Q&A Forum: September 28, 2015

Posted in Open Forum | 90 Comments

Thinking of you all

TrumpAs some of you know I’m currently in Chicago. Normally I wake up in the middle of the (local) night on the second day of my visit, but tonight I’ve woken up in the middle of the third night.

Saturday and Sunday I’ve done various walking tours and the river architecture tour. As you all indicated the buildings are magnificent. I’ve tried the local pizza (deep dish); it’s okay, but I’ll probably not be having another one.

I’m staying across the river from this building – and I think of Steve every time I look at it. The locals tell me that the building went up a couple of years ago but the giant naming feature only went up last year. The locals are outraged, telling me that while “Chicago likes big, we are not Vegas”. It turns out that the local government has already changed the rules to prevent this from happening again – thereby preventing competition.

In the meantime I’m pleased to see that Trump is beginning the slip in the polls.

Posted in American politics, International, Uncategorized | 34 Comments

Abbott : Johns v Allen, Bolt, Kates et. al

So a fortnight after Tony Abbott got deposed I see there is still a lot of anger and angst. Here at the Cat Steve is still carrying on, as is Andrew Bolt. I have no doubt that Tony Abbott is a wonderful human being. This is a man who is a volunteer life-saver, volunteer fire-fighter, and who spends time in remote areas working with Aboriginal communities. Let nobody ever criticise Tony Abbott’s community spirit. Are those KPI’s for a Prime Minister? Tony Abbott was an awesome opposition leader. He brought down two Labor prime ministers.

When you’re an economist you tend to subscribe to a view that specialisation and the division of labour is a a good thing. That people can be very good at activity x but not at y. This does not reflect upon them as human beings, it is just the way it is. I have often had discussions with people who are better at x than y, but would prefer to do y than x. This are often hard discussions. Indeed I’ve had people tells me this too. That Tony Abbott is a good human being and an awesome opposition leader does not mean that he would automatically be a good prime minister. Frankly, he wasn’t. That doesn’t deny in any way his other fine qualities.

I find myself in a difficult position here because so many people who’s opinions I generally trust are at complete loggerheads over the removal of Tony Abbott as prime minister. Abstracting from Andrew Bolt and Steve Kates whom you have all read let me draw your attention to two other people who have touched on this topic. Jim Allen at the Spectator and Gary Johns at the Australian.

First Jim Allen:

But why are we Abbott supporters now supposed to help Turnbull? They tell us it’s because he’s better than Shorten. That’s the reason, full stop. You might have had a thousand metaphorical dollars before (okay, Abbott screwed up a bunch so make that $400 before) but we’re still offering you ten bucks. You should take it. Malcolm is better than Bill. That’s the new line aiming to woo the disgruntled base. And it is undeniably true that Malcolm is better than Bill. But it misses the point that was hinted at above. Is Turnbull enough better than Shorten to make one swallow hard and play nice? And that is an open question. But you decide against a backdrop where if the other guys know that you’ll always roll over and play nice as long as their guy is just a tiny bit better than Labor’s guy, then you and your guys are mugs. You’ll be taken advantage of. It’s better sometimes to blow the whole thing up and – let’s be honest – lose to the other team. Why? Because you’ll have sent a message that loyalty and ‘no white anting’ and giving us support when things are a bit tough are the price they have to pay, not just that you have to pay. Reciprocity baby. Signal-sending, my friend. If they want it now, where was it before? It’s hard-wired into us didn’t you know?

Read the whole thing – Jim Allen has a good story to tell.

Then Gary Johns:

Think about the bigger picture. As a result of the leadership coup, Bill Shorten is less likely to win government. That appalling pair of labour lawyers, Penny Wong and Mark Dreyfus, who tried to close down a royal commission — the effect of which would have been to protect corrupt unionists — will not return to government. Chris Bowen, who thinks Wayne Swan (world-beating deficits) was a better treasurer than Peter Costello (world-beating surpluses), will not return to government (although in time he may recant his position privately). Tanya Plibersek and Anthony Albanese, spokespeople for the inner-city haters of liberty and freedom, and increasingly captive to Greens, will not return to government.

