Trade deficits don't have to be wicked, unless you believe Trump

By MILLIE MUROI, Economics Writer

While the US president-elect would have you believe a trade deficit is a wicked thing, it’s not a hard and fast rule. In fact, it can actually be good. We’ve become used to the word “deficit” being synonymous with “bad” (think about how many governments highlight when they’ve got a “budget deficit” – not a lot!). But deficits don’t have to be bad.

Since late 2016, Australia has had a run of trade surpluses, meaning the value of all the goods and services we export has been bigger than the value of all those we import. That doesn’t make us any better than countries like the US which have run a trade deficit every year since the 1970s.

Generally, countries are better off when they’re importing things other countries can make more efficiently and cheaply. For Australia, that includes cars, electronics and pharmaceuticals. If we tried to make more of these things ourselves, just to improve our trade balance, we’d be wasting resources we could use to tinker away at other things we’re better at making.

We can always buy, more cheaply, the things we’re worse at making – unless of course we’re trumped by tariffs (which, note to Trump, almost always leaves both countries worse off).

A “current account” deficit is not a bad thing either. Australia had one for more than 40 years, until September 2019. The current account records how much is flowing in and out of Australia when it comes to the value of goods, services and income.

We learnt last week that in the latest September quarter, for instance, the value of our exports ($156 billion) minus the value of our imports ($153 billion) gave us a trade surplus for the quarter of about $3 billion. And the value of interest and dividend payments we were paid by foreigners ($28 billion) minus what we paid them in interest and dividends ($45 billion) gave us a “net income deficit” of about $17 billion.

Combining the net income deficit and the trade surplus leaves us with a deficit on the current account in the September quarter of about $14 billion.

It’s one of the two big parts of what’s called the “balance of payments”: a map of Australia’s economic transactions with the rest of the world.

The balance of payments records the flow of money from everything including exports and imports of goods, services and financial assets (such as shares and bonds) – even transfer payments like foreign aid. Basically: payments to foreigners and payments from foreigners.

Of course, by “Australia’s transactions” we mean those made by Australian residents. Loosely, this means people who live here, businesses operating here, and our governments, which all do deals with the rest of the world.

Now, back to the current account. Why has Australia recorded so many current account deficits?

Historically, we’ve tended to import more than we export, and we’ve paid more in dividends and interest to foreign owners and lenders than they have to us for our foreign shareholdings and loans.

Whenever we import, or pay income (such as dividends) out to people in other countries, it’s recorded as a “debit” in our current account and an equal “credit” in what’s known as the “capital and financial account” – which we’ll come back to. When we export, or receive income from overseas, it’s a “credit” in our current account and an equal “debit” in the other account.

Because of this, the two accounts are, in theory, meant to balance out (because of measurement issues, they usually don’t). When the debits exceed the credits, an account is in deficit. When the credits exceed the debits, it’s in surplus.

The main reason we’ve run so many current account deficits through the years is that we’ve tended to have a heap of investment opportunities (more than we could hope to finance with our own savings).

The inflow of foreign capital meant we were able to grow our economy, paying out dividends and interest to foreign investors for their help. Now, where do we record all this investment?

Enter the capital and financial account. The financial account takes up the lion’s share of the combined bucket. It records any transactions involving assets and liabilities changing hands. This includes things like direct investment (long-term capital investment such as buying machinery or when an investor owns 10 per cent or more of a company through shares), and portfolio investment (smaller purchases of shares in a business, or bonds).

When we sell foreigners shares in an Aussie business, borrow from them or sell them some real estate, that’s a credit in the capital account. When they sell us shares or land or lend us money, that’s recorded as a debit.

The much smaller capital account, meanwhile, captures transactions where nothing tangible is received in return: things such as debt that has been forgiven, foreign aid to build roads, or transactions involving intangible assets (such as trademarks or brand names) or rights to use land.

For some time in the past decade, we briefly went into a current account surplus and a financial and capital account deficit. This was partly thanks to rapid industrialisation in China which turbocharged our exports of minerals, energy, education and tourism (remember: credit in the current account, debit in the financial and capital account), but also our increased tendency to save and cut down our local investment spending on new housing, business equipment and public infrastructure. At the same time, the proportion of our savings going into superannuation, which invests partly into shares of foreign companies, had grown.

Recently, we’ve switched back to running a current account deficit. Is this bad? Not necessarily. It’s partly due to a continued fall in commodity prices such as iron ore and coal, for which demand has weakened, which is bad news for our exporters. But we’re also paying more income to non-residents (remember: this is mostly because they’ve been investing or lending to us, usually to help us grow by helping to finance our investment spending).

But the current account deficit is also thanks to factors such as a rise in service imports. We’ve been travelling more, meaning our spending overseas has increased. A bad sign? Hardly.

So, while we have a current account deficit, that doesn’t automatically mean we’re doing badly. Deficits can help us grow and surpluses don’t always leave us better off. Trump should be careful playing his cards.

Read more >>

The Australian economy is behaving strangely

By MILLIE MUROI, Economics Writer

Australian consumers are usually the engine room of the economy. Every extra dollar we spend drives economic growth higher – and there’s so many of us that we’re usually a force to be reckoned with. In the three months to September, though, something strange happened.

We had more income to splurge but shied away from spending much of the extra cash according to national accounts data from our number-crunchers at the Australian Bureau of Statistics this week. Instead, a bigger share of our pay made its way into piggy banks, mattresses and bank vaults.

Households, while still accounting for nearly half the economy, took a back seat. So, how did the Australian economy still manage to step up?

The size of our economy can be measured in three ways: output (the amount of goods and services we pump out), income (the amount of profit pocketed by businesses and pay that has flowed into households) or by looking at all the spending that happens.

That last one includes money spent by the government, businesses, foreigners (buying up our exports) and our heavy lifters: households. Since the mid-2000s, household consumption has accounted for at least half the size of our economy. It’s only this September quarter that household spending dropped to less than half of gross domestic product (GDP).

Does that mean households are struggling? Well, it depends on how you look at it.

If people’s shopping receipts are any indication of their living standards, you could argue things are looking pretty stagnant. Household spending came in flat at 0 per cent growth.

And, in fact, if we look at spending per household, we’re grinding backwards. Why? Because our population has been boosted by migration. While overall household spending has stayed flat in the September quarter, we’re individually spending less than we were earlier in the year. And that’s after we saw total household spending growth turn negative the previous quarter.

Growth for the wider economy has also been slipping into reverse when we account for population growth. Looking at economic growth per person, we’ve been sliding backwards for nearly two years.

Back to households, though. It’s not all bad news. We actually spent a touch more on discretionary goods and services – things we may not need but are nice to have, such as new clothing and recreation. Spending on essentials, meanwhile, fell. We spent more on things such as rent and staying healthy, but dished out far less on electricity and gas thanks to a warmer-than-expected winter, and partly thanks to the government’s energy bill relief that took the heat out of our energy bills.

Household disposable income – the amount we have left over to spend or save after paying our taxes – also grew. Not only did our income (at least collectively) grow by 1.3 per cent, mainly thanks to pay rises, many of us also had our taxes slashed, too. Stage 3 tax cuts came into play in July, pushing down the income tax we paid during the quarter by 3.8 per cent. Those who had money stashed in the bank also got a boost from interest rates on deposits.

But we didn’t do what a lot of economists (and the Reserve Bank) expected us to do – or at least not to the degree they thought we would. Instead of going on a spending spree with our extra cash, we squirrelled a lot of it away. It’s common for people, especially when they’re worried about their finances, to take a while to work out how they are going to spend their extra money.

The household ratio of saving to income – which tells us how much of our disposable income we stowed away for a rainy day – grew from 2.4 per cent last quarter to 3.2 per cent. Since our incomes grew, but we weren’t spending any more than we were in the June quarter, the slice of our pay going towards savings increased.

The saving-to-income ratio is still much lower than the 10 to 20 per cent we were at during the pandemic when the rivers of stimulus payments gushed in, and our spending options were locked down, but it has been climbing back from a low of 1.5 per cent in March last year.

