Economic Growth

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
We have revised our growth forecasts in 2020 and 2021 to reflect a more resilient consumer and labour market - particularly in Victoria.
We have revised our growth forecasts for the Australian economy in 2020 from minus 4.7% to minus 3.5%.
Forecast growth in the September quarter has been increased from flat to 1.8% while growth in the December quarter is revised down from 2.8% to 2.2%.
For 2021 we have revised down growth from 3.0% to 2.5%.
The unemployment rate that was expected to reach 8.5% by the end of 2020 has been lowered to 7.8%; while the forecast end 2021 rate has been held around 7.5%.
The GDP Report this week signalled that the Australian economy had contracted by a record 7% in the June quarter. Consumption contracted by a spectacular 12.1% and hours worked fell by 9.8%. The fall in consumption explained 98% of the overall reduction in activity.
Despite that collapse in hours worked total nominal wage income “only” fell by 2.5% and total nominal household income actually rose by 2.2%.
With a sharp fall in spending and an actual increase in incomes the savings rate rose to 19.8% from 6.0%, highlighting the significant improvement in household balance sheets which would be consistent with considerable pent up demand to spend.
BILL EVANS is the Chief Economist at Westpac
</body></html>

bevans-rYk9SxEa4r

Optimistic revision of economic growth forecasts: Bill Evans

<html><body>
Despite economists forecasting a decline, the Australian economy grew 0.5 per cent in seasonally adjusted chain volume terms in the December quarter 2019, according to figures released by the ABS.
It takes the economic growth to 2.2 per cent through the year.
“The economy has continued to grow and picked up through the year, however the rate of growth remains below the long run average", ABS chief economist Bruce Hockman said.
Domestic demand remained subdued with 0.1 per cent growth in the December quarter. 
A pick up in household discretionary spending and continued increases in the provision of government services was dampened by falls in dwelling and private business investment.
IFM economist Alex Joiner says the narrative is still unchanged.
"Private sector demand is extremely soft it's public spending, inventories and net exports keeping growth afloat, monetary easing hasn't been effective on the real economy as yet", Joiner tweeted.
Dwelling investment continued to fall, retracting a further 3.4 per cent, the sixth consecutive fall. 
It was consistent with the decline in the construction industry value added which fell 2.3 per cent.
There was a large rise in ownership transfer costs due to the resurgence of the housing market. During the December quarter transfer costs were up 12.3 per cent to be 6.5 per cent up through the year.
 
 
</body></html>

wdavis-8cCN98p7xp

Economy grows 0.5 per cent in December quarter 2019, but growth still below long run average

