Mining still driving economy - slowly

The economy performed poorly in the September quarter, but that's OK. It was all Labor's fault, but now Labor is out. From here on it will be the Coalition's watch and everything will be much better. Or not. At least from here on Joe Hockey will be talking the economy up - as a treasurer should - not talking it down.

The national accounts we got this week show the economy grew by only 0.6 per cent in the quarter and by 2.3 per cent over the year to September. According to Hockey this shows "an economy that is growing below trend, with a soft labour market, cautious consumers and plateauing business investment".

That's the frankest assessment we're ever likely to get from the man. Although no one can say with confidence what the future holds, the best guess is that, this time next year, the economy won't be growing much faster than it is now. The non-mining economy should have picked up a bit by then, but this may be offset by big falls in mining investment spending.

As it is now, the national accounts show little strength in the rest of the economy, leaving mining accounting for what growth we did get. Starting with consumer spending, it grew by just 0.4 per cent in the quarter and by 1.8 per cent over the year to September.

That's well below its trend rate of about 3 per cent and is explained mainly by weak growth in employment (a smaller increase in the members of households earning incomes) and slower growth in wage rates. Households saved 11 per cent of their disposable income, roughly what they've been saving for three years.

Overall, home building activity fell by 0.5 per cent in the quarter to grow by just 1.7 per cent over the year, but this was because another fall in spending on renovations outweighed weak growth in the building of new homes.

The fall in renovations is surprising: usually when the buying and selling of homes picks up - as it has - renovations pick up as sellers tidy up for a sale and new buyers undertake more extensive changes.
We've seen an increase in council building approvals that's yet to show up in actual building activity, so perhaps housing will make a bigger contribution to growth in the coming year.

Overall, business investment spending increased by 1.1 per cent, but fell by 2.5 per cent over the year. Within this, mining investment rebounded in the quarter, but still looks like it reached its peak last year. Kieran Davies, of Barclays bank, says he expects mining investment to make a major subtraction from growth as it returns to a more normal level over the next few years.

Non-mining investment spending was broadly unchanged during the quarter and down about 4 per cent over the year. Davies says business confidence has picked up sharply, and this normally leads to increased investment, but the delay varies and at this stage he's not expecting much of a pick-up until later next year.
"This is because relatively low levels of capacity utilisation suggest companies are in no rush to expand, even though they can borrow at record low interest rates and many firms are cashed up," he says.

Public demand - spending by governments and their authorities - was broadly unchanged in the quarter, after rising by 0.7 per cent the previous quarter. Within the lack of change overall, however, a 5.5 per cent fall in public investment spending was negated by a 1.1 per cent rise in public consumption spending (mainly public service wages).

Davies says the fall in investment was driven by lower state capital works spending, but this "could turn around later next year and into 2015" because Hockey is encouraging the states to spend more on infrastructure and may introduce some new arrangements to help the states fund this investment.

The volume of exports grew by 0.3 per cent during the quarter and by 6.1 per cent over the year, while the volume of imports fell by 3.3 per cent during the quarter and 3.7 per cent over the year.

Most of this is explained by mining. Bulk commodity exports are up about 15 per cent over the year, while the fall in mining investment - which is "import-intensive" - accounts for the fall in import volumes.

This means "net exports" (exports minus imports) account for more than all the growth in the quarter, and contributed 2.1 percentage points of the 2.3 per cent growth in real gross domestic product over the year.

Who said the resources boom was over? Developments in the mining industry will go on having big effects on the economy for a long time yet. It won't be long, however, before the negatives exceed the positives. That is, before the decline in mining investment spending (even net of the helpful decline in imports of capital equipment) exceeds the gain from increasing exports of minerals and energy as the new mines and natural gas facilities come on line.

And don't forget the quarter saw a further, mining-driven deterioration in our terms of trade - export prices relative to import prices - of 3.3 per cent, taking the total deterioration since the peak in 2011 to 17.7 per cent. This reduction in our real income contributes to the explanation of why consumer spending has been weak.

Hockey is right when he says other indicators - retail sales, building approvals, business and consumer confidence - have improved since September. And it's reasonable to hope this will lead to a modest improvement in consumption, home building, business investment and other aspects of the non-mining economy.

But we know there will be big falls in mining investment, which could offset most of the gain. There's not a lot Hockey can do about that between now and then. Even infrastructure spending takes a long time to get going.

Read more >>

How patients and taxpayers lose out to chemists

Sometimes the good news just doesn't get through. Did you know, for instance, that the prices of three widely used medicines fell from the start of this month, meaning more than 850,000 Australians will be paying less? As federal Health Minister Peter Dutton announced, this is happening because of a wise policy instituted by the Howard government in 2007.

The saving on the most frequently prescribed medication on the pharmaceutical benefits scheme - the anti-cholesterol drug atorvastatin (known as Lipitor before its patent expired) - will range between $5.58 and $12.51 a script, depending on which brand the chemist gives you.

For olanzapine - used for schizophrenia and bipolar disorder - the saving will be up to $6.69 a script. For venlafaxine - used for major depressive disorders - the saving will be $7.03 to $10.60 a script.

But Dutton is too modest. He didn't mention that the wholesale prices of four other drugs have also fallen, reducing the cost to the taxpayer but not the direct cost to patients.

The pharmaceutical scheme requires patients to make a co-payment of up to $36.10 a script (or up to $5.90 for people with concession cards), with the government paying any amount above the co-payment. So the more the price falls below $36.10, the greater the direct saving to patients.

There's just one problem with all this good news. As Dr Stephen Duckett points out in a report for the Grattan Institute, it's not nearly as good as it should be. The price cuts the government has extracted from the drug companies still leave Australian taxpayers and patients paying about 14 times more for those seven medicines than are paid in New Zealand, Britain and parts of Canada.

Duckett - a hugely experienced health economist - estimates that, had our government driven a deal as tough as other governments, patients would be paying less for all seven of them, not just three. The out-of-pocket saving would average about $21 a drug.

Take atorvastatin (a medicine close to my heart; as close as my blood vessels, in fact). The wholesale price of a box of 30, 40-milligram pills has fallen to $19.32 (the price from the chemist would be a bit higher). The equivalent price in Britain is $2.84 and across the Tasman it's $2.01.

If our price came down that far it wouldn't only be ordinary patients who made savings, pensioners and other concession card holders would too.

Remember, even with our subsidy scheme, plenty of people don't take the pills they should because they find it too expensive. (I'm on seven prescription pills; I can afford it, but plenty of people my age can't.)

There was a time when Australians paid less for medicine than most people in developed economies. Now we pay high prices because John Howard decided to go easy on the international drug companies. In its six years in office Labor did little to remove this rort. Why not? Keep reading.

The change came when a lot of widely used medicines came to the end of their patents. A patent gives its holder a monopoly over production of that drug. It can charge a very high price for the drug, one far above its cost of production.

Governments choose to grant patents and so allow overcharging to encourage companies to incur the high costs and risks of developing new medicines.

But when the patent expires, other companies start producing generic versions (all of them still required to meet standards set by the Therapeutic Goods Administration) at very much lower prices.

Governments in other countries determine the lowest price being charged and that is what they pay when buying for their pharmaceutical subsidy schemes. In Australia, however, we decided to go easy on the drug companies. When the drugs first came off patent, we cut the price by only about 30 per cent.

Then Howard introduced a complicated "price disclosure" system, which has the effect of lowering the prices of generic equivalent drugs very slowly. Presumably, if we wait long enough, prices will get down to where they already are in countries that do a better job of protecting their citizens. In the meantime, our government has required us - as taxpayers and patients - to pay far more for our medicines than we need to.

