Category Archives: Analysis

Trump’s world

At least holidays to the US will be cheap for a while.

It is hard to know where to start with a Trump presidency.

Will he really rip up NAFTA, start building a wall on the Mexican border, toss out ‘illegals’ and block Muslim immigrants?

Or will wiser heads prevail once he grabs the reins of power and the full implications of his various outrageous and incoherent policy announcements become apparent?

The terrifying thing is that no-one knows.

Who knows how a bullying, narcissistic and misogynistic demagogue is going to behave in the White House.

But if he lives up to even a bit of his rhetoric, both the US and the world are in form some very ugly times.

Here’s just a sampling of the changes a Trump presidency may usher in, and how they would affect the world, and Australia.

In line with his much less internationalist view of America’s role, Trump is likely to oversee a reversal of Obama’s pivot to Asia.

Asia Pacific allies like Australia, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines and Thailand will be left to do more of the heavy lifting in regarding regional security. Some might be tempted to move closer to China.

China itself faces great uncertainty.

Trump has indicated he wants to throw up the tariff barriers to Chinese imports. It is a move that will not only impoverish many who voted for him in the first place, by denying them access to the cheap goods that have softened the impact of stagnant wage, but could be very destabilising for the Chinese Government.

Though China has been trying to engineer a change in the economy toward consumption-driven growth, it is still a work in progress, and much of its prosperity is still tied to exports. If Trump was to pull up the shutters on China’s biggest market, the consequences would be dire – not just for China, but also Australia, which depends on Chinese demand for much of its export sales.

If Trump sparks a trade war of the kind that preceded World War Two, when trade barriers went up around the world, the political and economic damage will be huge. The post-war world order that has driven unprecedented prosperity – billions propelled from poverty, disease and malnutrition abating – could be shattered. We would all be the much poorer for it.

The fissures within the US itself that have been exposed by the hate-filled campaign of the last 12 months may widen, instead of narrow, particularly as the fortunes of the have-nots deteriorate further.

Then there is the worry that comes with a nuclear arsenal capable of killing us all many times over being in the hands of one that seems so volatile and unstable.

It is a grim outlook.

But there are at least two threads of hope.

One is that this becomes the high water mark for the craziness that has gripped the world this year. The so-called anti-establishment crowd (who seem very disparate except, maybe to themselves) have had their Brexit, and they have populated the Australian Senate with fringe-dwelling nutters.

But under the pressure of actually trying to do something, and reconciling interests that are increasingly at odds, the coalitions of resentment and anger that have propelled such outcomes may evaporate, and the promises of better times that they sold will be seen as the flimsy soundbites they were.

The second hope is that Europe will cleave to its moderate sensible course and thrive as smart money exits the US and China sees it as an increasingly attractive place for investment.

It may become a salutary lesson for the naysayers in the US and Britain of what they gave up for their collective fit of pique.

In the meantime, can someone please keep Trump away from that button!

 

Advertisements

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis

Want jobs and growth? Forget business tax cuts

On the face of it, the idea that you can increase employment and pump up economic activity by reducing corporate taxation sounds straight forward and uncontroversial. After all, the less company revenue that goes to the tax man, the more should be on hand for things like hiring more staff, buying new equipment and the like.

Ultimately, the thinking goes, the boost to employment and growth will make everyone a winner.

It is the deceptively simple idea that lies at the heart of the Coalition’s economic plan to boost jobs and growth by implementing $48 billion worth of business tax cuts over the next 10 years.

It also happens to be wrong.

Many have already pointed out that the benefits of stronger growth and increasingly profitable businesses don’t necessarily “trickle down” through more and better-paid jobs, as some naively believe.

The widening gulf between a small group of high-income “haves” and the rest of society is evidence of that. In Australia in 2013-14, 62 per cent of all household wealth was concentrated in the top 20 per cent, while the bottom 20 per cent held just 1 per cent of all wealth. Ten years earlier, the wealthiest 20 per cent owned 59 per cent of all wealth.

As The Economist reported this week, the proportion of working poor in the UK is increasing – 10 years ago about 40 per cent of those in absolute poverty (income less than 60 per cent of the national median, after housing costs) lived in households where people were in some sort of employment. Today, that proportion has risen to more than 50 per cent.

Try telling workers whose wages have yet to recover to pre-GFC levels even while house prices soar, and it is little wonder that an election pitch centred on business tax cuts is a hard political sell job.

