QE: not certain, not soon, no great help, no let-out for govt

The big economic development this week was Reserve Bank governor Dr Philip Lowe giving the financial markets’ expectations about QE – “quantitative easing” - and other unconventional monetary policy an almighty hosing down.

In his speech on Tuesday he disabused the financial markets of the notion that, as soon as the Reserve had cut the official interest rate to zero, it would be on with QE and business as unusual.

Equally, he disabused our surplus-fixated government of any notion that his resort to unconventional monetary policy (manipulation of interest rates) would relieve it of the need to use conventional fiscal policy (budget measures) to get the economy moving again.

Lowe’s first act was to pooh-pooh most of the unconventional policies the letters QE conjure up in the minds of excitable market players. He identified four possible tools and rejected two and a half of them.

Let’s start with “forward guidance” – the notion of the central bank seeking to improve the confidence of consumers and firms by making its intentions on interest rates unmistakably clear. Great idea, he said, which is why he’d be doing it for ages and would keep doing it. Interest rates, he said, “will remain low for an extended period”.

Second is “extended liquidity operations”. During the global financial crisis in 2008, many central banks made significant changes to their usual ways of dealing with banks.

This was when financial markets were so disrupted that banks were too worried about their own finances to want to keep lending to ordinary businesses, threatening to crunch the economy.

Central banks dramatically increased their lending to banks, lent against the security of assets other than government bonds, lent for longer periods and lent at discounted rates of interest.

That is, they did what anyone with any sense would do to calm a crisis. Most of these extraordinary arrangements were soon unwound after calm had been restored. The Reserve itself had done some of them.

Would it do the same again should another crisis occur? Of course. At present, however, everything was working normally and our banks were able borrow as much as they needed – here or from abroad - at reasonable interest rates. So forget that one.

The third unconventional measure Lowe listed was “negative interest rates”. We used to assume that interest rates couldn’t go below zero, but things have become so desperate in Japan and then Europe – but nowhere else – that central banks have started paying banks negative interest rates. Governments have issued bonds at negative yields. That is, the borrower doesn’t pay the lender, the lender pays the borrower.

“Unconventional” doesn’t do justice to such a topsy-turvy world. It was long assumed that if banks started charging people to deposit their money, most of them would keep their money in cash under the bed. Lowe says there’s been a bit of that, but not much.

Why not? Partly because the negative rates are tiny – minus 0.5 per cent in the euro area, minus 0.1 per cent in Japan. But mainly because the negative rates have been restricted to charging banks and bond holders. No one’s been mad enough to try it on ordinary businesses or households.

So what are the chances we’d see negative rates here? It’s “extraordinary unlikely”, according to Lowe.

Which brings us finally to “asset purchases”. This is the only one of the four unconventional tools that can be called QE – quantitative easing. The central bank buys financial assets – securities – from the banks, paying for them merely by crediting the banks’ deposit accounts with the central bank.

This adds to the central bank’s liabilities, and to its holdings of financial assets, thus expanding its balance sheet and increasing the supply of money. Many central banks have purchased huge amounts of securities since the financial crisis, the vast majority of them being government bonds.

So, what’s Lowe’s attitude to QE? Well, for openers, he has “no appetite” for buying private sector securities (that’s the half I mentioned). But “if – and it is important to emphasise the word if – the Reserve Bank were to undertake a program of quantitative easing, we would purchase government bonds, and we would do so in the secondary [second-hand] market”. That is, it wouldn’t buy bonds newly issued by the government.

It would do QE because government bonds are assumed to be risk-free, and adding to the demand for bonds would lower the risk-free interest rate – not just for bonds but for all borrowing, from short-term to long-term. This should encourage borrowing and spending, as well as making our industries more price-competitive internationally by further lowering our dollar.

Whoopee-do. The financial markets ride again and monetary policy rolls on, allowing the government to continue putting the state of the budget ahead of the state of the economy.

Not so fast. Lowe said he wouldn’t even start to wonder about QE until we reached the point where the official interest rate had been lowered to 0.25 per cent (which would be as low as it’s possible to go).

And get this: “the threshold for undertaking QE in Australia has not been reached, and I don’t expect it to be reached in the near future.”

But his “threshold” isn’t the official rate down to 0.25 per cent. It’s trickier. “There is not a smooth continuum running from interest rate reductions to quantitative easing. It is a bigger step to engage in money-financed asset purchases by the central bank than it is to cut interest rates.

“In considering the case for QE, we would need to balance [the] positive effects with possible [adverse] side-effects.” Oh, didn’t think of those. He implied that he wouldn’t move to QE unless he was convinced we’d begun moving away from the inflation target and full employment.

Finally, having said the official interest rate couldn’t be cut below 0.25 per cent, he then estimated the scope for using QE to lower interest rates was no more than 0.2 percentage points. Sound like a magic wand to you?

Read more >>

High immigration is changing the Aussie way of life

The nation’s economic elite – politicians of all colours, businesspeople and economists – long ago decided we need to grow our population as fast as we can. To them, their reasons for believing this are so blindingly obvious they don’t need to be discussed.

Unfortunately, however, it’s doubtful most ordinary Australians agree. A survey last year by researchers at the Australian National University found that more than 69 per cent of respondents felt we didn’t need more people, well up on a similar poll in 2010.

This may explain why Scott Morrison announced before this year’s election a big cut in our permanent migrant intake – while failing to mention that our booming temporary migrant intake wouldn’t be constrained.

He also foreshadowed measures to encourage more migrants to settle in regional cities. What he didn’t say is what he’d be doing differently this time, given the many times such efforts had failed in the past.

In between scandalising over the invading hordes of boat people, John Howard greatly increased the immigration intake after the turn of the century, and this has been continued by the later Labor and Coalition governments. “Net overseas migration” accounts for about 60 per cent of our population growth.

In 2000, the Australian Bureau of Statistics projected that our population wouldn’t reach 25.4 million until 2051. We got there this year. Our population is growing much faster than other developed countries’ are.

The growth in our economy has been so weak over the past year that they’ve had to stop saying it, but for years our politicians boasted about how much faster our economy was growing than the other economies.

What they invariably failed to mention was that most of our faster growth was explained by our faster-growing population, not our increasing prosperity. Over the year to June, for instance, real gross domestic product grew by (a pathetic) 1.4 per cent, whereas GDP per person actually fell by 0.2 per cent.

That’s telling us that, despite the growth in the economy, on average our material standard of living is stagnant. All that immigration isn’t making the rest of us any better off in monetary terms.

Of course, that’s just a crude average. You can be sure some people are better off as a result of all the migration. Our business people have always demanded high migration because of their confidence that a bigger market allows them to make bigger profits.

Economists, on the other hand, are supposed to believe in economic growth because it makes all of us better off. They’re not supposed to believe in growth for its own sake.

This week one of the few interest groups devoted to opposing high migration, Sustainable Population Australia, issued a discussion paper that’s worth discussing. It reminds us that many of the problems we complain about are symptoms of migration.

The biggest issue is infrastructure. We need additional public infrastructure – and private business equipment and structures, and housing – to accommodate the needs of every extra person (locally born as well as immigrant) if average living standards aren’t to fall.

Taking just public infrastructure – covering roads, public transport, hospitals, schools, electricity, water and sewage, policing, law and justice, parks and open space and much more – the discussion paper estimates that every extra person requires well over $100,000 of infrastructure spending.

When governments fail to keep up with this need – as they have been, despite a surge in spending lately – congestion on roads and public transport is just the most obvious disruption we suffer.

The International Monetary Fund’s latest report on our economy says we have “a notable infrastructure gap compared to other advanced economies”. Spending is “not keeping up with population and economic growth”. We have a forecast annual gap averaging about 0.35 per cent of GDP for basic infrastructure (roads, rail, water, ports) plus a smaller gap for social infrastructure (schools, hospitals, prisons).

One factor increasing the cost of infrastructure is that about two-thirds of migrants settle in the already crowded cities of Sydney and Melbourne – each of whose populations is projected to reach 10 million in the next 50 years, with Melbourne overtaking Sydney.

According to a Productivity Commission report, “growing populations will place pressure on already strained transport systems. Yet available choices for new investments are constrained by the increasingly limited availability of unutilised land”.

New developments such as Sydney’s WestConnex have required land reclamation, costly compensation arrangements, or otherwise more expensive alternatives such as tunnels. It’s reported to cost $515 million a kilometre, with Melbourne’s West Gate Tunnel costing $1.34 billion a kilometre.

Who pays for all this? We do – one way or another. “Funding will inevitably be borne by the Australian community either through user-pays fees or general taxation,” the commission says.

Combine our growing population with lower rainfall and increased evaporation from climate change and water will become a perennial problem and an ever-rising expense to householders and farmers alike.

The housing industry’s frequent failure to keep up with the demand for new homes adds to the price of housing. And the only way we’ll double the populations of Melbourne and Sydney is by moving to a lot more high-rise living.

High immigration is changing the Aussie way of life. Before long, only the rich will be able to afford a detached house with a backyard.

Read more >>

Confessions of a pet shop galah: much reform was stuffed up

As someone who, back in the day, did his share of being one of Paul Keating’s pet shop galahs – screeching "more micro reform!" every time they saw a pollie – I don’t cease to be embarrassed by the many supposed reforms that turned into stuff-ups.