But why? Well, I don't believe it's because many of the drug companies had their headquarters in Howard's electorate. Nor are many of the pills manufactured in Australia. No, it's because the drug companies cut our chemists in on the deal.

Because so many of their patients trust them, chemists are politically powerful. If any government were to cut too far into the taxpayer subsidy our chemists have long enjoyed, the chemists would go on the war path against that government.

Duckett - who knows where the bodies are buried - estimates we are paying more than $1 billion a year too much for generic drugs, with most of that picked up by the taxpayer.

Soon we will get the midyear economic statement with its cuts in government spending. There will be more cuts in the budget in May. Some will affect you.

Joe Hockey will assure you he had no choice. What he will mean is that he's less afraid of you than your chemist.

Read more >>

What if growth slowed to a trickle and no one cared?

It is the professed belief of almost every economist, business person and politician that Australians require governments to achieve maximum improvement in their material standard of living. I'm not sure that's true - but we're about to find out.

Of late the econocrats have been warning that, unless we undertake major reform, national income will grow a lot more slowly in the coming decade than it did in the past one. According to Dr David Gruen, of Treasury, gross national income per person grew at an annual rate of 2.3 per cent over the past 13 years, but may grow by only about 0.9 per cent over the coming 10 years.

This projected slowdown is explained mainly by the switch from rising to falling prices for our mineral exports - that is, it focuses on income rather than production. It implies only a small slowdown in the underlying rate of growth in gross domestic product (GDP) per person, being based on the assumption that we maintain our long-run rate of improvement in the productivity of labour - an assumption some may question.

Reserve Bank deputy governor Philip Lowe says that, if we don't achieve a substantial improvement in productivity, "we will need to adjust to some combination of slower growth in real wages, slower growth in profits, smaller gains in asset prices and slower growth in government revenues and services".

So far, these supposedly dire warnings have met with a giant yawn from the public. And, assuming the slowdown comes to pass, I'm not convinced the public will notice it, let alone care. I doubt that we will retain the national resolve to implement the reforms economists say we need to keep incomes growing strongly, nor am I sure the economists' favourite prescription would work. As for myself, I think slower growth could be a good thing.

Would the punters notice? Maybe not. Despite a decade of above-average growth in real income per person, most people would swear that, whoever had been benefiting from the resources boom, not a cent of it had come their way.

For at least seven years, the popular perception has been that people are struggling to keep up with the cost of living - that is, living standards are slipping. And get this: politicians on both sides, who profess to believe that rising living standards are governments' raison d'etre, have fallen over themselves to agree - contrary to all the objective evidence - that times are tough.

Clearly, they believe failing to agree that times are tough is more likely to get them tossed out than falsely confessing to have failed in their supposedly sacred duty to keep living standards rising.

You may object that the punters' failure to perceive that their living standards have been rising may not stop them correctly perceiving that living standards are now rising only slowly. But consider the United States, where real median household income has been flat to down for the past 30 years because almost all the real income growth has been appropriated by the top few per cent.

Have decades of failure to enjoy rising material comfort caused the American electorate to rise up in revolt? Not a bit of it.

It's significant that the advocates of eternal growth never promote it in terms of rising affluence, but always in terms of the need to create jobs. Barring recession, there's no suggestion production won't be growing fast enough to hold unemployment at about 5 per cent over the decade.

Of course, a recession that led to rapidly rising joblessness would undoubtedly cause great voter disaffection, but that's not what we're talking about.

While it may be possible for the economic, business and political elite to agree their precious materialism has sprung a leak and that something must be done, that doesn't mean they could agree on major reform; it's more likely to lead to continued rent-seeking at the expense of other interest groups. If my share of the pie is bigger, what's the problem?

Economists have no evidence to support their fond belief that the burst of productivity improvement in the second half of the 1990s was caused by micro-economic reform. But even if you share their faith, it's a dismal record: if you undertake sweeping reform of almost every facet of the economy then, 10 to 15 years later, you get no more than five years of above-average improvement. What's more, all the big reform has already been done.

With the global ecosystem already malfunctioning under the weight of so much economic activity, it's time the age of hyper-materialism came to an end and we switched attention from quantity to quality.

Read more >>

Rise in living standard set to slow

It's a funny thing about the awful truth: people are much more inclined to talk about it after elections than before. And it seems as though, of late, our top economists have done little but tell us our economic future is a lot more "challenging" than was contemplated during the election campaign.

The first sobering message is that getting the budget back to balance won't be as easy as it suited both sides to pretend in the three-year campaign. Indeed, it could be a struggle that goes on for at least a decade - depending on how long it takes us to face up to some tough decisions.

The next soberer is that our material standard of living is likely to improve at a much slower rate in the coming decade than it did in the last one. We got that warning in a speech last week by Dr David Gruen, the top macro-economy manager in Treasury. And we got it again in a speech this week by Dr Philip Lowe, deputy governor of the Reserve Bank.

The simple way to see what's happening to our standard of living is just to take real gross national income and divide it by the population, to give real income per person.

According to Treasury's calculations, this grew at an average rate of about 2 per cent a year during the 1970s, '80s and '90s. Over the 13 years to this year, it grew by 2.3 per cent a year. But over the coming decade to 2023, Treasury's best guess is the rate of real improvement will slow to a bit less than 1 per cent a year.

That's more than a halving in our rate of material advance. What is it that's expected to cause this marked slowdown? Well, that's a long story. Settle back.

The greatest single factor causing our standard of living to rise almost continuously over the years is improvement in the productivity of labour - that is, increased output of goods and services per hour worked. Labour productivity improves when workers are given more machines to work with, when workers' skills improve because of education and training, when improvements in public infrastructure allow firms to operate more efficiently and, particularly, because of technological advance: the invention of new and improved products and production processes.

The next most important contributor to our material standard of living is "labour utilisation": the proportion of the population that's of the right age to be in the labour force (often taken as everyone aged 15 to 64), the proportion of people of working age who actually are in the labour force, the proportion of these who are employed rather than unemployed, and the average hours worked by people employed (many of whom will be only part-time).

The standard story from economists is that the nation's income increases when we produce more goods and services. But it's not quite that simple. It's not just how much we produce, it's also what that is worth when we sell it to foreigners so we can buy what we want from them.

About 10 years ago the world started paying us a lot more for our minerals and energy - we called it the resources boom - and this increased the income we derived from the stuff we were producing. As Lowe puts it, "over time we have been able to buy more and more flat-screen televisions for each tonne of iron ore that we have sold overseas".

Economists call this an improvement in our "terms of trade" - prices we receive for exports relative to the prices we pay for imports. And the main reason our standard of living rose by a high 2.3 per cent over the past 13 years is the big improvement in our terms of trade.

It contributed about 0.8 percentage points of that 2.3 per cent growth, more than making up for a weaker rate of improvement in the productivity of labour.

But, as we all know, the fabulous prices we were getting for our coal and iron ore started falling back a year or two ago, and Treasury expects them to fall a fair bit further. Indeed, it expects the deterioration in our terms of trade to subtract about 0.5 percentage points from the annual growth in real national income per person.

And there's a second factor we'll have going against us. Until recently, we've been enjoying a "demographic dividend" as the population of working age grew faster than the overall population (mainly because of the falling rate of fertility).

Over the 30 years to 2010, the proportion of the population aged 15 to 64 rose from a bit more than 64 per cent to a peak of about 67 per cent. But now, with the continuing retirement of the baby-boomers, it's projected to fall to about 62 per cent over the coming 30 years.