But added to well-founded scepticism about who will actually benefit from business tax cuts is an even deeper problem that makes them a poor prescription for jobs and growth.

The searing experience of the GFC and its aftermath has provide a wealth of information to digest about what works and what doesn’t in trying to support economic activity and employment at times of low or stagnant growth.

Among those who have taken a close look at the effectiveness of government stimulus measures is Princeton University economist Alan Blinder.

Blinder, who is a former Vice Chairman of the US Federal Reserve’s Board of Governors and served on Bill Clinton’s Council of Economic Advisers, has run the ruler over the various actions taken by the US Government in the wake of the Lehman Brothers collapse, from welfare handouts and the Cash for Clunkers program to infrastructure and defence spending and business tax cuts.

His findings (http://www.hamiltonproject.org/papers/fiscal_policy_reconsidered) will hearten Keynesians and should give those who spruik business tax relief as the first and best policy response to a downturn pause for thought.

What Blinder found was that the most effective action taken by the US Government was to target temporary handouts to low income households through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (formerly known as food stamps).

In the first three months of 2009, for every $1 directed by the government through SNAP, $1.74 worth of economic activity was generated.

Extending unemployment insurance benefits had a 1.61 multiplier effect over the same period, while a temporary boost to work-share programs had a 1.69 multiplier effect.

Even increasing infrastructure spending was found to have a significant multiplier effect, though Blinder said the time lags involved in commissioning and undertaking capital projects meant that it was a stimulus measure more appropriate for prolonged downturns rather than shorter ones.

But, effective as some of these spending measures proved to be, there was great clamour from more conservative members of Congress for tax cuts as the tonic the ailing economy needed.

Here, Blinder found the evidence was mixed.

While temporary tax cuts and credits targeted at “liquidity constrained” (read, hand-to-mouth) households had appreciable multiplier effects (like Child Tax Credits, 1.38 times; Earned Income Tax Credits, 1.24 times), permanent tax cuts were much less impressive in their effectiveness.

The multiplier effect of permanent cuts to dividend and capital gains taxes was 0.39, and for a permanent cut in the corporate tax rate, it was just 0.32.

Not only were corporate tax cuts much less impressive as a stimulus measure, but they were prone to getting hijacked by the business lobby and turned into something whose prime purpose was to plump profits rather than fuel economic activity.

As evidence, Blinder cites the experience of an accelerated (“bonus”) depreciation measure included in a 2002 tax cut bill.

The change, which had the effect of putting investment goods “on sale” for a limited period of time, was originally due to expire after 18 months. This short duration was considered key to its effectiveness as a stimulus measure.

Instead, business lobbied hard to have the bonus depreciation extended…and extended… and extended…so much so that last year legislation was passed to keep it going until 2019.

“Ironically, we may have destroyed the usefulness of bonus depreciation as a countercyclical tool by making it permanent,” Blinder says, and advances what he calls a general theorem of political economy: “Business tax cuts artfully designed by economists for maximum bang for the buck will be altered by lobbyists to achieve maximum revenue loss instead”.

The reason is that “business lobbyists don’t care about ‘bang’, but care deeply about getting more ‘bucks’ for their clients, and lobbying almost always overpowers economic logic”.

 

The lesson, says Blinder, is to be wary of using investment incentives as a stimulus measure.

Many might object that American business and politics is a lot different to that in Australia and, anyway, we are a long way from the dire economic circumstances that confronted policymakers in late 2008 and early 2009, so Blinder’s analysis has little to tell us.

But the real question is, is a company tax rate of 30 per cent stifling activity, and would cutting it to 25 per cent over the next 10 years unleash a wave of investment and jobs growth?

The evidence suggests the answer to both questions is no.

As the Reserve Bank of Australia has observed, what has been holding growth down in Australia has been the plunge in global commodity prices and the fall in resources investment.

This has been partially offset by the effects of low interest rates and a weaker currency, which has encouraged growth in services exports and housing investment – both oif which have helped support an improvement in consumption to around its decade-long average of 3 per cent.

Arguably, what has been weighing on hiring and non-mining investment for the last few years has been soft demand and uncertainty about the outlook.

A $48 billion company tax cut might help firms capitalise on the improvement in consumption, but it is hard to see how it would drive it. Unless there is a compelling reason to hire and invest (read: an opportunity to make money), businesses are unlikely to make an outlay, regardless of whether the tax rate is 30 per cent or 25 per cent.

