Tag: economics

is G’day China a good idea?

Can the proposed China Week be successful in promoting Australian business and trade?

Yesterday’s announcement by the Prime Minister’s  of an Australia Week in China may prove far more successful than the G’day USA events the idea is based upon.

G’day USA has been run for a decade and showcases Australia’s attractions, skills and businesses at events in Los Angeles and New York.

It’s been moderately successful but an emphasis on movie stars appearing at black tie Hollywood events illustrates Australian governments’ disproportionate focus in throwing money at US movie producers.

If China Week follows the US example we can expect private, exclusive dinners where Twiggy Forrest, Clive Palmer and the BHP board entertain Chinese plutocrats over bowls of shark fin soup and braised tigers’ testicles.

Should China Week follow that model then it will probably share G’day USA’s middling successes.

The opportunity to do it differently though is great as the Chinese-Australian relationship is far younger and hasn’t been locked into Crocodile Dundee type stereotypes on both sides.

As the Chinese economy matures and evolves, there’s an opportunity for Australian businesses and industries which haven’t been available for exporters to the US.

Done properly, G’day China could help the profile of Australian businesses in many sectors, particularly in those affected by the great Chinese rebalancing.

Let’s hope they do it properly.

Image of the Chinese embassy in Canberra, Australia from Alpha on Wikimedia

Australia and the Chinese Mexican stand off

As China rebalances its economy, a new wave of change is about to sweep global trade.

Twenty years ago visitors to Sanya on the south coast of China’s Hainan Island could find themselves staying at the town’s infectious diseases clinic, converted into a backpackers hostel by a group of enterprising doctors.

The Prime Ministers and Presidents attending of Boao Asia Forum this week won’t get the privilege of staying at the infectious diseases hospital as Sanya’s hotel industry has boomed, bust and boomed again following the island being declared a tourism zone in 1999.

Instead, their focus is on the pecking order of nations and for the Australians the news is not good. As the Australian Financial Review reports, the Aussies have been seated well below the salt by their Chinese hosts.

On the Boao list, Australia is outranked by Brunei, Kazakhstan, Myanmar, Zambia, Mexico, and Cambodia – even New Zealand Prime Minister John Key gets higher billing.

Central and South East Asian countries make sense as countries like Myanmar and Kazakhstan are China’s  neighbours with strong trade ties.

That the Kiwis have been given priority over the Aussies by the Chinese government is not surprising in light of this.

An unspoken aspect for the Australian attendees to the Baoa conference is how long Canberra’s political classes can continue their forelock tugging fealty to the US without offending the nation’s most important trading partner.

Mexico’s entry on that list could be one of the most important with consequences for Australia and the world.

During the 1992 US Presidential campaign candidate Ross Perot coined the phrase “the great sucking sound” in his opposition to the North American Free Trade Agreement and the risk of losing jobs to lower cost Mexico.

As it turned out, the giant sucking sound was China – it turned out China’s admission into the World Trade Organisation had far greater consequences for the United States and Mexico than NAFTA.

Mexican manufacturing was one of the greatest victims of China’s rise as US companies found it easier to subcontract work to Chinese factories rather than setup their own plants in Mexico.

Now China is finding its own costs creeping up and labor shortages developing and Mexico is attractive once again. The Chinese and Mexican governments have been working on their relationships for some time.

As manufacturing moves out of China, the shifts in world trade we’ve seen in the last two decades are going to be repeated, this time with Chinese moving up the value chain the lower level work moving to Mexico and other nations.

The leaders at the Baoa conference have their work cut out for them in dealing with another decade of global change.

Now may not be a good time to buy Melbourne property

Why do monster skyscrapers mark a looming economic downturn?

There’s plenty of indicators that can be used to predict the health of an economy

While my favourite is the mini-skirt index, the most reliable is when rich folk start building huge skyscrapers.

Whenever developers propose a hundred storey building it marks the top of the property cycle. Should they get to actually build the thing, you can be guaranteed a nasty economic downturn is about to hit.

The Skyscraper Index’s historical record

This track record was set with the very first megatower – the Empire State building was started just before the 1929 stock market crash and completed as the great depression tightened its hold on the United States.