So whereas until now the demographic dividend has contributed to the rate of improvement in our standard of living, over the coming decade demography will subtract from that rate (we'll have fewer producers relative to consumers).

Now, there's nothing we can do to stop world minerals prices falling back and not a lot we can do to delay the retirement of the baby-boomers. So, ready for the commercial message from your friendly econocrats?

Lowe says that "over the next decade or so, if we are to achieve anything like the type of growth in real per capita income that we have become used to, then a substantial increase in productivity growth will be required.

"If this lift in productivity growth does not take place, then we will have to adjust to some combination of slower growth in real wages, slower growth in profits, smaller gains in asset prices and slower growth in government revenues and services."

Read more >>

Election well over, now for the truth

For three years Tony Abbott and company told us all our political problems were caused by Labor, and if only we elected the Coalition our problems would be no more. For three years Labor told us the budget would be back to ever-growing surpluses in next to no time.

And for six years - which coincided with our biggest boom since the Gold Rush - both sides of politics told us Australian families were having terrible trouble coping with the rising cost of living.

They encouraged us to feel sorry for ourselves, accepted the blame for the heavy burdens we were labouring under, and implied they could do more to help.

What they didn't tell us was the truth: that for most of us, wages and pensions were rising faster than the cost of living - meaning our standard of living has actually been improving - but that this was due partly to the resources boom, which couldn't last, and partly to the government doing more for us in the budget than it could afford to go on doing unless we were prepared to pay a lot more tax.

In the recent election campaign both sides promised a much enhanced scheme to help the disabled and significantly increased funding for schools. To these Abbott added more generous paid parental leave, abolition of the mining tax and abolition of the carbon tax.

What they didn't tell us was that, when you go out beyond the next four years, they had no way of paying for their promises on top of all their existing commitments, which will get ever-more expensive.

So the stories we're hearing now of the federal and state governments' longer-term budget problems must be coming as an unpleasant surprise to a lot of people.

First we had a Productivity Commission report reminding us that increased spending on age pensions, age care and healthcare (for everyone, not just the increasing proportion of old people) - not to mention the cost of superannuation tax concessions - would put growing pressure on the budget, and do so at a time when a smaller proportion of the population was working and paying income tax.

The commission recommended that the age pension age be phased up to 70 and that old people who own their homes be required to borrow against them to help cover the cost of their aged care.

Then we had a report from Melbourne's Grattan Institute estimating that the combined federal and state government budget deficit is likely to grow to $60 billion a year over the coming 10 years.

The institute provided a menu of tax increases for the politicians to pick from: broadening the goods and services tax to cover food and private spending on health and education, removing the tax-free threshold for payroll tax, getting rid of the health insurance tax rebate, restoring the indexation of petrol excise, making the family home subject to capital gains tax, eliminating the 50 per cent discount on the gains tax, or getting rid of negative gearing.

On the spending side, the pollies could cut spending on transport infrastructure, halve industry support, increase university HECS fees, greatly increase school class sizes, cut defence spending or make savings on healthcare.

But Grattan zeroed in on retirement income support. It's already planned to phase up the age pension age to 67 by 2023, but the institute proposes lifting it to 70 by 2025. It's already planned to lift the minimum age for access to superannuation from 55 to 60 in 2024, but the institute proposes lifting it to 70 by 2035. These two measures would save about $12 billion a year.

It suggests including the family home in the assets test for the age pension (saving about $7 billion a year) and reducing the tax concession on super contributions for higher income-earners (saving $6 billion).

This story that the budget will come under pressure is nothing new. We've already had it from three reports prepared by Treasury, from previous Productivity Commission reports and many others.

So let me ask you: What sort of conclusions and recommendations do you expect the Abbott government's commission of audit to come up with? My guess is, not very different to what we've been hearing - though, since it has been contracted out to the Business Council, it may go out of its way to direct the pain away from big business and the well-off.

Since we have to make a lot of tough choices if we're to avoid the North Atlantic economies' record of racking up ever-growing budget deficits and debt for decade after decade, I think pushing back the retirement age makes a lot of sense - more sense than many of the other items on the list.

The already retired and all those not far off retirement wouldn't be affected. But the notion that, despite ever-greater longevity, better health and less physical work, we should remain free in perpetuity to live in taxpayer-funded retirement for 30 years or more is insupportable.

For at least the past six years self-centredness has reigned supreme, with everyone - from big business to alleged battlers - demanding the government do more for them, but insisting others pay for any improvements.

It can't go on. Let's hope Tony's got the ticker to turn things around - and do it fairly.

Read more >>

Budget will test Abbott's mettle

Will the Abbott government ultimately be judged a great reforming government or the worst money manager since Whitlam? In a delicious irony considering all the phoney outrage Abbott & Co expressed on the subject in opposition, this judgment will turn on how they respond to the budget's deep structural problems.

That conclusion leaps out from John Daley's latest budget report for the Grattan Institute. Normally, governments muddle through, taking some tough measures but not enough. In this case, however, Tony Abbott will need to take a lot of tough decisions or be judged a failure who ran a permanent budget deficit and incurred ever-mounting public debt because he lacked the guts to make us pay our way.

Daley finds that, on existing policies, federal and state governments face a decade of structural (operating) budget deficits, which by 2023 could reach 4 per cent of gross domestic product, or $60 billion a year in today's dollars.

About a quarter of this $60 billion arises from the Coalition's election promises. Some of these - the disability scheme and increased education spending - were common with Labor, but not the replacement of the carbon tax with "direct action" (which adds $5 billion a year), nor the more generous paid parental leave scheme.

Three-eighths of the $60 billion arises from the projected increase in spending on healthcare. This comes not so much from ageing as from the unceasing increase in both the supply of and the demand for ever-more-effective, but ever-more-expensive health technology.

One-eighth of the $60 billion arises from "welfare" - mainly, the sad fact that we won't be able to keep widening the income gap between sole parents and people on the dole, and the rest of us, including even people on the pension.

That leaves about a quarter of the $60 billion explained by the likelihood that our return to normal cyclical conditions will involve significantly lower prices for mineral exports and thus lower tax collections.

We can't grow our way out of this deficit. Being "structural", it already assumes the economy is back to growing normally. And above-average growth has much the same effect on both sides of the budget.

With one exception, the only way a structural deficit can be reduced is to make explicit decisions to cut spending or increase taxes. Worse, you have to resist the temptation to make any further unfunded spending or tax-cut decisions just to stop the structural deficit getting bigger.

The exception is bracket creep, which Daley estimates could contribute about $16 billion a year to closing the $60 billion gap. No doubt we'll get a lot of creep, though you can't avoid income-tax cuts for a decade.

Daley's report explodes some budget myths. One dear to the Coalition's heart is that the problem can largely be fixed by eliminating "waste and extravagance", including a bloated public service and (narrowly defined) middle-class welfare.

Sorry, there just aren't enough savings in anything you could do that is remotely feasible. You're talking chickenfeed.

Then there's business' dream that the solution is simple, if a little difficult politically: just cut government spending to fit (and cut company tax while you're at it). When last week's report card from the International Monetary Fund appeared to advocate "sizeable cuts in projected spending", the usual suspects raised a rousing cheer.

Sorry, leaving aside changes to the age pension, the best Daley can come up with on the spending side would produce savings of just $25 billion a year.

These would require reducing spending on infrastructure by a third, halving federal and state industry support, increasing university HECS fees, greatly increasing school class sizes and getting rid of the industry subsidies hidden in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme and defence spending (think subs).

