Section One on “ The future of the Australian economy” starts with the following preamble:
“The Australian Government is committed to modernising our economy so that we can compete with the leading nations in a world economy that is being transformed by globalisation, new technologies, and the rise of China and India. While we take full advantage of the mining boom, we must also build long term competitive strengths in the global industries of tomorrow – industries that will provide the high-paying jobs of the future.
The Australia 2020 Summit will examine:
- After a long period of sustained economic growth and with the added benefits of the global mining boom, how do we best invest the proceeds of this prosperity to lay the foundations for future economic growth?
- How we best prepare for a global economy that will increasingly be based upon advanced skills, advanced technology, low carbon energy sources and integration with global supply chains?
- How we take advantage of Australia’s proximity to the fast growing economies in the world?
- How we boost public and private investment in economic infrastructure?
- Foster innovation in the workplace; encouraging the transfer of ideas across businesses and economies? “
My submission
I add a 6th point: “Cope with a financially fragile economic system”.Fragility is indicated by the proportion of GDP needed to service debt; the higher this proportion is, the less there is available to both consume and invest. Economists habitually excuse any private borrowing on the assumption that it will lead to increased output, and thus finance itself. But 90% of the debt incurred in the past 3 decades has financed speculation rather than investment. Productive capacity has risen far less than debt, so that the debt ratio has grown exponentially.
All major OECD nations (except France) have experienced rising private debt to GDP ratios over the past 3 decades. Australia’s debt ratio rose 4.2% faster than GDP for the past 44 years—taking our ratio from 24% in 1964 (and 43% in 1977) to 165% now. The UK’s private non-financial debt ratio was 96% in 1977, versus 243% now; the USA’s was 93% excluding finance, and 108% including, in 1977; today it is 170% excluding finance, and 282% including.
These levels are unprecedented. The US private non-financial debt to GDP ratio was 150% in 1929—20% below today’s level (it peaked at 215% in 1932, due to Great Depression deflation of 10% p.a., and falling output of 13% p.a.).
Lower interest rates do not explain this growth in debt: interest rates were lower in the 1970s than they are now, when the debt ratio was 1/6th of what it is today.
The debt has caused a leveraged increase in asset prices, which are also at unprecedented levels when compared with consumer prices. Though US asset prices have begun falling recently, if anything resembling reversion to the mean occurs, they have a lot further to go. Shiller’s “Irrational Exuberance” indices show US house prices rose from 115 in 1997 to 228 in mid-2006 (versus the 1890-1995 average of 103), before falling to 190 now. His real Dow Jones index peaked at 1240 last year, against the 1915-1995 average of 255.
Australia is no better placed. Nigel Stapledon’s long term price index implies Australian house prices are even more overvalued than the USA’s.
Recoveries from other financial crises in the post-WWII period have worked because they have re-ignited the growth in private borrowing. I doubt that there is any further capacity to do this: there are no sub-subprime borrowers to whom to lend. The growth in debt levels and asset prices will reverse, and the change in private debt will therefore subtract from demand rather than augmenting it.
This prospective deflationary scenario reverses accepted wisdom on economic policy. Sustaining budget surpluses and suppressing commodity price inflation in this environment would worsen the outcome, by reducing the capacity of private borrowers to reduce their debt, and by maintaining the real burden of debt.
Graphs and web links to substantiate the above are available at my Debwatch Blog: www.debtdeflation.com/blogs.






April 15th, 2008 at 2:37 pm
Hello Steve
I wrote this earlier this morning on another thread & at the risk of doubling up, I’d like to say it again here:
This is my first two-bobs worth to you and your great forum. My apologies if I’m only repeating what may have already been covered here, but I haven’t had the liberty of reading all of the issues.
Having an economics background, I’ve been greatly concerned for the last decade that we’ve managed to make investment in productive assets much less attractive than speculating in non-productive “assets”.
We have negative gearing that encourages money to be pumped into housing, but we continuously dream up more & more ways to stifle productive investment. Red tape and regulation (eg. BAS, OH&S) strangle investment in production and then we tax the crap out of any profit that has been made.
My view for a long time has been that negative gearing and depreciation benefits should be scrapped for housing unless it is for new building. If you are not the first owner of a house, you don’t get the incentives. Extending these incentives to owner-occupiers as well investors for new dwellings would then encourage investment in expanding the stock of housing if need be, rather than inflating the prices of existing stock.
Is this too simplistic as a start?
Cheers
April 15th, 2008 at 2:56 pm
It’s on the money Chewman–I’ve made very similar suggestions in my CPD report Deeper in Debt.
April 15th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
If something can’t go on forever, it will stop. But how and when?
Australia has no sub-prime crisis, no housing glut, no trillion dollar war and a resources boom.