My defence is that at least I’ve learnt from those mistakes. One thing I’ve learnt is that too many economists are heavily into confirmation bias – they memorise all the happenings that affirm the wisdom of their theory, but quickly cast from their minds the events that cast doubt on that wisdom.

Well, let me remind them of a few things they’d prefer to forget.

Of course, it’s not the case that everything done in the name of "micro-economic reform" was wrong-headed. The floating of the dollar was an unavoidable recognition that the era of fixed exchange rates was over. And the dollar’s ups and downs have almost always helped to stabilise the economy.

The old regulated banking system wasn’t working well and had to be junked. With the rise of China in a globalising world, persisting with a highly protected manufacturing sector would have been a recipe for getting poorer. Nor could we have persisted with a centralised wage-fixing system or a tax system that failed to tax capital gains, fringe benefits and services – to name just a few worthwhile reforms.

Many privatisations were justified – the government-owned banks, insurance companies and airlines – but the sale of geographic monopolies (ports and airports) and natural monopolies (electricity and telephone networks) was a step backwards, mainly because governments couldn’t resist the temptation to maximise the sale price by preserving the businesses’ pricing power at the expense of consumers.

The conversion of five state monopolies into the national electricity market proved a monumental stuff-up at all three levels: generation, transmission and retail. It quickly devolved into an oligopoly with three big vertically integrated firms happily overcharging consumers at every level, with collateral damage to the use of carbon pricing in reducing greenhouse gas emissions.

We’ve learnt that “markets” artificially created by governments and managed by bureaucrats are – you wouldn’t guess – hugely bureaucratic, with the managers susceptible to “capture” by market players. The gas market has also been an enormous stuff-up, threatening the survival of what remains of Australian manufacturing.

The ill-considered attempt to treat schools and TAFEs and universities as being in some kind of market, where fostering competition between them and paying teachers performance bonuses would spur them to lift their performance, proved an utter dud.

Had the harebrained plan to deregulate uni fees not been stopped, it would have made even worse the chronic disorientation of the nation’s vice chancellors on what universities are meant to do and why they’re doing it. Lesson: trying to turn non-market parts of society into markets, while blithely ignoring all the obvious reasons such "markets" would fail, is a fool’s errand.

Which brings us to the half-baked idea of trying improve the provision of taxpayer-funded services by making their delivery “contestable” by for-profit providers. It's been an expensive failure pretty much everywhere it’s been tried: childcare, employment services, vocational education and training, and aged care (see present royal commission), not to mention privately run prisons and offshore detention centres. How long will it be before we’re having a royal commission into the abuses of the largely outsourced national disability insurance scheme?

Why have so many reform programs ended so badly? Partly because of the naivety of econocrats and other proponents of "economic rationalism". They had no notion of how far the grossly oversimplified neo-classical model of markets they carry in their heads misrepresented the big bad real world.

And many of them, having spent their working lives solely in the public sector, had no idea of how wasteful or bureaucratic the supposedly rational private sector could be. Actually break the law if they thought they wouldn’t get caught because corporate law-breaking wasn’t being policed? Sure. Rip off the government because the bureaucrats wouldn’t notice? Love to.

But there’s another reason so many reforms blew up. Because naive econocrats failed to foresee the way reforms intended to leave consumers or taxpayers better off could be hijacked by Finance Department accountants looking to cut government spending and produce "smaller government" by whatever expediency possible (see uni fee deregulation) and politicians looking to win the approval of big business or to move money and influence from the public sector column (them) to the private sector column (us).

Lesson: if a venal politician can find a way to sabotage micro-economic reform to their own advantage, they will.

Read more >>

Weak wages the symptom of our stagnant economy, but why?

If you don’t like the term "secular stagnation" you can follow former Bank of England governor Mervyn King and say that, since the Great Recession of 2008-09, we’ve entered the Great Stagnation and are "stuck in a low-growth trap".

On Friday we saw the latest instalment of our politicians’ and econocrats’ reluctant admission that we’re in the same boat as the other becalmed advanced economies, with publication of the Reserve Bank’s latest downward revisions of its forecasts for economic growth.

This time last year, the Reserve was expecting real growth in gross domestic product of a ripping 3.25 per cent over the present financial year. Now it’s expecting 2.25 per cent. Even that may prove on the high side.

What their eternal optimism implies is our authorities’ belief that the economy’s weakness is largely "cyclical" – temporary. What the past eight years of downward revisions imply, however, is that the problem is mainly "structural" or, as they used to say a century ago, "secular" – long-lasting.

If the weakness is structural, waiting a bit longer won’t see the problem go away. The world’s economists will need to do a lot more researching and thinking to determine the main causes of the change in the structure of the economy and the way it works, and what we should be doing about it.

Apart from dividing problems between cyclical and structural, economists analyse them by viewing them from the perspective of demand and then the perspective of supply.

Obviously, what you’d like is demand and supply pretty much in balance, meaning low inflation and unemployment, with economies growing at a good pace and lifting our material standard of living. In practice, however, it’s not that simple and demand and supply don’t always align the way we’d like.

For about the first 30 years after World War II, the dominant view among economists was that the big problem was keeping demand strong enough to take up the economy’s ever-growing potential supply – its capacity to produce goods and services – and keep workers and factories in "full employment". Keynesian economics was developed to use the budget ("fiscal policy") to ensure demand was always up to the mark.

From about the mid-1970s, however, the advanced economies developed a big problem with inflation. After years of uncertainty and debate, the dominant view emerged that the main problem wasn’t "deficient" demand, it was excessive demand, always threatening to run ahead of the economy’s capacity to produce and thus cause inflation.

The answer was to get supply – potential production – growing faster. Most economists abandoned Keynesian economics and reverted to the former, "neo-classical" macro-economics, in which the central contention was that, over the medium-term, the rate at which an economy grew was determined on the supply side, by the three key determinants of production capacity, "the three Ps" – population, participation (by people in the labour force), and productivity – the rate at which investment in more and better machines and structures allowed workers to produce more per hour than they did before.

If so, the managers of the macro economy could do nothing to change the rate at which the economy grew over the medium term. Their role was simply to ensure that, in the short term, demand neither grew faster than the growth in the economy’s production potential (thus casing inflation) nor slower than potential (thus causing unemployment).

And the best instrument to use to achieve this balancing act was, as Treasury secretary Dr Steven Kennedy explained recently, monetary policy (moving interest rates up and down).

Everyone agrees that the problem with the advanced economies at present – including ours – is weak demand. The question is whether that weakness is mainly cyclical or mainly structural. If it's cyclical, all we have to do is be patient, and the old conventional wisdom - that, fundamentally, growth is supply-determined - doesn’t need changing.

But the conclusion that fits our circumstances better is that the demand problem has structural causes. Consider this: we’ve had plenty of episodes of weak demand in the past, but never has demand been so weak that inflation is negligible. Nominal interest rates are way down in consequence, but even real global interest rates have been falling since even before the financial crisis.

That’s why monetary policy has almost done its dash. It doesn’t do well at a time of negligible inflation, and fiscal policy is back to being the more effective instrument. But if the demand problem is mainly structural, then a burst of stimulus from the budget may help a bit, but won’t get to the heart of the problem.

As former top econocrat Dr Mike Keating has argued consistently, weak growth in real wages seems the main cause of weak growth in consumer spending and, hence, business investment, productivity improvement and overall growth – both in Australia and the other advanced economies.

Reserve Bank governor Dr Philip Lowe would agree. But he tends to see the wage problem as mainly cyclical: wait until we get more growth in employment, then the labour market will tighten, skill shortages will emerge and real wages will be pushed up.

Other economists stick to the supply-side, neo-classical approach: if real wages aren’t growing fast enough it can only be because the productivity of labour isn’t improving fast enough, so the answer is more micro-economic reform. Not a big help, guys.

The unions say the root cause is that deregulation has robbed organised labour of its bargaining power – and there may be something in that. But Keating’s argument has been that skill-biased technological change has hollowed out the semi-skilled middle of the workforce, with wage increases going disproportionately to the high-skilled, who save more of their income than lower-paid workers.

So Keating wants any budget stimulus to be directed towards the lower-paid, and a lot more spending on all levels of education and training, to help workers adopt and adapt to the digital workplace.

Read more >>

Mental health: the smart way to increase happiness

You have to hand it to Scott Morrison. He is, without doubt, the most skillful politician we’ve seen since John Howard. He runs rings around his opponents. It’s just a pity he puts so much time into strengthening his own position by making his opponents look bad and so little into strengthening our position by working on some of our many problems.

Speaking of problems, on the very day the Royal Commission into Aged Care was revealing how appallingly we treat so many of our parents and grandparents, the Productivity Commission released a draft report on how much our treatment of the mentally ill leaves to be desired.

Sometimes I think that if hastening the economy’s growth is intended to increase our happiness, why don’t we do more to increase it directly by reducing the unhappiness of, for instance, those in old people’s homes and those suffering mental illness, not to mention their families?

Why do you and I somehow imagine it won’t be us being mistreated in some institution in a few years’ time? Why could mental ill-health never reach us or our family and friends?

The commission’s report found that almost half of Australian adults will meet the diagnosis for a mental illness at some point in their lives. In any given year, however, one person in five will meet the criteria. And, although it can affect people of any age, three-quarters of those who develop mental illness first experience problems before they’re 25.

