Tag: government

  • Distorted priorities

    Distorted priorities

    Every year the bureaucrats of the world’s movie production industry make their way to the Locations Show where governments compete to attract movie producers to their states with fat subsidies.

    This year, the preparations for the Locations Show conference are overshadowed by the US government’s struggling with continued subsidies to the Export Import Bank, an organisation going by the wonderfully Soviet name of the ExIm Bank.

    While ExIm and screen subisidies aren’t directly linked in the US – the bank being a Federally funded body that finances American manufacturing sales to foreign market while state governments compete for productions – both though illustrate the zero sum game of corporate welfare that leaves citizens poorer in the process.

    Delta Airline’s law suit over Exim subsidies to Boeing gives us a real life illustration of how business loses in these battles for government largess.

    When Delta Airlines goes to buy or lease a Boeing 777, they have to find funds at a commercial rate of interest. Air India on the other hand gets a subsidised rate courtesy of ExIm bank.

    However if Delta chooses to buy an Airbus A330, European governments will offer similar subsidies to the American carrier.

    So the subsidy system actually encourages American carriers to buys European jets rather than the US products. Nice work.

    This distortion is something we see too in film subsidies, as government funds are siphoned off to support large corporate movie productions.

    Nowhere is this truer than in Louisiana where the state embarked in 2009 to capture the so-called “runaway production” market of footloose movie projects that shop around the world for the most lucrative subsidies.

    This has worked, with Louisiana based movie production expected to total 1.4 billion dollars in 2011 on the back of $180 million in subsidies.

    One of the productions Louisiana grabbed in 2010 was The Green Lantern which came as a surprise to the government of the Australian state of New South Wales who thought Sydney had secured the project.

    The Green Lantern loss was the nadir for the Australian film industry that ten years earlier had been overwhelmed with productions like The Matrix Trilogy.

    At the time of the Green Lantern loss the industry appeared to be in its death throes, crippled by a high Australian dollar and disadvantaged by relatively lower government subsidies.

    You’d have thought that riches to rags story had taught Australian politicians that dumb subsidies don’t work and may have actually damaged the local film industry more than it helped.

    Unfortunately not.

    Last week the Australian Federal government announced $13 million in support for production of Wolverine. The Prime Minister’s office gushed;

    To attract The Wolverine to Australia, the Gillard Government granted the producers a one-off payment of $12.8 million which will result in over $80 million of investment in Australia and create more than 2000 jobs.

    The payment effectively provided The Wolverine a one-off investment package equivalent to an increase in the existing Location Offset to 30 per cent.

    Without this effective tax offset incentive, the producers of The Wolverine would not have chosen Australia as the location.

    In the 1950s, it made sense to invest in the industries of the future such as aviation, movie and car manufacturing industries.

    Unfortunately for our politicians in Washington, Canberra, Sydney and Baton Rouge, we don’t live in the 1950s.

    Similar posts:

  • Taking care of our own

    Taking care of our own

    “The council ought to do something” growled a friend who’d been stuck in a peak hour traffic jam.

    That innocuous comment illustrates the fundamental challenge facing the developed world’s politicians – that we expect our governments to fix every problem we encounter.

    In the case of the local traffic jam, the cars creating gridlock are parents driving their children to two nearby large private schools.

    Despite the problem being caused by the choices of individuals – those decisions to send their kids to those schools and to drive them there – our modern mindset is “the government aught to do something” rather than suggesting people should be making other choices.

    Socialising the costs of our private decisions is one of the core beliefs of the 1980s mindset.

    Eventually though the money had to run out as we started to expect governments to solve every problem.

    We’re seeing the effects of this in the United States where local governments are now having pull up black top roads, close schools and renege on retirement funds as those costs become too great.

    As a society we have to accept there are limits to what governments can do for us.

    Increasingly as the world economy deleverages, tax revenues fall and the truth that a benign government can’t fulfill our every need starts to dawn on the populace, we’ll realise that expecting politicians and public servants to save us is a vain hope as they simply don’t have the resources.

    Bruce Springsteen puts this well in his song “We Take Care Of Our Own.”

    The truth today is the cargo cult mentality of waiting for governments or cashed up foreigners to come and save us is over.

    We’re going to have to rely more on our own businesses, families and communities to support us in times of need.