Forty years later New York’s ill-fated World Trade Center opened just in time to welcome the 1973 oil shock and subsequent recession.

A more recent example is Dubai’s Burj Khalifa, the world’s tallest building which was topped out in time for the city’s property crash and economic rescue by neighbouring Abu Dhabi.

In Australia, the most notable downfall was 1980s entrepreneur Alan Bond who planned to build a 140 storey tower on the World Square site opposite Sydney’s Town Hall.

The site was excavated but Bond went broke before work started and the hole remained for over a decade until a more modest 40 storey tower was built on the site.

Australia 108

So the news that property developers want to build a 108 storey tower on Melbourne’s Southbank should worry the Victorian government and unsettle the state’s property owners.

What’s always notable about these super skyscrapers is the garishness of the project. While Australia 108 won’t match the Burj for sheer Las Vegas gaudiness, it will feature the ‘Star burst’, a star-shaped Sky Lobby and hotel at the top of the tower.

Why the Skyscraper index works

The reason why 100 storey buildings are such a reliable economic indicator is because they illustrate there’s too much dumb money in the economy. It rarely makes sense to build such tall buildings.

Designing and building high rise buildings is complex and expensive – the higher you go, the more construction challenges there are as this Popular Mechanics article describes.

Skyscrapers are subject to the law of diminishing returns as the taller the building is, the more space that’s needed for services like elevators, air conditioning, water supplies and fire protection which reduces the landlord’s rentable floorspace on the lower levels.

When a building reaches a hundred storeys, there’s little space available on the lower floors for paying tenants. So the economics don’t add up.

Builders, property developers and financiers know this so when they start proposing projects that don’t make commercial sense it’s a fair indication the locals are gripped with irrational exuberance and Adam Smith’s invisible hand is going to deliver a short, sharp slap to the back of the economy’s head.

Does it matter to Australia?

And so it is in Melbourne, which is going to be interesting to watch as South East Queensland is the only Australian metropolitan area to suffer a prolonged property downturn in the last twenty years.

Hopefully Melbourne’s woes won’t affect the rest of the Australian economy but given how much the nation has invested in property and the stratospheric debt levels to service that speculation, it may well be that the rest of the country will follow Victoria.

Winning the next election might not be a good thing for Tony Abbot and his followers who genuinely believe a Liberal government will deliver a magic pudding to the home of every dinky-di Working Australian.

Graphs, damn lies and the middle class

Graphs can give us a misleading picture of our society, particularly when we’re looking at the middle classes

Graphs are great for illustrating a story, and also excellent at misleading people.

A good example of where a graph can give an incorrect impression is the Sydney Morning Herald’s story Whatever Happened to the Middle Class.

The story is a very good explanation of the predicament Australia’s political classes have put themselves into – exacerbated by their 1950s view of dividing the workforce into poorly paid ‘blue collar’ workers and affluent ‘white collar’ office staff – but it suffers from the selective use of headline graphs.

Viewing the big picture

The first graph shows how Australians are identifying themselves as middle class and the trend looks staggering,

Graph of How Australians see themselves as middle class

Now if we add those who identify themselves as working class, the picture looks even more dramatic with some pretty volatile swings,

A graph showing How Australians see themselves as middle or working class

However if we now add in those who identify themselves as rich, or upper class, we get a better perspective as the entire range is now shown,

Graph showing How Australians see themselves as upper middle or working class

Selective choosing the Y, or vertical, axis will always give an exaggerated view of a trend or proportion. Once we take the full range in we see the real extent of things. It also has the benefit of showing the trends aren’t as volatile as first appear.

Middle class perceptions

When we look at the graph showing the full picture there’s a number of interesting trends and characteristics about Australian society that come out of it which are worthy of some future blog posts.

Most notably is the identification of Australians being middle class as their property values increased.

On this point, it’s worthwhile contrasting the Australian experience with the US, here’s a Gallup poll from last year on how Americans see themselves,

A graph showing how Americans see themselves as upper middle or working class

While the definitions are different – that Americans differentiate ‘working class’ and ‘lower class’ is interesting in itself – it’s clear that the same trend happened in the US with more people identifying themselves as being members of middle class when their property values were increasing.