But Australia does have record debt, crazy housing and the same demographic problem as the USA: baby boomers about to switch
from being high earning consumers to pensioners needing health care.
We also don’t have the luxury of devaluing our currency, so imports will stay high, and decoupling seems to be a fiction.
So is a soft landing possible, and if so what policies will target it?
If not, what kind of event will trigger the beginning of the end, where will it strike and is there a defence?
[Roubini and the GEAB are pretty specific: global, bad and this year.]
April 15th, 2008 at 5:33 pm
Hi Steve!
We have another crazy idea but we don’t know whether it would work- abolish tax for income accrued from the interest payments of high-yield savings deposits, fixed deposits, etc?
Benefits of this idea that we can think of:
1. Encourage Australians to save instead of spending money.
2. Make savings much more economical than borrowing to speculate (in stocks, properties and other ‘investments’). Speculations result in asset price bubbles, which in turn encourage the use of inflated-priced assets as collaterals for further borrowing, which increase the supply of money and credit in the economy, which feeds inflation. If we make savings as profitable as possible and borrowing (to speculate) as unprofitable as possible, we are on the way to increase the savings rate of our nation, which should make us less vulnerable to dangerous asset price deflation.
3. For savers, rising interest rates is good news. But for borrowers, rising interest rates is bad news. Since Australia overall are deep in debt, rising interest rates is bad news. My suggestion will encourage many to cross over from being borrowers (to speculate) to savers.
4. Side-effect: When there is a strong incentive to save, the corresponding weakening of incentive to borrow to speculate in properties will reduce the upward pressure on property prices as there is now less borrowed money to bid up the price of assets.
5. Side-effect: When more people save money, their deposit base grows, which makes them less dependent on the credit market on funding. This in turn makes mortgage rate less vulnerable to any seizure in the credit market.
Just our 2-cents worth of idea…
What do you think, Steve?
April 16th, 2008 at 12:20 am
I hear all the comments on this website, and agree with some, however it must be said that tax and inward foreign investment policy can have a great impact on an economy.
Lowering company tax, granting targeted foreign investment tax cuts to companies inwardly investing in capital projects that create sustainable new industries in this country will do a lot to ensure we as Australians continue to prosper.
You just have to look at what Ireland did in the early 2000’s. Although it wouldn’t look like a great example today with the current over investment in property, it has produced a world-class pharmaceutical and hi-tech industry base, including a young workforce that is highly educated to service it. A large barrier to entry for any country wishing to replicate such a feat in today’s climate.
Strategic Government policy on a large scale has a lot to do with future prosperity. That’s my 2020..
April 16th, 2008 at 6:40 am
Nice submission Steve; the emphasis on debt is well deserved. Allow me to add my 2c. Sensible monetary policy is a prerequisite to solving future problems arising from peak oil, climate change and over population. It’s sad but probably true that many in society don’t understand monetary policy well enough, including politicians, to make sound economic judgements; maybe a campaign to introduce basic economics in school should be on the agenda; i.e. What is money?, What is fractional reserve banking?. Maybe then people may question why is it that central banks seem to deliberately run economies hot only to then pretend to be shocked at the pending deflationery collapse.
One of the reasons for speculation by ordinary folk is the lack of faith in paper money. This is highlighted in the recent speculative mania on commodities which is driving oil and food prices to the moon. House prices are also partly driven by this lack in faith as many that invest in real estate do so because they fear debasement of the currency through credit inflation. They also seek to live in houses that are often way too large, McMansions, but again do so in order to preserve their wealth.
Thus the idea of accumulating assets comes about because fiat currencies throughout history are debased first through speculative lending, as in your submission Steve, and then by government deficit spending. Thus sound monetary policy including various tax disincentives to speculation come into play as Chewman and yourself mentioned. Your made a very pertinent point Chewman regarding barriers to productive enterprises.
Contrarian, your idea of encouraging saving is fine but there must also be encouragement for investment. People seek financial security by nature but even if the RBA did its job, and optimally moderated the money supply, governments/systems cannot guarantee that a dollar today could buy the same as a dollar in 20 years time as production/GDP may fall for various reasons, lack of oil for example. Putting capital to work in stocks, bonds or starting one’s own business are risk taking ventures but important for innovation, something Steve has mentioned before – I think.
April 16th, 2008 at 6:58 am
Steve
What part do corporations play in this debt riddled society which we inhabit?
Apologies for picking on individuals, but you Westfield with a CPI + 1.5% rent increase mentality, and the ability of monopolies & duopolies such as Bunnings, Coles, etc etc able to raise prices at the flick of an electronic switch. Competition in Australia is DEAD, and as such we are all being cornered into higher prices at OUR expense!
Mal
April 16th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Hey there,
I hope someone listens to your 2020 submission, Steve.
dyork, you make good points but I just wanted to fine-tune one of your assertions. You said that “Australia has no sub-prime crisis”.