    The existing institutions of the corporate welfare state are beginning to collapse under the weight of their own contradictions.

    Joe Hockey knows this, but as a paid-up agent of the establishment he doesn’t dare nominate the massive cuts to middle class welfare and big business subsidies that are necessary to reform those institutions.

    Waiting for the council to fix the local roundabout is nice but it doesn’t address the bigger problems.

    It’s up to us to build the new institutions around our local communities and families. This is not a bad thing.

    Similar posts:

  • What if Bill Gates had been born in Australia?

    What if Bill Gates had been born in Australia?

    Microsoft founder Bill Gates is today one of the world’s biggest philanthropists having built his business from an obscure traffic management software company to what was at one stage the world’s biggest technology corporation.

    But what if he’d been born in Sutherland, New South Wales rather than Seattle, Washington? How different would things have been for an Australian Bill Gates?

    The first thing is he would have been encouraged to study law; just like his dad. In the 1970s lawyers had far more status and career prospects than software developers in Australia.

    Causing more concern for his parents and career counselor would have been his determination to run his own business. It’s far safer to get a safe job, buy a house then start buying investment properties to fund your retirement.

    The Funding Drought

    If Bill still persisted with his ideas, he’d have hit a funding problem. No bank wouldn’t be interested in lending and his other alternatives would restricted.

    In the Australia of the 1970s and 80s they’d be few alternatives for a business like Micro Soft. Even today, getting funding from angel groups and venture capital funds depend upon luck and connections rather than viable business ideas.

    Bill Gates’ big break came when IBM knocked on his door to solve their problem of finding a personal computer operating system; the likelihood of any Australian company seeking help from a small operator – let alone one run by a a couple of twenty somethings – is so unlikely even today it’s difficult to comprehend that happening.

    Eventually an antipodean Bill Gates would have probably admitted defeat, wound up his business and gone to work for dad’s law firm.

    Invest in property, young man

    Over time a smart, hard working young lawyer like Bill would have done well and today he’d be the partner of a big law firm with a dozen investment properties – although some of the coastal holiday properties wouldn’t be going well.

    While some things have changed in the last thirty years – funding is a little easier to find in the current angel and venture capital mania – most Australians couldn’t think about following in Bill Gates’ path.

    Part of the reason is conservatism but a much more important reason are our taxation and social security systems.

    Favoring property speculators over entrepreneurs

    Under our government policies an inventor, innovator or entrepreneur is penalised for taking risks. The ATO starts with the assumption all small or new businesses are tax dodges while ASIC is a thinly disguised small business tax agency and assets tests punish anyone with the temerity to consider building an business rather than buying investment properties.

    At the same time a wage earner is allowed to offset losses made in property or shares against their income taxes, something that those building the businesses or inventing the tools of the future are expressly forbidden from doing.

    Coupled with exemptions on taxing the capital gains on homes, Australian households – and society – is vastly over invested in property.

    Making matters worse, the ramping up of property prices over the last thirty years has allowed generations of Australians to believe that property is risk free and doubles in value every decade.

    That perception is reinforced by banks reluctant to lend to anyone who doesn’t have real estate equity to secure their loans.

    So we have a society that favours property speculation over invention and innovation.

    Every year in the run up to Federal budget time tax reform becomes an issue, the real effects of negative gearing and other subsidies for housing speculation – the distortion of our economy and societies investment attitudes – are never discussed.

    In Australia there are thousands of smart young kids today who could be the Bill Gates’ of the 21st Century.

    The question is do we want to encourage them to lead their generation or steer them towards a safe job and an investment property just like grandpa?

    Similar posts:

  • Should we be subsidising industries?

    Should we be subsidising industries?

    The 2012 UK “austerity” budget has one bright side with big tax breaks of the games and television industries.

    Meanwhile down under, the Australian government is about to announce more massive subsidies to the local motor industry.

    While protecting jobs and trying to help struggling industries is admirable, we should ask if the cost to the taxpayer and economy is worthwhile.

    Squeaky wheels

    “The industry has lobbied for such changes for several years” says the BBC report on the UK budget and this is one of the problems with industry specific support; that it’s the ones who complain the loudest who get the assistance.

    Often the companies and industries lobbying for subsidies spend too much management time and resources duchessing ministers, public servants and key media “opinion makers” than actually listening to their customers.