And yet we’ve gone for years providing quite inadequate help to the mentally troubled. Why? Because physical problems are more visible and less debatable. But also because the stigma that continues to attach to mental problems makes sufferers reluctant to admit to them, and the rest of us reluctant to dwell on it.

Mental illness includes more common conditions such as anxiety, substance use and depression, plus less common conditions such as eating disorders, attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder, bipolar disorder and schizophrenia. And suicide, of course.

The report says that many who seek treatment for mental problems aren’t receiving the level of care necessary. As a result, too many people suffer additional and preventable physical and mental distress, relationship breakdown, stigma, and loss of life satisfaction (the $10 words for happiness) and opportunities.

A big part of the problem is that the treatment of mental illness has been tacked on to a health system designed around the characteristics of physical illness, especially acute rather than chronic illnesses.

Five long-standing and much-reported-on problems causing the mental health system to deliver poor results are, the report says, first, the underinvestment in prevention and early intervention. This is what makes the fact that mental problems tend to start early and get worse good news, in a sense. It means that, if you get in early, you can stop people experiencing years of unhappiness (not to mention cost to the taxpayer).

Second, the focus on clinical services – things done by doctors and nurses – often means overlooking other things and other people contributing to mental health, including the important role played by carers and family, as well as the providers of social support services.

Third, the frequent difficulties finding suitable social supports, sometimes because they just don’t exist in regional areas. This is despite suicide rates, for example, being much higher outside the capital cities.

Fourth, the social support people do receive is often well below best-practice, isn’t sustained as their condition evolves or their circumstances change, and is often unconnected with the clinical services they get.

Fifth, the “lack of clarity” about roles, responsibility and funding between the federal and state governments. This means persistent wasteful overlaps existing side by side with yawning gaps in the services provided. And it means no level of government accepts responsibility for “the system’s” poor performance.

It’s clear we’re not spending enough on mental healthcare. But this is where we get into an old argument. Ask the people running the system and their answer is always “just give us a shedload more money and we’ll decide how best to spend it”. But ask the Smaller Government brigade and they’ll say “we’re already spending far more than we did and spending even more would improve nothing”.

As usual, the truth’s in the middle. It’s true we’re spending a lot more without much evidence of improved results, but equally true we need to spend more – particularly on social support, such as suitable housing. Fix people, throw them onto the street, and see how well they do.

Sorry, but the days of “trust me, I’m a doctor/teacher/public servant/whatever” are gone. Too many occupations have abused our trust. We need to spend what we’re already spending a lot more effectively – particularly on prevention and early detection, on the non-clinical aspects of the problem, and on better coordination of federal and state roles – as a condition of spending more.

And that will mean paying a bit more tax. After all, if we’re so willing to spend on a big-screen TV or overseas holiday or new car to make us happier, what’s the hang-up with spending via taxes to improve our treatment in old age or should we or a rello strike mental problems?

Read more >>

Aged Care: the crappy end of the Smaller Government mentality

What do you get when politicians and econocrats go for decades trying to foist Smaller Government  on an unwilling public? Bad government. And the delivery of crappy services – often literally in the case of aged care.

The interim report of the royal commission into aged care is absolutely scathing about the appalling state the system has been allowed to fall into. Its summary is headed: 'A Shocking Tale of Neglect'.

Aged care services are “fragmented, unsupported and underfunded. With some admirable exceptions, they are poorly managed. All too often, they are unsafe and seemingly uncaring.”

“We have uncovered an aged care system that is characterised by an absence of innovation and by rigid conformity. The system lacks transparency in communication, reporting and accountability. It is not built around the people it is supposed to help and support, but around funding mechanisms, processes and procedures,” the report says.

“Many of the cases of deficiencies or outright failings in aged care were known to both the providers concerned and the regulators before coming to public attention. Why has so little been done to address these deficiencies?”

“We have heard evidence which suggests that the regulatory regime that is intended to ensure safety and quality of services . . . does not adequately deter poor practices. Indeed, it often fails to detect them. When it does so, remedial action is frequently ineffective. The regulatory regime appears to do little to encourage better practice beyond a minimum standard.”

Here’s where you see the fingerprints of the econocrats and accountants: “the aged care sector prides itself in being an ‘industry’ and it behaves like one. This masks the fact that 80 per cent of its funding comes directly from government coffers. Australian taxpayers have every right to expect that a sector so heavily funded by them should be open and fully accountable to the public and seen as a ‘service’ to them.”

Get it? Don’t ask us to publish performance indicators. They’re “commercial-in-confidence” – especially because many providers are for-profit providers. Why don’t the regulators insist? Because, like so many regulators, they’ve been “captured” by the providers, which have Canberra-based lobbyists, are generous wine-and-diners and employers of retired ministers and senior bureaucrats, and could make a lot more trouble for the government than a thousand mistreated mums aka silent Australians (whose vote for the Coalition is rusted-on).

The obvious reason the Smaller Government brigade has to shoulder the blame for the appalling treatment of so many (but not all) people in aged care – and many of the overworked and underpaid nurses working in it – is that, as part of the eternal crusade to keep government smaller, aged care is, as the commission finds, seriously underfunded.

But it’s worse than that. Part of the Smaller Government mentality is having aged care provided by someone other than the government – including for-profit providers which, as every Smaller Government crusader knows, are far more efficient than the public service.

Except that, as the commission’s report demonstrates yet again, they’re not. And when they can’t use greater efficiency to cover their profit margin, they extract it by cutting quality. The report doesn’t say so, but it’s a safe bet the for-profits are at the forefront of the “poor continence management,” “dreadful food, nutrition and hydration,” and “common use of physical restraint” and “overprescribing of drugs which sedate residents” to make them easier to manage, it uncovered.

Trouble is, so long as so much of the “industry” is profit-maximising, no amount of increased funding will be sufficient to stop residents being mistreated.

The more fundamental problem is that the Smaller Government zealots have never persuaded voters that less is more. Almost all of us think more is more. That’s what we want and what even conservative politicians promise us at every election.

So they have no mandate for Smaller Government and, since the disastrous 2014 budget, lack the political courage of their convictions. But they persist with their efforts to keep the lid on government spending, continually cutting away at the people they consider to be political weak and enemies of the Coalition: the ABC, people on welfare, and the deeply despised public service - particularly those bureaucrats offering policy advice (who needs it?) and those regulating and policing the public funding received by the party’s generous business donors.

In practice, Smaller Government means underspending on essentials such as aged care until the neglect is no longer tolerable politically, feigning shock and promising to spend big and crackdown on miscreants when voters react with horror to the revelations of the inevitable royal commission then, once the media circus has moved on, quietly welching on much of what you promised to do.

Read more >>

It may upset you to think about climate change and the economy

It’s coming to something when we get so little leadership from the bloke we pay to lead us that the unelected have to fill the vacuum. Now 10 business organisations have united to urge Scott Morrison either to set out the climate policy rules to drive action by the private sector, or end up spending a shedload of taxpayers’ money fixing the problem himself.

It’s not just business that’s dissatisfied. The Morrison government may be dominated by climate-change deniers, but almost all economists accept the science of global warming and believe we should be doing our bit to help limit it.

And though our elected government may be in denial, the Reserve Bank – like other central banks – isn’t. Nor are the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority and the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

The Queensland Treasurer, Jackie Trad, asked federal Treasurer Josh Frydenberg if the Reserve’s deputy governor, Dr Guy Debelle, could be invited to talk about climate change and the economy at the recent meeting of treasurers, but Frydenberg declined.

So what was it Frydenberg didn’t want his fellow treasurers thinking about? Well, we can get a fair idea of what Debelle would have said from a speech he gave earlier this year.

But first, why do so many economists accept the science? Because they know very little about the science and so accept the advice of the experts, especially since there’s so much agreement between them.

And there’s another reason. Economists believe they can use their expertise to help the community make the changes we need to make with the least amount of cost and disruption to the economy.

As Debelle reminds us, “the economics profession has examined the effects of climate change at least since Nobel Prize winner William Nordhaus in 1977. Since then it has become an area of considerably more active research in the profession. There has been a large body of work around the appropriate design of policies to address climate change (such as the design of carbon pricing mechanisms), but not that much in terms of what it might imply for macro-economic policies” – that is, for efforts to stabilise the macro economy as it moves through the ups and downs of the business cycle.

Debelle says the economy is changing all the time in response to a large number of forces, but few of them have the scale, persistence and risk to the system that climate change has.

Macro economists like to classify the various “shocks” that hit the economy as either positive or negative and as hitting the demand side of the economy or the supply side. For instance, they know a positive demand shock increases production (gross domestic product) and prices. The monetary policy response to such a shock is obvious: you raise interest rates to ensure inflation doesn’t get out of hand.

Shocks involving the climate affect the supply (output) side and are common. An unusually good growing season would be a positive supply shock, whereas a drought or cyclone or flood would be a negative supply shock, reducing output but increasing prices.

This is a trickier shock for monetary policy to respond to because it’s both contractionary (suggesting a cut in interest rates) and inflationary (suggesting higher rates). The Reserve’s usual response is to “look through” (ignore) the price increase, assuming its effect on inflation will be temporary.

Historically, the Reserve has assumed all climate events are temporary, with things soon returning to where they were. That is, they’re cyclical. It’s clear from the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, however, that climate change is a trend - a lasting change in the structure of the economy, which will build up over many years.