Instead, much of it could find its way into the bank accounts of lawyers and bankers devising M&A activities or pumping up shareholder dividends.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis

Why what happens in Washington matters in Canberra

Among the economic indicators Treasurer Scott Morrison needs to keep an eye on, the US labour market should be toward to the top of the list.

As the US Federal Reserve begins to gradually edge up its funds rate, Chair Janet Yellen has indicated the tightness of America’s market for workers will be an important factor in shaping the central bank’s thinking on how quickly to proceed with tightening monetary policy.

The state of the US labour market matters because as it gets tighter, so the bargaining power of workers is likely to increase and wages rise, helping force inflation up.

The higher inflation goes, the more the Federal Reserve will feel compelled to raise interest rates.

This matters for Australia because the higher official US interest rates rise, the greater the downward pressure on the Australian dollar (though this relationship should not be overstated).

As the Australian economy tries to establish sources of growth outside the boom-and-bust resources sector, a lower dollar helps by making exports and locally-made goods and services more competitive.

In the past year, the $A-$US exchange rate has slipped down more than 10 cents to 71.2 cents, a far cry from the above-parity levels reached earlier this decade, when massive mining investment was sucking in huge amounts of capital.

Given that the US unemployment rate has already dipped to 5 per cent, it might come as a surprise that the Federal Reserve has only just begun to increase interest rates.

But behind the headline number, data shows that many of the jobs created in the last few years have been casual or part-time. This suggests that there is considerably more slack in the labour market than a 5 per cent unemployment rate would ordinarily imply.

Recent soft income growth underlines the point. In the year to September, US wages grew by 3.66 per cent, virtually half the long-term average of 6.33 per cent.

This is being reflected in consumer spending – US retail sales grew by a modest 1.7 per cent in the year to November.

The Federal Reserve held off embarking on a tightening cycle until it was confident that the US recovery from the global financial crisis was well-established, so its decision earlier this week to raise interest rates, even by a meagre amount, is seen as a vote of confidence in the world’s largest economy.

As he contemplates the sea of red in the Commonwealth’s financial accounts, Scott Morrison can only hope that this is the case.

Despite his bizarre denialism on the matter, the Federal Government does indeed have a revenue problem. Collapsing commodity prices and soft income and corporate tax collections account for a lot of the deterioration in the Budget position.

And the government’s own forecasts suggest there is not going to be a quick turnaround. Earlier predictions that the economy would expand by 2.75 per cent this year have now been pared back to 2.5 per cent, and next year it is expected to grow by 2.75 per cent rather than 3.25 per cent.

Estimates of business investment, household spending, the terms of trade and private final demand have all been downgraded.

As Reserve Bank of Australia Governor Glenn Stevens observed last month, a rebalancing in the sources of growth is underway, but it is a little rockier than might have been hoped for.

With the economy poised between the drag caused by tumbling resources investment and support coming from a nascent recovery in non-mining activity – particularly services – now would seem a bad time to be adding to the weight on activity by cutting into government spending.

To his credit, Morrison has so far eschewed the sort of bloodletting Joe Hockey pursued in his first Budget.

But the cuts he has outlined – crackdowns on welfare ‘rorts’ and the axing and reduction of bulk billing incentives for pathology and diagnostic imaging services, in particular – make little economic sense.

Both sets of measures, collectively worth more than $2 billion, will mean consumers have less money to spend.

As the country’s experience through the GFC has shown, this is significant. Arguably the most effective measure taken by the Federal Government when the GFC hit in late 2008 was to deposit money directly into the bank accounts of millions.

While much of this money was saved, enough was spent to keep shop tills ticking over, shielding thousands of retail and services sector jobs.

This was especially the case among lower-income households, where a higher proportion of income has to be spent rather than saved.

The bulk of Morrison’s cuts will fall on just such households.

At a time when retailers and service providers are trying to find their feet after several years of lacklustre conditions, this is hardly helpful.

Such unhelpful tinkering by governments all too common.

Economists often lament that government interference prevents an economy’s ‘automatic stabilisers’ (floating currency, swings in tax collections and welfare payments) from working effectively, making a difficult situation far worse.

But it is totally unrealistic to expect governments in such situations to do nothing – after all, they have usually been elected on a platform to ‘do something’.

