Kenneth Davidson has been one of the most consistent voices for sensible economic analysis in the Australian media for decades now (another I’d give a similar accolade to is Brian Toohey), and he’s written a brilliant piece in The Age and The Sydney Morning Herald on the specualtive bubble that is the Australian dollar.
Davidson lays out the causes and probable effects superbly in the length of a newspaper feature. The causes are that:
- The bailout funds in the USA and UK in particular have cashed up financial institutions that don’t want to lend any more to mortgages (and have long ago forgotten how to lend to fund productive enterprises), so they’re looking for short term hot money gains;
- The RBA’s flagging that it intends raising rates from 2-3% above rates in the USA and UK to possibly 4-5% above is a “sure thing” return on a currency that was already appreciating because of commodity sales to China;
- This gives the hedge funds a sure fire double whammy gain:
- borrow in the US or UK at 1% to buy $A and “invest” in floating rate bonds or shares (particularly in banks) and get a higher return (at least 2% better than the borrowing costs, and assured to rise); and
- drive up the $A in the process, so that when you sell out, you get both a higher return and an appreciated currency in which it is denominated.
The most remarkable thing about this bubble is that the RBA’s “we’re raising rates now and we’re going to keep on doing it for a few months” messages are part of the cause, and yet they seem unaware of both the phenomenon and the dangers it poses. Davidson points out that Brazil, which is experiencing a similar commodity-driven currency appreciation bubble, is aware of the dangers and is doing something about it:
“The rising value of the Brazilian real and the Australian dollar against the US dollar has had a disastrous impact on both countries’ non-commodity export and import competing industries. Brazil’s popular and largely economically successful left-wing Government led by President Lula da Silva is meeting the problem head on. It has decided to impose a 2 per cent tax on all capital inflows to stop the real appreciating further.”
In the meantime, our RBA seems possibly even pleased that this short-term phenomenon is afflicting our manufacturing sector adversely.
Of course, like any speculative bubble, this has an end-game–and that’s when you think the rate rises have come to an end, sell out and watch the $A crash for those who are still holding it. Then the dollar (and Australian bank shares) will crash, and our economy will have acted as a dollar pump for the hedge funds.
Davidson also accurately notes that the RBA’s obsession with driving rates higher now is driven by the classic “fighting the last war” syndrome of believing that an outbreak of wage-driven commodity-price inflation is the main danger facing the Australian economy–just as it was in, oh, about 1973 (if you ignore private debt levels of course…).
He concludes that:
The world has moved on but the obsessive debate about wage inflation and union powers hasn’t. Since the beginning of the ’80s, the problem has been periodic bouts of asset price inflation. It is the biggest danger now.
Instead of controlling the unions, there should be control of financial institutions. The Australian dollar bubble and the incipient housing bubble should be micro-managed. Capital inflow could be dampened by a compulsory deposit of 1 to 2 per cent to be redeemed after a year to stop speculative inflow. Home ownership has become a tax shelter. The steam could be taken out of the rise in house prices if negative gearing was limited to new housing. This would obviate the need for higher interest rates that affect everyone.
It’s an excellent article–read it and pass it on. The more people who do read it, the higher it will rise in the newspapers’ online-indicators of reader interest, which will push it towards the top of the online page. And I’m heading out now to buy a paper copy of the SMH as well. Bravo, Kenneth Davidson.






October 27th, 2009 at 8:37 am
[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by greychampion, John Hacking. John Hacking said: Excellent post on $A Carry Trade in SMH, Age: Kenneth Davidson has been one of the most consistent voices for s.. http://bit.ly/VcU22 [...]
October 27th, 2009 at 8:59 am
Hi Steve,
Nice article, You should have seen the Craig James, a super frund rep and RP data rep on the sunrise show. They all were joining in on the strong recovery debate with Kochi
.
I havent seen the 18% rise in super that they were talking about. According to them the average super is only 3% down from the bottom. I have lost around 9K$ and my last statement only showed a return of 500$. I am with Unisuper. If my fund had indeed recovered 18% I would gladly setlle for the 3% loss and converted to cash.
By the way, does anyone know any google gadget for this blog (or any blog) where you can type the Url for igoogle?
October 27th, 2009 at 9:45 am
Black humour. Watch at own risk.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w5EFEQ9aY6o
Bohemian Bankruptcy
October 27th, 2009 at 9:49 am
I find it curious that to control inflation, it requires that the state control unions, as rising economic standards generated by these pesky institutions can apparently result in inflation.
On the other hand, overblown executive and managerial pay is not restricted and is not targeting by the state as causing inflation. Neither is speculation on assets the cause of inflation either because, apparently, markets are efficient so asset bubbles can’t exist by definition. Strange.
October 27th, 2009 at 3:32 pm
In case you didn’t know:
Beware of some life insurance firms that are trying to package derivitives (using policies). At least one bank here took out a secret policy on a employee who died of a heart attack. His widow was trying to cope. And had no idea that the bank had the policy.
October 27th, 2009 at 4:15 pm
soho44,
I’ve heard of this occurring. This is a fairly natural outcome of societies that are based upon the maxim of ‘gaining wealth and forgetting all but self.’
October 27th, 2009 at 4:55 pm
I appreciate the sentiments of the article, but if the RBA tries to manage exchange rates within say a trade-weighted band using interest rates, then domestic rates are effectively determined by international interest rates, primarily US rates. It’s the old issue that central banks grappled with in the 80s and 90s – what to target: inflation or exchange rate?
October 27th, 2009 at 5:11 pm
rluk,
Who said that RBA should manage exchange rates using interest rates? The article says that Brazil is using a fiscal policy tool (taxation) to get what they want in regards to exchange rates.
Why can’t we do the same?
“It’s the old issue that central banks grappled with in the 80s and 90s – what to target: inflation or exchange rate?”
So we can see the effects of this “grappling” with inflation – 20% unemployment in Poland in 2003 and the housing bubble / burst in the USA and GFC as a consequence.
Are you still convinced that this policy is not suicidal?
October 27th, 2009 at 5:21 pm
Soho44
I didn’t quite get what you mean. Can you elaborate please
October 27th, 2009 at 6:46 pm
Ak,
I would put it to you that it is factually incorrect to say that Brazil has got what it wanted. The Real has soared against the dollar and shows little signs of returning to its levels of 6 months ago. Even if it does, assigning causality to a single event like that is sloppy analysis.