    The fact they have staff dedicated to lobbying efforts in itself shows where their investment priorities lie. It isn’t in building better products or delivering what their customers want.

    Missing voices

    It’s often lamented that the high growth and small business communities don’t receive support, this is because they are running and building their businesses rather than shmoozing journalists, public servants and politicians.

    Industry support programs often end up helping established insiders or those with a talent for filling in government grant applications rather than those who genuinely need help.

    The Australian film industry is a good example of this where talented film makers struggle to attract funding from government agencies while a generation of well connected, experienced form fillers keep churning out subsidised movies that no-one wants to see.

    Behind the times

    One of the problems with government picking industry winners is they are often well behind the times with support going to mature or fading industries; both the Australian and UK announcements illustrate this.

    The UK games announcement is at least ten years behind the times; strategic investment in the games and TV industry a decade or two ago may have been a wise move, today it’s just supporting another mature sector that is struggling to adjust.

    At least though the UK’s policies are somewhere near the 21st Century, the massive Australian support for the failed motor industry shows Canberra’s politicians are mired in an era somewhere Henry and Edsel Ford.

    It’s worth noting one of the first moves of the incoming Australian Labor government in 2007 was to axe the Commercial Ready program that was designed to help commercialise new technologies and innovations yet motor industry support dwarf any savings from abandoning this scheme.

    The investment problem

    In most countries the real problem to building jobs and industries is investment. Both the UK and Australia illustrate this with their domestic investment being largely directed at the housing industries.

    The two countries have taxation and social security policies that favour over-investment in property. In Australia the problem is exacerbated by a retirement saving scheme that directs domestic savings to index hugging fund managers.

    Australia’s sinking of money into an industry that have been struggling for nearly forty years and currently suffering massive worldwide oversupply is one of many damning indictments on the country’s political classes squandering of the current resources boom.

    Making things worse, massive subsidies to uncompetitive industries already distorts a twisted economy.

    Real economic reform that encourages investment in research, development, training, innovation and entrepreneurs is tough and means losses for many in those vocal, dying industries.

    For the average politician a feel good announcement giving a bucket of money to a noisy group is a much better short term investment.

    The challenge, and opportunity, in the democratic world is to make the politicians aware that the economy has moved on from the times of John Major in Britain or Bob Menzies in Australia.

    It may well be that industries do need, and deserve, government support although we need far more scrutiny and justification from our political leader of why certain groups get help while others do without.

    Similar posts:

  • Building a digital economy

    Building a digital economy

    Yesterday the NSW Government hosted the Sydney leg of their Digital Economy Industry Action Plan forum meetings.

    The aim of the action plan, one of a series for targeted industries, is to develop “a vision and strategy for the Digital Economy over the next decade in NSW.”

    So how do we build a “digital economy industry” in a country that seems to be hell bent on staking everything on China’s continuing demand for coal and iron ore?

    Picking winners

    One of the things implicit in forums and plans like this is that the government has identified the ‘digital economy’ as a priority for economic development.

    To help identify the opportunities the New South Wales plan breaks the sector into various industries;

    • Digital content and applications
    • Information services and analytics
    • Smart networks and intelligent technologies
    • Autonomous systems
    • E-research
    • ICT service innovation
    • ICT biomedical innovation
    • ICT safety and security innovation
    • Locally developed technologies and applications

    The underlying assumption is the state has some sort of natural advantage in these areas or the potential to develop into a leader.

    If these are the foundations of a region’s digital industries then we have to understand how they were identified as it’s difficult to build an industry if we don’t know what we can do.

    The role of government

    An important question is the role of government, an unfortunate thing with bureaucrats and politicians is they sometimes over estimate the influence they have on industry and the economy in general.

    In NSW the state government’s role is going to be at best marginal, they can establish policies and offer financial incentives but business needs access to essential skills, finance and infrastructure.

    Walking the talk

    It’s all very well for governments to proclaim they support local businesses but if they prefer to buy from multinationals – even if the big boys are more expensive and have a less than stellar delivery record – then the domestic industry cannot thrive.

    To be fair to governments, this reluctance to buy from local suppliers is shared by Australian corporations and on its own is probably one of the biggest obstacles for innovative companies and entrepreneurs to thrive in Australia.

    Until this attitude changes among governments and corporations, it’s  difficult to see how local businesses can develop and survive.

