Oct 5, 2012

Nothing to worry about in the Oz economy? Think again

Claims that the Australian economy is hunky-dory -- including by Crikey's Glenn Dyer and Bernard -- need some debunking with reality.

Adam Schwab — Business director and commentator

Adam Schwab

Business director and commentator

When it comes to business commentary by my learned Crikey colleagues, Bernard Keane and Glenn Dyer make fine political and media experts. While their constant regurgitation of secondary-school Keynesian economic theory is entertaining, this week’s bizarre attack on Adam Creighton (and their recent mauling of David Murray) did little to further their credibility.

Keane and Dyer appear to be confident of Australia’s economic invincibility; apparently burgeoning household debt (Australians have a higher proportion of mortgage debt to GDP than the US before its housing collapse) is apparently an irrelevance. That the Australian government lost (which is really what a deficit is) $44 billion doesn’t seem to bother our fearless economic commentators.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

22 thoughts on “Nothing to worry about in the Oz economy? Think again

  1. Edward James

    It looks to me like world banks and governments are locked into supporting a round robin of borrowings, which commit taxpayers to generational interest bills, which are way beyond workers capacity to ever pay off. Successive governments have set and maintain the bad example. Living beyond our means is never going to end well. How many cut backs on consumption can consumers make before they are no longer consumers? Edward James

  2. Will

    Wow. That crackling sound is Adam Schwab’s credibility bursting into flame as he substitutes his normally hawkish but prudent analysis for cheap shots at market monetarism and counter-cyclical Keynesianism (which have actually held up remarkably well contra RBC austerity and hard money orthodoxy) and a morality play about hard money and saving and a nonsense propagandist one-size-fits all story of the Euro-zone.

    I don’t recall Keane and Dyer making the case that structural reform isn’t important or that the Australian economy has no vulnerabilities. Indeed, though I acknowledge that Keane and Quiggin are sometimes too quick to downplay structural factors, it’s certainly valid to call out hacks who opportunistically beat the drum on long-run ideological goals regardless of the difference between reform and immediate macroeconomic stability and health.

    Let’s cut the BS. Adam’s story of the Eurozone is wrong. Ireland and Spain do not fit the lazy profligacy story at all. People who invoke this as a morality play would do better to limit their contention to Greece and Italy where the shoe at least fits. Even there, there is still a balance of payments issue and an underlying tax avoidance and collection issue that isn’t being captured by the morality play.

  3. Paddy O

    Crikey why do you print this idiotic rant- some dumb charter of balance? Mr Schwab is an ideologue- his simplistic rant against a simplistic portrayal of keynesians says it all plus “the same IMF that was recently run by French Socialist Dominique Strauss-Kahn”. say no more, the guy has no critical analysis beyong ideology and Crikey’s daily mail should have better critics than this!

  4. Will

    There are a few silly things in this article, but I just want to address this.

    “That the Australian government lost (which is really what a deficit is) $44 billion doesn’t seem to bother our fearless economic commentators.”

    Entering a deficit due to automatic stabilisers kicking in and some discretionary fiscal policy (much of which was bipartisan) is not the moral equivalent of carelessly throwing money away. Anyone who says otherwise is clearly disingenuous. It is a particularly dishonest gambit for someone who wants argue gratuitous contractionary pain is morally necessary .

    You can only coherently evaluate a counter-cyclical fiscal policy in the context of counter-factuals and the opportunity cost of differing policy responses.

    So let’s see. The success of the stimulus payments showed that the behavioural literature (windfall psychology) beat the orthodoxy prediction (permanent income hypothesis).

    There was certainly some sub-optimal spending, but the size of the program was commensurate with the gravity of the crisis and it was the unquestionably the right paradigm in terms of targeting construction and housing sector. The problems of time lags were real, but state-by-state comparisons show that the worst problems were localised to state bureaucracies rather than problems entirely within federal responsibility. So the picture is muddled. There are also certain issues that are inherent to fast-tracking any program in the absence of a “shovel-ready” preparedness.

    Based on his contemptuous tone about fiscal policy in general, I think we can assume that Adam does not want to devote resources to improved shovel readiness capacity, so want is left to criticise? Further controls? Insisting on further controls would just increase the time lag trade-offs – thereby eroding the counter-cyclical value of the program – so the argument becomes incoherent.

