Why we won’t have a (real) recession
|
If you think things are tough in Australia, it means you haven’t been around very long. As the odious Chopper Read might say, you need a dose of harden-the-f*ck-up. Both the money market and tabloid media have discovered in a matter of days that an economy that’s been running uncomfortably close to capacity is suddenly off the boil. This revelation has hit a generation prone to believing what it writes about itself — that it’s just so unfair desirable inner-city accommodation is expensive, like, it’s morally outrageous. For those who have known nothing but good economic times, slower growth or even a flat economy immediately lends itself to lots of scary headlines involving the R word. It doesn’t help that Kevin Rudd has been weak in handling that suggestion. Lindsay Tanner — the man who increasingly looks like he’d make a better Treasurer — was more successful in suggesting such talk is certainly premature. Yes, retail sales have flat-lined and credit growth dramatically slumped and there remains a serious credit crisis at large, but there are three key reasons why Australia shouldn’t have anything like a real recession:
And then there are host of peripheral reasons, including our ability to quickly restrict the supply of new labor coming into the economy should unemployment become uncomfortable. Some folks might think there’s a disconnect between rising unemployment and gross immigration this financial year on its way towards 350,000 people. (Without mentioning the possibility of rising unemployment, Paul Sheehan poses the unspoken immigration question in the SMH today, as Crikey has previously. Look out, Paul — you’ll be called a racist.) Sure, growth is slowing — it needed to. And when growth slows, some geographies and industries feel the pain more than others. And that makes us adjust, change jobs, perhaps change where we live. It happens. We’ll deal with it — and there’s probably not a better country to be in right now facing such challenges. |
|
|
|








6 Comments
This is a pretty fair summation and a nice antidote to the tabloid sensationalism that afflicts all our newspapers including the supposedly reliable broadsheets (yes, SMH, I’m looking at you).
Lol, DREAMIN’!
We need a new framework to discuss immigration levels - and I would suggest the correct one is the “racket” of high intakes without the infrastructure, not least shelter but also transport and utilities demonstrably available. The racket I suggest is promoted by the high political donor Big Retail and Big Real Estate corporations and their proxies. It’s well demonstrated these corporations are psychopathic in their determination to grow - just like a cancer. I don’t blame the economic migrants, and definitely not the desperate and talented refugees who just want freedom. It’s the racketeers in the money politics game that really disgust me promoting 50M and even 120M population goals. These guys are literally mad.
I’m an armchair economist, but this makes sense to me. Our interest rates have a long way to fall if needed. Similarly, our dollar will also fall and make our exports more attractive if required. As the late 90’s proved, even when our traditional markets can’t help us, a falling dollar greatly assists to keep our economy ticking over at times when it would have gone into reverse in previous decades. We should all raise our glasses to Paul Keating’s reforms which, while they caused a bit of pain around 1990, have given us the long boom and made us, for the time being anyway, pretty well depression-proof if not recession-proof.
Whoaaa…..just a hint of “decoupling” here…..the economic Tsunami hasn’t hit yet….
China will be a cushion….but not a barrier.
I’ll just qualify my previous statement in one regard: the government needs to focus itself on our overall debt stituation as a priority to ensure a continuation of our current high employment and standard of living. Beyond that, I believe our structural situation is sound.