Of course, the money we save ends up sitting idle – at least while it stays in our coffers. We don’t spend it, so it doesn’t flow back into businesses, and doesn’t stimulate the economy to grow.

But our decision to save a lot of the money we got to keep thanks to tax cuts doesn’t explain the slow – but positive – upward crawl of the economy. If households didn’t spend any more than they did in the previous three months, then how did the economy still manage to expand?

A big driver of our economic growth was spending – not by households or businesses – but by the government. It contributed 0.6 percentage points to growth in the three months to September. Part of this was thanks to a pick-up in public investment by state and local governments on infrastructure projects such as roads and renewable projects.

But a big chunk of the government spending was on cost-of-living relief, such as the energy rebates, which basically just shifted what would have been paid by consumers to cook and heat their homes, to the government’s shopping list. It meant overall government spending hit a near-record-high share of the economy at more than 28 per cent.

Since overall economic growth only came in at 0.3 per cent (notably lower than the 0.5 per cent economists had been expecting), government spending made the difference between our economy shrinking and treading water.

There were also other factors with a smaller impact on growth, including a slight uptick in the construction of new homes, which pushed up private investment spending. There was also a fall in inventories (generally stock held by companies) and net overseas trade – as imports fell and exports grew – which contributed 0.1 percentage points to GDP.

Although the economy’s usual star player – households – spent less than expected in the September quarter, there are signs things will pick up in the final three months of the year. For one thing, retail trade picked up 0.6 per cent in October, even before all the major discounts started kicking in last month, coaxing customers (and their wallets) out for Black Friday and Cyber Monday.

So, how does this position the Reserve Bank?

While economic growth and household spending growth are running below its forecasts, the bank has previously said the level of demand – how much we’re spending now as opposed to how fast our spending appetites are growing – is still too high unless we improve how much (or how efficiently) we can produce things.

It’ll take more weakness in spending, or more progress on slamming a lid on inflation, for the Reserve Bank to start cutting rates. So far, Australian households – and their spending – seem stuck in the holding pen.

Read more >>

Playing a major role in saving the planet could make us rich

If you’ve ever been tempted by the thought that Australia forging our future by becoming a global “superpower” is a nice idea but probably not a realistic one, I have big news. New evidence shows it’s the smart way to fund our future.

Last week, while we were engaged in a stupid argument over whether the Future Fund should continue growing forever and earning top dollar by being invested in other countries’ futures rather than our own, few people noticed a report much more germane to our future.

The Superpower Institute – set up by the man who first had the idea, Professor Ross Garnaut, with former competition watchdog Rod Sims – put its money where its mouth was and produced hard evidence that the idea could work.

It employed Dr Reuben Finighan to test and extend Garnaut’s argument with a detailed analysis of the future energy supply and demand in five potential importing countries, which together account for more than half of annual global greenhouse gas emissions: China, Japan, South Korea, India and Germany.

Finighan’s report, The New Energy Trade, provides world-first analysis of likely international trade in clean energy and finds Australia could contribute up to 10 per cent of the world’s emissions reductions while generating six to eight times larger revenues than those typical from our fossil fuel exports.

He demonstrates that, though Australia’s present comparative advantage in producing fossil fuels – coal and natural gas – for export will lose its value as the world moves to net zero carbon emissions, it can be replaced by a new and much more valuable comparative advantage in exporting energy-intensive iron and steel, aluminium and urea, plus green fuels for shipping, aviation and road freight, with our renewable energy from solar and wind embedded in them.

Unusually, Finighan’s focus is on the role that international trade will need to play in helping the world reach net zero emissions at minimum cost to the economy. He reminds us that the world’s present high standard of living could not have been achieved without the use of fossil fuels, which required extensive trade between the countries that didn’t have enough oil, coal and gas of their own, and those countries that had far more than they needed for their own use.

Our participation in this trade, of course, explains much of our success in becoming a rich country. It will be the same story in the net-zero world, with much trade in renewable energy between those countries that can’t produce enough of their own at reasonable cost, and those countries with abundant ability to produce solar and wind power at low cost.

Again, we have the potential to be a low-cost producer of renewable energy, exporting most of it to the world and earning a good living from it. Finighan says countries with the most abundant and thus cheapest renewable energy available for export are those whose solar and wind resources are more intense, less seasonal and that have abundant land relative to the size of their population and economy.

Those few countries include us. Garnaut says we’re the country with by far the largest capacity to export to the densely populated, highly developed countries of the northern hemisphere. Finighan finds we can produce “essentially limitless low-cost green electricity”.

The required solar and wind farms would occupy about 0.6 per cent of our land mass. Include the space between the wind turbines and that rises to a shocking 1.1 per cent.

To put this in the sign language of economists, on a diagram plotting what would happen to our cost of supply as (world) demand increased, the curve would start very low and stay relatively flat.

But, Finighan points out, there’s one big difference between the old trade in dirty energy and the new trade in clean energy. Whereas fossil fuels are cheap to transport, shipping clean energy is prohibitively expensive.

Remember that a key strategy in the global move to net-zero is to produce electricity only from renewable sources, then use it to replace as many uses of fossil fuels as possible, including gas in households and industry, and petrol in cars.

You can’t export electricity, but transforming it into hydrogen or ammonia requires huge amounts of electricity, thus involving much loss of energy and increased cost. So it’s cheaper to use locally made electricity to produce energy-intensive products such as iron, aluminium, urea and so forth locally, before exporting them.

That is, the world trade in clean energy will mainly involve that energy being embedded in “green” products. This means, for the first time ever, making certain classes of manufacturing part of our comparative advantage.

Finighan finds that, by ignoring the role trade will play in the process of decarbonisation, and thus the need for countries with limited capacity to produce their own renewables to import them in embedded form, earlier studies, including those by the International Energy Agency, have underestimated how much more electricity production the world will need.

In examining the likely energy needs of the five large economies – four in Asia and one in Europe – he projects large shortfalls in their local supply of electricity. By mid-century, Japan, South Korea and Germany will have shortfalls of between 37 and 66 per cent. Because of their later targets for reaching net-zero, China’s greatest shortfall won’t occur until 2060, and India’s until 2070.

These calculations take full account of the role of nuclear energy. It’s one of the most expensive means of generating clean energy. Unlike renewable technology, it’s become much more costly over time, not only in the rich economies but also in those such as India.

Nuclear will play a minor role even in countries where heavy government subsidies render it competitive, such as China. Even if China triples its recent rate of building nuclear, it may contribute only 7 per cent of electricity supply by 2060.

In those shortfalls, of course, lies a massive potential market for Australia’s exports of green manufactures. So, to mix metaphors, the dream of us becoming a superpower turns out to have legs. All the Labor government and the Coalition opposition have to do now is extract the digit.

Read more >>

Will Trump be disastrous for our economy? I doubt it

When, in its wisdom, the American electorate does something really stupid, it’s tempting to predict death and disaster for the whole world, including us.

But though the Yanks are embarking on a bout of serious self-harm – and this will have costs for the rest of the world economy – let’s not kid ourselves that we’ll be prominent in the firing line.

Leaving aside Donald Trump’s climate change denial – a topic I’ll get to another day – his most damaging stated economic policy is to make America great again by imposing a tariff (import duty) of 10 to 20 per cent on all America’s imports except imports from China, which will cop 60 per cent.

This is rampant populism – it sounds like a great idea to those who understand nothing about how economies work but it will make the US economy worse rather than better. Trump claimed this new tax would be paid by the foreign suppliers but, in reality, it will be paid by those American consumers and businesses that continue to buy imported items.

So the man who got elected because the punters hate inflation will be acting to worsen inflation. This isn’t likely to do much to increase the demand for locally made manufactures but, to the extent that it does, automation and digitisation will mean it does little to create more jobs in manufacturing.

Another reason protectionism doesn’t work is that America’s major trading partners – particularly China and Europe – are likely to retaliate by imposing tariffs on their imports from America. We know from history that trade wars end up leaving both sides worse off.