In 2008 and 9 there’s suddenly a sharp increase in Americans identifying themselves as working class as the property downturn bites. The steady increase in those claiming to be ‘lower class’ from 2006 onwards is worth closer examination.

What this means for Australia

The implications of the US trends is that any Australian politician intending to dismantle John Howard’s middle class welfare state will have to wait until the property market falls before trying to win any popular support.

For this year’s Australian election though, what’s clear is that any attempt to stoke the fires of class warfare is going to fail dismally in the outer suburban marginal seats so coveted by both parties.

We’re going to see a lot more selective graphs during the course of this year, it’s worthwhile taking time to look at them closely. The stories may be different, and a lot more nuanced, than the headlines tell us.

Have we come to the end of the middle class era?

Was the middle classes’ growth during the Twentieth Century an aberration?

Technology has transformed workplaces over the last century, drove huge income growth and moved many into the middle classes. Are we now seeing computers and robots displacing those middle class jobs?

At Tech Crunch Jon Evans warns Get Ready To Lose Your Job  as “this time it’s different” – unlike earlier periods of industrialisation where jobs shifted to the new technologies such coach builders became car makers – robots and computers are making humans redundant.

So I see no mystical Singularity on the horizon. Instead I see decades of drastic nonlinear changes, upheaval, transformation, and mass unemployment. Which, remember, is ultimately a good thing. But not in the short term.

In The Observer John Naughton, professor of the public understanding of technology at the Open University, says Digital Capitalism Produces Few Winners.

Professor Naughton’s view is that high volume, low margin businesses like Amazon mean there’s fewer well paid jobs available and many of the lower positions will be soon replaced by robots.

At the other end of the digital marketplace, the high margin businesses like Apple, Google and Salesforce don’t need many staff to generate their profits, so wealth is concentrated among a small group of managers and owners.

While the low paid and manufacturing workers have been squeezed for decades in the West, it’s now the turn of the middle classes to feel the pain of automation, outsourcing and restructuring.

There’s two ways we can look at these changes, the optimistic is that our economy is going through a transition to a different structure; those out of work coachbuilders a hundred years ago didn’t immediately get jobs building cars and the same adjustments are happening again.

A more pessimistic view is that the Twentieth Century was an aberration.

It may be that Western world’s steady climb into middle class prosperity was itself a transition effect and we’re returning to the economic structures of the pre-industrialised age where the vast majority of people have a precarious income and only the fortunate few can afford middle class luxuries.

The next decade will give us some clues, but the portents aren’t good for the optimistic case, the Pew Research Centre shows America’s middle classes has been shrinking for forty years.

For those Americans still in the middle class, the Pew research shows their incomes have been falling for a decade.

Regardless of which scenario is true, the dislocation is with us. As individuals we have to be prepared for changes to our jobs, however safe they look today. As a society we have to accept we are going through a period of economic and social upheaval with uncertain long term consequences.

What’s particularly notable is how today’s political and business leaders seem oblivious to these changes and are locked in the ‘old normal’ of thirty or fifty years ago.

One wonders what it will take to wake them up to the changes happening around them and what will happen when reality does bite them.

Picture of a nice, middle class house by Strev via sxc.hu

High cost politics – how the Australian election will fail business

The introduction of middle class welfare by the Howard government and Labor’s refusal to undo it is locking Australia into a high cost trap with little hope either party addressing the real issue.

“Running costs have gone crazy” complains Sydney restauranteur Jared Ingersoll at the same time the Australian events industry warns it’s being crushed by a higher dollar.

While the closure of an inner city cafe doesn’t mean that much, a bigger warning about Australian costs comes from Royal Dutch Shell who have put their gas investments on hold due to project blowouts.

Natural gas investments are the core of Australia’s economic policies with the country’s Asian Century report identifying energy exports as being the country’s main revenue earner over the next quarter century.

Costs of doing business in Australia have been steadily on the increase since the Howard government introduced the GST which triggered Australia’s transition to a high cost country.