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
As discussed in our last weekly Westpac now expects the Reserve Bank to delay its next cut in the cash rate to April with the final cut to 0.25% occurring in August. Prior to the release of the surprisingly strong December employment report we had expected the cuts to be timed for February and June.
The inflation report, which printed on January 29, confirmed that inflation remains 'stuck' well below the Board’s 2–3% target band with the trimmed mean (the key measure of underlying inflation used by the RBA) printing 0.43% for an annual rate of 1.6%. The annual rate of increase of the trimmed mean has been within a 1.5%–1.8% range for the past four years. The RBA’s latest forecasts envisage the annual rate of the trimmed mean holding at 1.8% in 2020 and 1.9% in 2021. When the Bank releases its revised forecasts on February 7 we expect it will reaffirm that inflation outlook.
These are not the forecasts of a central bank (with a 2–3% inflation target range) that expects it has come to the end of its easing cycle.
Such a decision would only be appropriate if the Bank assessed that further easing in policy would be ineffectual or counter productive.
However, in its December minutes, the Board made the case for the effectiveness of monetary policy.
"Members discussed the transmission to the economy of the interest rate reductions since the middle of the year. They noted in particular that the available evidence suggested that more stimulatory monetary policy had been working through the usual channels of lower bond yields, a depreciation of the exchange rate and lower interest rates on mortgages. There had also been an effect on housing prices, increased housing turnover in the established market and some early signs of a stabilisation in housing construction activity ...
... While members recognised the negative confidence effects for some parts of the community arising from lower interest rates, they judged that the impact of these effects was unlikely to outweigh the stimulus to the economy from lower interest rates".
It is also important not to confuse monetary and fiscal policy. There has been some speculation that fiscal policy is the only answer. We accept that a more stimulatory fiscal policy is necessary and have strongly advocated the bringing forward of the Stage 2 personal tax cuts in two tranches beginning in July 2020 and followed by the second tranche in July 2021.
Based on the most recent fiscal update – the Mid-Year Economic and Fiscal Outlook, released December 16 – that policy would risk pushing the 2020/21 and 2021/22 fiscal positions back into modest deficits. We believe that such a 'price' is worth paying if we are to provide a sizeable boost to household incomes and an associated lift in business expectations for stronger demand growth.
Now, of course, it is necessary to superimpose on this discussion the recent exogenous shocks of the bushfires and coronavirus.
Westpac has adjusted its GDP forecasts for the bushfire effect, lowering GDP growth in both the December and March quarters by 0.1%, reflecting the impact on tourism; agriculture; and regional retail of the bushfire crisis.
The other likely effect was always going to be the overriding impact on consumer confidence. The Westpac-MI Index of Consumer Sentiment fell by 1.8% in January to 93.4 – a fairly modest fall compared to the 5.8% fall during the Queensland floods of 2011. However the survey was taken during the first week of rain in January, and the starting point for the Index was much lower than in 2011 (a reading of 111 for Sentiment).
The –0.2% growth impact is seen to be on the conservative side with estimates ranging from –0.1% to –0.5%.
We have also pencilled in a lift in demand of 0.1% of GDP later in 2020 to reflect the rebuild that will follow.
The second risk to the growth outlook is the coronavirus outbreak.
This virus is likely to largely affect Australia through its impact on services exports. This sector has been an important source of growth for the Australian economy. In a year (to the September quarter 2019) where the Australian economy grew by 'only' 2.0%, net service exports contributed 0.4ppts.
Services exports are about $100bn a year. This includes $64bn, 3.2% of GDP, in travel and education – of which Chinese students and tourists represent 27% of those exports, or 0.85% of GDP.
Consequently the direct effect of a complete shutdown of Chinese tourism and student travel for a year would reduce GDP by almost 1ppt with significant additional multiplier effects. However such an outcome is extreme – well beyond the experience during the SARS outbreak of 2003 – and we can only await a clearer picture of developments over the next few months.
Issues of importance in estimating the impact on Australia’s services exports include: the resilience of the virus; the impact on student travel and the impact on tourism.
Westpac has not imputed this effect in its current growth forecasts given the high degree of uncertainty.
The Reserve Bank will also be pondering the impact of the bushfires and coronavirus on its growth forecasts.
We will receive an update on the Bank’s growth forecasts on February 7, while the Governor is giving a speech "The Year Ahead" on February 5.
We expect that the RBA will lower its 2020 growth forecast from 2.8% to 2.6% (rounded down to 2.5% in the main forecast table in the 'Economic Outlook' section). That compares with Westpac’s forecast of 2.1% (no coronavirus effect included) and will be justified by the weaker than expected momentum in 2019 (September quarter GDP was not available for the November forecast) plus some allowance for the bushfires/coronavirus.
However these latter effects will be considered transitory and the 'bold' forecast of 3.1% growth in 2021 will likely be retained.
Markets should not feel that a lowering of the near-term growth forecast to below trend growth should automatically require a rate cut. The assessment of monetary policy involving 'long and variable lags' and an above-trend growth forecast in 2021 is sufficient to justify a 'pause' until the impact of exogenous shocks becomes clear and the sustainability of the recent downtrend in the unemployment rate can be tested.
Such an approach is entirely consistent with Westpac’s expectation that the next rate cut will be in April following the December quarter national accounts and the next 'snapshot' of Australia’s growth momentum.
BILL EVANS is the Chief Economist at Westpac
</body></html>