    Open data

    For the digital industries, open data is probably the most important aspects. Unfortunately the current generation of Australian public servants, managers and politicians share an almost Stalinist view about access to taxpayer owned information.

    Without making public data accessible so entrepreneurs can develop new applications and existing industries can improve productivity, governments are only giving lip service to building a digital economy.

    A good example of this is the expressed desire of successive state and Federal governments to build Sydney as a global financial centre.

    To do this, free and open investment information is essential yet company and stock exchange data that is assumed to be public information in the United States and much of Europe or Asia is propitiatory and locked away behind paywalls.

    Government and corporate obsessions with controlling information makes it unlikely any Australian state or city can be global centre in the digital economy or the banking sector which the NSW government sees as an other priority sector.

    Consistent standards

    Another area governments can improve is by having open standards across government agencies so, for instance, land information can be properly matched with health data or public transport details.

    Right now policies on data and things like social media or content platforms is fragmented making the cost of government and doing business more expensive and convoluted than it should be.

    Promote advantages

    One of the weaknesses in Australia’s overseas marketing is the nation is portrayed as a bunch of alcohol swilling beach bums cuddling koalas.

    Google Maps founder Lars Rasmussen once said Google’s head office reaction when he suggested establishing a development office in Sydney was “what are you doing to do? Sit on Bondi Beach and drink Fosters?”

    A missed opportunity in Australia’s disjointed tourism and investment campaigns is ignoring the nation’s diverse ethnic and skills base. We need more emphasis on the multilingual skills of the state’s workers and less on bikini babes.

    Capital Problems

    Whenever a group like the forums gather, there’s always complaints about Australian business’ access to capital.

    Australia’s taxation, finance and social security system favours speculation on the share and property markets rather than long term investments or taking risks on new business ideas.

    Three generations of these policies have a created a population who, understandably, see owning property as the safest way to provide for retirement. The banking system has responded to this and is reluctant to lend for anything not secured by real estate assets.

    At the same time we’ve allowed the compulsory superannuation system to be dominated by flaccid ticket clippers who are content to charge working Australians outrageous fees for hugging the stock indexes.

    Sadly what should have been a source of capital for innovative businesses largely spends its time lobbying governments for more protection and a bigger cut of workers’ incomes.

    The access to capital is a serious problem for Australian business and one that can’t be kicked up the road for ever by Liberal or Labor Federal governments but it isn’t something the states can fix.

    Not only do the distorted investment priorities of Australian society damage developing industries, it almost certainly guarantees the dream of making Sydney a global financial centre unattainable.

    Education

    One of the canards that always pops up at industry development forums is that educators aren’t in touch with employers’ needs.

    There’s a certain type of business manager or owner who believes the roles of schools, technical colleges and universities is a sausage machine popping out perfectly formed young workers who can pick up a spanner, hair clippers or a copy of Photoshop and start productive work straight after being shown where the tea room is.

    Those business owners are deluded.

    None of that’s to say educators shouldn’t be adapting to their times as well as being open and transparent but the idea that the role of schools is to equip kids with the skills we need today would see them unprepared for next decade’s economy.

    Equally however, Australia’s universities and training colleges have been encouraged to offer third rate courses to overseas students attracted by the prospect of getting permanent residence in the country. That bums on seats model had hurt the quality of the nation’s education sector and the skill levels of graduates.

    Attitudes

    The most essential part of building any nation’s industry is the attitude of people – if the prevailing view is it’s too hard, or threatens established interests then it won’t happen.

    Probably the best advantage New South Wales, and all of Australia have, is a comparatively young, diverse and outward looking population.

    The best thing the government can do in trying to build new sectors, be they in the digital economy or anywhere else, is to fix what they can such as procurement, open data or taxation and get out of the way.

    A constant dreams of governments is to build the next Silicon Valley, just as it once was to build the next Detroit or Birmingham.

    The era of the big engineering works passed, at least in the Western world, and the age of venture capital driven social media platforms will probably be over soon as well.

    Aping someone else’s success – while ignoring the historical factors and accidents that created it  – seems a guaranteed way to disappointment.

    The best part to build a digital economy, or any thriving society, is to encourage the risk takers and the inventors. Bring them together, let them loose and you build the next economic powerhouse.

    Similar posts: