tip off

Mortgages dragging Australian economy into a productivity bog

Ross Gittins has stood atop his Fairfax soapbox to decry the “nation of rent-seekers”. But Gittins might be the biggest rent-seeker of all. His model is responsible for killing productivity.

From Fairfax journalist Ross Gittins today:

What gets me is how blatantly self-seeking our lobby groups have become. It is as if the era of economic rationalism — with its belief that the economy is driven by self-interest — has sanctified selfishness and refusal to co-operate for the common good.”

This is one of those occasional pieces by Gittins that rescues him from regular lightweight ruminations about confidence and the triumph of the services economy. I very much agree with Gittins about the problem he describes. Trouble is, I see him as one of the worst rent-seekers of all.

How so?

Fundamentally it is this: if rent-seeking prevents the most efficient flow of capital for productive purposes, and thus the rise of national wealth and with it the common good, then why does Gittins spend so much of his time defending an economic model in which services and mining are seen as the natural evolution of the economy? Above all else, it is the embrace of this model of growth that is killing the productivity that Gittins purports to champion.

There are three legs to the argument that Gittins is as bad a rent-seeker (perhaps worse) than those he criticises. The first leg is that the services economy is largely non-tradable. As such, it doesn’t tend to generate capital in and of itself. It relies instead upon debt to grow, and in Australia that debt is largely expressed through mortgages. Such a system can run successfully for a long time, especially if it is underpinned by another export sector that is producing traded capital — like mining.

But at a certain point, Minskian dynamics start to overwhelm the system as more and more capital is sucked into the unproductive venture of mortgages and productivity starts to fall. That, I submit to you, is where the Australian economy is today, with our banks pouring far larger proportions of the nation’s capital into mortgages than at time since records were kept:

My fellow blogger Cameron Murray has estimated that a considerable slice of Australia’s declining multi-factor productivity has resulted directly from escalating land prices:

The ABS explains that they take the balance sheet value of land from the national accounts to include as the land component of capital stock. We can observe in the chart below the rise in the value of the land balance sheet value against the estimate of MFP, and indeed against an estimate of the land balance if land values simply tracked inflation.  Quite clearly, from about 2002 onwards the abnormal increase in the value of land lead to a flattening and falling estimate of MFP.  More telling is that fall in all land asset values in 2009 lead immediately to an increase in the MFP measure, only for the next wave of land price escalation, especially FHOB stimulated residential land, to cause a deterioration in MFP during 2011.

We can dig a little deeper into the ‘land balance sheet’ in the system of national accounts, and look closely at the type of increases in land value estimated.  The chart below shows in blue the neutral holding gains — hat is, the change in the value of land expected if prices tracked inflation.  This measure is the result of In red we see the real holding gains, which are market-based increases in land values. As the ABS notes: ‘Holding gains and losses accrue to the owners of assets and liabilities purely as a result of holding the assets or liabilities over time, without transforming them in any way.’ In economic terms, they are pure rents.

When red is greater than blue, we find a significant downward bias in the MFP estimate.  It is really that simple.   And we are not alone in this either.  Spain’s land price boom resulted similar pattern of declining MFP during their land price boom in the early 2000s.”

Notice the terminology: untransformed gains from holding assets and liabilities are pure rents.

The second leg of the argument is that Gittins is a key defender of both sides of politics and the policy executive in the shedding of the manufacturing sector of the economy. Again, if you believe productivity is the best and brightest path to greater prosperity (which is what Gittins’ argument is all about) then you cannot ignore the fact that manufacturing is the single greatest contributing sector to productivity gains in any economy. As I’ve pointed out before:

The following chart from McKinsey makes the point. Manufacturing contributes disproportionately to productivity, innovation and exports:

These out-sized gains make a country richer more quickly which is why every example of successful catch-up development — north Asia in this century or the US in the last — has focused very heavily on growing a dynamic manufacturing sector. Of course the manufacturing changes as an economy gets more expensive but the economic rationale doesn’t change.”