RBA to hold until April and cut 2020 economic growth forecast: Bill Evans

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Australia’s record economic expansion is well into its 29th year.
The Australian economy grew by 0.4 per cent in the September quarter (consensus: +0.5 to +0.6 per cent) after growing by an upwardly-revised 0.6 per cent in the June quarter. Annual economic growth rose from 1.6 per cent to 1.7 per cent.
The biggest contribution to growth came from net exports (+0.3 percentage points); followed by government consumption (+0.2pp). Household consumption, ownership transfer costs, public investment and inventories all contributed +0.1pp. Detracting from growth were machinery &amp; equipment spending (-0.2pp) and dwellings (-0.1pp).
Real net national disposable income rose by 0.9 per cent in the September quarter to be up 4.8 per cent on the year. In nominal terms GDP increased by 1.1 per cent in the quarter and rose by 5.5 per cent over the year (annual average +4.5 per cent).
GDP per hours worked fell by 0.2 per cent in the September quarter to be down by 0.2 per cent on the year.
Thirteen of the 19 industry sectors expanded in the September quarter. Strongest contribution to growth was recorded by Healthcare and Social Assistance (+0.2 percentage points). Mining, Professional scientific and technical services, and Public administration and safety all added 0.1pp to GDP growth.
What does it all mean?
The Reserve Bank continues to emphasise that the economy has reached ‘a gentle turning point’. And a thorough review of the evidence supports this view. If Aussie consumers and businesses had more confidence, then the upturn would be more robust. Because incomes are growing faster than longer-term averages. But the seeds are there.
There is more evidence that consumers are saving the tax cuts at the same time that borrowers are responding to rate cuts by paying off debt at a faster rate. The household saving ratio has lifted to 4.8 per cent. The Government and Reserve Bank will need to re-assess, and determine what stimulus measures have the best chances of working in the current environment.
Over the last 28 years the economy has stared down numerous challenges. Indeed, the economy has a wonderful knack of responding to challenges or crises. If consumers forget how to spend, then exports or government spending have stepped up to the plate. And that is what we are seeing now. The Reserve Bank may be struggling to get inflation into the target band, but it continues to preside over a record-breaking economic expansion. It’s important to know that Australia is not alone in dealing with lower-than-normal price growth.
The gloomsters will be disappointed - again. The record economic expansion continues. And supported by tax cuts, low interest rates, housing recovery, competitive exchange rate and an infrastructure boom, the prospects remain positive. Commonwealth Bank Group economists support the Reserve Bank in forecasting 2.75 per cent economic growth in 2020. Growth of 2.25-2.50 per cent is expected in 2019/20.
There is some hand-wringing on productivity at present. And clearly Australia needs to do better with the country actually less productive than a year ago. But employment has been surging in the past few years. And it takes time for the new employees to be fully productive. As a result some patience is required on a lift in productivity to more ‘normal’ growth rates.
CRAIG JAMES  is the Chief Economist at CommSec
</body></html>