Of course, though climate change’s impact on agriculture continues to be great, it presents significant risks and opportunities for a much broader part of the economy than agriculture.

Debelle says we need to reassess the frequency of climate events and our assumptions about the severity of those events. For example, the insurance industry has recognised that the frequency and severity of tropical cyclones has changed. It has “repriced” how it insures against such events.

Most of us are focused on “mitigating” – reducing – future climate change. But Debelle says we also need to think about how the economy is adapting to the climate change that’s already happened and how we’ll adapt to the further warming that’s coming, even if we do manage to get to zero net emissions before too long.

“The transition path to a less carbon-intensive world is clearly quite different depending on whether it is managed as a gradual process or is abrupt,” he says euphemistically. “The trend changes aren’t likely to be smooth. There is likely to be volatility around the trend, with the potential for damaging outcomes from spikes above the trend.”

Both the physical impact of climate change and the adjustment to a warmer world are likely to have significant economic effects, he says.

Economists know from their experience with reducing import protection that the change from the old arrangements to the new involves adjustment costs to some people (workers who have to find jobs in other industries, for instance) even if most people (consumers of the now-cheaper imports, for instance) are left better off.

Economists press on with advocating such painful changes provided they believe the gains to the winners are sufficient to allow them to compensate the losers and still be ahead. But Debelle admits that, in practice, the compensation to the losers doesn’t always happen, leaving those losers very dissatisfied.

That’s bad enough. But Debelle fears that, with climate change and the move to renewables, the distribution of benefits and costs may be such that the gains to the winners in new renewables industries aren’t great enough to cover the losses to the losers even in principle, let alone in practice.

Nah, all too hard. Let’s just ignore it and hope it goes away.

Read more >>

Health insurance: paying to boost specialists' incomes

I think I could probably get to the end of the year just writing once a week about the many problems Scott Morrison faces, but doesn’t seem to be making any progress on. And that’s before you get to climate change.

Take private health insurance. The public is terribly dissatisfied with it because it gets so much more expensive every year and because, when you make a claim, you’re often faced with huge out-of-pocket costs you weren't expecting.

The scheme has such internal contradictions it’s in terminal decline, getting weaker every year. Neither side of politics is game to put it out of its misery for fear of the powerful interests that would lose income – the health funds, the owners of private hospitals and myriad surgeons and other medical specialists – not to mention the anger of the better-off elderly who have convinced themselves they couldn’t live without it.

But neither is either side able to come up with any way of giving private health insurance a new lease on life. Anything governments could do – and probably will do – to keep the scheme going a bit longer involves slugging the taxpayer or forcing more people to pay the premiums.

I’ll be taking most of my information from the latest report on the subject by the nation’s leading health economist, Dr Stephen Duckett, of the Grattan Institute, but drawing my own conclusions.

Private health insurance is caught in a “death spiral” for two reasons. First, because the cost of the hospital stays and procedures it covers is rising much faster than wages are. Duckett calculates that, since 2011, average weekly wages have risen 8 per cent faster than general inflation, whereas health insurance premiums have rise 30 per cent faster.

Why? At bottom, because the health funds have done so little to prevent specialists raising their fees by a lot more than is reasonable. Federal governments have gone for years meekly approving excessive annual price increases.

Second, as with all insurance schemes, those policy holders who don’t claim cover the cost of those who do. The government’s long-standing policy of “community rating” means all singles pay the same premium, and all couples pay about twice that, regardless of their likelihood of making a claim.

This means the young and healthy subsidise the old and ill. Which would work if health insurance was compulsory, but to a large extent it’s voluntary. So the old and ill stay insured if they can possibly afford to, while the young and healthy are increasingly giving up their insurance.

The Howard government spent the whole of its 11 years trying to prop up health insurance with carrots and sticks. These measures stopped coverage from falling for a while but, with premiums continuing to soar, have lost their effectiveness.

Over the year to last December, the number of people under 65 with insurance fell by 125,000 (particularly those aged 25 to 34), while the number with insurance who were over 65 increased by 63,000.

So here’s the bind the funds are in: the more healthy young people drop out, the greater the increase in premiums for those remaining. But the more premiums increase, the more youngsters drop out.

The funds’ talk of being in a death spiral is intend to alarm the public into insisting the government bail them out by imposing more of the cost on taxpayers or, ideally, on young people. But before we panic, we should ask why we need the continued existence of private insurance.

After all, our real insurance is Medicare and being treated without direct charge in any public hospital. If the taxpayer-funded public system is less than ideal, it could be a lot better if the $9 billion a year the federal government tips into private insurance and private hospitals was redirected.

To some people, the big attraction of private insurance is “choice of doctor”. But this can be illusory. It’s usually your GP who does the choosing – to send you to one of their mates or their old professor. In any case, if people want choice, why shouldn’t they be asked to pay for it without a subsidy from the rest of us?

Ah, but the real reason I must have private insurance, many oldies say, is to avoid the public hospitals’ terrible waiting lists for elective surgery. That’s a reasonable argument for an individual, who can do nothing to change the system.

But it’s not a logical argument for politicians, who do have the power to change the system. And when the health funds claim that, without them, the waiting lists would be far longer, they’re trying to hoodwink us.

Most specialists work in both the public and private systems, but do all they can to direct their patients to private, where their piece rate is much higher. Were the health funds allowed to die, many fewer patients would be able to afford private operations and would join the public hospital waiting list.

But what would the specialists do to counter the huge drop in their incomes? They’d do far more of their operations in the public system, probably doing more operations in total than they did before. It’s even possible the queues would end up shorter than they are now.

Read more >>

Morrison hasn't noticed that economic times have changed

Apparently, if you think Scott Morrison's refusal to use the budget to boost the economy is motivated by an obsession with showing up Labor by delivering a huge budget surplus, you’re quite wrong.

No, he’s sticking to the highest principles of macro-economic management (which principles Reserve Bank governor Dr Philip Lowe doesn’t seem to understand).

We now know this thanks to the first speech of the new secretary to the Treasury, Dr Steven Kennedy, made last week. He explained to Senate Estimates the long-established orthodoxy among macro-economists in the advanced economies that "short-term economic weakness or unsustainably strong growth is best responded to by monetary policy" (interest rates) not fiscal policy (government spending and taxation).

Although the budget’s "automatic stabilisers" shouldn’t be prevented from assisting monetary policy in keeping growth stable, fiscal policy’s medium-term objective was to "deliver sustainable patterns of taxation and government spending".

Temporary fiscal actions should be taken only in "periods of crisis", which would be uncommon.

Now, I have to tell you Kennedy isn’t making these rules up. They did become orthodoxy in advanced-economy treasuries in the 1980s. They’re the reason John Kerin’s budget of 1991, delivered in the depths of "the recession we [didn’t] have to have" contained zero stimulus, meaning the stimulus, when it came in February 1992, came too late.

And it was the lesson he learnt from this stuff-up that prompted former Treasury secretary Dr Ken Henry to urge Kevin Rudd to "go early" after the global financial crisis in 2008.

These rules will have a familiar ring to those of us who each year study the fine print in budget statement 3 on the fiscal strategy. Particularly in the reference to the role of the budget’s automatic stabilisers, you see the fingerprints of Treasury’s leading macro-economist in recent decades, Dr Martin Parkinson.

Which is all very lovely. Just one small problem: the circumstances of the advanced economies – including ours – have changed radically since those rules were establish in the 1980s. They made sense then; they make no sense now.

For a start, how can you say, leave it all to monetary policy, when the official interest rate is almost as low as it can go? Has no one in the Canberra bubble noticed? Or do they imagine a switch from conventional to unconventional monetary policy tools would be seamless and involve no loss of efficacy or adverse consequences?

And since when did the orthodox assignment of roles between fiscal and monetary policies involve monetary policy resorting to unconventional measures?

The diminished effectiveness of monetary policy is a big part of the reason the world’s leading macro-economists have for some time been moving away from the old view that monetary policy was superior to fiscal policy as the main instrument for stabilising demand.

All those reasons are spelt out by Harvard’s Professor Jason Furman – a former chairman of President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers – in a much-noted paper (summarised by me here). It was written as long ago as 2016, but doesn’t seem yet to have reached the banks of the Molonglo.

If there’s one thing macro economists know it’s that, these days, the economies of the developed world – including ours – don’t work the way they used to in the 1980s, or even before the financial crisis.

Interest rates are at record lows around the developed world not only because inflation is negligible but also because the world neutral real interest rate has been falling for decades and is now lower than it’s ever been.

This is linked to the fact – often referred to by Lowe, but not mentioned by Kennedy - that the supply of loanable funds provided by the world’s savers greatly exceeds the demand to borrow those funds for real investment.

Around the developed world – and in Australia – consumption is weak, business investment is weak, productivity improvement is low and real wage growth is low, while employment growth is stronger than you’d expect in the circumstances. Countries keep revising down their estimates of the "non-accelerating-inflation rate of unemployment" (that is, full employment), but no one really knows just how low it now is.

To give him his due, Kennedy’s speech reveals him to be just as puzzled as the rest of us about why the economy is behaving so differently.

But one thing seems clear: the private sector isn’t generating sufficient demand to get us out of "secular stagnation," so it’s up to the public sector to fill the void. And, sorry, but with monetary policy down for the count, that means using fiscal policy. They're the new, 21st century rules.

