|
No matter how economically
fallacious an argument is someone somewhere will ceaselessly parrot it. The
latest one is that there is no reason for the Reserve to raise rates because
of the country's huge surpluses. On hearing this I was reminded of the
glowing report Terry McCrann, business
correspondent for the Herald-Sun, gave Costello's 2005 budget for
giving us "sustainable stabilising surpluses" (Crowning glory
for Costello, 11 May 2005).
McCrann was not the
only one to fail understand the nature of our surpluses. David Uren,
so-called economics correspondent for The Australian made the same
error, when he asserted that "new spending and tax cuts . . . will not
force interest rates higher" because of accumulating surpluses. George Megalogenis, economics writer for The Australian
wrote in a similar vein, saying that "Mr Costello wanted a big surplus,
to assure the Reserve Bank that domestic demand was not about to run ahead of
the economy's capacity to supply it".
The old Keynesian view was
that governments accumulated surpluses in the good times so that they could
spend them when the bad times arrived. This was called counter-cyclical. What
is overlooked is that the surpluses are the product of loose monetary
policies which in themselves are the cause of the so-called business cycle.
In plain English, loose
money raises nominal incomes which in turn raise tax revenues. So when
someone argues that a surplus is needed to make sure demand does not
"run ahead of the economy's capacity to supply it" he is, whether
he realises it or not, arguing that the central bank has printed too many
dollars. Clearly it would have been better if the money supply had not been
expanded.
This leads to the
conclusion that spending a surplus in an attempt to alleviate or prevent a
recession is no different in principle from the Reserve simply printing the
dollars and then giving them to the government of the day to spend. This is
something that Megalogenis should know.
Uren's argument that the
surpluses would prevent tax cuts from driving up interest rates was just
plain silly and the current interest rate regime proves it. True tax cuts
cannot drive up interest rates. In fact, it’s even possible for them to
drive rates down. A true tax cut occurs when there is a genuine transfer of
purchasing back from the government to the taxpayer.
In short, the tax cuts are
not funded by borrowing or inflating the money supply. In such circumstances
it ought to be clear that it is impossible for tax cuts to raise rates. Moreover,
if the cuts are saved then they can actually drive rates down, depending on
the social rate of time preference. The Howard Government was banking on the
expectation that the tax cuts would not flow into consumer spending. This is
because Treasury and Reserve Bank officials assured Costello that some
households saved the additional income from the 2004-05 budget.
According to the budget
papers "This trend is likely to continue with further income tax cuts
and measures to support saving in the 2005-06 budget". This led some
economic commentators to assert that increased savings will lower consumption
and drag the economy down. For instance, Megalogenis,
claimed that "the economy is sluggish because consumers are frankly
exhausted by spending. . . . Last year's tax cuts do not appear to have been
spent. They were saved".
As I said earlier on, a
true tax cut involves a transfer of purchasing power back to the taxpayer. This
also means that aggregate spending must therefore remain the same. (Forget
the Keynesian multiplier effect: it's just another economic fallacy). Moreover,
as Ricardo said to Malthus: “To save is to spend”. Our commentators
have once again fallen into the old economic fallacy of confusing savings
with cash balances.
All the commentators seemed
to have agreed that the budget assumed that the Chinese and US economies would continue to rapidly expand. The Chinese
expansion has given us the biggest minerals boom in 30 years, driving the
terms of trade — the ratio of export prices to import prices — to
a 30-year high. Basing the budget on continued Chinese expansion was not a
smart move. Costello evidently did not know that the Chinese economy is in a
highly unstable condition, and still is.
What the economic
commentariat overlooked — and still does — is the money supply. From
Howard's first election win in March 1996 to May 2005 currency expanded by 76
per cent, bank deposits by 109.6 per cent and M1 by 102 per cent. These are
terrible figures and things have not got any better. From May 2005 to January
2008 bank deposits rose by 36.5 per cent and M1 by 33 per cent. Unfortunately,
our economic commentariat can see no significance in these figures, For them,
monetary theory and capital theory just don't matter.
Gerard
Jackson
Brookesnews.com
Gerard
Jackson is Brookesnews Economics
Editor
Information
contained herein is obtained from sources believed to be reliable, but its
accuracy cannot be guaranteed. It is not intended to constitute individual
investment advice and is not designed to meet your personal financial
situation. The opinions expressed herein are those of the author and are subject to change without notice.
The information herein may become outdated and there is no obligation to
update any such information. The author,
24hGold, entities in which they have an interest, family and associates may
from time to time have positions in the securities or commodities discussed.
No part of this publication can be reproduced without the written consent of
the author.
|