If it were that easy and cost free for governments to manipulate their currency more would. In reality it is either high interest rates or severe restrictions on convertibility (e.g. China and Malaysia), both of which have costs.
Would it stop “hot money” into the Aus housing market? Compared to the transaction cost of purchasing property, a 2% tax on capital inflow is small beer anyhow. Measures like that are just p%^sing in the wind when you have a gaping and widening interest rate spread. Any serious discussion about exchange rate management has to include interest rates.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:28 pm
rluk
I can agree that simple measures can be circumvented
(as shown in
http://www.anpec.org.br/encontro2006/artigos/A06A058.pdf )
however we should keep in mind that interest rates in Brazil are much higher than in Australia so the temptation to engage in carry trade could be higher due to the larger margin.
The echange rate AUD/BRL remains pretty much constant so at least Brazil is not sinking deeper into currency appreciation than Australia. Therefore we cannot say that these measures do not work at all.
The point was not about financing speculative housing bubble (direct investment) but about stopping or slowing down carry trade.
I can agree that even a 10% vendor tax (repelled in 2007 and converted into 19% capital gains tax) didn’t stop the housing bubble in Poland when it took off after joining the EU.
The ultimate tool to control the exchange rates and as a result capital inflow is what has been used in China – sterilization.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/sterilization.asp
October 27th, 2009 at 7:35 pm
Also another possibility would be to abandon fiddling with the interest rates in Australia and immediately get rid of any home owner grants + phase out negative gearing over 5 years. This combined with low interest rates could deflate the housing bubble rather than puncture it.
October 27th, 2009 at 7:37 pm
@Philip (#4),
For your comment, I imagine you are neither Australian nor American. So allow me a few comments.
In Australia, following the US example, but much more recently, we have seen an increasing campaign against trade unions.
In all fairness, this campaign started during the Hawke/Keating Labour government and reached a peak during the Howard Liberal (GOP, if you like) government, with a monstrosity called WorkChoices. Some four years ago, after obtaining unexpected majority in both the Senate and the House of Representatives, the Howard government introduced the Workplace Relations Amendment Act 2005 and got it approved. Howard, according to some commentarists, had a personal grudge with unions.
Partly as a reaction, the Liberals lost in the last election. In this there is an old precedent in the Stanley Bruce government, which preceded the Labour government of James Scullin, coincidentally just before the 1929 Depression.
The new industrial relations regime (to be known as Fair Work Australia) put forward by Rudd’s Labour government seems to be quite the same thing.
In the official discourse unions have been depicted as quasi-criminal organizations and this anti-union campaign has nothing to do with inflation. Theoretically, it has nothing to do with wages either, but with what they call “workplace flexibility”.
The inflation reference in Davidson’s article is to the actual monetary policy followed by the RBA of raising interest rates in preference to achieving full employment (which is also a part of the RBA’s legal duties, as described in the Reserve Bank Act 1959, Section 10(2)).
So that you get an idea of what I am talking about: in the Minutes of Monetary Policy Meeting (06-10-09) it is repeatedly stated that there is no immediate risk of an inflationary surge:
“Inflation was expected to decline in the near term, reflecting both the current level of spare capacity in the economy and the recent relatively slow growth in labour costs. However, the forecast trough in inflation was not as low as previously expected, and by 2011 inflation could be rising again”
This is the relevant link:
RBA: Minutes of Monetary Policy Meeting of the Board (06-10-09). Page 3.
http://www.rba.gov.au/MonetaryPolicy/RBABoardMinutes/2009/rba-board-min-06102009.html
And yet, for no apparent reason, they decided to raise interest rates.
Furthermore, with the higher exchange rate, induced by high interest rates, Australian exports are hit hard, and so their workers are also at risk.
The idea is that unfettered banks are more a threat to the Australian economy than what is left of our unions.
Cheers,
Marco
October 27th, 2009 at 8:58 pm
Marco2,
I am Australian, more specifically, a Melbournian.
I was been partly sarcastic in my post and you may not have picked it up. I realize that the anti-union attacks have very little to do with inflationary expectations. Unions are organizations of middle/working class people that are used to counter state-backed concentrated corporate power and thus I support them.
If it was not for capitalists and upper-class labor organizing behind the state to smash middle/working class labor, there would be little need for unions. Unfortunately, many union leaders these days have more in common with capitalists than they do their own constituents.
“Workplace flexibility” is another cover for increasing the power of institutional structures (capitalist firms and government departments) designed to assure obedience and subordination from workers. Inflationary expectations and wage inflation spirals are far less a threat to those in power than compared to the threat of workers getting out of hand if they should ever realize they can run these institutions better than executives and managers can.
One of the amusing things I find about attacks against unions is the claim that they cause unemployment because union workers receive wages above the market equilibrium wage.
Oddly enough, those who receive the highest incomes in society (executives, managers, lawyers, doctors, and the parasites of the FIRE sector) are not attacked for having wages grossly inflated above the market equilibrium wage.
It is just assumed away (willfully ignored) by economists that the incomes the rich get are far more distorted than the incomes that middle/working class people who are union members receive.
So if the CEO of BHP receives $10.4 million in remuneration for the year, it is because his income is in line with his marginal productivity and thus is the result of the efficient workings of the market.
But by definition the income a middle/working class union member receives is a market distortion and thus the union should be smashed.
Working class manufacturing jobs can be exported to China and middle class service jobs to India. But what about the upper-class labor that can’t be exported?
Even within the highly classed-base economic theory that is peddled in economic departments, there is something that can be done: open our borders to upper-class labor and let the people pour in.
Those who need welfare the least should be stripped of it the first. Thus the incomes of the rich that are protected by state intervention by restricting the free flow of labor should be targeted first and foremost.
Imagine a ‘fully flexible’ labor market for the rich!
Economic commentary is so distorted in the media that when one hears the terms ‘free market competition’, ‘labor flexibility’, ‘labor market reform’, etc. you know which classes it is going to be imposed upon first: middle/working.
The day I believe in the miracle of the free market is when there is a free flow of upper-class labor and ‘unions’ for the rich e.g. Chamber of Commerce and the Business Roundtable are smashed through state violence and coercion.