The truth no one wants to know is that we won't get the budget back to structural balance without explicit tax increases. Daley shows, however, we could go a long way by getting rid of some inefficient and unfair tax expenditures, such as the capital gains tax exemption for the family home, the 50 per cent gains-tax discount and negative gearing (worth $22 billion a year in total).

But Daley's big one is retirement income support. Phase up eligibility for the pension or access to super to 70 and save $12 billion a year. Include the family home in the age pension assets test and save $7 billion. Make the super contributions tax fairer and save $6 billion a year.

What's that? You don't see Abbott and Joe Hockey doing anything much on that list? Well, stand by for endless budget deficits and ever-mounting government debt. No guts, no avoiding disgrace.

Read more >>

Outlook for us and the world is sombre

Australia and the world are experiencing a Micawber moment. The economic prospects aren't reassuring, but there's not a lot we can do except hope something will turn up. Wherever you turn, the outlook is for continuing sub-par growth.

According to Dr Min Zhu, a deputy managing director of the International Monetary Fund, in Australia this week, the post-global crisis growth cycle may be coming to an end. At the peak of the crisis in late 2008, most countries gave their economies enormous injections of fiscal (budgetary) and monetary (interest rate and liquidity) stimulus to get them moving.

It worked. After an unprecedented contraction of 0.4 per cent in 2009, gross world product grew by 5.2 per cent the follow year, by 3.9 per cent the year after, then 3.2 per cent last year. Notice it running out of steam? At this late stage it's expected to slow further to 2.9 per cent this year.

If 2.9 per cent doesn't sound too bad, remember the world economy's long-term average rate of grow is 3.5 per cent a year.

In last month's world economic outlook document, the fund warns that "the major economies must urgently adopt policies that improve their prospects; otherwise the global economy may well settle into a subdued medium-term growth trajectory".

Trouble is, Zhu says most countries - rich and poor - have little "space" left for further fiscal or monetary stimulus. Indeed, the policy action the fund is calling for is more structural than cyclical: "strong plans with concrete measures for medium-term fiscal adjustment and entitlement reform" in the case of the United States and Japan, while the euro area "must develop a stronger currency union and clean up its financial systems".

As for the emerging market economies, many of them "need a new round of structural reforms". China, for instance, "should provide a permanent boost to private consumption to rebalance the growth of demand away from exports and investment".

Well that's fine and dandy. But though structural reforms that improve the functioning of the economy may ultimately have a big payoff, it usually takes ages to come through. And often there are costs up-front.

In the meantime the world's left, like Mr Micawber, hoping we turn out to be luckier than the forecasters expect. And the outlook for our economy isn't all that different.

Reading from a graph in the presentation to the Australian Business Economists' annual conference this week by Dr David Gruen, at the time of the pre-election economic update Treasury was expecting growth of 2.6 per cent this year, improving to 2.7 per cent next year.

That compares with the economy's "potential" growth rate of about 3 per cent - the rate needed to hold unemployment steady. So we can expect a continuing rise in joblessness. And the boss of Treasury, Dr Martin Parkinson, said this week that the prospects for the economy had deteriorated a little since the election.

The pundits seem agreed that the economy could return 3 per cent growth in 2016. But that's just the nice way of saying we look like having to endure three years of sub-par growth. Beaudy.

In theory, we do retain "space" to further stimulate demand with either lower interest rates or increased government spending. But rates have already been cut a long way, and the Reserve Bank seems likely to avoid another cut while we see what difference those earlier cuts make.

As for the budget, it has been in deficit for four years already, so no one is keen to go any deeper. At this stage the Abbott government is following the Labor government's policy of avoiding taking measures to hasten the budget's return to surplus - which would, in any case, be counterproductive to some extent at a time when the economy's weak.

But some of the noises Joe Hockey has been making suggest he's preparing to step in with big spending on infrastructure should the end of the mining investment boom cause a much bigger hole in overall demand than we're expecting. Replacing heavy investment in mining with heavy investment in infrastructure would make a lot of sense.

The main thing we are hoping will "turn up" is a turn down in the dollar. Even the fund said this week it believed the dollar was overvalued by about 10 per cent. An exchange rate with the US dollar in the mid-80s would do a lot to stimulate our trade-exposed industries.

Gruen reminds us that, whereas through most of the noughties exports of resources made a contribution to annual growth in real gross domestic product of about 0.4 percentage points, over this year and the next two or three they will contribute well over 1 percentage point.

The decline in mining investment - which itself will make a big subtraction from growth - will also lead to a decline in imports, since mining investment involves a lot of spending on imported capital equipment. That's a saver.

And for those who worry we may be blowing up a housing bubble, Gruen advises that the median capital-city house price has been roughly steady at four times average household disposable income for the past decade and at present is a fraction below four.

If you look at the graph you don't find the ratio has been steadily climbing over the years. Rather, it was a bit less than three times during the 1990s, but then jumped to four times in the early noughties and has stabilised there.

What happened in the early noughties to bring about this change? The return to low inflation and, with it, low nominal interest rates for home loans. This fall greatly increased the amount banks were prepared to lend people on an unchanged income. Australians used this increase in borrowing power to bid up the prices of our housing.

Read more >>

How we lost our way on climate change - sorry, kids

I don't have grandchildren but I'm hoping for some, someday, so this column is for them. I want you to know that although, in the mid-teens of this century, Australians elected a government that wasn't genuine in its commitment to combating the effects of climate change, and that even abolished the main instrument economists invented for that purpose, I never accepted this complacency.

Partly because that government's predecessors had done such a poor job of introducing effective measures - and even a party known as the Greens played its cards all wrong - the nation lost its resolve and allowed its original bipartisan commitment to decisive action to be lost.

The minority of people who doubted the scientists' advice that the globe was warming combined with libertarians - who, as a matter of principle, oppose almost all arguments for intervention by government - to persuade the Liberals to break with bipartisanship.

If the Liberals under their new leader, Tony Abbott, had opposed action against climate change outright, Liberal voters who accepted the need for action would have been forced to choose between the party and their beliefs.

Instead, Abbott focused his opposition on the Labor government's main instrument for gradually bringing about a reduction in emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses, an emissions trading scheme whose price would be fixed by the government for the first year or two.

Abbott insisted the Coalition remained committed to Australia's international undertaking to reduce emissions by at least 5 per cent below 2000 levels by 2020, and by 15 per cent or 25 per cent provided other countries were taking comparable action.

The big difference was that, rather than using Labor's "carbon tax" to achieve the target, the Coalition would rely on "direct action", such as offering monetary incentives to farmers and others to reduce emissions.
This left Abbott free to run an almighty scare campaign about how Labor's "great big new tax on everything" would greatly increase the cost of living for ordinary Australian families and impose big costs on Australian businesses, which would impair their ability to compete.

Abbott associated with outright climate-change deniers and said things that seemed to brand him as one of them, while always adding, sotto voce, that he accepted human-caused climate change and the need to do something about it.

Apart from attracting voters away from Labor and its frightening carbon tax, the result of making climate change an issue of party dispute was to give Liberal supporters a licence to stop worrying about climate change - if the leaders of my party aren't worrying, why should I? - while providing a fig leaf for those Liberals who retained their concern.

The business lobby groups' initial position had been: if it's inevitable we do something, let's get on with it and make future arrangements as certain as possible. But with their side of politics inviting them to put their short-term interests ahead of the economy's long-term health, most business people found it too tempting to resist.