Read more >>

Treasury explains why we shouldn't worry about the economy

There’s a lesson for Scott Morrison in new Treasury secretary Dr Steven Kennedy’s first public speech this week: put the right person at the top of Treasury and they’ll defend the government’s position far more eloquently and persuasively than any politician could. The econocrat’s greater credibility demands they be taken seriously.

I fear that time will show it's been a costly mistake by the government not to respond to Reserve Bank governor Dr Philip Lowe’s unceasing requests for budgetary stimulus to supplement the diminishing effectiveness of interest rate cuts. Costly in terms of lost jobs – perhaps even including the Prime Minister’s.

But that Kennedy’s opening statement at Treasury’s appearance before Senate Estimates is a robust defence of official policy should surprise no one (except politicians, who are prone to paranoia). In my experience, senior Treasury officers never gainsay the government of the day, in public or private. If it’s an independent view you’re after, try the Reserve.

However, since this is the most ably argued exposition of the government’s case for sitting tight, it deserves to be reported in detail.

Kennedy is clearly worried about the threat to us from events in the rest of the world, but is
"cautiously optimistic" that the domestic economy will pick up. According to the government’s long-established "frameworks" for the respective roles of the two policy arms used to manage the macro economy – monetary policy (interest rates) and fiscal policy (the budget) – the heavy lifting is done by monetary policy, with fiscal policy being used only during a crisis. As yet, there’s no crisis.

Over the past year, Kennedy says, global growth has slowed. As a result, the International Monetary Fund and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development now expect world growth this calendar year to be the slowest since the global financial crisis in 2008. Even so, they expect growth next year to improve to about 3 to 3.4 per cent – "which is still reasonable".

Chief among the factors involved are the ongoing and still evolving "trade tensions" between the United States and China. "There is no doubt that trade tensions are having real effects on the global economy, which you see in trade data from the US and China," he says.

Combined with other problems – Brexit, Hong Kong, and concerns about the financial stability of some countries – trade tensions are leading to an increased level of uncertainty around the outlook for the world economy.

Many central banks have responded to slowing global growth by supporting their economies. And South Korea and Thailand have also provided more supportive fiscal policy.

Turning to the domestic economy, it slowed in the second half of last year, then grew more strongly in the first half of this year. This amounted to growth of just 1.4 per cent over the year to June.

Household consumption, the largest part of the economy, grew by 1.4 per cent, held down mainly by weak growth in wages. Linked to this is a fall in home building over the past three quarters, which is likely to continue in the present financial year.

Moving to business investment spending, mining investment fell by almost 12 per cent over the year to June, and non-mining investment was weaker than expected.

But, Kennedy argues, these problems are temporary and "there are reasons to be optimistic about the outlook". Recent figures have shown early signs of recovery in the market for established housing. Overall, capital city house prices have risen for the past three months. Auction clearance rates have picked up and more homes are changing hands.

Consumer spending will be supported by the government’s tax cuts and the Reserve’s three cuts in interest rates.

The substantial investment in mining capacity of past years is boosting exports, and mining investment spending is expected to grow this year rather than contract, as it had been since 2012.

Despite modest growth in the economy, employment has continued to be strong, increasing by more than 300,000 over the past year. The rate of unemployment has been "broadly flat" rather than falling because near-record rates of new people are joining the labour force and getting jobs.

The rate of improvement in the productivity of labour – output per hour worked – has averaged 1.5 per cent a year over the past 30 years, but slowed to just 0.7 per cent a year over the past five. This isn’t as bad as it looks because it’s exactly what arithmetic would lead you to expect when employment is growing faster than output. And even 0.7 per cent is higher than the G7 economies can manage.

Now to the question of whether the government should be applying fiscal stimulus to guard against a recession.

Kennedy says that, in an open economy such as ours, having a medium-term "framework" (set of rules) for the way fiscal policy should be conducted, in concert with a medium-term framework for the way monetary policy should be conducted, "has long been held to be the most effective way to manage the economy through cycles".

Under this view, fiscal policy’s medium-term objective is to deliver sustainable patterns of taxation and government spending [and thus a sustainable level of public debt].  A further objective is usually to minimise the need for taxation, as is the case in Australia.

This approach reflects an assessment that apparent short-term economic weakness or, alternatively, unsustainably strong growth, is best responded to by monetary policy, not fiscal policy.

Within this framework, however, the budget’s in-built "automatic stabilisers" will assist monetary policy in stabilising the economy. For instance, revenue will weaken, and payments will strengthen, when an economy experiences weakness.

The other exception to the rule that fiscal policy should be focused exclusively on achieving sustainable public debt is that there’s a case for "temporary [note that word] fiscal actions" in periods of crisis.

But "the circumstances or crisis that would warrant temporary fiscal responses are uncommon".

So, sorry, Phil. Application denied.

Read more >>

Insincere, misguided displays of concern make the drought worse

Sometimes I think our politics has got into a vicious circle: the worse our politicians behave, the more of us give up and tune out. But the less we monitor their behaviour, the worse and more lackadaisical the politicians become.

Take the drought. Good politicians would see it as a recurring problem and try to find substantive ways of helping farmers cope with droughts in general; weak politicians settle for giving the impression of being very busy caring and helping – especially when the TV cameras are rolling – while they kick the problem down a country track.

Scott Morrison and his ministers keep announcing (or re-announcing) new measures to help, but the experts – including the National Farmers' Federation - keep lamenting that we don’t have a National Drought Policy and haven’t had one for years. We just keep knee-jerking and ad hocking every time another drought comes along.

So what would a decent national drought policy look like? It would start by reverting to an understanding the Hawke-Keating government established years ago, but has since been blurred: droughts aren’t a “natural disaster” in the way floods, cyclones and bushfires are. For a start, those others are sudden and short-lived, whereas droughts develop gradually, spread over huge areas and can last for years.

As Dorothea Mackellar realised more than a century ago, if you want to be an Australian, regular droughts are part of the deal. Always have been but, thanks to the two C-words we’re not supposed to say, are now likely to become more severe and more frequent. The day may come when not being in drought is the exception.

According to former top econocrat Dr Mike Keating, “the possibility of recurring droughts must therefore be planned for and not just treated as bad luck, for which farmers themselves bear no responsibility”.

The national drought policy of 1992 required farmers to be more self-reliant and absorb the impact of droughts as something to be expected. Many, many farmers have long been doing just that. Some haven’t bothered and they’re the ones getting most care and concern from fly-by-night journalists and politicians.

Everyone wants to “help those poor farmers”, but how should governments do it? John Freebairn, an economics professor at the University of Melbourne, says you can divide government drought support into three categories: subsidies for farm businesses, income supplements for low-income farm families, and support for better decision-making.

His message is that the main thing we should be doing is supporting programs to help farmers better manage the risk of drought and make their farms sustainable. Such support needs to come mainly between droughts – precisely when media and political interest in the topic evaporates.

Although income supplements for drought-stricken farmers raise questions about why they should get help other small-business people don’t, they’re a much more effective way of alleviating poverty than subsidising farmers’ loans, freight and fodder – which is just what federal and state politicians (and volunteer organisations) have been heaping on this time as the ad hockery has mounted.

As Professor Bruce Chapman, of the Australian National University, said this week, “the politics of drought is not only about helping farmers, [it’s] about showing the world – including city dwellers – that the government cares. It does that by giving money away and having lots of announcements.”

But here’s the less-obvious truth recognised by a considered drought policy: the too-ready availability of drought assistance helps create droughts.

How? By reducing “the risks associated with a bad year, and thus encouraging over-cropping and over-grazing. If farmers know that their mistakes will be bailed out, then they have an additional incentive to maintain their herds even when the risk of not having enough feed is quite high. They anticipate that the taxpayer will bail them out if it doesn’t rain, and that they will be able to buy in the additional (subsidised) fodder when they might need it,” Keating says.

Now get this: according to Lin Crase, an economics professor at the University of South Australia, “there is mounting evidence that farm businesses can actually benefit from drought in the longer term. This seems to occur because businesses that go through a drought develop coping strategies that, when invoked in good years, produce much greater profits.”

This doesn’t mean droughts are a good thing, of course, but it does mean that shielding farm businesses from drought runs the risk that they won’t adapt, Crase says. Changing climate suggests that a lot more adaptation – including bigger, more mechanised farms and many more farmers leaving the land – lies ahead.

Sensible drought policy long ago recognised that more dams don’t help, which is why so few have been built in recent decades. That politicians are popping up with plans for new dams is another sign they’re making it up as they go.

John Kerin, a minister for primary industry in the Hawke government, says that while you can fill new dams when you’ve eventually built them, “you can’t keep them full waiting for a drought, or empty waiting for a flood”. Increased stored water will be used to increase irrigation. And increased irrigation in a time of climate change means greater shortages of water in the next drought.

The expertise to respond to drought more sensibly is there. It’s just that our politicians find it easier pretending to fix the problem.

Read more >>

Morrison’s hang-ups make him a bad economic manager

Scott Morrison’s problem is that he gets politics – and is good at it – but doesn’t get economics.

The Prime Minister doesn’t get that if he keeps playing politics while doing nothing to stop the economy sliding into recession, nothing will save him from the voters’ wrath.

Neither he nor Josh Frydenberg seem to get that if we endure another year of very weak growth before they pop up next September boasting about their fabulous budget surplus, no one will be cheering.