And yes, banks are far more problematic than labor unions.
October 27th, 2009 at 9:48 pm
Marco 2
Interesting analagy. Lord Stanley Melbourne Bruce formerly a businessman of Pattisson Lang Bruce Wool Merchants -exporters was instigating the then version of Work Choices. He not only lost the election however he alos was the only sitting Prime Minister up until Howard to lose his own seat in the Parliament. Two peas in a pod and in my opinion had a great concept executed poorly on both counts.
The worker would be better off today with individual bargaining (as long as there were fair appeal processes) than collective unionism where one man’s award wages means anothers job.
October 27th, 2009 at 10:12 pm
Phillip I think many of the things that you say are correct in a certain perspective. Perspective in itself is where one is coming from. I do like to be objective and believe in arbitration for I believe although everyone has the right to succeed that unfortunately like our economy there is no constant equilibrium. Market forces do not correct injustice nor does free market economy justify progress.
Society is often debated here and I believe it is what dictates economy to perform. Evidence of this is how humans educate themselves through mistakes and are constantly trying to corect these errors. The cost of doing this is a battle for those that are comfortable with the status quo, of those that see the need to generate the improvement (environment and health are evolutionary projects) It’s I think,like Minsky saying that the economy is in a constant state of adjustment, to maintain balance equilibrium is not self adjusting.
One may take a view of right or wrong about production, employment and then exploitation of labour, however I find reading history that it is changing to suit societal needs or maybe wants. This does not heed well with set minds and therefore change evolves rather than revolves.
That in particular (when one sees the injustice -objectively- for others outside the system- for the incredible change that is needed to our attititude to money its creation and distribution of production through savings versus asset – equity borrowings to create capital.
It probably needs the courage to have an enourmous depression to cleanse the system to revolutionise and start again.
The suffering is so hard to initiate and this is why the repetitive history goes on with correction.
October 27th, 2009 at 11:13 pm
Philip, I feel forced to place a slightly cranky comment in defence of my personal little patch. I am a doctor, specifically a general practitioner, and in return for ten years of training, an IQ in the top 0.1% and a fifty hour week with one in four nights on call I am paid about $240,000 before tax. I keep my patients out of hospital, and promote health and productivity for the patients I care for. Working a 35 hour week with no nights my wife’s hairdresser makes almost $180,000. I’m fairly confident I could have done better financially in other fields.
In general though I agree with you, attempts to crush wages for ordinary people by breaking unions have gone much too far. However I think a more careful look at what is actually contributed by the people you single out might be sensible. I feel far more comfortable paying a specialist physician $500,000 per year than paying a CEO $10m. The probability the CEO contributes that degree of value is very slim indeed. If a CEO could be paid 9 times the average wage in the 1950s, and is paid 170 times now, what has changed in their productivity? If their wages were cut across the board, in what other industry could they receive comparable returns? On the other hand if you cut the wages of the physician, would you not expect a brain drain into other fields where the pay is better for less responsibility and better hours?
I’d also like to remind you that in the not terribly distant past unions held economies utterly captive. To pick an especially flagrant example, compositors in Fleet Street had incomes in the top 1% in Britain for skills requiring barely more than a high school education. Obviously Rupert Murdoch rectified that rather too effectively, but I hope I’ve made my point. Similarly the power stations in the Latrobe Valley are now run just as effectively with 20% of the staff levels that existed during SEC ownership.
October 28th, 2009 at 12:09 am
In the article it is suggested that hedge funds can pump up the A$ and then get out all their money at a higher A$ and make a profit on this. Is this really possible or is it an urban myth? Has anybody demonstrated (in a scientific manner) that this technique works consistently?
It seems to me that if you pump up a currency with X billion and then you take out X billion, won’t the currency return to its initial value? Why would it stay higher during/after this process? If there are multiple hedge funds driving the process, then I would think the first in (buy the currency when its low) and the first out (sell the currency when its high) would make the money. It would then be a poker game between the different hedge funds, with those with poor timing giving their money up to those that were lucky in their timing.
October 28th, 2009 at 7:38 am
It is not an urban myth but sometimes not works.
http://www.forbes.com/2004/05/26/cz_do_0526hedge_print.html
“The markets have seen this movie before. In 1998, when it was called the yen carry trade, hedge funds borrowed yen when Japanese interest rates were close to zero. The proceeds could then be invested in Southeast Asian currencies, Russian debt or junk bonds. With a little help from the Bank of Japan, the yen slid ever lower against the dollar, making these trades profitable even if they were parked safely in U.S. Treasurys yielding 7%. Then the yen jumped and a chain reaction was set in motion. Julian Robertson’s Tiger Fund lost billions and was blamed for accelerating the fall in the dollar as it unwound its yen trade. Excessive leverage was the undoing of Long Term Capital Management, which had to be bailed out by a consortium of U.S. and European banks.”
More about the current situation in Brazil and the effects of the capital inflow tax.
http://www.reuters.com/article/basicMaterialsSector/idUSN2042983220091020
” The Bovespa index .BVSP of the Sao Paulo stock exchange dropped 2.47 percent to 65,585.51, after closing at its strongest level since June 2008 the previous session. The decline in the index would be the biggest since it lost 2.5 percent on Aug. 17.
Finance Minister Guido Mantega said on Monday the government would charge a 2 percent financial transactions tax on foreign investments in Brazilian stocks and fixed-income securities in a bid to prevent the country’s currency from strengthening further. The tax took effect on Tuesday.
The levy may prompt investors to shun trading of Brazilian stocks at the Sao Paulo stock exchange for American Depositary Receipts of the companies traded in New York because of the higher costs, traders said.”
“Brazil’s currency, the real (BRBY), tumbled 1.8 percent to 1.743 per dollar as traders fretted about the effects of the tax on short-term dollar inflows.”
So it is not true that the tax had no short-term effect at all.
The graph:
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bc?s=AUDBRL=X&t=3m&l=on&z=m&q=l&c=
October 28th, 2009 at 8:02 am
Just a quick “hear hear” on this article; I saw it and immediately recognised its value as an insightful piece worthy of more exposure and I told everyone I know about it.