It didn’t have to be that way but Howard’s addiction to middle class welfare meant what should have been a opportunity to reform the economy during the mid 2000s was squandered with gifts handed out by one of the highest spending governments in Australian history.

While Whitlam at least spent money on bringing sewers to the suburbs, Howard spent his on subsidies to rich schools and parking permits to self-funded retirees.

It would take a brave government to undo Howard’s work which isn’t something we can expect from the populist and cowardly Australian Labor Party that lacks any of the honesty or strength required to confront the whining middle classes about their unsustainable entitlements.

Which makes the election announced last week interesting. In her election announcement the Prime Minister made a mention of dealing with the high Australian dollar, which at least shows the Labor Party sees there’s a problem – although they certainly don’t have the stomach to make the tough decisions required.

On the other side of politics though it’s all unicorns and magic puddings. Tony Abbot and his friends are partying like it’s 1999.

The Liberal Party policy paper released last week is notable for not acknowledging the global financial crisis and maintaining that taxes can be cut while Howard’s middle class welfare state can be expanded.

The best example of the Liberal’s addiction to middle class welfare is their promise to introduce a parental leave scheme. As their Strong Australia policy document explains;

Paid parental leave ought to be paid at a person’s wage rate, like holiday pay and like sick pay, because it is a workplace entitlement, not a government benefit.

Not only does the Liberal Party believe that high paid workers should get subsidies for their nannies, but that employers should pick up the bill, just like holiday and sick pay.

Middle class welfare and a massive business cost increase to boot.

In a Smart Company poll last week, the small business readers overwhelming endorsed the Liberal Party.

They should be careful what they wish for.

For those worried about getting Australia’s high cost base down there are serious debates to be had about our tax and welfare systems along with tackling issues like high property prices, over-regulation, aging population and workforce skills.

Most importantly, we have to define what Australia wants to be in the 21st Century.

Little, if anything about these issues will be discussed before September and in the meantime the Dutch disease will slowly strangle Australian business. We need better.

Why you won’t retire

Can we afford to retire at 65 when life expectancy is over 80 and could be 150 in a generation?

Outliving Our Super is the headline of an Australian Financial Review story on the problems of an aging population.

Jacqui Hayes cites a billboard in San Francisco declaring that life expectancy will soon be 150 and we have to plan for longer retirements.

The flaw in this discussion is the idea of retiring in our 60s. When the age pension was introduced in 1910, a new-born boy could expect to live 55 years and a girl, 59 years. The odds were against the average person every receiving the pension which was an effective, if ruthless, way of ensuring the solvency of social security programs.

A hundred years later, a new born can expect to live well into their eighties. Meaning the average person will spend two decades in retirement.

Making matters worse is the nature of that Millennial’s work pattern – when great, great grandpa entered the workforce in the 1920s,  he was almost certainly in his early teens and worked a solid fifty years paying his taxes before prospect of retirement arrived.

Today, that child won’t enter the workforce until at least their late teens and more likely until their early twenties. A modern child is also going to have a much more fragmented work career and will likely have periods of unemployment or low earnings as a casual or contract worker.

For today’s child to retire at 65 it would mean he or she will have had to saved enough over a forty year working life to sustain them for fifteen years of retirement, those numbers are tough and to achieve it most won’t be living the millionaire lifestyle during their golden years.

With a life expectancy of 150, the early twentieth century model of retiring at 60 or 65 means today’s child would spend less than 30% of their lives in the workforce. Put simply, the numbers don’t add up.

The reality is most of us won’t be retiring at 65, the baby boomers reaching retirement age now are learning this and it’s a lesson that’s going to get harder for the Gen X’s and Y’s following them.

As a society, or an electorate, we can pretend there’s no problem and policy makers and politicians will pander to our refusal to face the truth by keeping structures that reflect early Twentieth Century aspirations rather than Twenty-First Century realities.

We have to face the reality that the retiring at 65 is unaffordable dream for most of us. Once we accept this, we can get on with building longer lasting careers.

Picture of pensioners courtesy of andreyutzu on SXC.HU

Being careful what you wish for

Sometimes its best our wishes don’t come true

Economist Yanis Varoufakis posted the conclusion of his speech to British Euroceptics this week with the warning “the cruellest God is the one who grants us our wishes”.