To be fair, some businesses stuck with their schemes to reduce their own emissions and some pressed on with repositioning their business for a world where the use of fossil fuels had become prohibitively expensive as well as socially disapproved of.

You will find this hard to believe, but in the mid-teens, it was still common to think about "the economy" in isolation from the natural environment which sustained it. Economists, business people and politicians had gone for two centuries largely ignoring the damage economic activity did to the environment.

The idea that, eventually, the environment would hit back and do great damage to the economy was one most people preferred not to think about. At the time, it was fashionable to bewail the lack of action to increase the economy's productivity. Few people joined dots to realise the climate was in the process of dealing a blow to our productivity, one that would significantly reduce the next generation's living standards.

At the time, we rationalised our selfishness - our willingness to avoid a tiny drop in our standard of living at the expense of a big drop in our offspring's - by telling ourselves half-truths and untruths about the global nature of climate change.

We told ourselves there was nothing Australia could do by itself to affect climate change (true), that at the Copenhagen conference in 2009, countries had failed to reach a binding agreement on action to reduce emissions (true) and that the world's two biggest polluters, China and the US, were doing nothing much to reduce their emissions.

We had no excuse for not knowing this was untrue because successive government reports told us the contrary. One we got just before the carbon tax was abolished, from the Climate Change Authority, said the two superpowers were stepping up their actions to reduce emissions. "These measures could have a significant impact on global emissions reductions," it concluded.

I recount this history to explain how my generation's dereliction occurred, not to defend or justify it. We knew what we should have done; we chose not to do it. I never fell for any of these spurious arguments.
Did I ever doubt that climate change represented by far the greatest threat to Australia's future economic prosperity? Never. Should I have said this more often, rather than chasing a thousand economic will-o'-the-wisps? Yes.

Read more >>

Rent-seeking stymies genuine reform

For most of the past decade I’ve defended Australia’s mining companies and their boom against unreasonable criticism. So I could hardly be said to be anti-mining. But one of my failings is that don’t get any fun out of telling people what they’d like to hear. So when I was asked to speak at the federal government’s annual conference on resources and energy last month I decided to tell the miners a few home truths. This is a shortened version of what I said.

With the change of government I'm sure you're a lot happier about the prospects for the economy and its management, and a lot more confident of a sympathetic hearing from the new government. I wouldn't be so sure.

I suspect the mining industry's lobbying success is reaching its zenith as we speak. It won't surprise me if, looking back on the life of the Abbott government, you come to realise the big gains the industry made actually occurred under the Labor government. They occurred no thanks to Labor, and all thanks to the Coalition, but they occurred in reaction to the policies of Labor as part of Tony Abbott's successful four-year campaign to fight his way back into office.

Why did Abbott immediately oppose the mining tax and promise to repeal it? Because he genuinely believed it would wreck the mining industry and do damage to the wider economy? I doubt it.

He did it primarily because he saw opposing the tax as a popular cause and was hoping for a lot of monetary support from the big miners in the 2010 election.

Why did Abbott set his face against the carbon pricing scheme? Because it was the price of getting the backing within the party that allowed him to wrest the Liberal leadership from Malcolm Turnbull and because he could see what a popular cause it would be to oppose this "great big new tax on everything".

Now, I have no doubt that keeping his promises to get rid of the mining tax and the carbon tax will be among his priorities. But my point is this: having delivered so handsomely for the mining industry, I doubt if he'll feel in any way indebted to the miners.

Indeed, he may well feel he's the one that's owed. Certainly, he'll feel the miners have had enough favours to be going on with.

And it won't surprise me if that's the attitude other industries take: that the miners have had their turn and it's time to give other industries a go.

Does this analysis seem cynical? Sorry, it's just being brutally realistic. We all pursue our self-interest, but we all cloak our self-interest in arguments about how this would be in the best interest of the economy. All I'm doing is stripping away the bulldust.

Most people in business are hoping that with a more enlightened government in power with a big majority in the lower house and a workable Senate after July, we'll see some major economic reform, if not in Abbott's first term then certainly in his second. I think this is an idle hope.

In a prophetic speech he delivered in May - and which he's in the process of expanding into a short book - Professor Ross Garnaut argued that our political culture has changed since the reform era of 1983 to 2000, in ways that make it much more difficult to pursue policy reform in the broad public interest.

"If we are to succeed, the political culture has to change again," he said. Policy change in the public interest seemed to have become more difficult over time as interest groups had become increasingly active and sophisticated in bringing financial weight to account in influencing policy decisions.

"Interest groups have come to feel less inhibition about investment in politics in pursuit of private interests.
"For a long time, these past dozen years, it has been rare for private interests of any kind to be asked to accept private losses in the interests of improved national economic performance.

"When asked, the response has been ferocious partisan reaction rather than contributions to reasoned discussion of the public interest in change and in the status quo," Garnaut said.

I would remind you that, though John Howard's introduction of the GST is a notable exception, many of the reforms of the Hawke-Keating era were achieved with bipartisan support - something that's unthinkable today.

Much of that reform, particularly in taxation, involved packages of measures in which particular interest groups suffered some losses, offset by other gains. As Garnaut argues, and I'm about to demonstrate, this kind of co-operative give-and-take between interest groups willing to accept reforms in the wider public good isn't conceivable today.

My way of making Garnaut's point is that since the reform era of the 1980s and '90s, we've regressed to a culture of rent-seeking. You can see this at the level of the political parties and at the level of the industry lobbies.

When Howard had the courage to propose introducing a GST, Labor saw its chance to regain office by running a populist scare campaign against it, and came within a whisker of winning the 1998 election. At the time it professed to be righteously opposed to such a regressive tax, but when it finally regained power seven years later, the idea of doing something about that supposedly abhorrent regressivity never crossed its mind.

When, in turn, the Rudd government attempted the risky reforms of installing the "economic instrument" most economists recommend for responding to climate change, and rebalancing the tax system by reforming the taxation of mineral deposits and using the proceeds to reduce taxes elsewhere, Abbott lost little time in deciding to take advantage of Labor's vulnerability.

Do you really think the events of the past three years will have no bearing on the Labor opposition's attitude to any controversial reforms Abbott might propose in the next six years, or that Abbott's foreknowledge of this attitude will have no bearing on his willingness to propose such reforms?

The truth is the nation has fought itself to an impasse on controversial reform - of the labour market as well as taxation - and, among the industry lobbies, the miners have played a more destructive role than the rest.

Now, you can respond that the miners did no more than what you'd expect them to do: oppose taxes they perceived to be contrary to their industry's interests. But this is making my point: the reason the outlook for reform is now so bleak isn't solely because the two sides of politics have regressed to short-sighted, self-interested advantage seeking, it's also because the industry lobby groups have done the same thing.

There's nothing new about industry lobbying but in the past dozen years it's become far more blatantly self-interested and far more willing to devote large sums to advertising campaigns to oppose whatever government reforms an industry sees as contrary to its interests. What hasn't yet occurred to many business people - but you can be sure is well understood by the politicians and their advisers - is that when industries lobby governments for favours, or in opposition to new imposts, the various industries are in competition.

It's easy to imagine the government's coffers are a bottomless pit but, in fact, there's only so much rent to go around. As an economist would say, all concessions have an opportunity cost. It's easy to believe all industries could pay less tax if the pollies would only make households pay more tax, but I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for it to happen. I doubt either side of politics would see that as consistent with their own self-interest.

The truth is, when one industry gets in for a big cut, there's less left in the pot for the others. That industries don't understand this simple point about opportunity cost - don't realise they're in competition with each other - is easily demonstrated by the demise of Labor's mining tax package.