It is in stark contrast to Ross Gittens’ piece a week earlier “Ignore cries of woe of soaring dollar”
http://www.smh.com.au/business/ignore-cries-of-woe-over-soaring-dollar-20091016-h13i.html
which seems to completely ignore the arbitrage going on between the US and Australia (and elsewhere) given the tsunami of “free cash” to play with enjoyed by the rogues on Wall Street who are “too big to fail”.
When will we ever learn? Keep up the good work Steve!
Now, I’m off to work out when to dump my bank shares
October 28th, 2009 at 9:34 am
Interesting but I don’t reckon the $A is a “bubble” yet. It takes a lot more hot money than that to make a true bubble.
Don’t forget a good part of the $A rise is coming from general $US weakness. Everybody watched agog as the US Government elected to pump trillions of new monopoly money into the system. They will burn the US dollar to the ground before this is over, and the $A must appreciate unless our central bank joins the race to the bottom. Currencies are all relative after all.
Sadly Kevin707’s idea of stimulus spending was to give everyone a little “squeeze of the sauce bottle” to spend on plasma TVs made in China instead of revamping Australia’s sewerage system, building a national water pipeline network or removing toll roads.
And the house price bubble – the best way to deflate that is to hold the population at a constant rate. The only reason it rises astronomically is because the Government keeps importing demand – ie: new people.
Importing people makes the economy boom and house prices go up so it makes the government look great – which is why Rudd wants to double the population over the next 40 years.
But can’t anybody see it’s a giant Ponzi scheme?
Once you double it and those people have bought their houses they want the price to go up and the economy to boom too – so it needs doubling again. Pity the poor children born today – they won’t afford their own house.
And because of the immigration surge driving up property prices I couldn’t afford to live in Sydney’s East where I was born and raised – i had to move states, far from my family and friends. In Botswana, I could have built another hut in my parents’ back yard and never stressed about housing. A third world country – yet its easier to live there than in Australia.
October 28th, 2009 at 10:40 am
danmm78,
As I said, those who need welfare the least should be stripped of it the first. Logically, executives and managers should be the first target. Economists too, even though they don’t earn that much but because they are forever preaching the need for flexible labor markets.
I used to work in the Department of General Practice at Melbourne University, and learned quite a lot about doctors. They tend to be very overworked, and the simple solution to this is to educate more doctors. The problem here is that there are far more willing students than there are placements at medical schools.
An easy way to reduce workloads and decrease wages is to simply let more doctors into Australia. Doctors have used the ‘quality’ excuse far too often in order to block immigration. There would be literally thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of doctors from other countries who would rather prefer to live and work in Australia and speak fluent English. It is hardly beyond the ability of the government to use a tiny amount of resources in order to assess the ‘quality’ of immigrating doctors.
Doctors (and other health and medical professionals) have their education mostly paid for by the taxpayer, receive internships at public hospitals, have demand increased for their services through Medicare subsidies and have their wages protected through state intervention in the form of limiting labor market competition.
Not many other professions can claim this.
“On the other hand if you cut the wages of the physician, would you not expect a brain drain into other fields where the pay is better for less responsibility and better hours?”
Logically, within the health and medical professions, the fields in which labor earns the most should be targeted first. As with any other profession, they can fabricate any excuse out of self-interest in order to prevent competition.
It is unlikely that any profession as a whole whose members spent years at university would change just because they faced increased competition through immigration.
It reminds me of the hedge fund manager John Paulson who made $US3.4 billion in remuneration in one year and when asked why he received so much, he replied that this amount is needed to ensure he works productively – otherwise he would have no incentive to work.
As for unions, I support your criticisms. I find it disappointing that many unions care only for grabbing as much income as possible in the short-term with this as their endgame. This ‘reformism’ will not get the labor movement anywhere.
Worse still is when unions leaders gain a taste of political power by entering into cozy relationships with politicians and businesspeople or perhaps if they run for office themselves. When this occurs, they become reformist and care more about pleasing the business class than their own constituents.
They need to have a much more expansive endgame, preferably one of a vision of democratizing workplaces and getting rid of executives, managers and politicians.
gaday,
I don’t understand what you are attempting to say.
“It probably needs the courage to have an enourmous depression to cleanse the system to revolutionise and start again.”
Depressions do tend to clear out a lot of the crap that has built up over the years and decades. In a way, depressions should actually result in more competition. Unfortunately, recessions and depressions come at the expense of the middle/working class first and foremost.
Depressions can hardly be called a revolution if the same structures of power, obedience and submission are still in place when the economy recovers.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:24 am
Hi BTB
Your black humour music video sums up the market mood, ignore fundamentals.
National Australia Bank profit is down nearly 50% and share price loss a few cents,market does not care about fundamentals all postive emotions and happy blue sky stuff from here.
Everyone is having a good time singing and making money.
Fundamentals will come back and hard rock music will be the theme songs of the day.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:33 am
sj,
You have to park your 2 trillion dollars somewhere. It might be in our front yard. Haven’t you ever seen trucks parked on back streets?
October 28th, 2009 at 12:36 pm
Hi Ak
Emotional flaw human beings make poor decisions on where to park our superfunds for example.
The list of Companies that have fail and had terrible fundamentals is very long.
HIH,ABC,Babcock Brown,Storm,Allco,Centro,Lehman Brothers,Freddie Mac,Bear Stearns etc etc etc
The list of fail companies is only going to get bigger!
History shows increase in money supply still causes major share price collapses example of this John law in the Missippii Scheme and the Southsea bubble in England.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:12 pm
Philip,
“Worse still is when unions leaders gain a taste of political power by entering into cozy relationships with politicians and businesspeople or perhaps if they run for office themselves. When this occurs, they become reformist and care more about pleasing the business class than their own constituents.
They need to have a much more expansive endgame, preferably one of a vision of democratizing workplaces and getting rid of executives, managers and politicians.”
When naming parasites, you left out one of the biggest- Trade Unions.And when holding the levers of Govt, they are never more parasitical. Whitlam, Hawke-Keating and now Rudd’s gang atest to that.When in power , all that matters for unions is to get their hands on the knife that carves up the pie and the pen that can write unlimited checques.They have no concept whatsoever of savings, management or efficiency. That is the be all and end all of Unions. Far sighted? Myopic more like.
And you can be sure that Rudd’s immigration strategy includes projections for estimating increases in Union membership among the 15 Billion or so additional people Australia will accomodate in the not too distant future as well.