In a time of austerity this is something we all should carefully consider. Some of these people need to be careful about their wishes;

  • Those renters hoping for property prices to drop 40% may get their wish, but such a crash will leave the economy in ruins and the renters themselves without a job to service their mortgage.
  • Landlords who fantasise about rents tripling, not realising that ripping disposable income out of their tenants’ wallets will also push the economy into recession and hurt their property values.
  • Politicians obsessing about AAA credit ratings without understanding that this locks a government into the narrow, failed ideologies of the ratings agencies – the world’s most incompetent and corrupt organisations.
  • Business leaders demanding that workers be thankful for getting $1 a hour, forgetting that Henry Ford started paying his workers so they could buy his cars and pay executive bonuses.
  • Retired folk reducing their assets to get pensions because “they’ve paid their taxes” who then find life on the aged pension isn’t so great after all.
  • Middle classes urging the government to subsidise their private school fees and medical insurance because “they pay their taxes” and end up paying even more taxes.

Yanis himself is an interesting guy, having amongst other things taught economics in Sydney for 12 years before returning to Greece;

In 2000 a combination of nostalgia and abhorrence of the conservative turn of the land down under (under the government of that awful little man, John Howard) led me to return to Greece.

John Howard himself wished for Australia to return to the “white picket fence” conservative, insular nation of the 1950s. He got his wish and Australians decided they liked the past so much they decided to take the economy back to an 1850s structure of living off the sheep’s iron ore train’s back.

Today Australia’s inward looking and insular with an economy increasingly based upon mineral exports and property speculation. With both the export markets and property prices now wobbling we might be about to find the cost of our wishes being granted.

Australia in the Asian Century – Chapter One: The rise of Asia

Chapter one of Australia in the Asian Century looks at how the region’s economies developed

This post is one of the series of articles on the Australia in the Asian Century report. An initial overview of the report is at Australian Hubris in the Asian Century.

“Just over two decades ago, the Australian Government commissioned a study of Australia and the Northeast Asian ascendancy” starts the opening of the Australia in the Asian Century report. That sentence describes how this paper is the latest of Australia’s earnest efforts to understand the region.

The opening chapter of the report follows the sensible principle that to plan for the future we have to first understand the present so this section seeks to explain the development of various Asian economies and put those changes into an Australian perspective.

Notable in the narrative is the North East Asian focus, while India gets a brief mention most of the story revolves around the development of China, Hong Kong, Japan and South Korea. Chart 1.2, “Asia’s economic dividend” gives the game away when all but one ‘Asian’ country listed is East Asian.

Russia, along with most of South and Central Asia – not to mention other Asia countries like Iran, Turkey and the former Soviet Republics – rate no mention all.

The narratives around the countries which are covered is also deficient – for instance the discussion on Japan’s, South Korea’s and Vietnam’s developments totally ignore post-war reconstruction efforts and their relations with the United States.

China does get a more detailed examination rightly noting it was the country’s admission to the World Trade Organisation in 2001 that really set the economy’s export sector moving, however it skates over the massive dislocations and market reforms introduced in the 1980s which laid the foundations for China’s successful bid to join the WTO.

More notably, the analysis overlooks – probably to avoid upsetting PRC diplomats and making life difficult in Canberra – the role of Taiwanese investment in China and Taiwan’s development itself.

In a similar vein the scant discussion of India misses the role of Non-Resident Indians (NRIs) in the country’s economic development along with the concentration of power in the various industrial conglomerates like the Tata Group.

Again, the same omission is made when discussing the South Korean Chaebols and Japanese Keiretsu. Given the investments made in Australia by all of these industrial conglomerates it’s curious they barely rate a mention in discussing Asia’s industrialisation process.

The discussion on innovation in Chapter 1.3 is useful however it lacks substance in identifying exactly which sectors various Asian economies are specialising in and which industries are in decline as various countries move up the value chain.