So the United States will suffer most, although all countries that trade with it will suffer to some extent. But get this: the US is not one of our major trading partners. It takes only about 5 per cent of our exports. Our big partners are China, Japan and South Korea.

Like many ignorant Americans, Trump believes any country that runs a bilateral trade surplus with the US must be doing so because they’re cheating in some way. Not a problem for us: we import more from the Yanks than we export to them. It’s China and the Europeans Trump will be going after, not us.

To the extent that Trump hurts the Chinese economy – as part of the Americans’ bipartisan obsession with trying to prevent China usurping their place as the world’s top dog – that will have an adverse flow-on to us.

But the Chinese have their own ways of fighting back. In any case, the greatest risk to our economy is not from what the Yanks do to the Chinese but from what the Chinese stuff up on their own account.

While it’s clear Trump is well placed politically to press on with implementing the crazy policies he has promised, that doesn’t mean he’ll do everything he’s said he’ll do to the full extent that he’s said. For instance, why would he tax all imports of goods and services when it’s manufactures he’s really on about? Also, not everything he tries to do will be done in next to no time.

We know the man. He’s nothing if not capricious. Dead keen one minute, moved on the next. And as someone who sees himself as the great dealmaker, he’s highly transactional. A 20 per cent tariff may be just the list price before the bargaining starts. ANZ Bank economists say the average tariff on Chinese goods will go from 13 per cent to 22 per cent, not 60 per cent.

The truth is that we’re too small to figure largely in Trump’s thinking. And why kick the US lapdog we’ve made ourselves?

Trump has made much of his promise to deport the many millions of undocumented immigrants. Most of these people are doing jobs Americans don’t want to do. Getting rid of them would reduce the size of the economy while increasing inflation as employers offer higher wages to attract other people to unattractive jobs.

But not to worry. It’s hard to see just how he’d round up all these people without calling out the military. It’s much easier to see him limiting himself to trying harder to stop more people crossing the Mexican border. In this case, the reduction in the economy and the rise in costs would be smaller.

So far, his policies on tariffs and immigration seem likely to increase America’s rate of inflation while reducing its economic activity. Great idea. But then we come to his promises for big tax cuts.

He says he wants to cut the rate of company tax and “extend” his 2017 personal income tax cuts, which greatly favoured the high-income earners more likely to have been too smart to have voted for him.

In principle, you’d expect tax cuts to be expansionary and thus possibly inflationary. But note this: according to a strange American custom, the personal tax cuts enacted in 2017 are due to expire at the end of next year.

So extending them means not that everyone gets a tax cut, but everyone avoids a tax increase. The troops’ after-tax income is unchanged. But, of course, the budget deficit is now worse than previously projected.

One thing we can be sure of is that Trump’s not a man to worry about deficits and debt. Republican congresspeople do have a history of worrying about such matters – but only when those irresponsible Democrats are in charge.

The Yanks do have many of the smartest academic economists in the world and, as the US government’s annual interest payments get to be bigger than its spending on defence, they’re starting to wonder how long America’s fiscal insouciance can continue before something goes wrong. But the reckoning is unlikely to come in the next four years.

All told, it does seem that Trump’s policies will cause America’s inflation and interest rates to be higher than they would have been had Kamala Harris won the presidency. But what doesn’t follow is that this will have much effect on our inflation and interest rates, and on our Reserve Bank’s decision about when to start cutting rates to prevent us having an accidental recession.

Read more >>

Yikes! Our tiny manufacturing sector makes us rich but ugly

At last, the source of our economic problems has been revealed. Our economy is badly misshapen, making it unlike all the other rich economies. Did you realise that our manufacturing sector is the smallest among all the rich countries?

Worse, our mining sector’s almost five times as big as the average for all the advanced economies and our agriculture sector’s twice the normal size.

Do you realise what an ugly freak this must make us look to all the other rich people in the world? We’re like the millionaire who made his pile as a rag and bone man with a horse and cart. Yuck.

It’s something about which we should be deeply ashamed and very worried, apparently.

How do I know this? It’s all explained in an open letter signed by about 70 academics who, because they’re banging on about economic matters, have been taken to be economists. But they don’t sound like any economist I know.