It’s all good.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:46 pm
danmm78, there’s a good chance you’re a member of the most powerful and successful union in this country, the AMA.
October 28th, 2009 at 1:52 pm
GSM,
Yes unions can cause trouble for the state and capital depending on what they do. These days unions in Australia are no threat to either if they simply insist on higher wages and labor protections as opposed to fundamentally challenging the structures of illegitimate authority.
Having unions linked to state power is actually quite beneficial and advantageous for capital as it tends to ‘reform’ and neuter the more radical elements. If union leaders spend their time negotiating for higher wages and shorter working hours, this comprises no real threat to state and capital power.
Executives and managers are generally comfortable with this approach as opposed to unionized labor getting out of hand by doing something terrible like spreading subversive ideas. The major threat is that middle/working class labor could run economic institutions themselves democratically rather than spending half their waking hours subordinating themselves to autocratic workplace authority that resembles the authority of a police state.
Furthermore, the greatest rent-seeking institutions in our country are the business lobbies. If it were not for the state enforcing a ‘favorable business environment’ it is unlikely unions would even have to exist to empower middle/working class labor.
This is the curious thing I find not about neoclassical economic theory but about the assertions of its practitioners. They are forever beating up on unions but say next to nothing about breaking up concentrations of business power. Economic theory clearly requires not only atomized labor but atomized businesses. This is why I support unions despite their ‘reformism’ and cozy links to politicians. When the state smashes and atomizes concentrated corporate power (e.g. never) is the day I believe that unions should be dismantled.
“They have no concept whatsoever of savings, management or efficiency.”
Strangely enough, this is the result of capital and the business class as they have been the drivers behind our impending debt-serfdom due to building up a massive private debt bubble. Unions and middle/working class labor do not control the levers of financial/industrial investment and banking credit.
“15 Billion”
?
October 28th, 2009 at 2:07 pm
@Philip #14,
“I was been partly sarcastic in my post and you may not have picked it up”.
Sorry, I didn’t. I really thought you were from somewhere else.
“One of the amusing things I find about attacks against unions is the claim that they cause unemployment because union workers receive wages above the market equilibrium wage”.
That is true. And, I believe, that is THE single most important reason why developed economies are so keen to establish free-trade relationships with underdeveloped ones.
Allow me a little digression:
Ever since the Uruguay round of GATT (before WTO was formed, for the youngsters), developed countries (the main proponents of free-trade) have made all sorts of objections to agricultural trade, not only from underdeveloped countries, but from other developed countries as well.
Typically, a country, say X (often but not always a developed country), would object wheat or beef imports from, say Y, on account that Y’s produce was subsidized by their governments. This practice (commonly referred to as “dumping”) meant that Y farmers could sell their produce in X for less than their true cost. Of course, this would be unfair for the X farmers and they would raise hell, and justifiably so; still one can imagine that X consumers would have nothing to object to this.
With manufactures, though, the thing works a little different. Underdeveloped countries are in fact subsidizing their products, in a peculiar way. Instead of having their governments pay transfers to the industrial producers, they are being subsidized by their own workforces, through cheap labour, miserable working conditions, no environmental or health and safety concerns.
Clearly, when their products make it to developed countries markets, there is no possible competition. Just like with “dumping”. Consumers in developed countries are, of course, delighted. Still, unlike farmers, manufacturers don’t raise hell for this. How come?
This is especially curious because governments and business groups had to be aware, before lowering import tariffs, of the cost structures of both countries. And yet, governments intervene to achieve such wonders as NAFTA.
How can one explain this? Simple: you can’t move a farm, but you most certainly can move a factory. Is in this context that we must see Bridgestone and Pacific Brands, and Mitsubishi and countless many other cases.
Observe also that retail, banking, services in general, are in a similar position to farms: they cannot just move overseas. But this doesn’t mean they fail to benefit from globalization. First, the loss of manufacturing jobs offers a new supply of labour. Second, immigration, legal or illegal, fills whatever deficit there might remain.
After this digression, let me return to your point: whatever the terminology they use to refer to this very real wage differential, it is simple mumbo jumbo. It sounds scientific and impartial, it seems like they are putting themselves in the workers’ shoes, but it is only a rhetorical device.
Manufactured imports from underdeveloped countries are no better than “dumping” and in fact, are much worse, because the subsidy is forcefully extracted from those who really can’t pay and those who lose the competition are also poor. And this is a government deliberate intervention: in many underdeveloped countries, you can simply “disappear” if you try to organize a union (no freedom of association here!) or a strike.
“Oddly enough, those who receive the highest incomes in society (executives, managers, lawyers, doctors, and the parasites of the FIRE sector) are not attacked for having wages grossly inflated above the market equilibrium wage.
It is just assumed away (willfully ignored) by economists that the incomes the rich get are far more distorted than the incomes that middle/working class people who are union members receive”.
Funny you mention this. Recently Davidson, Gittins and others have touched part of this same issue (executive compensation, specifically) in recent articles in the SMH online.
As I understand it, the theoretical justification provided by neoclassical economists to this situation uses two separate models: a simpler one, for most workers (basically, a utility maximization problem with a time constraint), and a more complex one (incorporating asymmetrical infomation, incentives and other considerations in a game between a principal and an agent/executive) for high executives.
Apart from the criticisms made by Steve to this kind of utility maximization procedures, I honestly know little more about the second problem than what I just said, so any input will be greatly appreciated. But isn’t it strange to have two separate and quite different models when, in essence, the situation of an executive and a simple worker is not really that different? I mean, both work for an employer in exchange for a pay, both have reasons to try to minimize their own effort, while maximizing their income; none is really too concerned about the profitability of the business. And still, the theoretical recommendations are so different?
In any case, economists have always spoken of three factors of production: land, labour and capital. What is the justification economists offer now to including “entrepreneurship” as an additional factor? What is it that makes a high executive qualitatively different from other workers?
Regardless, here we see the other side of the coin from what we spoke before about “overpaid workers”. The US economist Dean Baker explains this different treatment in terms that I would call legitimacy. For capitalism to be considered a fair system, someone other than capitalists have to be seen to be doing well.
Due to their education, graduates have better means of organizing themselves in defense of their interests, have better access to the media (which is staffed by graduates) and can exert support or oppose public policy affecting them.