Quite! So as Australian manufacturing investment plunges toward extinction in the recent capex report, why is Gittins cheering it along:

Now, don’t get me wrong. Defending rent-seekers within manufacturing isn’t going to help. Manufacturing needs competitive pressures as much as any other sector to remain innovative and lean. But completely shedding your manufacturing sector in pursuit of productivity that has been destroyed by the debt-driven cost-input inflation of the services sector doesn’t make much sense either.

The final leg of this argument is that although Gittins is absolutely right about the proliferation of professional lobbyists, they are at least visible if one looks closely. On the other hand, Gittins occupies a reified communal space defined intrinsically as objective. He is the clear thinker atop a soap box in the town square delivering truth to compromised power, captured most eloquently in his masthead’s subtitle: “Independent. Always.”

But as Fairfax Media dies its slow death, it is being eaten by its own real estate businesses, which now constitute almost half the firm’s value. In short, the box that Gittins is standing upon is stamped all over with “brought to you by the Australian real estate sector” — the same sector that is at the centre of the services economy and productivity bog into which the Australian economy is sinking.

That is not to say that Gittins is deliberately misleading anyone. But such systems tend to self-perpetuate, more by inertia than design.

When I read Gittins opine about the rise of the rent-seekers, my own analytical framework — which is part Minsky, part Keynes, part Schumpeter and part Hamilton (Alexander, that is) — sees a jewel-encrusted and supine emperor gesturing lazily at baby elephants from atop a giant mammoth crushing all else in the room.

*This article was originally published at MacroBusiness

15
  • 1
    Nightingale John
    Posted Monday, 3 March 2014 at 3:51 pm | Permalink

    You’re a bit hard on Ross. He’s also often opined on topics such as negative gearing, the great super subsidy scheme, the FBT car leasing system, and so on, all of which are aimed at the most blatant rent-seekers. Just because his long-time employer has an interest in the status quo is no reason to blame him for their reliance.

  • 2
    David Bates
    Posted Monday, 3 March 2014 at 4:41 pm | Permalink

    You wrote a seriously great piece, David. Excellent graph work combined with facts. Can’t ask for much more.

    But I too think you might have been a bit hard on Ross Gittins.

    Europeans and most Asians see the Australian political and economic landscape as a patchwork quilt. Who’s really in control?

    Ross Gittins infers very correctly. The selfish vested interest rent seekers and their lobbyists.

  • 3
    Marty Jones
    Posted Monday, 3 March 2014 at 5:08 pm | Permalink

    Yep, and the biggest non economy contributing rent seeking lobbyist group is the Real estate Industry.

    As the writer points out, too much capitals flows into non productive mortgages instead of the more needier small business sector manufacturing and related industries.

    The fixation of real estate wealth is held firm in the Australian phsycos by media, govt and self interest groups.

    All have their snouts in the trough. Winding it back calls for a massive paradigm shift, one that I am sure will not be forth coming.

  • 4
    bushby jane
    Posted Monday, 3 March 2014 at 5:15 pm | Permalink

    Agree with all of the above, but I find Ross one of the most thoughtful of columnists, so I don’t really like this author socking it to him quite so hard, or comparing him to other rent-seekers like that.
    Mugs like me have argued with Bernard Keane on occasion re the lack of govt support and demise of the car industry and such, as I agree that manufacturing has got to be maintained and hopefully grown in this country for us to prosper. Probably without this silly ‘level playing field’ of globalisation, on which we seem to be the only participant.

  • 5
    Larissa Stewart
    Posted Monday, 3 March 2014 at 5:38 pm | Permalink

    Spot on Bushby.

    I was a bit confused with David Llewellyn’s approach to Ross Gittin’s article and comparing him to a rent seeker…was that a short circuit or what?

    The confusing bit is that they actually agree with each other, so, I can’t see the relevance.

    Bk seems to be against all forms of protection of local industries. He explains his case, but falls short from a practical position. Not enough time to explain, maybe some other time.

  • 6
    Michael Hess
    Posted Monday, 3 March 2014 at 8:30 pm | Permalink

    The scandal of Australian land prices is as old as any settler activity on the continent. Aboriginal communities were denied land ownership under the myth of Terra Nullius. Settlers were denied access to land under the myth of Crown Land. Under the latter lesser recognised mythology the raising of the British flag caused the land to by absorbed into the mystical body of George III and short of getting a government land grant we’ve been paying through the nose for it ever since.