Think about the original package: the big three miners were going to pay more tax on their resource rents, but most of the proceeds were going to be distributed to other industries.

In particular, all companies (including miners, big and small) were getting their company tax rate cut by 2 percentage points, small miners were getting a resource exploration rebate, small business was getting instant write-off of most assets, the banks were getting more concessional taxation of depositors' interest income, and the financial services industry was getting its dream of having compulsory super contributions jacked up from 9 per cent to 12 per cent, a one-third increase in contributions.

So three big miners had a lot to lose, but the rest of industry had a lot to gain. So what was the rest of industry's attitude to the resource super profits tax? Didn't like the sound of it.

And what did they do when the miners sought to scuttle the new tax? Precisely nothing.

What happened then? The exploration rebate was to first thing to disappear and, in several stages under Labor, the cut in the company tax rate got whipped off the table.

Now, with Abbott's plan to abolish the cut-down mining tax, the small business concessions are being withdrawn and the phase-up of compulsory super has been deferred for two years.

With all the pressure on the Abbott government's budget, and the super industry extracting a promise from Abbott not to make any further savings on the concessional taxation of super, I'm prepared to bet the two-year deferment will become permanent.

Thus did the rest of business allow the miners to screw them over. And thus did the miners destroy faith in one of the techniques tax reformers believed made major tax reform possible: put together a large package with a mixture of wins and losses and the various industry lobbies keep each other on board in the wider interest.

But it doesn't stop there. When the miners and the rest of business dream of further tax reform under the Abbott government what do they have in mind? Mainly, a big cut in the company tax rate. Do you really see the Abbott government daring to fund such a cut by increasing the GST?

Had the minerals resource rent tax survived and got past its accelerated depreciation phase, the fact that the most highly profitable part of the corporate sector (along with the banks) was paying a lot more tax on its profits would have greatly strengthened the argument for a general cut in the company tax rate. This is particularly so because mining is so heavily foreign-owned. So the absence of the resource rent tax makes a cut in the company tax rate a lot less likely.

One way a cut in the rate could still be afforded is if it was covered by a broadening of the base by the removal of sectional concessions. But the bitter experience of the demise of the mining tax package makes it less likely any government would risk proposing such a compromise.

We can continue going down the road of ever-more blatantly self-interested behaviour by political parties on the one hand and industry lobby groups on the other, but while we do so it's idle to dream of major reform.

What we can do - as the miners have shown - is veto any reform we don't fancy.

Read more >>

Miners pinch company tax-cut kitty

Let me make a fearless prediction: big business will get no cut in the rate of company tax in Tony Abbott's first term, and probably not in a second term, either. What you see before you now is all you're likely to get.

I doubt whether Abbott will break his promise to cut the company tax rate by 1.5 percentage points to 28.5 per cent from July 2015. But, of course, big businesses will get nothing from that. They'll be paying the new 1.5 per cent levy on big company profits to help finance Abbott's more generous paid parental leave scheme.

On Joe Hockey's own figuring, the levy will claw back 90 per cent of the cost of the company tax cut, leaving most listed companies no better off. The losers will be the Australian shareholders of those companies, who'll have 1.5? in the dollar shaved off their dividend franking credits.

The point to take away from these ins and outs is that, though the cut in the company tax rate yields no net benefit to big businesses, it still represents a $4 billion-a-year hit to the budget because Abbott effectively excused big business from bearing any net cost to cover the additional budgetary cost of souping up parental leave.

So Abbott's already done his dash on cutting the company tax rate. He's already made a cut he can't afford and it looks like being a mighty long time before budget finances return to being healthy enough - and the surplus fat enough - for him to afford another rate cut.

This is why more realistic proponents of a lower company rate accept that some explicit source has to be found to cover the cost of the cut. So any rate cut would have to be part of some give-and-take package that left the budget no worse off in net terms.

This, in turn, is why any rate cut would be part of a tax reform package that emerged following yet another major review of the tax system (as if the Henry report became useless on September 7).
But there's no magic in this process. The potential sources of higher taxation to cover the cost of a company rate cut are obvious and limited.

Many business executives dream of the goods and services tax being increased to cover the cost, but Abbott's repeated election promise that "there will be no change to the GST, full stop, end of story" puts paid to that. In any case, the premiers have a much stronger claim on any increased collections from the GST.

The other potential source is base-broadening: using the reduction of sectional tax breaks to pay for a cut in the rate of the tax. Julia Gillard attempted to get agreement to such a deal from the business lobbies in 2011, but no industry wanted a rate cut badly enough to be prepared to give up concessions.

Only to be expected? Such is the growing rapaciousness of the industry lobbies that you're probably right. But get this: all previous rate cuts (and we've come down from a rate of 49 per cent in the late 1980s) have been funded by government-imposed broadening of the company tax base.

Above all, remember this: Labor did come up with a package that would have financed a 2 percentage-point rate cut, but dopey big business let it slip through their fingers.

What was paying for the rate cut? The original resource super profits tax, of course. But business sat around with its eyes, ears and mouth closed while the largely foreign-owned big mining companies conspired to escape paying any specific tax on their huge resource rents.

Abbott is about to play out the last act in that monumental exercise in legal tax evasion by abolishing the mining tax before the exhaustion of accelerated depreciation allowances turns it into a much better earner.

Equally remarkable was the rest of business' inability to see it was they who were being ripped off by the miners, not some hated Labor government. It never crossed their tiny minds that the budget isn't a bottomless pit or a magic pudding; that if the miners get in first, there's not much left for everyone else. It's called opportunity cost.

It's time business woke up to the crude facts of fiscal life: the two most hugely profitable parts of our corporate sector are banking and mining. The more their economic rents are adequately taxed, the easier it is to afford to cut the company tax rate for everyone.

Abbott's abolition of the mining tax is the last nail in the coffin of the case for a lower company tax rate.

Read more >>

Governments should be pro-market, not pro-business

A fundamental question facing the Abbott government is whether it will succumb to the General Motors syndrome: what's good for big business is good for Australia. Does its slogan that Australia's now "open for business" actually mean open slather for business?

Will it run the country to please its business backers or to benefit all of us? Because the notion that what big business wants of government always coincides with what's best for the rest of us is a fairytale only a chief executive could believe.

Another way to put it - to clarify the choice Tony Abbott faces - is whether the government will be pro-business or pro-market.

The economic side of our lives is about producing and consuming; you can't have one without the other. To be pro-business is to favour producers, making life easier for them when they ask for help, whereas to be pro-market is to favour consumers, the people market economies are meant to serve.

As Adam Smith put it: "Consumption is the sole end and purpose of all production and the welfare of the producer ought to be attended to, only so far as it may be necessary for promoting that of the consumer."
It's easy to tell yourself that by helping an industry you're helping its customers, though it's more usual to tell yourself you're saving workers' jobs. Business people lobbying to protect their profits almost invariably hide behind their workers' jobs, often making greatly exaggerated claims (claims they're rarely asked to substantiate) about how many jobs will be lost if their demands aren't met.

When you think it through, however, you realise that giving business people the easier life they seek isn't the way to maximise the benefit going to consumers, nor to maximise total employment. You may imagine - as does everyone on the left - that capitalist economies are designed to benefit the owners of capital above all others. In fact, in an efficiently functioning market economy the suppliers of capital get little more than a reasonable return on their investment, with most of the benefit going to consumers in the form of an ever-expanding range of reasonably priced goods and services.