The Coalition is a coalition, the Nationals are the conservative rump, and it is not going away. Conservatives such as Scott Morrison, Alex Hawke and Scott Ryan are on the rise. Deposed conservatives retain their vote in the party room. Joe Hockey, a liberal, is leaving altogether.

Read the whole of Gary Johns’ piece too (if you can, it might still be behind a pay-wall).

Overall I think Gary Johns has the stronger story. Tony Abbott’s supporters can point to personality politics – okay – but not to policy development and prosecution.

Posted in Politics | 127 Comments

Whacking Fracking: Victorian Liberals abandon income growth

In Victoria the opposition Coalition has decided to outflank the ALP from the Green Left.

Its latest missive is extending the ban on gas exploration within the state till 2020 (read “indefinitely”).  It was the Victorian Coalition in Government that first banned gas exploration – not just fracking for coal seam gas, demonised by green extremists, but all gas.  This was followed by the Coalition-appointed Auditor General determining that his skill set extended into scientific matters and that no new development is appropriate in the state unless it has been through cabals of review bodies and sealed by Greenpeace.  This is an issue I previously raised here.

Now the state Coalition Opposition has confirmed its position that the state is so wealthy that it need not pursue income enhancing opportunities.  Liberal leader Matthew Guy said that he was trying to stop Daniel Andrews rushing out and making ill-informed decisions, while Nationals leader Peter Walsh conjured up risks to farming from gas exploration.  These risks would come at something a surprise to Texan farmers and anyone else who has read the copious literature on the lack of any harm from the one million plus fracks operating in the US.  This technology now accounts for half of oil and more than half gas supply in the US.

Former energy Minister Ian Macfarlane was a very strong advocate for gas and was willing to incur the wrath of Alan Jones in this regard.  Previously, Josh Frydenberg, the new Commonwealth energy minister, has been a strong supporter and the ALP Shadow Minister, Gary Gray has also been outspoken in support .

Politicians complain that the industry is not doing enough to promote its case for fracking.  But the corollary of this is that good policy simply depends on the weight of funding for lobbying.  Moreover, as with any new developments, powerful voices within industry (read Exxon/BHP) would rather not see the competition to their existing approved facilities, competition that can only mean lower prices all round.

So politicians, at least at the state level, have abandoned the field that involves taking decisions based on the overall interests of the community and have simply become cyphers for activating the decisions promoted by the loudest lobby voices.  Perhaps it is time for a review of the Commonwealth/State agreements so that those states that deliberately prevent economic development pay a penalty in terms of grants received.

Perhaps people in Victoria dodged a bullet when the voted in the Andrews ALP Government.  So far all that it has cost is the abandonment of a major road and the rewards given to unionised election supporters.  The abandonment of East West road link was unlikely to have been worth the $420 million contract-break cost but there was a known cap to the costs.  Rewards for unions supplying election workers have included wage hikes – which are budget limited and, as the recent tram strikes indicate, are getting a bit out of hand.  They also include the extra public holiday for the football Grand Final but this will disappoint since it just means more leisure premises close for the day.

Preventing new development is far more corrosive to the public interest and the Liberals are willing to sacrifice this by goading the Andrews government into following their income-denying policies.

Posted in Uncategorized | 38 Comments

Andrew Bolt on Tony Abbott

tony abbott

This is Andrew Bolt’s column on Tony Abbott which you need to climb over the pay wall to read in full. But it really ought to be read in full so here it is, including Andrew’s photo of Abbott.

NOW Tony Abbott is gone I can finally tell the truth about him. Folks, you made a big mistake with this bloke.

No, no. The mistake wasn’t that you voted for him.

In fact, you got one of the finest human beings to be Prime Minister.

In many ways he seemed too moral for the job, yet he achieved more in two years than the last two Labor prime ministers achieved in six.

Compare. Kevin Rudd and Julia Gillard left us with record deficits after blowing billions on trash — on overpriced school halls, “free” insulation that killed people, green schemes that collapsed, “stimulus” checks to the dead.