    At root, it is a basic category mistake to only count operational waste and ignore waste in idling capacity and under-employment and loss of velocity of money. As WWII showed us, as hard as it is to swallow for the morality is economics brigade — even building tanks and wastefully blowing them up can be highly stimulative when there is a shortfall in aggregate demand.

    That said, I lean toward Sumner’s nominal GDP targeting over fiscal policy where possible, because it doesn’t suffer these time lag problems of big fiscal policies and it’s easier to deal with politically.

  5. dazza

    This bizarre defense of Wall Street mafia is incredible if not funny. Here’s something better and more to the point by Max Keiser.

  6. pertina1

    A little tip Adam, check the address before you hit the send button. I assume youve been moonlighting for theTele and thats whats behind this absurd posting. No point dignifying this economically illiterate trash with a comprehensive response but suffice to say that anyone who endorses David Murrays stupid Greek scenario needs to seriously reconsider their vocation.

  7. Bill Williams

    Calling Keane and Dyer for their short sighted criticism of those that look at the Australian economy’s predicament with a time horizon longer than 12 months is refreshing Adam. You probably won’t get a Christmas card this year from Julia Gillard who sees the economy as a phenomenon that can be talked down or up.

    You lose me completely, however, with your comments about the Reserve Bank. In addition to “poorly mangaged retailers and overleveraged home owners” your list of people who might be happy about lower interest rates and a lower dollar should also include every Australian engaged in producing tradeable goods and services. These people, who have to sell into global markets despite the handicap of the highly regulated Australian labour market include, in addition to our almost extinct manufacturers:

    1. Farmers
    2. Tourism service providers
    3. Education exporters
    4. Miners

    If we followed your line of neo-classical logic, Adam, we would conclude that the Swiss are wrong in trying to keep the value of their currency from climbing too high in unusual market circumstances wouldn’t we? Let’s see who turns out to be smarter.


  8. drsmithy

    While Keane and Dyer’s belief in Australian exceptionalism is completely wrongheaded, the article above is also utter tripe, prime amongst which is this:

    This was, in essence, Europe (and the US’s) problem. Governments (which are employed by a rump of voters keen to protect their self-interest) have undertaken welfare state projects, which, since the GFC, have finally proved unviable.

    America’s debt has come from the public assumption of private debt – nothing to do with welfare.

    Why welfare is not responsible for Europe’s problems is covered here:

    In short: no country is bankrupt because of poor people.

    Though this one, perhaps, takes the cake:

    If the PIIGS governments (and even the US) were actual businesses, they would long have been wound up.

    Governments are not businesses.

  9. Adam Schwab

    Only five negative comments and all were unable to make any semblance of a point…disappointing gents.

    @Will – Trust you’ve never visited Ireland or Spain. They very much fit in the Europe story. As for “automatic stabilisers”, this secondary school concept isn’t even valid given unemployment is at cyclical lows and we have witnessed record terms of trade.

    @Paddy – Your only actual comment of substance was to suggest DSK wasn’t a French Socialist. Which is of course,e exactly what he is.

    @Bill – Farmers sell product locally as well as globally. Miners have recorded record profits as the AUD has soared past $1. (Their problems are that China’s credit boom is finally reaching an end).

  10. Tony Ward

    Any sort of Keynesian economic theory is surely better than the neoclassical claptrap we’re being fed by Adam and other commentators. As the IMF and OECD, amongst many others, have agreed, the Oz stimulus package to counter the GFC worked brilliantly. Get over it guys. Yes, we now have some extra debt (tho’ much less than virtually any other OECD country). We’ve been there before and worked it out.

    Since Adam reckons none of the comments made a point let’s try a few of his. “apparently burgeoning household debt”? – have you missed the shift back from net dissaving just before the GFC (which was indeed dangerous) to household savings of 8-10% of incomes now?

    Next, the quality of post GFC stress tests differed – the US ones were robust, and have put their banks on a much better footing. The European tests (apart from other optimism) ignored the possibility of sovereign default, and deserve Adam’s ridicule. But smearing the Oz stress tests (which by detailed accounts were indeed thorough) by association is simply lazy.

    And as for the pure rhetoric of a “bloated public service”, two comments. First, the OZ public sector is half the proportion of GDP as many European countries, so smearing by association doesn’t work here either. Second, it looks like Adam missed the great recent Crikey article that the States with the best results in the education stimulus package were those who had maintained in-house ability to manage the process.

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details