The magic ingredient that brings this about - shifting the benefit from producers to consumers - is competition: competition between the producers but, just as important (and often lacking in our busy lives), competition between consumers and producers as consumers seek out the best deals and the best service.
When industries lobby governments for favours, what they're usually seeking is a reduction in the competition they're facing or about to face - all in the name of protecting their workers' jobs, naturally. They're seeking an easier life than the rough and tough life the capitalist system would otherwise serve up to them.

Often they're seeking protection from competition with imports. In the old days protection was achieved by imposing a tariff (import duty) on imported goods; these days a similar effect is achieved by granting the industry a subsidy from the taxpayer. Either way, the protection comes at the expense of the public.

But does it save jobs? It may save them in the particular industry being protected, but only at the expense of employment in the rest of the economy. How so? Consumers are left with less money to spend on the products of other industries. People in the protected industry don't care about that, of course, but the rest of us should.

Longer-term, protection involves keeping your head in the sand and pretending the rest of the world isn't changing. This is unsustainable. When the world we live in changes, we have to adapt to that change or become an industrial museum.

The way to maximise employment for everyone who wants to work is for us to pay the world price for everything and produce those goods and services where we have an advantage, and leave it to others to produce stuff where we don't have an advantage.

So being pro-market means examining requests for help from particular industries from the perspective of the economy as a whole. This avoids another problem: often one industry's request involves being favoured against rival industries.

Give in to one and the others redouble their screams of pain. You can't help 'em all, and if you try to you end up with a mollycoddled, inefficient economy.

Complicating things for the Abbott government is that its Labor predecessor didn't know how to say no to the business lobbies. And the more it said yes to particular industries the more dissatisfied, demanding and contemptuous the rest of business became.

Lobbying has become a way of life for big business, and no doubt the whole of business is expecting a bonanza now their own side is back in power.

If Abbott has any sense, he'll get the business lobbies back in their box from the start, telling them the era of rent-seeking is over. He'll stand up to big business the way Labor never could because, unlike it, he need have no fear of losing business's support.

The first place to stand up is against the unending blackmail game General Motors and the other global car makers are playing so successfully against all national governments.

And when he and Joe Hockey start delving into the budget, they'll find quite a few areas of hidden protection, starting with the plan to continue paying a fortune for faulty submarines to be made in Adelaide when much cheaper, better-working subs could be bought off the shelf in the US or Sweden.

Then there's the protection for local pill-making companies (not to mention retail chemists) hidden in the pharmaceutical benefits scheme.

And coming up is a bid by manufacturers to be exempted from paying the world price for gas when the eastern states become part of the world gas market in the next year or two. We'll hear a lot more about this one.

Read more >>

Gas lobby working a scam on NSW citizens

The gas industry is working a scam on the people of NSW, in collusion with other business lobby groups and federal and state politicians. It's trying to frighten us into agreeing to remove restrictions on the exploitation of coal seam gas deposits. Failing that, the various parties want to be able to lay the blame for an inevitable jump in the price of natural gas on the greenies and farmers.
According to the gas lobby, the manufacturing lobby, the Business Council, federal Industry Minister Ian Macfarlane and former Labor minerals and energy minister Martin Ferguson, we have a looming gas supply crisis in NSW and must unlock our local coal seam gas resources if we're to avoid shortages and the price hikes they bring.
NSW Minister for Resources and Energy Chris Hartcher, at whom most of lobbying is aimed - his government boasts of "the toughest coal seam gas controls in Australia" - must fully understand the deception, but seems reluctant to expose the dishonesty of his Coalition and business mates.
The problem, we're told, is NSW produces only about 2 per cent of the natural gas its households and industrial users consume. And when facilities for liquefying and exporting gas start operating within a year or two, producers in Queensland and Victoria will switch to exporting their gas to gain the higher foreign prices.
So NSW is facing a massive shortage of gas, which will cause a big jump in gas prices and threaten the jobs of thousands of people working in gas-dependent industries. The obvious answer, we're told, is for NSW to fill this supply gap and avert the price hike by urgently developing its own supply of coal seam gas.
There's just one problem with this neat story: it reveals - or exploits - an ignorance of how markets work. The lobbyists' faulty logic is ably exposed by the Australia Institute's Matt Grudnoff in his paper, Cooking up a price rise.
For many years, the prices paid for natural gas by consumers on Australia's eastern seaboard have been a lot lower than prices paid in other countries. The absence of plants to liquefy the gas so it could be exported meant our market was cut off from the world market.
We had no liquefaction plants because we didn't have enough gas to make them profitable. What's changed is the advent of fracking, which has enabled us to begin exploiting our extensive deposits of coal seam gas.
The development of "unconventional" gas in Queensland has progressed to the point where it's become economic for three liquefaction plants to be set up near Gladstone. When those plants start operating in a year or two, the barrier that separated our eastern seaboard gas market from the world market will disappear and the era of low gas prices will end.
Grudnoff estimates the wholesale price of gas will double or treble from between $3 and $4 a gigajoule to the world "netback" price of $9 a gigajoule. "This is because Australian gas producers will have the option to sell to the Japanese, who are willing to pay $15 a gigajoule," he says.
The difference between $15 and the netback price - also known as the export parity price - is the cost of liquefying the gas and transporting it overseas. If you're as ancient as I am, this should remind you we've already been through a similar process of the low local price rising to the high world price when the Fraser government introduced export-parity pricing for oil in the late 1970s.
The percentage rise in retail gas prices paid by households will be a lot smaller than the rise in the wholesale price. Estimates by Hugh Saddler, of the energy consultants Pitt & Sherry, suggest Sydney retail prices will rise by 11 per cent to 18 per cent - roughly twice the rise caused by the introduction of the carbon tax.
The point is, wholesale and retail prices will rise to the new export parity price throughout the eastern seaboard. In Queensland where the frackers have had an easy ride, and in Victoria where the present moratorium on fracking seems likely to give way to an unrestricted regime, just as much as in NSW where the frackers are given a hard time.
Because of pipelines between the states, how much gas a state produces has nothing to do with the prices its households and businesses pay. According to the gas lobby's logic, the coming ability of producers to get much higher prices by exporting their gas should produce shortages of gas for local users in Queensland and Victoria, not just NSW.
In truth, there will be no shortages of gas in any state, just a requirement to pay the higher, netback price. There's no reason producers would prefer to sell to foreigners if locals are offering to pay the equivalent price.
With the advent of fracking and access to higher prices, it's not surprising gas producers are desperate to extract as much coal seam gas as possible as soon as possible. But their argument that increased production in NSW could hold down NSW gas prices is economic nonsense.
Any new gas producers in NSW won't be willing to sell to locals for anything less than the equivalent price they could get by selling to foreigners. That's the scam.

Read more >>

Our ever-rarer elixir: restraint

There's a paradox at the heart of modern capitalist economies: if they really worked the way economists think they work, they wouldn't work for long, they'd seize up. And as the Yanks have been busy demonstrating, it's a similar story for modern democracies.

Economists believe the motivating force driving market economies is self-interest: businesses and consumers do what they do purely for their own benefit. But the "invisible hand" of market forces transforms all this selfishness into a system by which everyone benefits.

Although most economists prefer the euphemism "self-interest", Professor Paul Frijters, of Queensland University, prefers to call it "greed" in his path-breaking book written with Dr Gigi Foster, of the University of NSW, An Economic Theory of Greed, Love, Groups and Networks.

Frijters argues that a variety of "institutions" is required to ensure individuals' greed doesn't prevent the operation of free markets. If people will do anything to increase their material wealth, as implied by the Homo Economicus view of humanity, why would they simply pay the prices traders wanted to charge? Frijters asks.