cjames-5S2v74qSNK

Australia's record economic expansion rolls on: CommSec's Craig James

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
We’ve entered out 29th year of uninterpreted economic growth. Continued good fortune will require harder decisions.
Official figures released Wednesday show the Australian economy growing at the <a href="https://theconversation.com/why-weve-the-weakest-economy-since-the-global-financial-crisis-with-few-clear-ways-out-122942" target="_blank">slowest pace since the financial crisis</a>.
GDP growth was only 0.5% for the June quarter, meaning that in the past year output grew by a feeble 1.4%.
The figures weren’t a surprise, but they do contain a message about what can go wrong.
Australia has enjoyed 28 years of uninterrupted economic growth, in part due to good management, in part due to good luck, and in part due to happy accidents of timing.
Good management
Credit has to be paid to the economic reforms of the Hawke-Keating era. Labor doesn’t talk about that legacy much these days, but it was a remarkable period of transformation.
From floating the Australian dollar and financial deregulation to the accord with trade unions, tariff reductions, and privatisation of state-owned enterprises, Hawke and Keating opened Australia to the world, and the world to Australia.
Without those reforms the Australian economy would look more like those of Italy, Spain, or Portugal.
And although John Howard was no pushover as a politician, he deserves credit for voting for economic reforms he believed in, even if Labor got the credit for implementing them.
It is worth remembering that there was a time, not so long ago, when politicians put country before party.
Good luck
We’ve also had some pretty good luck as a country. The most obvious piece of luck has been the economic awakening of China.
To have a billion people on our doorstep rapidly and radically transitioning from subsistence farming to sophisticated manufacturing and commerce, hungry for natural resources, sure helped.
Perhaps less obvious has been the rising importance of globally relevant cities around the world.
In his wonderful book, <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.amazon.com/Triumph-City-Greatest-Invention-Healthier/dp/0143120549" target="_blank">The Triumph of the City</a>, Harvard economics professor Ed Glaeser chronicles how, as he puts it, “cities magnify humanity’s strengths”.
Modern cities, thanks in part to information technology, spur innovation like never before. They bring talent together, serve as a cradle for entrepreneurship, and provide a vehicle for socioeconomic mobility.
Australia, as a highly urbanised country with two globally relevant cities in Sydney and Melbourne, as well as several other very important cities, has benefited from the triumph of the city more than most countries.
Great timing
But perhaps the greatest piece of good luck we’ve had was timing.
We now know that we live in a low-growth, low-inflation world, known as a secular-stagnation world. Former US Treasury Secretary <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KYpVzBbQIX0" target="_blank">Larry Summers</a> says we might have been in one for many years but failed to notice.
In Summers’s telling, secular stagnation was masked in the United States by a massive housing bubble. In Australia it was masked by a housing bubble and a once-in-a century mining boom.
But more to the point, as housing and mining waxed and waned – as these things tend to do – one always seemed to be doing well just as the other was struggling, as the following chart shows:
Helpfully out of sync. Growth in mining output and property prices
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291063/original/file-20190905-175714-1kro0v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/291063/original/file-20190905-175714-1kro0v6.jpg?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a>
Source: ABS
So, not only have we had a “China boom”, we’ve also had a “China hedge”: a source of economic growth not fully synced with, and at times offsetting, housing booms and busts.
What’s next?
In eulogising his brother Robert, <a href="https://americanrhetoric.com/speeches/ekennedytributetorfk" target="_blank">Edward Kennedy quoted from a speech</a> his brother gave in South Africa in 1966, in which he said:
"Our future may lie beyond our vision, but it is not completely beyond our control. It is the shaping impulse of America that neither fate nor nature nor the irresistible tides of history, but the work of our own hands, matched to reason and principle, that will determine our destiny."
There is pride in that, even arrogance, but there is also experience and truth. In any event, it is the only way we can live.
The same might be said of Australia.
We want to believe our national destiny will be shaped by good work, rather than good luck.
For that to be the case, we will need to have some hard discussions about the what government can and should do in the new low growth, low inflation secular-stagnation world.
Richard Holden, Professor of Economics, UNSW.
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/vital-signs-sure-economic-growth-is-low-but-think-about-whats-gone-right-122973" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