How could a second financial year of weak growth possibly leave the budget with a big surplus? Because of the miracle of continuing bracket creep and iron ore prices kept high by BHP’s dam disaster in Brazil.

If there was any doubt about the likelihood of continuing weakness in our economy – independent of any adverse shock from abroad – it was swept away last week. The International Monetary Fund forecast real growth in Australia's gross domestic product of just 1.7 per cent this calendar year, improving only to 2.3 per cent next year.

So the IMF isn’t buying even Reserve Bank governor Philip Lowe’s “gentle turning point”, much less the efforts of Treasury’s seemingly unsackable Italian forecaster, Dr Rosie Scenario.

Frydenberg’s response has been that giving top priority to achieving a budget surplus isn’t just “a vanity exercise” because “a strong budget position helps build the resilience of the economy for external shocks, whenever that may occur, and your ability to respond to those stocks with a fiscal response”.

Translation: we can’t afford to spend money staving off recession because we’ll need to spend that money once we are in recession. The absurdity of this argument that a stitch in time doesn’t save nine has been hidden by his unstated assumption that, since the domestic economy's going fine, it’s only some shock from abroad that could lay us low.

Remember all the hand-wringing about quarter after quarter of weak growth in real wages, made even weaker – as Lowe has reminded us – by exceptionally strong growth in income tax collections? It’s imaginary, apparently.

Weak consumer spending, weak growth in business investment spending, contracting home-building? More imagining.

Oh yes, employment’s still growing surprisingly strongly. “See, I told you everything’s fine.” These guys are in denial.

Frydenberg’s argument about the need to “reload the fiscal canon” ready for the next downturn makes perfect sense - provided you’re paying back public debt at a time when the economy’s growing strongly and, if anything, could use a bit of slowing to ensure inflation doesn’t get away.

That's not us, unfortunately.

The IMF says “monetary policy [changing interest rates] cannot be the only game in town. It should be coupled with fiscal [budgetary] support where fiscal space is available, and policy is not already too expansionary”.

Far from being too expansionary, our fiscal policy is contractionary (which is why the budget balance is improving even as the economy slows).

And throughout the time that both sides of politics have been so worried about “debt and deficit”, the IMF has kept telling us not to worry because we have loads of “fiscal space” – that is, our level of public debt is way below the point where we should become concerned.

My bet is Morrison and Frydenberg will eventually panic and take stimulatory measures (probably a lot of them), but they’ll come too late in the piece to stop confidence unravelling, with punters tightening their belts as businesses lay off staff.

But not yet. Frydenberg has let it be known the government will try to boost business investment by introducing a special investment allowance – but not until the budget next May.

Even so, Finance Minister Mathias Cormann has let it be known that they’re thinking about turning the December midyear budget update into a mini budget if it soon becomes apparent the present tax and interest-rate cuts haven’t made much difference.

But even when that bullet is bitten, Morrison’s effectiveness as an economic manager will still be inhibited by his various political hang-ups. For instance, neither he nor his Treasurer can bring themselves even to utter the offensive S-word – stimulus.

And his determination never to be seen helping the poor (whom those in the party’s base know to be utterly undeserving) stops him taking two stimulatory measures that are simple, quick-acting and highly effective, while yielding lasting benefits.

The first is simply increasing the Newstart allowance.

The other is a proposal worked up by Dr Peter Davidson for the Australian Council of Social Service for the feds to invest $7 billion over three years building 20,000 social housing dwellings. This would not only boost growth and jobs in the becalmed housing industry, but also reduce homelessness.

Sorry, makes too much sense.

Read more >>

Traffic congestion will continue until we're game to tax it

The governments of NSW and Victoria lost zero time in rejecting the Grattan Institute’s proposal that all state governments introduce “congestion charging” in their capital cities. But don’t imagine this unpopular idea will go away. It will keep coming back until we buy it.

Australians and their political leaders have a record of trembling on the brink for decades before belatedly accepting the inevitability of upgrades to the tax system. Take value-added tax.

A full quarter century passed between the first official report recommending a VAT – which the Whitlam government rejected at the same time it made the report public - and its introduction by John Howard in 2000, rebadged as the more euphemistic goods and services tax.

Economists had lots of fancy economic-efficiency arguments for changing to a broad-based, single-rate tax on consumer spending but, in the end, it was quite pragmatic, revenue-protecting arguments that won the day.

The High Court had ruled various state government indirect taxes to be unconstitutional, and the growth in collections from the federal government’s ramshackle wholesale sales tax was falling further and further behind the growth of the economy, as more of every consumer dollar was being spent on (untaxed) services rather than goods.

An eventual move to charging motorists directly for using the roads could also be prompted by the declining effectiveness of the present tax system. As ever more of our car fleet moves from petrol-powered to electricity-powered, receipts from the nation’s main tax on motoring – the federal excise on petroleum – will wither away.

But that’s not an argument used in the Grattan Institute’s report – written by Marion Terrill – advocating a move to congestion charging. Indeed, Terrill makes it clear she’s not talking about a general road user charge – that is, charging that covers the cost of building new roads and maybe also the costs of wear and tear to roads, accidents and so forth. (Even though such a general charge for road use may well be what we end up with.)

No, Terrill is only on about charges designed to reduce excessive congestion.

So why might we get charges directed solely at reducing congestion? Because all of us hate it so much and because, even if it doesn’t increase in coming years as cities get ever bigger, you can be sure we’ll all believe it’s got a lot worse.

And, finally, because congestion charging is the most certain – and the cheapest – way to actually reduce congestion, not just promise to.

State politicians have gone for decades claiming to be reducing congestion by spending billions on new freeways (and a lot fewer billions on expanding public transport), but it hasn’t happened.

Why not? Partly because our cities keep getting bigger, but mainly because, in Terrill’s words, “most city-dwellers find car travel more appealing and convenient than other means of travel”.

Initially, a new freeway is much faster than the roads it replaces, but that just attracts more people who’d prefer to travel by car. They keep flooding in until the congestion increases the delay to the point where it’s about as bad as it was before.

By contrast, we know that congestion charging really works. You’d still have to build more freeways and railways as the city grew, but many fewer.

Terrill argues that congestion charges could be introduced in three stages. First is “cordon charging” where drivers pay to cross a boundary into a designated zone, such as a CBD. Next “corridor charging,” where drivers pay to drive along an urban freeway or arterial road. Then network-wide, distance-based charging, where drivers pay to drive within a designated network or area, on a per-kilometre basis.

She says there are three reasons why now’s the time to get started. First, many people say that congestion charging couldn’t be introduced without a big improvement in public transport. Well, that’s just what we’re getting.

In recent elections, the winning party promised spending on public transport of $72 billion in Victoria, $42 billion in NSW and $13 billion federally.

Specifically, Melbourne is getting the Suburban Rail Loop and the Airport Rail Link. Sydney’s getting Metro West, Metro City and rail to Western Sydney Airport.

Second, the technology for congestion charging is getting cheaper and better all the time. Third, there’s now enough global experience - not just Singapore, London and Stockholm, but also Malta, Gothenburg and Milan, with Jakarta and New York on the way - to show that congestion charging works and that, despite initial opposition, is soon accepted as a big improvement.

Terrill says that, in Sydney’s morning peak, for example, up to 21 per cent of trips are for “socialising, recreation or shopping”. A congestion charge wouldn’t raise much revenue. It wouldn’t have to be high to deter enough people to reduce road use in key parts of the city during peak hours. And remember, such charges are designed to be avoided.

It’s true that motorists with lots of money could easily afford to pay the charge, whereas people on modest incomes couldn’t. But the claim that a charge would be unfair is exaggerated.

If the charge was imposed on cars entering the CBD, only 3 per cent of Melbourne households would pay it on a typical day. And not many of those would be poor. The median income of full-time workers driving to work in the CBD is $1980 a week in Melbourne (and $2450 a week in Sydney). Sound poor to you?

But if you’re still not convinced by Terrill’s arguments, here’s a more radical proposal. The economists’ Coase Theorem implies it shouldn’t matter whether you impose the charge on workers required to start work in the CBD during peak hour or on their employer doing the requiring.

After all, workers have little or no ability to change the time they must start or leave work, but their bosses do.

Read more >>

Politicians too poor at their jobs to fix poverty

You could be forgiven for not knowing this is anti-poverty week. The poor, as we know, are always with us – which is great because it means we can focus on our own problems and worry about the poor’s problems later.

We can fight to protect our tax breaks, then get around to wondering about how easy we’d find it to be living on $280 a week from the Pollyanna-named Newstart allowance.

But it’s not just our natural tendency to let our own problems loom larger than other people’s. It’s also that, as property prices make our cities ever more stratified, we so rarely meet people from the poorer parts of town.

We find it hard to imagine how hard they find it to make ends meet, and to lift themselves out of the hole they’ve fallen into. Why can’t they work as hard as I do? (Short answer: because they can’t find anyone willing to give them a job.)

Why can’t they budget as carefully as I would if I were in their position? (Short answer: you have no idea of how carefully they have to watch their pennies.)

The question we should be asking, but rarely do, is: why hasn’t their luck been as good as mine?

Why didn’t they choose their parents more wisely? Why didn’t they go to a better school? Why can’t they afford health and car insurance? Why don’t they have a few thou in the bank in case of emergency? Why don’t they have well-placed relatives and friends to help them find a job or talk their way out of a problem with the authorities?