They meanwhile opened our borders to 50,000 illegal immigrants and drowned 1200. They hyped the global warming scare and forced us to pay a job-killing carbon tax just to pretend they were saving us.

But Abbott? I won’t go through the whole list: how he stopped the boats, curbed spending, scrapped the useless carbon and mining taxes, led the world’s defiance of deadly Russian strongman Vladimir Putin and made us safer from terrorism.

He even signed three free trade deals to secure jobs for our kids — including one with China that the last three governments couldn’t clinch.

And he did all this in the face of astonishing heckling and even vilification from our media class, and despite often feral opposition in the Senate.

But your mistake was not to care about all that. Deeds didn’t count with you. Image was all.

And so you told the pollsters you didn’t like Abbott. You believed the vicious crap written about him, until his MPs finally panicked and dumped him.

Your mistake was that you couldn’t look behind the flim flam — the way Abbott looked, the way he spoke, the way he walked, the way he ate an onion — to see what he’d actually done for you and for your country.

You even laughed at some of his finest qualities and emblems of his public service. Journalists ridiculed his work as a lifesaver by mocking his costume and body hair. They dismissed his firefighting service as just a photo-op. Wrote off his patriotism as bigotry.

When he defended women, he was called insincere. When he warned that our finances were in strife or that terrorism menaced us, they called him a scaremonger.

And you believed them. You let people treat like absolute dirt a man who had a record of volunteerism no prime minister has equalled — working in Aboriginal communities, lifesaving, firefighting, helping people in natural disasters, and raising money for women’s shelters and a hospice for dying children.

And none of it was done just to puff his CV for an election pamphlet.

The only reason I know Abbott helped people secure their homes after one Sydney storm is that my wife’s uncle asked the head of the team getting the tree off his house if that really was Abbott over there, helping to cut it away.

Shush, said the captain. He doesn’t like people knowing.

Now, I must declare straight up — I call Tony Abbott a friend.

So you’ll call me biased. You’ll laugh that I can write this massive praise of him when almost everyone else is horse-laughing. And you’ll say that’s why I see more qualities in Abbott than are actually there.

But you’ll just be making another mistake.

See, I don’t think Abbott is a great man because he’s my friend. He’s my friend because he’s a great man. Greater than the people who tore him down.

He’s my friend especially because he’s not those things that so many journalists wrote — including some who must have known what they wrote were lies.

Truth is that Abbott is not a thug, bully, racist, fool, liar, woman-hater, homophobe or bigot. He’s not cruel or lacking compassion.

If he were any of those things he would not be my friend. Those are deal breakers for me. Those I love best are people of honour, warmth and kindness.

Tony Abbott is one such man, and that he has been betrayed and deposed doesn’t just break my heart. It makes me fear for this country. I can only hope that Australians will one day wake up to what they’ve tossed away.

Sorry to sound so melodramatic, but here are some glimpses of the man I know — ones that put the lie to the trash that even big-name correspondents peddled about him.

The media and the left are among the people least capable of seeing goodness in others. And it’s not as if these qualities were invisible even to those of us who were not among his friends. If you are part of the anti-Abbott collective of this country, you are part of the problem and in no way part of the kind of humane solutions Tony Abbott tried to bring to political decision making in this country. We are all the worse for his departure. There are some who do not know this because they are so shrivelled inside that they incapable of knowing this. But there are some, thankfully, who understood what a great Prime Minister we had and know exactly what we have lost.

Posted in Australian Story | 72 Comments

Monday Forum: September 28, 2015

Posted in Open Forum | 385 Comments

How should the country adjust to being poorer?

In The Australian today:

Appearing last week on the ABC’s 7.30, former treasury secretary Ken Henry claimed Australia has a revenue problem, because the ratio of tax revenues to GDP is lower than in 2002, the implication being tax rates should rise. And that was only the highlight of a week-long “taxfest”, in which the media was crowded with like-minded pundits proposing ways of lightening taxpayers’ wallets.