Singapore’s success in becoming East Asia’s hub for banking and corporate regional headquarters is a notable omission and again one has a suspicion this is because of ongoing Australian governments’ doomed ambitions to establish Sydney as a regional financial and business centre.

Probably the most glaring omission in Chapter One though is the role of the United States. In tracking the rise of the Indian service sector or Chinese, Japanese and South Korean manufacturing the trade policies of the US cannot be ignored. And yet they largely are.

That failure to acknowledge the US role means report overlooks the Clinton and Bush I Administrations’ forced opening East Asia’s largely closed economies which radically changed South Korea, Taiwan and Japan in the late 1980s and early 90s. Not to mention the critical role the US had during that period in allowing China and Vietnam to join the global trade networks.

Chapter One of Australia in the Asian Century is an unsatisfactory introduction to the complexities of the Asian economies and one suspects is because of the compromises made to assuage the egos and groupthink of Canberra’s mandarins and politicians.

Most importantly, it fails to put the last thirty years’ developments in Asia into an Australian context or perspective. In this respect, it’s a fitting start to a largely inadequate report.

Looking at the wrong curve

Times have changed, have we?

“We don’t understand it, there’s a property shortage but prices are going down,” bleats the property expert in a recent interview.

Property booms are always excused with claims of “shortages”. The US, Ireland and the UK in recent years property markets all collapsed despite business and political leaders claiming there was a “property shortage”.

The shortage meme happens because the property spruikers, economists and finance writers focus on the wrong curve – they look at the supply curve and assume prices are going up because there isn’t enough property to go around.

What drives speculative booms is easy credit – demand driven by access to money drives speculation, not supply shortages.

Australia’s long term property boom which started in the late 1960s and went onto steroids in the late 1990s has been driven by access to credit. Banks were prepared to lend to property buyers, who were increasingly speculators, and government policies favoured those speculating on property over investing or building businesses.

The crisis of 2008 was the end of the easy credit era and the Australian property speculation boom is over. For the policy makers, politicians and economists the basis of the 1980s corporatist ideology is crumbling around them.

No ideologue lets go of their beliefs easily – that’s why Western governments who bought into the corporatist worldview are pumping trillions of dollars into supporting zombie banks and releasing constant stimulus packages to prop up the property market.

Like the communists of the 1970s, today’s corporatists are looking at choosing the statistics that suit their ideological views.

To support their beliefs they look at the wrong curve and then wonder why the world isn’t working as they thought it would.

Times have changed. Have you?

Cargo cults and your business

Do you think the government, China or big business is going to save you?

“We need an interest rate cut” thunders the business media.

“Give us GST relief” plea the big retailers.

“China will boom forever” assert the government economists.

“Big corporations will buy us out for a billion dollars” pray the hot new start ups.

“I’ll win the lottery this week” thinks the overworked cleaner.

We’re all waiting for the big saviour that’s going to rescue us, our business or the economy.

It could be a big win, a big client or a big government spending program to rescue us.

Sadly, should we lucky enough for that saviour to arrive, it may not turn out to be all we expected.

There’s many lottery winners who curse their win while many disaffected founders who watch their startup baby fade away neglectful new owners.

For a lumbering department store, tax changes will do little to save them from market changes their managements are incapable of comprehending.

Interest rate cuts are great for business when customers are prepared to take on more debt but in a period where consumers are deleveraging a rates cut will do little to stimulate demand.

The clamour for interest rate cuts are a classic case of 1980s thinking; what worked in 1982, 1992 or 2002 isn’t going to work the same way in 2012.

What’s more, the Zero Interest Rate Policies – ZIRP – of the United States and Japan are a vain attempt to recapitalise zombie banks saddled with overvalued assets rather than an effort to help the wider economy.

China is more complex and there’s no doubt the country and its people are becoming wealthier and there are great opportunities.

The worry is most of what we read today could have been the wishful thinking written about Japan thirty years ago. Lazily selling commodities to the Chinese while they create the real value is not a path to long term prosperity.

In business we have a choice, we can pray for luck or we can make our own luck.

Some choose to join the cargo cult and pray, or demand, that someone else does something. Others get out and do it.

John Frum gravesite image by Tim Ross through Wikimedia Commons