rh-YsoTT2xMuQ

Sure, economic growth is low, but think about what’s gone right: Richard Holden

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVATION
The latest figures on Australia’s economic growth are the slowest since the GFC and the slump in housing approvals is driving this.
Australia’s low economic growth of 0.5% in the last quarter of the 2019 financial year leaves an annual rate of 1.4%, which is the slowest since 2009 following the Global Financial Crisis. 
A number of commentators have linked the slow growth to the big slump in home approvals across Australia but particularly in New South Wales.
The slowdown in the Australian economy has been influenced by a number of external global issues, but the supply of new homes across the country is clearly a local issue that the Australian Government and State and Territory Governments should be taking action to reverse.
In New South Wales, and particularly in Sydney, an anti-development sentiment has led to a big slow-down in housing approvals from councils and the NSW Government.
The most recent Australian Bureau of Statistics data for housing approvals shows a drop of 39% over the last two years in New South Wales.
The drop in housing approvals has been 20% over the last five months with confidence in the housing development industry dropping.
Some of the messaging from the NSW Government on key projects like the St Leonards South project and the Pyrmont Star hotel and apartment tower has been particularly negative with government bodies preferring the protection of the existing neighbourhood character rather than supporting new development.
There seems to be a cultural problem in Sydney where approval bodies, whether they be government, councils or planning panels, are preferring to reject projects for new housing rather than approve them.
Strong leadership is needed from the NSW Government to drive new housing approvals and therefore boost the economic growth of the state and of Australia.
The Urban Taskforce is keen to work with the NSW Government to help lift housing approvals particularly in areas where the market is looking for new homes.
CHRIS JOHNSON is the Urban Taskforce CEO.
</body></html>

cjohnson-8xfqfuuCSq

Home approval slump is driving the slowest economic growth since GFC: Chris Johnson 

<html><body>
GUEST OBSERVATION
Swift action by the Commonwealth Government on a suite of policy initiatives can position Australia’s cities, economy and housing markets for sustained prosperity.
Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) has released a post-election action plan entitled Building A Better Australia that outlines six policy priorities across population, cities, infrastructure, housing, tax and regulation.
The plan presents a blueprint for policy priorities that can enhance the global competitiveness of Australian cities.
There is clear goodwill towards a government re-elected through the prism of its pro-growth and aspirational agenda.
The optimism they are generating is giving hope to everyone interested in a robust economy and recovery in housing construction, which are directly linked.
We are also witnessing improved access to housing finance, courtesy of the Australian Prudential Regulation Authority’s (APRA) intention to ease interest rate loan assessment levels for Banks and the Reserve Bank of Australia (RBA) and policies like the promised scheme to close the deposit gap.
There is now a real window in which we can seize the momentum and press on with policies that will boost the productivity, liveability and affordability of our cities.
The six-point plan promotes six ideas to cement the benefits of reform:
<ol>
<li>Entrench the emerging new policy framework to get population settings right</li>
<li>Create a Bi-Partisan Infrastructure Accord to deliver long term certainty in planning and delivery</li>
<li>Audit the current infrastructure pipeline to assess opportunities for better alignment of infrastructure planning and land release</li>
<li>Properly design and fund the new mandate on housing supply, demand and affordability</li>
<li>Identify short, medium and long-term steps to reform and strip back taxes on new housing</li>
<li>Commence a review of environmental planning practices.</li>
</ol>
UDIA National will be moving quickly to engage with the re-elected Government, as well as the Opposition, to promote the policy platform.
UDIA National has already commenced initial briefings with the Government – having already met the Minister for Population, Cities and Urban Infrastructure, The Hon Alan Tudge MP, last week.
The Urban Development Institute of Australia (UDIA) is the peak body representing the property development industry throughout Australia.
The Institute is a not-for-profit industry body dedicated to the representation of Australia's development industry.
Our members cover a wide range of specialist and industry fields, including: developers, valuers, planners, engineers, architects, marketers, researchers, project managers, surveyors, landscape architects, consultants, lawyers, financial institutions, state and local government authorities, and product suppliers.
The priorities we’re promoting have a dual benefit – giving a kickstart to housing construction in the short-term, as well as entrenching ideas that have a long-term, linked and lasting dividend.
Population policy and analysis can inform the choices we make about the design and infrastructure of our cities, as well as long-term land use strategies to deliver housing supply and diversity.
We also need to recognise that reforms to the taxation and regulatory burdens placed on housing construction take time to entrench, so triggering the start of changes now makes sense.
A full copy of UDIA's Building A Better Australia is available via the <a href="http://www.udia.com.au/news/national-policy-priorities" target="_blank">UDIA website</a>.
CONNIE KIRK is the UDIA National Executive Director
</body></html>