Posted in Uncategorized | 40 Comments

Medicare benefits schedule review

In April the Government announced a review of the Medicare benefits schedule. Today the review panel (chaired by University of Sydney Medical School Professor Bruce Robinson) released a couple of consultation papers which provoked a reaction by that future Labor candidate and head of the AMA, Brian Owler:

It’s an approach that undermines the confidence that patients have in their doctors — it’s unacceptable

So Owler thinks that we shouldn’t test the efficacy of treatments. That’s a bit like the quacks and charlatans who used to offer “medical” services in my time (we used to sacrifice to Aesculapius), or more recently the quacks in the 19th century.

Not only is it a waste of taxpayers’ money to subsidise quack treatments, but in some cases it harms patients, either directly or indirectly by discouraging treatments with proven efficacy.

Owler seems to be channeling those ‘wellness warriors’ like Jess Ainscough and Belle Gibson – the latter a fraud, while Ainscough was tragically misguided.

In an environment where the alternative medicine lobby has been conning many people, it is beyond disgraceful that the AMA would oppose a thorough review of treatments for efficacy, using traditional medical research techniques such as double blind testing.

And by the way, it’s not just the medicare benefits schedule that needs reviewing, but the PBS too as there are a number of drugs that shouldn’t be on the PBS, either because they are not efficacious or because in the case of drugs like aspirin and paracetamol are inexpensively available in supermarkets.

Posted in Uncategorized | 46 Comments

We don’t matter

They are an arrogant and stupid lot. This is Mark Textor, the chap who does the polling for the Libs:

The loss of disgruntled conservatives will be outweighed by the appeal of a more moderate party to swinging voters. “The qualitative evidence is they don’t matter,” Mr Textor said. “The sum of a more centrist approach outweighs any alleged marginal loss of so-called base voters.”

This is actually useful knowledge since I no longer have to worry that anything we say here will make the slightest difference since they will now have half the ABC voting for the Coalition. It’s all free kicks right up to the next election. What a laugh to call him a strategist!

MORE TO THINK ABOUT: I wonder if he meant us. Certainly we haven’t been told what Tim Blair was told:

A note from Mark Textor regarding yesterday’s post:

In relation to the quote from me in The Australian that “they don’t matter” and reported in your blog: that was said in relation to a far right wing website (that the author mentioned to me among others), certainly not conservative voters.

My long political and business career, and many public statements and columns, have been built on deep respect for voter opinion, including representing accurately the views and aspirations of centre right and conservative voters around the world.

I would never believe that anyone doesn’t matter in our democracy. They do.

Sinclair is in Chicago so maybe he got the email and hasn’t been able to pass it along.

[Original post from Tim Blair following many references to this quote on a previous thread.]

Posted in Federal Politics | 196 Comments

A Triumph for Supply-side “Austrian” Economics and Say’s Law

The almost total inability of economists of the mainstream to make sense of the macroeconomy is because they look only at final demand. To them, the rest of the economy is a black box about which they know next to nothing. And emphasising how little they even understand about what they need to know, the most important statistic for the past seventy years has been the national accounts which measures how much final output is produced. It is why there are still economists who think that our economy is 60% consumption, when that part of the economy is around 5% at best. The rest is that vast hinterland of productive efforts that move resources from the ground and the forest through various stages of processing to the distributors and then, but only then, to retail outlets for final sale. The man who has done the work of Hercules in overturning this shallow and narrow approach is Mark Skousen. Do you wish to know more about this approach and how better to understand how an economy works, this is the go-to book, now released in its third edition. The title of this blog post is also the title on his own press release, so for a change it’s not just me.

Mark Skousen, The Structure of Production. New York University Press

Third revised edition, 2015, 402 pages. $26 paperback. Available on Kindle.

From the cover:

In 2014, the U. S. government adopted a new quarterly statistic called gross output (GO), the most significance advance in national income accounting since gross domestic product (GDP) was developed in the 1940s. The announcement comes as a triumph for Mark Skousen, who advocated GO twenty-five years ago as an essential macroeconomic tool and a better way to measure the economy and the business cycle. Now it has become an official statistic issued quarterly by the Bureau of Economic Analysis at the U. S. Department of Commerce.