Indeed, they devote most of their letter to explaining why some of the most fundamental principles of economics are not only wrong, wrong, wrong, but sooo yesterday.

They condemn “outdated ‘comparative advantage’ theories of trade and development – according to which, countries should automatically specialise in products predetermined by natural resource endowments” which theories, they assure us, “have been abandoned” by other rich countries.

Rather, “there is new recognition that competitiveness is deliberately created and shaped, through proactive policy interventions that push both private and public actors to do more than market forces alone could attain”.

Get it? When you’re trying to make a living in a market economy, it’s a mistake to worry about what you’re good at, or to think you’ll sell something you’ve got that they don’t. No, with the right policies, governments can make you “competitive” without any of that.

You may think we’ve done pretty well among the other rich countries but, in truth, we’ve been getting it all wrong. When those Europeans were sailing round the South Pacific looking for an island they could take from its local inhabitants, their big mistake was to pick Australia.

They thought our island would have a lot of good farmland. And surely somewhere in all that space there must be some gold or other valuable minerals. But this turned us into hewers of wood and drawers of water.

Worse, some of us became the lowest of the low, digging stuff out of the ground and shipping it off somewhere. We turned our country into a quarry. And there’s only one thing lower than running a quarry: providing “services” to other people. You know, being a cleaner or chambermaid or waiter.

All of which tempted us away from the one honest, noble way to earn a living: making things. And if only our island hadn’t been good for farming and mining, making things would have been the only way left to make a living.

Really? As the independent economist Saul Eslake has said, this isn’t economics, it’s the fetishising of manufacturing. It’s the one worthy occupation. All the rest are rubbish.

Now, I’m sure the open letter-signers would protest that they’re only arguing for a big manufacturing sector, they’re not saying we shouldn’t have farmers, miners or servants.

Trouble is, as Eslake points out, all the parts of an economy can’t add to more than 100 per cent of gross domestic product or total employment. If some parts’ shares are bigger than others, the other bits’ shares must be smaller.

When you think about it, this is just an application of the economists’ most fundamental principle: opportunity cost. You can’t have everything you want, so make sure what you pick is what you most want.

To anyone who’s been around a while, it’s clear the letter-signers are on the left. Nothing wrong with that. At its best, the left cares about a good deal for the bottom, not just the top. But for some strange reason, a lot of those on the left see themselves as linked to manufacturing by an umbilical cord.

The joke is, few if any of the letter-signers would ever have worked in manufacturing – or ever want to. (My own career in BHP’s Newcastle coke ovens lasted two days before I scuttled back to the comfort of a chartered accountants’ office.)

Academics, more than anyone, should understand that the future lies in services, not manufacturing. The good jobs come from what you know, not what you can make.

Read more >>

Australia's future to be made under Treasury's watchful eye

The Albanese government’s Future Made in Australia has had a rapturous reception from some, but a suspicious reception from others (including me). In a little-noticed speech last week, however, one of our former top econocrats gave the plan a tick.

Rod Sims, former chair of the Australian Competition and Consumer Commission, and now chair of Professor Ross Garnaut’s brainchild, the Superpower Institute, has been reassured by the plan’s “national interest framework”, prepared by Treasury and issued with the budget.

But first, the budget announced that the government would “invest” – largely by way of tax concessions – $22.7 billion in the plan over the next decade.

Treasury’s framework will be included in the planned Future Made in Australia Act. It will “clearly articulate” how the government will identify those industries that will get help under the act, to “impose rigour on government’s decision-making on significant public investments, particularly those used to incentivise private investment at scale,” according to Treasury.

So, Sims is reassured by the knowledge that the framework – and Treasury – will ensure that “sound economics has been applied”. “In my view, [the plan] represents a growth and productivity opportunity every bit as bold as seen under previous governments,” he says.

Some of those giving the plan a rapturous reception believed it was “a welcome return to activist industry policy and making more things and value-adding in Australia,” Sims says. But “despite what has been said for political reasons, this is not the logic driving [the plan] as described by Treasury”.