j.ballantyne1990-6AQqhLzZaK

UDIA shares six point plan for the Australian Government: Connie Kirk

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Economies are constantly changing – just ask the Reserve Bank hierarchy. A year ago the Reserve Bank thought that the next move in interest rates would be up. But, encouraged by tame inflation, the Reserve Bank has just cut interest rates, concluding that the economy can grow faster and create more jobs.
Twenty-five years ago the situation was far different. The economy was accelerating, creating the risk of higher inflation. In August 1994, the Reserve Bank lifted the cash rate from 4.75% to 5.50%. By the end of the year the cash rate stood at 7.5%. Inflation hit 5.1% in the second half of 1995.
While economies will always fluctuate in the short term, the more important issue is whether the standard of living is enhanced over time. Certainly the standard of living is much a much broader concept than merely focusing on changes in economic variables. But it is still an important part of the equation.
Arguably those in their mid-40s and above – ‘Baby boomers’ and Generation X – have experienced a tremendous improvement in economic and financial circumstances over the past 25 years. Wages have soared in real terms, together with the value of assets like shares and homes. Inflation is low, unemployment is near decade lows and interest rates are the lowest since the mid-1960s. And the record economic expansion is in its 28th year.
The improvement in economic fortunes have occurred under Labor and Coalition governments, and despite a raft of global challenges like the Asian Financial Crisis, Technology boom and bust and the Global Financial Crisis.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/6/11/CBA2.jpg" alt="">
Higher wealth has led to changes in spending
Arguably the extent of the improvement in economic circumstances has been almost unprecedented. Lack of consistent longer-term data prevents economists from declaring the improvement as the best ever.
But clearly the gains in real income and wealth have caused changes in how Aussies spend their money. Housing costs – paying the rent or the mortgage – now occupy a bigger share of household spending. Over time the relative cost (or affordability) of so-called essential items like food, clothing, cars and household goods has fallen, allowing Aussies to buy bigger and better homes.
And importantly the rising value of homes has added to household wealth and incomes and allowed ‘Baby boomers’ and GenX to embrace more discretionary goods and services over time.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/6/11/CBA4.jpg" alt="">
Over the past 25 years, Aussies have increased their share of spending on housing, insurance, education, health, medicines and electricity/gas. But Aussie consumers have trimmed the share of spending devoted to food, clothing, furniture, household appliances and the purchase of cars and operation of cars.
Lower tariffs, globalisation and technology have served to reduce the relative cost of goods such as cars, fridges, furniture and floor coverings. With extra disposable income, Aussies have chosen to upgrade homes, the schools their children attend and their elected doctors, hospitals and specialists. Higher prices have lifted the share of spending going to utilities. The ageing of the population has also lifted relative spending on health and insurance.
Income &amp; wealth
Over the past 25 years wages have risen by 165%, well ahead of inflation, up just over 85%. Over the same period, household income per capita (per person) has lifted by 181%, ahead of per capita consumer spending, up 176%. And wealth per capita has lifted by 326%, not far from the greatest generational lift in wealth that occurred just over a year ago with a 370% per capita lift in wealth.
Over the past three years there has been a slowdown in income and wealth gains, arguably from an unsustainable pace. With globalisation serving to restrain inflation, wage growth has also eased. Consumers have drawn down on savings to adjust to the slower growth environment. On average household income grew at a 2.9% annual rate over the past three years, behind a 3.9% lift in spending.
<img src="https://res.cloudinary.com/dz9xllyip/image/fetch/c_scale,w_580,q_auto:good/https://s3-ap-southeast-2.amazonaws.com/po.images/2019/6/11/CBA3.jpg" alt="">
Also making it difficult for Aussie consumers, taxation has risen at a 5.7% annual rate over the past three years. Tax now takes 14.7% of household income – a near 13-year high – reflecting ‘bracket creep’ and tougher enforcement by tax authorities.
What are the implications for investors?
Australia has one of the highest standard of living in the world. Income has outpaced inflation over time and wealth has soared. The lift in income and wealth have prompted many to upgrade their homes. People can afford more expensive and better quality homes because interest rates have fallen to record lows and a smaller proportion of household budgets now goes to ‘essentials’.
Advertisements from 1994 highlight some of the gains made in affordability over time. Beer and meat are more affordable now than 25 years ago and chicken is one item that can be purchased at a cheaper price now than in 1994.
The current generation of 20-30 year old Aussies are faced with more expensive homes but also enjoy the same smaller proportion of spending devoted to ‘essentials’ than in the past. But GenZ and Millennials also have different priorities, favouring travel, ‘experiences’ and smaller homes.
The question being asked by many across the globe is whether we have entered a new era of lower inflation, lower interest rates and lower growth of both income and wealth. The faster that people adjust to a lower growth environment, the lower the risk of economic shock.
Companies are having to adjust to the new realities of global competition and slower growth of sales and incomes. The risk is that some companies may over-react by cutting expenses too far (particularly wages and employment) rather than seeking to maintain or increase market share.
Investors may also need to adjust to the new realities of slower growth of share prices and dividends. Over the past three years dividends have increased at a 1.5% annual rate. From 2013-2016, annual growth of dividends averaged 3.7%.
Craig James is the chief economist at <a href="https://www.comsec.com.au/default.aspx" target="_blank">CommSec</a>. 
<ins id="aswift_0_expand" data-ad-slot="3195360564"></ins>
</body></html>