One of the many things the Salvos (my co-religionists) do to help the disadvantaged is run a financial counselling service called Moneycare. I’ve been reading some of their recent reports, most of them prepared by the Salvos’ research analyst, Lerisca Lensun.

It probably won’t surprise you that the number of people seeking help has increased by more than 40 per cent over the past five years. Most are there because of an unexpected change in their financial circumstances – they’ve lost their job or lost income, they or a family member have acquired a serious illness, or they’re victims of domestic violence.

The main issues they present with are managing their debt, or managing their budget. More than a third of people in the sample had financial difficulties arising from health problems.

More than 60 per cent of those needing financial counselling are women. The median income was $535 a week, less than 40 per cent of an average Australian’s income and well below the poverty line.

A quarter are on Newstart and another fifth on the disability support pension.

Almost half rent privately and, of these, 45 per cent suffer housing stress (paying more than 30 per cent of their disposable income in rent), plus a further 26 per cent in severe housing stress.

The proportion of those over 55 who are in private rental has risen over a decade from 27 per cent to 42 per cent. Of these, almost 80 per cent experience housing stress.

Of those with debt, half have credit card debt, 30 per cent have personal loans and a quarter have electricity debt. Many have more than one type, of course.

Compared with average Australian households, clients spent at least 50 per cent less on essential items such as food and health. Try this story from a 41-year-old mother of three: “Go without the main meal and just provide for the children. Before payment arrangements were organised, I would put off paying electricity and gas bills to pay for other things due.”

Or this sick 26-year-old woman, living alone: “When I don’t have money I don’t eat and only get the medication I could not live without. Bills and debts get fines. The medical conditions get worse so I end up needing more medication and get admitted to hospital to fix that.”

The counsellors at Moneycare – who spend much time interceding with creditors on behalf of clients – say they see no sign on the ground of improved behaviour by lenders since the report of the royal commission on banking misconduct.

They worry a lot about the way unscrupulous payday lenders take advantage of people with pressing debts and no money, greatly deepening the hole they’re in. Legislation to crack down on such lenders was introduced to Parliament in March last year, but has yet to be passed.

It never ceases to surprise me that a prime minister so ready to proclaim his Christian faith is so hard of heart when it comes to people on benefits (age pensioners excepted). Presumably, he’s not prepared to “give them a go” because he’s not convinced that they “have a go”.

As the Australian Council of Social Service has said, increasing Newstart would be “the single most effective step to reduce poverty” – not to mention giving a much-needed boost to the nation’s retailers.

But Scott Morrison, so generous in his promises of big tax cuts to high-income earners like me, has steadfastly refused to oblige. Rather, he’s working on an unending list of torments for people on welfare.

It’s as if he’s seeking applause from all those who think anyone on welfare must be a lazy loafer.

If that’s how you imitate Christ, things have changed a lot since I grew up in the Salvos.

Read more >>

Barring another financial crisis, it will be a long wait for QE

It’s amazing so many people are so sure they can see where the Reserve Bank is headed. Once interest rates are down to zero it will be on to QE - “quantitative easing” – and negative interest rates, they assure us. Don’t you believe it.

What’s surprising is how heavily the self-proclaimed experts are relying on their vivid imaginations. Or maybe lack of imagination, falling back on the lazy market dealer’s assumption that we should do – and will do – whatever the Americans have done.

What few in the financial markets and financial media are doing is their due diligence: carefully examining what the Reserve – particularly its governor, Dr Philip Lowe – has actually said about its attitude towards “unconventional monetary policy tools”.

Lowe had a lot to say when he appeared before the House economics committee in August. And in the Reserve’s written response to the committee’s questions. As well, Lowe had more to say when delivering a report on the topic by a Bank for International Settlements committee (BIS), which he chaired.

People assume the Reserve is hot to trot. It ain’t. It began the written response by saying “while at this point it is unlikely that the Reserve Bank will need to employ unconventional monetary measures, the [board] considered it prudent to understand the issues involved and has studied the experience of other countries”.

Prudence is the word. Since these are times when the unprecedented has become commonplace, Lowe is resolved to “never say never”. But don’t mistake this for enthusiasm. Read what he says -more in his remarks on his own behalf than as chair of the BIS committee – and you see how reluctant he is to start down the unconventional road.

He keeps repeating that the effectiveness of the various unconventional measures “depends upon the specific economic and financial conditions facing each economy at the time, as well as the structure of its financial system”.

That’s his way of saying, just because the Yanks did it, doesn’t mean we will.

His reference to the particular structure of a country’s financial system is especially relevant to the unconventional tool so many people assume is next: “purchasing government securities, so as to lower long-term risk-free interest rates”.

It’s a lot easier to believe this would stimulate private sector borrowing and spending in financial systems where home loans and business borrowing are geared to “the long end” – such as America’s – than in systems like ours, where lending for housing and small business is based on the short term and variable end of the interest-rate yield curve.

And Lowe’s reference to financial conditions at the time is also relevant: long-term interest rates are already at unprecedented lows. What would be gained by making them even lower?

If there’s one thing we ought to have figured out by now it’s that, whatever ails our economy at present, it ain’t that interest rates are too high.

People in the financial markets can fail to see this because, in all the trading of currencies and securities they do (many, many times more than would be necessary just to provide firms in the real economy with “deep” markets), so many of them make their living betting on the central bank’s next move.

When you’ve fallen into the habit of seeing the Reserve’s main role as holding regular race meetings, you see the conventional race days continuing until the official interest rate hits zero, obliging it to move to unconventional race days.

Trouble is, the Reserve thinks monetary policy is about the effect it has on the real economy of households and businesses, not about keeping money-market dealers in the luxury to which they’ve become accustomed.

For instance, it’s not at all clear that it will keep cutting until it hits zero. In its written response, the Reserve says that reducing the long-term bond rate “would involve reducing the cash rate to a very low level [my emphasis] and possibly purchasing government securities”.

Why get off at Redfern? Because there’s little point in cutting the official rate beyond the point where the banks are able to pass it on to their customers in the real economy.

Similarly, why would the Reserve engineer negative interest rates if the banks couldn’t get away with passing them on to their customers?

Lowe says the most clearly successful use of unconventional tools – buying private-sector securities - was at the height of the financial crisis when “the financial sector stalled and stopped doing its job, hamstrung by losses and drained of liquidity”.

However, security-buying policies aimed primarily at providing monetary stimulus were less obviously successful. So, should another financial crisis cause particular markets to freeze then, yes, sure, the Reserve would be in there taking whatever unconventional measures were needed to get them going again.

Read more >>

Why surpluses aren't necessarily good, or deficits bad

According to the Essential opinion poll, only 6 per cent of people regard the size of the national surplus as the most important indicator of the state of the economy. I think that’s good news, but I’m not certain because I’m not sure what “the national surplus” is – or what the respondents to the poll took it to mean.

They probably thought it referred to the balance on the federal government’s budget. But the federal budget is not yet back to surplus and, in any case, it can’t be the national surplus because it takes no account of the budgets of the state governments that, with the feds, make up the nation.

Assuming respondents took it to be the federal budget balance, its low score is good news about the public’s economic literacy, but bad news for Scott Morrison and Josh Frydenberg, who are hoping to make a huge political killing when, in September next year, they expect to announce the budget finally is back in surplus.

The pollies are assuming that voters know nothing more about the economy than that anything called a surplus must be a good thing, whereas anything called a deficit must be very bad.

Actually, no economist thinks all surpluses are good and all deficits bad. Sometimes surpluses are good and sometimes they’re bad. Vice-versa with deficits. It depends on the economy’s circumstances at the time.

But the confusion doesn’t end there. There are lots of measures in the economy that can be in deficit or surplus, not just governments’ budgets. When I wrote a column some weeks back foreshadowing that the current account on the nation’s balance of payments would probably swing into surplus for the first time in 44 years, some people assumed I must be referring to the federal budget.

Wrong. The federal budget records the money flowing in and out of the federal government’s coffers – it’s bank account. The “balance of payments” summarises all the money flowing into and out of Australia from overseas – covering exports, imports and payments of interest and dividends in and out (making up the “current account”), and all the corresponding outflows and inflows of the financial payments required (making up the “capital and financial account”).

The trick is that, thanks to double-entry bookkeeping, the balances on the two accounts making up the balance of payments must be equal and opposite. So the longstanding deficit on the current account was always exactly offset by a surplus on the capital account.

And that means the (probably temporary) current account surplus was matched by the capital account swinging from surplus to deficit. Oh no.

Although Australia has been a net importer of (financial) capital almost continuously since the arrival of the First Fleet, for the June quarter we became a net exporter, lending or investing more money in the rest of the world than the rest of the world lent or invested in us.

If you tell the story of this change in plus and minus signs from the current account perspective, it’s mainly that the resources boom has greatly increased our exports, while the slowing in the economy’s growth means our imports of goods and services are also weak.

But there’s also a story to be told about why the capital account has gone from surplus to deficit. As Reserve Bank deputy governor Dr Guy Debelle explained in a speech at the time, the composition of the inflows and outflows of financial capital have changed a lot since 2000.

Since Australia has always been a recipient of foreign investments in our businesses, by June this year, the value of the total stock of that equity investment amounted to a liability to the rest of the world of $1.4 trillion.