One policy that could change graduate remuneration is skilled migration (which Baker advocates for). In Australia, in contrast to the US, there is an official program addressing this issue. But, trust me on this, it does not work as expected. There are all classes of barriers (enforced by the Government, in another Government intervention directed to protect the economic interests of the elite), not least of which is skills recognition. Foreign skilled migrants do arrive, but many won’t find graduate jobs.
And there is always the Catch 22 “local experience” requirement.
In the case of high executives, though, there is another set of practical considerations, related to the institutional aspects of corporate governance: share buybacks, undirected proxy votes, links to board members, selection of remuneration consultants, etc. that affect high executives’ remunerations.
Cheers,
Marco
PS: The Davidson article was closed for comments. They always do this when the discussion gets heated.
October 28th, 2009 at 2:50 pm
@gaday #15
Thanks for your comments. Yes, it was an amazing coincidence.
“The worker would be better off today with individual bargaining (as long as there were fair appeal processes) than collective unionism where one man’s award wages means anothers job”.
Here, I am afraid, I have to disagree. The truth, gaday, is that employment is not a symmetrical relationship. In a simplified version of the reasoning: if you don’t work, you’ll starve to death. If your employer doesn’t hire you, he will hire someone else.
I could understand the relationship as you present it, if your employer went broke because he didn’t hire you: in that case, all sides have more or less equal power.
Think about it.
Cheers,
Marco
October 28th, 2009 at 4:48 pm
Philip,
Sorry typo there- 15 MILLION.
Unions are a huge threat if they are in positions of political power due mainly to their myopic view of the economy and their disdain for any kind of restraint on spending.In and of themselves, perhaps not so much of a problem. With access to the public purse they are a disaster.
However, I do agree with your comments on business monopolies and concentrations of power and influence therein. This causes huge economic imbalances and imposts by way of higher costs.
October 28th, 2009 at 5:27 pm
Interesting to watch the RBA make the same mistake the FED made in the 1930’s
The world is in a massive production capacity surplus and demand deficit diequillibruim = deflation
My prediction is major mortgage stress at 7 – 7.5% mortgage rates.
Houses will fall when we hit this rate sometime 2010 followed by a rapid interest rate reversal causing a fall in the AUD
October 28th, 2009 at 6:06 pm
PETER_W,
A likely call. What are mortgage rates at the moment?
Once the property deflation begins and debt deleveraging increases, the RBA will have no choice but to lower rates.
Would a massive fall in the value of the AUD result in import inflation? Any calls for a possible low value?
October 28th, 2009 at 6:15 pm
Marco 2
Not sure that I meant to complicate it too much. Surely “the Employer dosen’t go broke because they don’t hire you he will hire someone else” Isn’t that the real world? If I go for an interview, or even quote for a job, If the other party dosen’t accept me they will accept someone else-at what price is their choice. I would have to be competitive. Surely this result is better than maintaining a set wage structure for one rather than have more unempoyment? Anyway no one starved to death in the Great Depression no matter how huge the unemployment was. I think the pain and misery was totally uneccesary with one mans job at the expense of many at a time where much productivity could have pulled a nation or nations through quicker. Anyway mistakes are bound to repeat themselves perhaps not exactly the same but similar to those of yesterday. Bruce and Howard are an example.
BTB.
Enjoyed you black comedy I happen to like Freddie Mercury and Rhapsody. I have forwarded it (selectively ofcourse as to not affend anyone) to many of my friends.
Fresh Comment:
I have been in touch with many Banks over the past fortnight.It apperas they are cleansing their “bad” loans in business and the housing loan dept buy “selling them off” to new buyers. This is just swapping some times at a price (written off adjustmnent – bad debt) and others to a better risk. This appears to be an explanation as to why there are better qaulity homes on the market now versus 1-2 years ago. They are being snapped up by peolpe who can afford them cleansing the loan of peoople who the bank have said “you are in default, please pay back your loan by such and such a date”
After this immediate cleansing, the real economy will kick in. Housing prices will I expect stagnate and then fall for their will be too many on the market without buyers to suit.
October 28th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Roughly using the present Melbourne & Sydney median price averaged at 85% LVR ‘at the margin’ home loans will be ~$440,000 with $61,000 median incomes and 7.3% mortgage interest rate + 1% for 30 year ammortization, I get repayments consuming 30% of two median gross wages = mortgage stress.
Present mortgage rates are ~ 6.2% so a further 1% rise will cause stress ‘at the margin’
I can see the AUD/USD hit 0.40 sometime
October 28th, 2009 at 6:20 pm
Philip.
If we were to have a depression and the emphasis was on savings( no alternative) then an economy based on what Steve is talking about could be introduced -with the necessary controls. By not allowing that to happen immediately-for there would be too much percieved pain for too many then it could drag on for 20 years. and if nothing changes we build up again with leveraging as a means to creatin money all over again.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:28 pm
Peter W,
If the AUD falls to USD$0.40, expect to see the RBA jack up interest rates to double digits to prop the Pacific Peso up.
October 28th, 2009 at 8:45 pm
Ok, Gaday, let’s put a concrete, longer example.
Imagine you are married and have two kids (8 y.o and 6 months) and you are the breadwinner in your family, as your wife is looking after the baby. You are a cleaner because, truth be told, you don’t have much of an education or marketable skills. So, you get what you can.
One day, your boss asks you: “Gaday, mate, I need you to work extra tonight, because Joe called in sick”.
“Sure thing”, you say, as you need the money.
You work your 3 extra hours, and you did your best because you need the job.
Payday comes, you check your pay slip and surprise, surprise you weren’t paid the right money (let’s say, as an example, they didn’t pay you overtime for the extra hours, only the normal hourly rate, which is $16.72 an hour). So you go see the boss and ask him what happened.
“Hey, boss. Listen I think there is something wrong in my pay… Remember that I worked 3 extra hours last Monday, when Joe called in sick?”
“Yeah, let me see… I can’t see anything wrong. What’s the matter?” says your boss.
“Oh, well, because I worked 3 hours past my 8 hour shift, I think I should have a 50% extra for each hour, right?”
“Listen, mate”, says the boss “I don’t want trouble makers here. So, take it or leave it. There is Pete and Jack here who want the job”.