Sims says we don’t need to revisit old and tired debates about protectionism. But as it happens, he notes, making more things in Australia will be an outcome of the plan.

Some said the plan represented the end of “neoliberalism” and a return to interventionist thinking. “It is not that either,” he says. “[The plan] relies on sound economics, and any change in economic thinking is a return to the application of sound economics.”

The way I’d put it is that to intervene or not to intervene is not the question. A moment’s thought reveals that governments have always intervened in the economy. (One of the most incorrigible interveners is a crowd called the Reserve Bank, which keeps fiddling with the interest rates paid and received in the private sector.)

No, as we’ll see, the right question is usually whether the intervention is adequately justified by “market failure” – whether, left to its own devices, the market will deliver the ideal outcomes that economic theory promises.

Others have approved of the plan because it’s about encouraging some local production in necessary supply chains. Sims admits there’s an element of this, as local battery and solar panel manufacture are mentioned, but they are a small part of the program.

Similarly, some move to make supply chains less at risk of disruption may be involved, but it’s not the driving logic of the plan.

Yet others have said the plan is copying the United States and its (misleadingly named) Inflation Reduction Act. “This is incorrect,” Sims says. The Americans’ act “spreads money widely, whereas [the plan] is targeted to Australia’s circumstances”.

The US act “also has many destructive features that we will not copy, such as its protectionist approach.”

But, to be fair to the sceptics, he adds, “the policy’s introduction was poorly handled. It was linked to making solar panel modules, when they can be purchased much more cheaply from China, and then there was the announcement of $1 billion for quantum computing.”

“It helps neither global mitigation [of climate change] nor Australian development to force manufacture here, if the final products are produced most cost-effectively elsewhere.”

So, if the plan isn’t mainly about protectionism, what’s its main purpose? Achieving the net zero transition and turning Australia into a renewable energy superpower.

Treasury’s national interest framework says the net zero transition and “heightened geostrategic competition” (code for the rivalry between the US and China) are transforming the global economy.

“These factors are changing the value of countries’ natural endowments, disrupting trade patterns, creating new markets, requiring heightened adaptability and rewarding innovation,” the framework says.

“Australia’s comparative advantages, capabilities and trade partnerships mean that these global shifts present profound opportunity for Australian workers and businesses.” We can foster new, globally competitive industries that will boost our economic prosperity and resilience, while supporting decarbonisation.

In considering the prudent basis for government investment in new industries, the framework will consider the following factors: Australia’s grounds for expecting lasting competitiveness in the global market; the role the new industry will play in securing an orderly path to net zero and building our economic resilience and security; whether the industry will build key capabilities; and whether the barriers to private investment can be resolved through public investment in a way that delivers “compelling public value”.

So, that’s quite a few hurdles you have to jump before the government starts giving you tax breaks. And proposals will be divided between two streams: the net zero transformation stream and the economic resilience and security stream. We can only hope that a lot more of the money goes to the former stream than the latter.

To justify government intervention, the framework requires evidence of “market failure” such as “negative externalities” that arise because the new clean industry is competing against fossil fuel-powered industries which, in the absence of a price on carbon, haven’t been required to bear the cost to the community of the greenhouse gases they emit.

Another case of market failure are the “positive externalities” that arise when the first firms in a new industry aren’t rewarded for the losses they incur while learning how the new technology works, to the benefit of all the firms that follow them.

Politicians being politicians, I doubt whether Treasury’s policing of its national interest framework will ensure none of the $22.7 billion is wasted. But we now have stronger grounds for hoping that Treasury’s oversight will keep the crazy decisions to a minimum.

Read more >>

Is a Future Made in Australia a good or bad idea? Maybe a bit of both

What exactly is a Future Made in Australia? You can read the long speech Anthony Albanese made about it and still not be sure. My guess is it’s a slogan designed by spin doctors to mean whatever you’d like it to mean.

As I wrote on Monday, what I hope it means is that the government intends to secure our economic future by ensuring all the income we’re going to lose from the world’s decision to stop buying our exports of fossil fuels is replaced by us using our new-found comparative advantage of being able to produce renewable energy more cheaply than most other countries.