As Ross Gittens suggests, they could do much worse than to devote their energies into devising a path to surplus that kicks in once a recovery is established, and to work out how to better handle future prosperity.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis

Economy stuck in second

Happy anniversary.
It is now a year since the Reserve Bank of Australia Board cut the official cash rate to a historically-low 2.5 per cent, in which time the economy has been flat out trying to hold its ground, let alone take off.
And, the RBA’s analysis suggests, that is unlikely to change any time soon.
In his brief statement announcement the outcome of the Board meeting, Reserve Bank Governor Glenn Stevens said he expected growth to be “a little below trend [around 3 per cent] over the year ahead”.
Put this together the RBA’s view that inflation will remain consistent with the central bank’s 2 to 3 per cent target in the next two years – even if the dollar goes lower – and it suggests interest rates are not going anywhere for quite some time.
But if the prospect of an extended period of very low interest rates has borrowers excited, the reasons why this is likely to be the case are much less reassuring.
Essentially, the RBA has too keep rates low because of economic weakness.
The list of negatives dragging on growth is long, while the index of positives is depressingly brief.
On the plus side, all that investment in new and bigger mines, rail and road links and ports is paying off, and the volume of commodity exports surged early this year. The downside is that the massive pipeline of mining investment has virtually run its course.
Consumers are an important source of growth, and here the picture is equally mixed. Low interest rates are working to encourage people to borrow to buy and build homes, and a strong expansion in housing construction is underway (and the overblown hype about a housing bubble has been shown yet again to be a furphy).
In another promising sign, firms outside the resources sector appear to be brushing off investment ideas, though most are to commit money to expansion plans as they weight for evidence of a sustained lift in demand.
And this is where the picture gets murky.
One of the reasons the RBA is comfortable holding interest rates so low is that wages are going nowhere. In the year to the March quarter, the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ wage price index grew around 2.7 per cent. Over the same period, the headline consumer price index climbed 3 per cent, and even underlying inflation grew more strongly. In essence, household income is slipping behind the rise in living costs.
That is not good news for retailers keen to bump up prices and margins, and it is not likely to get much better for a while.
In the current economic environment, where the unemployment rate sits at 6 per cent and, according to Glenn Stevens, is likely to stay there for “some time yet”, workers have limited bargaining power to push for a pay rise.
Add to this the blow to jobs, investment and confidence delivered by the Federal Budget – and compounded by the political uncertainty as to what will actually be passed by the Senate – and it is not an inspiring outlook.
No wonder that the RBA and the financial markets believe interest rates are not going anywhere for quite some time.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis

Flat retail leaves rate cut door open

No wonder the Reserve Bank of Australia appears so comfortable with the inflation outlook.

When retail sales fail to grow in a quarter, and edge just 1.1 per cent higher in the course of a year, that tells you everything you need to know about the extent of consumer caution and a lack of pricing power among retailers.

For a central bank contemplating a cash rate cut to 2.5 per cent, the environment doesn’t get much more unthreatening than this.

And the RBA Board, when it meets tomorrow, will have to taker into account the market’s emphatic expectation that monetary policy will be eased.

But this rate cut will not be the political tonic that governments usually get from moves that make borrowing cheaper – this time around it is a potent sign of how soft conditions in the economy have become – and how much more work the RBA may yet have to do.

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis

Tobacco excise hike not a long-term budget fix

It will be no surprise if there is a fall in rates of smoking after the announcement of a 12.5 per cent hike in the tobacco excise over the next four years.

Put up the price of cigarettes enough and even hardened smokers may think twice about the cost of their habit.

Treasurer Chris Bowen has been eager to repeat Heart Foundation claims that tobacco consumption tumbled 11 per cent when the excise was raised 25 per cent in 2010.

Higher prices are likely to be part of the explanation for a steady and sustained fall in rates of smoking – from 34 per cent of adults in 1980 to 17 per cent in 2010.

All in all, the excise increase is laudable as a public health measure.

But lets not kid ourselves that this is why the Government has taken the political gamble of jacking up the cost of smokes in the shadow of a federal election.

Any smokers who are encouraged to give up the habit, or any kids deterred from lighting up in the first place, is merely a happy by-product.

The Government’s real motive for the excise increase is to help plug the gaping hole in its revenue bucket.

According to the Treasurer, the change will net the Commonwealth an extra $5.3 billion over the next four financial years.

It is a hefty sum, but still well short of what the Government needs.

Bowen is expected to reveal tomorrow (August 2) there has been a $20 billion revenue write-down over the forward estimates.

That is why there is plenty of speculation swirling about what else might be cut, delayed or rejigged in order to staunch the haemorrhaging budget.