So you think: “3 times 0.5 times 16.72 equals $25.10 that I am loosing; if I lose the job, I’ll spend at least one week unemployed: a loss of $699.20″.
What do you do? You just shut up and go back to work. Note here that you are being accommodating, not because you are happy (in fact, you are pretty mad), or because you want to be competitive, but because you must.
Now, $25.10 is peanuts, right? Not for you: you are a cleaner who earns $699.20 per week before tax to support four persons. This is what your budget has for a weekly train ticket (which in fact costs $24.00 red zone, in Sydney). I can easily escalate the example: your boss doesn’t want to pay you 10 extra hours; he’s never paid you overtime, or weekend or holidays load, because you didn’t know; he has never paid your superannuation; your boss doesn’t want to pay you annual leave. Or the boss decides to insult you in front of everybody: he’s really pissed off with Joe, who didn’t come again, but you are the one at hand. Or you are a woman and the boss fancies you, so he goes and fondles you.
But I’m sure you get the idea. It’s not a matter of being competitive. Can you expect to compete with Third World workers who earn $1 an hour, work 12 hour shifts, 6 days a week? And this is not a rhetorical question, it is happening as we speak at Bridgestone: so, can you?
Now, you tell me: is it fair? And the money your boss doesn’t pay you, where does it go? Does he need it more than you? Or is he only using his power to screw you?
If Pete and Jack were union members, they would not take the job, and your boss would have to pay you the right money, otherwise the job would not be done and he would lose the contract. Or the union would call the Workplace Ombudsman.
Cheers,
Marco
PS: And this things happen. Some of them, as a matter of fact, happened to me.
October 28th, 2009 at 9:45 pm
Marco 2
Boy you are making a meal of this. I would expect there to be contracts involved as were proposed by Work Choices. Contracts that would have arbiters. Contracts that evolve. You make it seem tha Australia is not civilised and that we live in the dark Dickensian era..
I fit your bill for I left school at 14, limited education, actually topped my intermediate year-Invalid Father neede me to provide. Went through usual employer demands became an employer myself at 24 years of age. Have employed ever since. I apply apply excellent standards of how I would expected to be treated if I was me etc. I find there are adjustments of expectation from both sides. I have been ripped off far more from my employees over the years than anyone could claim from me. I ofcourse had no recourse. I take that in my stride as human nature. No, I don’t think anyone owes me a living however I think everyone has decent rights. I am not going to get into specifics in a generalised commentary.
Shall it be suffice to say that Govts role is to look after those that cannot look after themselves and a parents role to bring up their children to be self reliable and self sufficient.
Most of our welfare problems seem to be created by those that believe their rights are at the expense of some one elses beter standard of living because they worked harder.
This is why the Govt appeal to the masses at the expenses of few – it is called votes then once elected have to appeal to the providers because they provide. This statement is not meant to be arrogant just factual in an economic sense.
I am certainly not well off just because of my lack of education and opportunity decided that self employment was my only way forward. I took the view very early that I was on my own and nobody was in my corner not then not now and not tomorrow.
We had in this country the best level of employment for many years- yet people wanted more-for what to live in McMansions? to live beyond their means? and then to be unemployed. How terribly sad.
October 28th, 2009 at 11:02 pm
We are not alone:
“NEW YORK (Reuters) – The gains in U.S. home prices in recent months may not be sustainable and increases in some areas of the country appear to be in “bubble territory,” an economist known for his property market expertise said on Tuesday.
Robert Shiller, an economics professor at Yale University and co-developer of Standard and Poor’s S&P/Case-Shiller Home Price Indices, told Reuters Television he does not give quantitative forecasts on where home prices are headed but is concerned about the recent pace of increases.”
http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE59Q27X20091028
October 28th, 2009 at 11:24 pm
Steve and others, an OT question:
Are defaults of commercial bank debt inflation deflationary or neither? I had once assumed that defaults would be inflationary since the liability would end up with the government which means increase in M0. Steve I think you agreed with my position on this, in that commercial bank debt default jubilee style would be akin to monetisation.
That appears wrong from a financial accounting pov. A write down of a bank asset results simply in a deterioration of the bank equity since assets decline wrt liabilities. Liabilities circulate as money but assets do not. Not sure what the position is wrt fiat paper cash.
This would imply defaults are deflationary as a result of impairment of bank capital. But I’m still slightly confused since the write down of a bank asset doesn’t change the net liabilities in play.
Perhaps JKH or some other students of stock flow accounting can enlighten me. Thanks!
October 29th, 2009 at 12:53 am
Scepticus,
Bank credit defaults are deflationary in the first instance – they destroy bank capital. You have noted this correctly in the book keeping sense. Moreover, they destroy it disproportionately in that more capital is destroyed than was originally allocated to the particular loan that defaulted. Original capital allocation depends on the estimated probability distribution of losses for individual loans. Default on a particular loan is by definition at the outlaying tail of such a distribution. Actual defaults are in effect a call on capital already allocated to other loans, unless the bank as a whole is in a surplus capital position. Thus, any particular default results in a bank being less capitalized relative to its remaining loan book than was previously the case. All of this puts the bank in a weaker position to extend new credit – a deflationary impulse at the margin.
You’re right. The write down of an asset and of capital has no effect on deposit liabilities at the margin.
From there, it’s a question of comparing counterfactuals. E.g. the bank may recapitalize with earnings, in which case the system has just been slowed down a bit from what it would have been. Normal lending activity resumes after this period of recapitalization.
An interesting variation is when the bank recapitalizes with an equity issue. That actually has the potential to reduce bank deposits and money supply. If a bank depositor buys the equity issue, the net effect is an increase in bank equity and a reduction in bank deposits. That would seem to be deflationary again in the sense that the money supply has been reduced. But recapitalization allows the bank to resume new lending and new money creation more quickly as a result. Although the concept of a bank reserve multiplier is bogus, the idea of banks increasing loans and deposits by a multiple of new capital isn’t. So recapitalization by equity issuance is short term operational deflationary, but long term strategic inflationary (all at the margin).
October 29th, 2009 at 2:14 am
The same Carry Trade goes on between the US and Norway to.
They raised rates today, in my opinion a mistake, similar to the one in Australia.