  • 7
    Scott
    Posted Monday, 3 March 2014 at 9:49 pm | Permalink

    Your argument would be better if you used residential land values only rather than the total land balance sheet to compare against multi factor productivity…it’s in the same abs release.

  • 8
    JohnB
    Posted Tuesday, 4 March 2014 at 9:53 am | Permalink

    Hikers’ Guide to the Galaxy” included a memorable segment whereby the second Ark, which contained service industry types such as hairdressers, real estate agents and horoscope writers was hurtling through space away from a doomed Earth.

    Unfortunately for the passengers aboard the 2nd Ark, they had been had. Earth was not doomed, but had been vastly improved by weeding the population in this way, presumably in order to focus on production of things of real value.

    David Llewellen-Smith has demonstrated what the problem is. I await his formula for Ark 2, as it applies to Australia.

  • 9
    leon knight
    Posted Tuesday, 4 March 2014 at 12:23 pm | Permalink

    Great analogy John B, just a pity the idea is not practical. Modern Capital is a huge ship with plenty of momentum and no rudder.

    Australia should be one of the easiest places to strike a few blows in the right direction, but too many heads in the sand and arses in the air….

  • 10
    Nightingale John
    Posted Tuesday, 4 March 2014 at 12:28 pm | Permalink

    The name Henry George now occurs to me. His argument was that the only tax should be a tax on the unimproved value of land, because this is an unearned surplus and taxing it would not change economic incentives to engage in business or work. Georgists had significant influence 100 + years ago, in Australia and America in particular, but didn’t manage to overturn the conventional wisdom. The benefits of such an organisation of an economy should be great, once the transition had been accomplished, because the incentive to engage in land speculation would be removed.

  • 11
    Aidan Stanger
    Posted Tuesday, 4 March 2014 at 1:03 pm | Permalink

    Nightingale John #10

    Not removed entireoy, but greaty reduced. But a small amount of land speculation is probably much better for the econmy than ether a large amunt or nne at all.

    The argument actually predates Henry George. It was first developed by David Ricardo, and it’s a great pity it isn’t as well known as sme of his other work.

  • 12
    Aidan Stanger
    Posted Tuesday, 4 March 2014 at 1:10 pm | Permalink

    JohnB #8

    They were actually heading towards Earth and crashlanding on it. IIRC they were from the planet Golgafrinch.

    But the improvement to the life of the rest of the Golgafrinchans proved to be short lived as they were wiped out by a disease caught from dirty telephones (the telephone sanitizers having been put on the second ark).

  • 13
    JohnB
    Posted Tuesday, 4 March 2014 at 1:39 pm | Permalink

    Earth? Golgafrinch? My memory must be failing.

    I will have to consult my son, who is the oracle when it comes to matters Hitchhiking.

    Thanks for the reminder about the telephone sanitizers. That was pure gold.

    In these days of personal mobile phones, I expect the plague that wipes out our species will be transmitted on the handles of shopping trolleys.

  • 14
    Scott
    Posted Tuesday, 4 March 2014 at 2:07 pm | Permalink

    The funny thing is that there is actually a positive relationship between residential land prices and MFP from 1995 to 2013 (statistically significant at the 90% level, though not the 95%). A 1% increase in Residential Land Price results in a 0.05% increase in MFP

    So one could actually argue that residential land price increases actually help with MFP.

    The more accurate argument however is that increases in MFP increase household incomes which leads to a greater spend on limited available residential land, and hence boosts land values.
    But don’t let analytics get in the way of a good rant.

  • 15
    Mal Teague
    Posted Tuesday, 4 March 2014 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Winding it back calls for a massive paradigm shift, one that I am sure will not be forth coming.” Marty Jones

    Best of British with that one.

    Are local councils going to cut back on RLV’s? ( Rated Land Values ), State Governments on stamp duty? Will the media ever stop working in conjunction with the Real Estate Industry on bogus promos for median house prices per suburb? What a rort? Will banks ever stop preference lending for home mortgages and stitching up the gullible?

    It’s a juggernaut with a bottomless pit.

Womens Agenda

loading...

Smart Company

loading...

StartupSmart

loading...

Property Observer

loading...