"Why would they not, for example, steal products or production technology, kill competitors, or in some other way seek a market advantage through dishonest or immoral behaviour?" he asks.

Because of the existence of formal and informal institutions. Formal institutions include parliaments that pass laws prohibiting certain behaviour and police and courts that enforce those laws.

But ask yourself this: is your knowledge that it's illegal and that you risk being punished the only reason you don't steal from shops, your employer or your neighbours? Do you adhere to contracts only to avoid having to defend your behaviour in a court case with the other side?

Of course not. Even where we're confident of not getting caught, almost all of us refrain from doing those things because we don't believe they're the right thing to do. And there is any number of perfectly legal things we could do, but choose not to. So our behaviour in the marketplace - or in politics - is also constrained by a host of informal institutions, such as notions of fairness, conventions, customs, rules we've internalised and other norms of socially acceptable behaviour.

"Formal and informal institutions in combination are important in the running of societies, as together they form the rules of the game to which people adhere. They constrain the possibilities for opportunistic behaviour in human interactions," Frijters says.

This isn't the first time the US Congress has refused to pass the budget and thus shut down the US government, but it's rare. The Financial Times' Martin Wolf, doyen of the world's economics editors, observes that if President Obama's political opponents are prepared to inflict such damage on their own country, "the restraint that makes democracy work has gone".

Dr Chris Caton, of BT Financial Group adds: "Thank god that couldn't ever happen in Australia!" Not half.

Just as we need social norms to restrain our instinctive selfishness and so keep the economy functioning smoothly, we need restraint among the players in the political game to ensure we don't descend into impasse and policy impotence. But as the Americans' appalling predicament reminds us, restraint isn't a given, and can't be taken for granted. Our selfishness does propel the economy onward and upward, but when voluntary restraint breaks down - almost always egged on by competition - we can end up with greedy bankers causing the devastation of the global financial crisis.

Similarly, we need our adversarial two-party system of democracy to keep a check on the corruption and incompetence of governments, but when personal ambition and party rivalry become unrestrained, government suffers.

The sweeping economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating era were made possible by John Howard's principled restraint in providing bipartisan support. But bipartisanship in the interests of good government ended with Labor's opportunistic scare campaign against Howard's GST.

Tony Abbott returned the favour with his ruthlessly dishonest scare campaigns against the carbon tax and the mining tax. Now how do you think Labor will react should Abbott propose a controversial reform in this term or the next?

The self-seeking, short-sighted, rivalry-fanned lapse in restraint by both sides makes further major economic reform highly unlikely until, by some hard to imagine means, the former norms of acceptable political behaviour are restored.

But don't blame it all on the politicians. That's too easy. As Professor Ross Garnaut observed in May, the past dozen years have seen "interest groups" - I'd say industry lobby groups - become less inhibited in pursuing private interests at the expense of the wider public interest, ferociously resistant to reform proposals involving private costs to them, and willing to pursue their private interests by costly ad campaigns and party donations.

Less restraint, less reform.

Read more >>

Economist proposes a socio-economic model

What can economists tell us about love and power, why people are loyal, how groups form and how they get their members to abide by the group's norms of acceptable behaviour? Not much.
Everyone knows conventional economics is built on a stick-figure conception of humans and the way they work.
 
Until now. An economics professor at the University of Queensland, Paul Frijters, has attempted the remarkably ambitious project of developing a unified theory of human behaviour, turning the mainstream model of the economic system into a model of the socio-economic system.

With help from Dr Gigi Foster, of the University of NSW, he's set it all out in the book An Economic Theory of Greed, Love, Groups and Networks. We'll find out soon enough what the rest of the economics profession makes of it.

He starts with the principles of mainstream economics, then adds and integrates selected ideas his research has determined have considerable power in explaining human behaviour.

The bit he starts with, which comes straight from the mainstream, is the assumption that humans are carefully calculating maximisers of their personal benefit. Or, as Frijters prefers to put it, ''humans are mainly motivated by greed''.

This conception of ''homo economicus'' - economic man - emerged in the Enlightenment period. In the early Middle Ages, by contrast, materialism was seen in society as strongly immoral, Frijters explains.
Even so, it's a quite one-dimensional conception of human behaviour. We're a lot more complicated than that. This assumption accounts for much of the criticism of conventional economics (including from yours truly).

So the ''core concepts'' Frijters adds to the conventional assumption of ''greed'' aim to broaden the model's explanation of human motivations and behaviour.

The first concept he adds is ''love'', by which he means love for other humans, but also love for one's beliefs. ''Love is defined as a form of unconditional loyalty, and will be said to be present whenever a person would be willing to help advance the interests of the object of his love, even if the object of his love would not notice the help and even if the loving person would receive no observable reward,'' Frijters says. So love includes the ideas of altruism and loyalty.

''Selfish materialism is extremely powerful in explaining many of our laws, our customs, our politics, and our choices as consumers. Yet selfish materialism alone cannot lead to the kind of human organisations we see in reality.

''I expect to see love as a major player involved in almost every facet of an individual's decision making ? Love within companies should be an integral part of how teams of people actually get things done within organisations.''

Another major criticism of the simple model of conventional economics is its assumption that each of us acts only as an individual, unaffected by the behaviour of those around us. This means no ''economic actor'' has more power than another.

In truth, humans are a group animal whose self-image is inextricably linked to the groups of which they are part. And the reality is that the dominant power relations in modern societies aren't between one individual and another, but rather between individuals and groups.

So the second feature Frijters adds to the mainstream view is groups and the power they generate. Each of us is a member of any number of groups, affecting our family life, social life and working life. Beyond that, our religion, ethnicity and nationality make us members of more, often powerful, groups.

It's because groups generate and exercise power that they need to be added to the model. Power is the ability to influence the behaviour of others. Part of this power comes from the development of norms of acceptable behaviour within the group. Many of us feel considerable loyalty to the groups we're in, which partly explains why we confirm to group norms.

Frijters argues there are five basic types of social groups: small hierarchies, with a clear leader, a few of high rank and a group of underlings totalling no more than a few dozen individuals in all; small circles of reciprocity, with people who are equals and share a common goal; large hierarchies, where members don't know each other; large circles of reciprocity; and networks.

Networks are his third addition to the mainstream view. They are facilitators of exchange - of goods and services, or just information. They exists because of the need to overcome ''frictions'' in markets arising from the information and transactions costs the simple mainstream model assumes away.
Individuals search for goods, buyers and suppliers within networks of small size or large anonymous networks such as the internet.

So how does Frijters' model improve on the answers to questions from the mainstream model? What questions does it answer that the mainstream can't?

On the common questions of whether international trade should be encouraged or protected against, what governments should do about monopolies and how to discourage firms from polluting, his model doesn't much change the conventional answers.

But it can answer some questions the conventional approach can't. With its assumption of calculating, self-interested behaviour, the old approach can't explain why people go to the bother of voting when the chance one vote will change the outcome is minuscule.

Frijter's model says people vote because they're idealistic and identify with the group that is Australian voters.

Nor can the old approach explain why people don't avoid or evade paying tax a lot more than they do. Rates of ''voluntary compliance'' are, in fact, surprisingly high (though not as high as in the old days).
Frijter's model says people feel loyalty to the group of fellow Australians and conform to the social norm that paying taxes is a form of reciprocity that's reasonable to expect of members of the group.

And this is no idle question. He says getting people to pay taxes is probably the single most important ingredient supporting our system of governance.

Read more >>