate. In my view the nominal interest rate (lets use the corporate bond rate) should be equal to the nominal growth rate for policy to be neutral. Corporate borrowing rates are around 3.75% which when compared to the nominal GDP growth rate of 5.5% shows that monetary policy is very loose in Australia.
I disagree with a capital flow tax because as I have written before this raise the cost of access to external finance and reduces the equilibrium capital stock in Australia because you need to get a higher MPK to cover the additional cost of borrowing. We need foreign capital to help fund our growth. Far better to concentrate on cutting input costs (i.e. raising productivity) through a range of policies like tax reform, removing inefficient government regulation, raising the infrastructure capital stock etc) so that the currencies strength does not lead to unemployed resources. Also a good idea to reduce government borrowing so we need less foreign capital.
The fact that the US and other countries that have had a financial crisis have low policy interest rate does not mean Australia should follow suit because we do not have the balance sheet problem they have – although we might soon generate our own if we keep the current stance of monetary policy!.
PD Jonson replies.
I understand your reason for rejecting a tax on capital inflow, and I agree that reducing input costs by raising productivity would be a better way of coping.
However, as you know, increasing productivity might at best produce 1 to 2 % improvement per annum, and if the overall cost level is 20 to 30 % above any sensible equilibrium, fixing it that way is just not feasible.
I also disagree that capital inflow would dry up. Indeed, with Australia showing the strength not to allow its industrial structure to be determined by foreign investors, capital inflow might even increase for a time. Something like this happened in Germany half a century ago.