But the value of our equity investments in the rest of the world amounted to assets worth $1.5 trillion. So, when it comes to equity investment, the latest figures show we had net assets of $142 billion.

The fact is, the value of our shares in them overtook the value of their shares in us in 2013. That’s a remarkable turnaround from the previous two centuries of being a destination for foreign investment.

Why did it come about? Mainly because of our introduction of compulsory superannuation. Our super funds have invested mainly in local companies, but they’ve also invested a lot in the shares of foreign companies.

For the most part, however, our seemingly endless string of current account deficits has been financed by borrowing from the rest of the world. By June, our debt to foreigners totalled $2.4 trillion. Their debt to us totalled $1.3 trillion, leaving us with net foreign debt of a mere $1.1 trillion.

There was a time when Coalition politicians carried on about that debt – owed more by our banks and businesses, than our governments - rather than the (much smaller) debt of the federal government, only about 55 per cent of which is owed to foreigners.

Why does our huge net foreign debt rarely rate a mention these days? Because it’s always made economic sense for a young country with huge development potential to be an importer of financial capital – it’s part of what’s made us so prosperous.

Because all the debt we owe is denominated in Australian dollars or has been “hedged” back into Aussie dollars – meaning a sudden big fall in our dollar would be a problem for our creditors, not us.

But also because, though our net foreign debt keeps growing in dollar terms, our economy is also growing – and hence, our ability to pay the interest on the debt. That’s a sign that, overall, the money we’ve borrowed has been put to good use.

Adding our net foreign assets to our net foreign debt gives our net foreign liabilities. Measured against the size of the economy (nominal gross domestic product), our net foreign liabilities reached a peak of about 60 per cent in 2009, but have since fallen to about 50 per cent.

Read more >>

Why are the Viking economies so successful? They pull together

I’d like to tell you I’ve been away working hard on a study tour of the Nordic economies – or perhaps tracing the remnant economic impact of the Hanseatic League (look it up) – but the truth is we were too busy enjoying the sights around Scandinavia and the Baltic for me to spend much time reading the books and papers I’d taken along.

But since I always like telling people what I did on my holidays (oh, those fjords and waterfalls we saw while sailing up the coast of Norway to the Arctic Circle!), I’ve been looking up facts and figures in a forthcoming book comparing the main developed countries on many criteria, by my mate Professor Rod Tiffen and others at Sydney University (and me).

But first, the travelogue. Prosperous countries have a lot in common but Scandinavia is different. I have seen the future and, while some might regard it as political correctness gone mad, it looked pretty good to me.

One aspect in which the Nordics (strictly speaking, Finland isn’t Scandinavian because it’s a republic rather than a monarchy and because the Finnish language bears no relation to Danish, Swedish or Norwegian) are way more advanced is the role of women.

All of them have had female prime ministers or presidents, they have loads of female politicians and we were always seeing women out at business functions with their male colleagues.

Governments spend much more on childcare and they’re big on men actually taking paid paternity leave. They have “family zones” in trains and we were struck by how many men we saw by themselves pushing prams.

They’re much more relaxed on sexual matters. These days, any new building in Sweden will have unisex toilets, with rows of cubicles and not a urinal to be seen. Neat way of sidestepping debates about which toilet transgender people should use.

The Nordics are well ahead of us on environmental matters. They’re bicycle crazy (a big health hazard for tourists who don’t know they’re standing in a bike lane) and drive small cars.

They’re obsessed with organic food and even hotel guests are expected to recycle their paper and plastic. One hotel we stayed at in Copenhagen was so concerned to save the planet its policy was to make up the rooms only every fourth day.

The Norwegians have made and, unlike the rest of us, saved their pile by selling oil to the world but you get the feeling it troubles their conscience. So, like the other Nordics, they have ambitious targets to move to renewables and, to that end, are making more use of carbon pricing than most other countries.

The truth is, I’ve long wanted to see Scandinavia for myself. It’s a part of the world that most politicians and economists prefer not to think about. Why not? Because its performance laughs at all they believe about how to run a successful economy.

Everyone in the English-speaking economies knows big government is the enemy of efficiency. The less governments do, the better things go. The lower we can get our taxes, the more we’ll grow.

Just ask Scott Morrison. As he loves to say, no one ever taxed their way to prosperity. What’s he doing to encourage jobs and growth? Cutting taxes, of course. That’s Economics 101 – so obvious it doesn’t need explaining.

Trouble is, the Nordics have some of the highest rates of government spending in the world and pay among the highest levels of taxation, but have hugely successful economies.

The Danes pay 46 per cent of gross domestic product in total taxes, the Finns pay 44 per cent, the Swedes 43 per cent and the Norwegians 38 per cent (compared with our 28 per cent).

Measured by GDP per person, Norway's standard of living is well ahead of America's. Then come the Danes and the Swedes – at around the average for 18 developed democracies (as are we) – with the Finns just beating out the Brits and the French further down the list.

The Nordics are also good at managing their government budgets.

We all know unions are bad for jobs and growth and we’ve succeeded in getting our rate of union membership down to 17 per cent. Funny that, the Nordics still have the highest rates (up around two-thirds). So, do they have lots of strikes? No.

The four Nordics are right at the top when it comes to the smallest gap between rich and poor, with Canada, Australia, Britain and the United States right at the bottom.

Other indicators show that (provided you ignore the long snowy winters) the Nordics enjoy a high quality of life and not just a high material standard of living.

Note this: I’m not claiming that the Scandinavians are more economically successful because of their big government and high taxes. No, I’m saying that, contrary to the unshakable beliefs of many economists and all conservative politicians, there’s little connection between economic success and the size of government.

So how do the Scandis do it? I read this on the wall of an art museum in Aarhus, Denmark: “In a society we are mutually interdependent. Strengthening the spirit of community, we improve society for all of us as a group but we also provide each individual with better opportunities for realising his or her own potential.”

Read more >>

Why we don't get more joy out of our super

When one of our top econocrats gives a speech about behavioural economics, you know we’re making progress. Take the ever-present problem of income in retirement. “BE” explains both why it’s a major area of government intervention in our lives and how that intervention can be made more effective.

One of the greatest limitations of conventional economics – based on the “neo-classical” model, which focuses on how prices are determined by the interaction of supply and demand – is its assumption that people are unfailingly “rational” – calculatingly self-interested – in their response to the prices they face.

Behavioural economics accepts that we’re not the financial automatons the model assumes us to be, and uses insights from the more empirical sciences of psychology and sociology to gain a much more realistic picture of the many non-monetary factors that also affect our behaviour in economic matters.

Behavioural economists draw on the long list of “heuristics” – mental shortcuts or biases in the way we think – developed by cognitive psychologists. In a recent speech, Dr David Gruen, top economics guy in the Department of Prime Minister and Cabinet, outlined the cognitive biases that limit many people’s ability to make adequate provisions for the income they’ll need in retirement.

For more than a century the government has provided the age pension, of course. But in the 1990s people began to worry that it wouldn’t be sufficient to meet the aspirations of the rising generation. So the Keating government introduced compulsory employee superannuation.

In those days before the spread of BE, most economists accepted the imposition of compulsory saving as a correction to the “market failure” of “myopia” – most of us are too short-sighted to save enough towards our retirement.

The BE way of putting it is that we suffer from “present bias” – we overvalue the present relative to the future. Gruen takes the idea further, noting that “while choosing a retirement plan is likely to influence literally decades of our lives, many of us spend little time – sometimes less than an hour – choosing our plan”.

Then there’s “confirmation bias” – we tend to remember events that confirm our existing views, but forget developments that cast doubt on those views. Gruen uses this to explain why many of us spend what little time we have set aside to choose a retirement plan looking for one with an investment strategy that supports our existing investing approach.

And “cognitive overload”. This occurs when people find it too hard to process a mass of information in order to make decisions. In the context of planning for retirement, it leads many of us to stick with choices we have arrived at by default.

“Together, these cognitive biases create a big gap between our intentions and our actions: although people intend to save for their retirement, they often don’t translate that into action. For most people, how much to save, and in what form, are difficult cognitive problems – because of both our limited calculation powers and the apparent enormity of the task,” Gruen says.

When the compulsory super system was first set up, the government adopted the conventional economics view that savers were rational economic agents who knew their own business best. So all it had to do was require the super funds to reveal relevant information about their investment options, and diligent savers would do the rest, ensuring they picked the option that best suited their circumstances.

Yeah sure. At the time of a review of super in 2009, 80 per cent of super fund members were invested in the default fund chosen by their employer. Of that 80 per cent, anecdotal evidence suggested that only about 20 per cent explicitly chose the default option, with the rest making no active choice whatsoever.

“When complicated decisions are required, people often stick with the status quo and take no decision at all. In that case, the default option becomes very important,” Gruen says. (This is actually one of the key “insights” of BE.)

So the review panel recommended creating a default option – called MySuper - with features that would promote the wellbeing of those who didn’t actively choose another option. MySuper funds must be simple and cost-effective, with a diversified portfolio of investment.

Of course, there are remaining challenges in the compulsory super system, which the latest review of retirement incomes, instigated by Treasurer Josh Frydenberg, will consider. Let’s hope it takes full advantage of the behavioural insights available to it.

As Gruen says, BE allows all government policymaking to be improved by starting with a richer understanding of human behaviour and building this into the design of measures.

Read more >>