In Brazil I think there is a different situation, also in most other emerging countries. I think they are at a low enough level in private debt, so that it’s possible that a carry trade between the US and these emerging economies will go on, quite similar to the seventies when the dollar was weak, or in the late 1990’s, when there was a trade with cheap YEN from japan, driving up the European markets. (from around 1995-2000).
I think what separates Australia and Norway, emerging market’s and the more traditional markets such as the UK and US is that there is a difference in how much money that will have to be printed. Australia is halfway between, emerging market’s won’t have to print, and the developed market’s that’s not commodity based will have to print a lot. I think we are in a situation similar to the era right before WW2.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:35 am
As like higher outflow of money from the US, lower interest rates in emerging market’s, more private debt in these market’s, more petro dollars sloshing around the globe, higher stock market’s, more growth, works fine as long as the dollar is weak. In the US then stagflation, and flat market’s. While gold, emerging market’s etc, outperform. That’s what I think have happened since 2003, and will be the norm.
October 29th, 2009 at 2:58 am
thanks JKH – makes perfect sense.
October 29th, 2009 at 3:53 am
Up and Away,
Some Wall Street firms here are trying to buy life insurance policies. Then they repackage them and sell them as a new type of derivitive. First it was subprime loans. Then it was commodities. And now it’s life insurance.
The reason they’re trying to get a Canadian rating agency to certify this is due to the incompetence of U.S. ones (Moody’s and others). This Canadian firm has offics in the States and is licensed to do deals here. Which means it’s “official” and has some credibility to some potential buyers.
Now, considering what the subprime derivitives have done so far, why would anyone be daft enough to be invovled in this?
No accountability (from the SEC, Justice Dept, FBI and others).
Obama’s key advisors are all ex-Wall Street types.
Obama’s new “bonus czar” is a ex-Goldman Sachs person with NO trading experience. He’s saying we’ll cut bonuses. But secretly he’s allowing higher base pay. Which means this is a totally pointless process.
These firms have so much power that right now nobody is going to do anything about this. The “experts” can write all the books on this that they want. But the truth is Obama is just another politician. A lot of people refuse to face reality. And all that matters is winning the next election.
Also, FYI: in 2006, roughly 11,000 U.S. citizens emigrated to Canada.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:05 am
Hi Guys,
Speaking of the inflation numbers. What can we do if the Government increases electricty and water by 14 and 16%?. Also what are we expected to do for petrol price inflation because of demand from elsewhere?
Inflation resulting from groceries, electronics, wages, housing is one thing but I cant understand how you factor in something which you have no control over. Government justifies the price increasing of busues, rails, electricity, water by asking an independent body to endorse the hike in prices over the years quoting it as decent and fair if you look at the timeframe? when we are already overpaing compared to other countries and over paying in taxes too. Glen Steven must be having nightmares how to tackle the 1% rise in inflation.
October 29th, 2009 at 9:25 am
Banks earnings
NBA, ANZ down already without the Housing crash. hmmmm. Considering the % they have lent out in mortgages alone in comparision with the US makes the 4 pillar story a big joke. I am waiting for the day they are toasted along with the bunch of propery spruikers and investors. I say investors because I have come across a lot of people who rubbish Steves argument and say you dont understand ‘Demand and Supply’, the housing shortage story, banks are not the problem. I am just sick of it and these idiots influence everyone further driving the herd to take on more debt.
October 29th, 2009 at 10:38 am
“Also, FYI: in 2006, roughly 11,000 U.S. citizens emigrated to Canada.”
Do you mean that place up north that has lots of moose and this strange thing… I think its called a public health care system?
October 29th, 2009 at 10:53 am
@gday #39
Mate, I’m sorry for being emphatic about this, but these things do happen, in civilized Australia, XXI century. They happened to me, I’ve seen them happen to other people around me. You don’t need to take my word for it. Check for yourself: go to the Workplace Ombudsman; they keep a record of cases they won (not little cases, not those they lost due to a technicality, not those they did not proceed for one reason or another)
There are decent bosses? Sure, there are. You know what happens to them? They are driven off the market. Check this for yourself: go around Sydney CBD at about 4:45 to 5:00 pm Monday to Friday, and see the cleaners going to work. You’ll have no difficulty identifying them, trust me on this. Ask them who they work for. I’ll give you a clue: Swan and Tempo.
My first boss in Australia was a Chilean guy. His business was him, his van, whatever gear he had and yours truly. I cleaned toilets and kitchens (dirty and unpleasant work), and he did carpets (which is hard as hell, if you do it right, as he did). Every week I had my pay, in time and right, no more, no less. Overall, a nice guy and after years, I can still call him friend. Last I heard of him, he’s back in Chile.
You know what happened to him? He started losing contracts. And I lost my job. He was outbid by Swan and Tempo time and time again. How come? First, Swan and Tempo salesmen quoted ridiculously low rates (as salesmen, they earn a commission for each contract they get, so they don’t really give a damn if it can be done properly). Second, once the contract was signed, the local boss would advice their cleaners: “don’t try to do the whole thing today, be smart; today do the dusting and spot desk cleaning; tomorrow do the vacuuming and empty the bins”. But this is not what they signed for, and customers would complain because they aren’t fools. Solution: yell to the cleaners and make them work harder. But the complains kept coming, because the work just could not be done in the time given. Solution: make them work past their time for free.
And I worked for both, Tempo and Swan, and for many others.
Jesus Christ, it is less than three months ago when TV, papers and radio all over Australia were talking about the Indian and Chinese students that come to Australia to do “Permanent Residency” courses (!), which they pay for, and on top work up to 900 hours for free for “work experience”. And we are not talking about a few hundred students, but over one hundred thousand of them. Now, tell me, what Australian worker can possibly compete against that? But I am not talking just about workers, what about businesses? Could your business compete against that?
If you were a tire maker, could you compete against a tire maker overseas that uses slave labour?
The Dickensian era reference you made is quite inspired. Truly, we might not be there yet. But give it ten or fifteen years more and, if I’m still around, we can talk. You’ll tell me then if you still have your business. And, please, don’t think I wish you ill, far from that.
I’m 48, and I doubt I have 20 years left. So, for me, personally, this isn’t such a big tragedy: I trust I’ll be comfortably dead by then. But I am terrified, I really am, what kind of world we are leaving behind for all those kids.
Now, you can live with this? Fine. But I can’t.