I’m not sure that’s true. From listening around the place, especially to mortgage brokers, it seems to me that people have found many loopholes/avenues/call-them-what-you-will to borrow imprudently large amounts from the banks.
One example that comes to mind is a friend of mine, who (bless her heart) has absolutely no idea about finances. She runs a private accomodation service to homeless and troubled youth. She applied for a loan to by an old nursing home for AUD 450,000 and was approved. She reported (honestly) that she had no full time work (only part time as a waitress), no significant assets and earned no more than $20,000 pa.
The brokers flat out fudged the figures (over-valuing the property etc.) to secure the loan.
Only after me begging her not to take the loan did she decide not to take it.
If that aint subprime, I don’t know what is.
Maybe it’s truer to say ‘we have no subprime crisis…. yet’
Cheers
John
April 16th, 2008 at 10:59 am
I agree with you Aac. What we need is a system that encourages investment in production and discourages speculation in asset appreciation. This could first involve taxing capital gain on all assets, including the family home to encourage long term ownership rather than “flipping” for a profit.
Tax incentives should be given for investment in new homes or substantial renovations that will increase the economic capacity of the home. Likewise, tax incentives should be given for investment in company/business start-up or expansion, not speculation on the price of existing shares.
The main problem I see is that changes such as these will require huge vested interests to be ignored and overcome, eg. real estate agents make their living from speculation, ie. the constant turnover of property. Their role is very much diminished when new homes are built.
Likewise where would all the stockbrokers be if we suddenly adopted a system that discourages a high turnover of shares in search of capital gain in favour of long term investment in increasing the productive capacity of the nation?
We can’t forget that as Steve has pointed out, those that have benefited most from the current speculative bubble are the ones making the decisions now. We would be asking this generation to make changes in policy that will negatively impact on their “wealth” for the benefit of future generations. Having said that, it must be done.
April 16th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
Hi Chewman!
Those making the decisions can do that because the masses granted them the power through the ballot boxes. If all of us here spread the word among the masses, it will certainly help increasing the momentum from change.
This is just our hope.
April 19th, 2008 at 5:16 pm
There are a number of distortions in the tax system.
One is the ‘holiday home’. When you travel to SE Queensland and areas within say 2 hours of Sydney, there a many empty homes – at least most of the time. One place we had to pay an exorbitant rent for a few days on stated in the front of their visitor’s book to the effect that we were privileged to be able to use it because they don’t rent it often. This means many are claiming tax deductions yet leave the home / units empty for much of the time.
I think the tax system should tighten up on allowable deductions (negative gearing) just like ‘hobby businesses’. If you don’t rent it for at least 7 months of the year, then you don’t get the tax deductions below 50% and a shading in of deductions to 70% (the % is the proportion of the year that the property is actually rented out.
This would have the effect of shifting empty housing stock (at the main) into becoming full time accommodation at full time rents. This would apply to some of the older units and houses. This would have the effect that older Australians will be able to holiday in Australia (saving on overseas trips – balance of payments), make available more housing for people to live in – lower income people will be attracted to some of this housing as you see in areas along the Gold Coast.
This would help the housing / rental crisis, contribute to decentralization in some instances and help the Federal Budget.
April 19th, 2008 at 10:30 pm
Good website Steve. In terms of debt in Australia and the US, how much is due to credit card debt? Over the past ten years society as a whole has moved to electronic money for everyday purchases. However a portion of this is counted as debt but is not really debt. I use my credit card as a debit card. I charge it and settle it at the end of the month and pay no interest. I don’t consider this debt but electronic cash.
A dental surgeon once told me he spends $300K on this credit card per annum to claim the frequent flyer points. My question is how much of credit card spending is actual debt, rather than just a convienant way to purchase which is not really debt.
April 20th, 2008 at 5:03 pm
Thanks again all for some interesting feedback.
On the tweaking of negative gearing suggested by keithi, yes that’s a feasible suggestion. At the minimum, but “slowly slowly” to avoid precipitating a price crash, we need to move away from negative gearing.
And bb, credit card debt is recorded in the RBA Bulletin sheet C01hist (downloadable from the RBA website; they’ve recently improved the reporting there–and I have some work to do in my import routines as a consequence). The outstanding balance now is $43 billion, $31 billion of which is accruing interest. That’s about 3% of outstanding household private debt, but of course, it’s the component that cops the highest interest rate.
October 18th, 2008 at 7:13 pm
Good AFTS comments, Steve! Posters here, too, are on the money. You/they should be on the AFTS panel, which you can bet will ultimately support the status quo, including Gordon Brown’s version of bailouts. Gordie seems to have resurrected himself from mindlessly presiding over Britain’s bubble to becoming her saviour’, simply by making bank bailouts contingent upon public equity.