But back to the tobacco excise.

Two concerns immediately spring to mind – the credibility of the $5.3 billion revenue estimate, and reliance on excise revenue from a declining activity to help cover recurrent costs.

On the credibility issue, it is vital to know what assumptions Treasury has made in arriving at its estimate, particularly whether it factored in a decline in smoking rates and, if so, to what extent.

As mentioned earlier, the popularity of smoking has been in long-term decline.

Other assumptions Treasury may have made about smoker behaviour could also have important implications for revenue, such as the propensity to swap to cheaper brands as prices rise, or what might happen to the trade in illicit tobacco.

On the second concern, the Government could be setting up the budget for further trouble if it relies on the increased tobacco excise as part of a long-term financial fix.

Its own public health policies are aimed at the continued decline and eventual elimination of smoking.

This would certainly deliver big savings to the health budget in fewer cancers and less chronic disease, and would likely deliver a boost productivity because of fewer work days lost to illness.

If the proportion of smokers does indeed continue to decline, the only way to maintain the revenue stream will be to raise the excise even higher, encouraging even more to give up the habit.

It is similar to the problem created by trying to use a temporary burst of revenue (like a once-in-a-century surge in the terms of trade) to pay for massive ongoing personal income tax cuts (hello Peter Costello, hello Wayne Swan).

Smoking is very unlikely to die out (pardon the pun) as quickly as the commodity price boom, and tobacco excise revenue will probably continue to flow for many years to come.

But whoever is Treasurer in 2030 may find it is not the quick fix to a budget hole it once was…

2 Comments

Filed under Analysis

Kevin or Tony, business grinds on regardless

At about this point before every federal election, someone comes out and complain that political uncertainty is undermining business confidence and hurting investment.

True to form, business leaders were reported by The Australian earlier this week crying that doubts over when the election would be held were “sabotaging jobs and investment”.

We are led to believe that right now across the country, company boards, HR managers and purchasing departments are in a fit of angst about the current state of political flux, delaying crucial hiring and investment decisions as they wait on the Prime Minister to make the short drive to Government House to call the nation to the polls.

If this is the case, it must be an excruciating time for job seekers, merchant bankers, car salesmen and just about anyone else with something to sell.

It would mean that every three years or so – whenever an election looms – economic activity is brought to a virtual standstill as the nation awaits the verdict.

Problem is that, as with much received wisdom, it doesn’t stand up to much scrutiny.

Even a cursory inspection of official investment and employment figures suggests little correlation between election timing and swings in activity.

For instance, in the months leading up to the November 2001 election, private capital expenditure was regaining its momentum after having been savaged by the tech wreck. By the end of the year it had reached annual growth rate of almost 5 per cent – a 10 percentage point turnaround from the March quarter.

And again, in 2004, capex growth slowed in the three months to June to an annual rate of 2.5 per cent before accelerating sharply in the second half of the year to reach above 12 per cent in the December quarter – right when the election was held.

Of course, it has not all been one-way traffic.

Business investment was on a prolonged slide in the months leading up to the March 1996 election, when the Keating Government was dumped in a landslide.

But even here, other factors seemed to be at play.

Quarterly investment growth actually bottomed out the previous June (when it virtually stalled), and strengthened in the six months leading into the election. Maybe it was just that business was confident a change of government was on the cards.

The labour market similarly provides little support for the theory.

Just take these two examples.

In lead-up to, and aftermath of, the fractious August 2010 election, uncertainty about who would form government, and on what terms, was at an all-time high.

But throughout this extremely unsettled period, covering March to October, an extra 180,000 jobs were created, and total employment grew 1.6 per cent.

In 2007, the unemployment rate hovered at or below 4.3 per cent for the six months leading up to the November election, and rose only marginally to 4.5 per cent at election time before quickly reverting to 4.3 per cent the following month.

This is not to say that elections and the prospect of a change of government have no effect on businesses and the investment and hiring decisions they make.

Obviously, if the Federal Government is one of your important customers or a major employer in your area, you could well have a lot riding on the outcome of the poll (though neither side looks likely to unshackle Commonwealth spending any time soon).

But equally obviously, for most employers and investors the election and a possible change of government is only one of a number of considerations, and probably not a major one.

In the ebb and flow of domestic and international commerce, whether it is Kevin or Tony is ultimately neither here nor there – despite what people may claim.

 

Leave a comment

Filed under Analysis