To buy the book: NYU, Amazon
Quarterly data for Gross Output can be found at the BEA site here.
For Skousen’s latest quarterly report on GO, see this.

Since the announcement, Gross Output has been the subject of editorials in the Wall Street Journal, Barron’s, and other financial publications, and is now being adopted in leading economics textbooks, such as Roger Leroy Miller’s new 18th edition of Economics Today. Economists are now producing GO data for other countries, including the UK and Argentina.

In this third printing of Structure of Production, Skousen shows why GO is a more accurate and comprehensive measure of the economy because it includes business-to-business (B2B) transactions that move the supply chain along to final use. (GDP measures the value of finished goods and services only, and omits most B2B activity.) GO is an attempt to measure spending at all stages of production.

As Dale Jorgenson, Steve Landefeld, and William Nordhaus conclude in “A New Architecture for the U. S. National Accounts,” “Gross output [GO] is the natural measure of the production sector, while net output [GDP] is appropriate as a measure of welfare. Both are required in a complete system of accounts.”

Skousen concludes, “Gross Output fills in a big piece of the macroeconomic puzzle. It establishes the proper balance between production and consumption, between the ‘make’ and the ‘use’ economy, between aggregate supply and aggregate demand. And it is more consistent with growth and business cycle theory. Because GO attempts to measure all stages of production (known as Hayek’s triangle), it is a monumental triumph in supply-side ‘Austrian’ economics and Say’s law.”

Using GO, Skousen demonstrates that consumer spending does not account for two-thirds of the economy, as is often reported in the financial media, but is really only 30-40% of total economic activity. Business spending (B2B) is over 50% of the economy, and thus is far larger and more important than consumer spending, more consistent with economic growth theory, and a better measure of the business cycle. (See chart below.)

About the Author

MARK SKOUSEN is a Presidential Fellow at Chapman University in California. He has taught economics and finance at Columbia Business School, and is a former economic analyst for the Central Intelligence Agency. He received his Ph. D. in economics at George Washington University (1977). He is the editor-in-chief of the investment newsletter Forecasts & Strategies, and author of several books, including The Making of Modern Economics.

Reviews

“Now, it’s official. With Gross Output (GO), the U.S. government will provide official data on the supply side of the economy and its structure. How did this counter revolution come about? There have been many counter revolutionaries, but one stands out: Mark Skousen of Chapman University. Skousen’s book The Structure of Production, which was first published in 1990, backed his advocacy with heavy artillery. Indeed, it is Skousen who is, in part, responsible for the government’s move to provide a clearer, more comprehensive picture of the economy, with GO.” — Steve H. Hanke, Johns Hopkins University (2014)

“This is a great leap forward in national accounting. Gross Output, long advocated by Mark Skousen, will have a profound and manifestly positive impact on economic policy.” –Steve Forbes, Forbes magazine (2014)

“Skousen’s Structure of Production should be a required text at our leading universities.” (referring to second edition) –John O. Whitney, Emeritus Professor in Management Practice, Columbia University

“Monumental. I’ve read it twice!” (referring to first edition, published in 1990) — Peter F. Drucker, Clermont Graduate University

“I am enormously impressed with the care and integrity which Skousen has accomplished his work.” — Israel Kirzner, New York University

UPDATE: Mark thought that this might help to explain the concept of the GO:

GO

The problem with double counting is massive if you are trying to measure final output. If, however, you are trying to work out the level of activity across every part of the economy, it is not the central problem, and this is especially so if you are interested in proportions. If the data were divided into where jobs were, the division between the different parts of the economy that took in the stages of production would make perfect sense. If we were trying to measure jobs and counted only those who were in retail and personal services, we would immediately see what was wrong with the stat. GO tries to make up some of the deficiencies in knowing only final output and ignoring the economy’s interior.

Posted in Classical Economics, Economics and economy, Gratuitous Advertising | 10 Comments