We can produce masses of the stuff but, because it’s expensive to export, we can set up new industries which use the renewable energy to produce green iron, green aluminium and various other green minerals and then sell them to the world.

Because such industries don’t yet exist, the businesses that start them will inevitably make mistakes from which later businesses will learn. So it makes hard-headed economic sense for the government to cover much of the cost of this learning-by-doing “positive externality” – this spillover benefit to the wider economy for which the original businesses will go unrewarded.

If that’s what Albanese means by making our economic future, he deserves all the support and encouragement the rest of us can give him.

But I fear his slick slogan was designed to remind people of the old goal of trying to ensure that as many as possible of the goods we consume are Made in Australia.

This was our aim for about half a century until, in the 1980s, the Labor government of Bob Hawke and Paul Keating rolled back the import duties protecting our inefficient manufacturing industry and opened our economy to the world.

But why would Albo and his smart economists, Jim Chalmers and Chris Bowen, want to reverse the bipartisan policy of the past 40 years and take us back to the future?

Well, some polling produced this week by Essential Report offers some big clues. Asked to what extent they supported or opposed the Future Made in Australia policy, 30 per cent of respondents said neither. I take this to mean most hadn’t heard of it, or weren’t sure what it involved.

But 51 per cent supported the policy, leaving only 19 per cent opposing it. Unsurprisingly, Labor voters were more supportive than Liberal voters. But this is surprising: two-thirds of Greens voters supported it.

Why so much support for the government policy with a snappy name but so little detail? More clues followed. Fully 70 per cent of respondents agreed with the statement that “the pandemic showed we cannot be wholly reliant on global supply chains”.

And 63 per cent agreed that “it was a mistake to allow the Australian car industry to close,” with 43 per cent agreeing that “the days of globalisation, where we just imported cheap goods from overseas are over”.

Against that, however, only 37 per cent agreed that “it is not the government’s job to support Australian businesses that can’t compete overseas,” and only 34 per cent that “the market will make the best decisions and government should stay out of the way.”

Get it? There’s strong support for the goal of self-sufficiency and making as much as we can locally – keeping the jobs and the profits at home, not sending them abroad.

It’s noteworthy, too, that support for Made in Australia is much stronger among those aged 55 and above than among those aged 18 to 34. Believing that a country must make things, not just deliver services is, thankfully, more a hangup of the old.

So, if Albo and his spin doctors see benefit in playing to the Bring Back Manufacturing crowd, it wouldn’t be so surprising.

Just so long as you don’t forget this: keeping the jobs at home seems no more than common sense but, when you think it through, you see it’s a great way to be poorer, not richer.

One of the main ways humans have made themselves richer over the centuries is what economists call “the division of labour” and the rest of us call specialisation.

We can use the same amount of labour to produce more goods and services by having workers specialise in doing what they do best. By now, the process of specialisation – which no doubt has yet further to run – has reached the point of specialisation within specialties.

But obviously, specialisation can’t work without exchange: I sell my stuff to you; you sell your stuff to me. And what makes economic sense for individuals also makes sense for countries. We don’t maximise our material prosperity by stopping specialisation and exchange at the border.

Countries also need to specialise in what they do best, exchanging their surplus production with other countries specialising in what they do best. Economists call this pursuing our “comparative advantage”.

Autarky – the pursuit of national self-sufficiency – seems like a good idea, but one of the most useful things economists do for the community is to explain why, contrary to common sense, self-sufficiency is a great way to be poorer than we need to be.

It’s a dumb idea because it involves wilfully forgoing the benefits of specialisation and the “gains from trade”. When we insist on making items we aren’t good at, those things will cost more that importing the same goods from those countries better at it than we are.

So we end up forcing Australians to buy the inferior and more expensive locally made goods by imposing a special tax or “duty” on the imports. This leaves us less money to spend on other locally made goods and services. So jobs created in the inefficient part of the economy come at the expense of jobs in the efficient part, causing us to be less well-off than we could be. Well done.

Read more >>