jonathanchancellor-7SQnKwU6yx

How the Australian economy has changed over the past 25 years: CommSec's Craig James

<html><body>
EXPERT OBSERVER
Our standard economic model says when labour is scarce, the cost of labour should increase. But something is broken. This is not happening.
Exactly two weeks before the Reserve Bank of Australia cut interest rates to a record low, the bank’s head, Philip Lowe, outlined a predicament to the Economic Society of Australia.
It is a global problem, in fact – and one no one really understands or knows how to fix. It is almost the exact opposite of the crisis that faced industrialised economies in the 1970s.
Four decades ago economies were hit by two malaises: on the one hand, stagnation, with unemployment rates high and rising; and on the other rampant inflation, with prices and wages growing ever faster.
Stagnation and inflation were not meant to occur at the same time. That they did so challenged to the core the post-Keynesian economic orthodoxy of the times. It was so baffling economists gave it a new term: stagflation.
“Today,” said Lowe, “the picture is very different: we have low unemployment and low inflation.”
No one has given it a name, and Lowe says it is better than stagflation, but it’s still a worry. For one thing, if <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/25/business/europe-ecb-wages-inflation" target="_blank">wages fail to rise</a> as the cost of assets such as housing keeps growing, we end up with greater inequality.
“Understanding why this has happened is a priority for us,” Lowe said.
Quite so. Experience shows the perils of seeking to fix something without knowing why it is broken. It can lead to a Kafkaesque outcome.
<h2>Against the law (of supply and demand)</h2>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278280/original/file-20190606-2759-evrvh3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278280/original/file-20190606-2759-evrvh3.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=237&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Standard supply and demand curves. <a class="source" href="https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?curid=741993" target="_blank">Paweł Zdziarski /Wikimedia</a>, <a class="license" href="http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/" target="_blank">CC BY-NC</a>
The driving force behind any macroeconomic reasoning is the law of supply and demand. In short, if the supply of something increases, but demand does not, those trying to sell it will make discounts, and its price will go down. Conversely, if demand for something increases but supply does not, wannabe buyers will outbid each other to secure the good, and its price will go up (as illustrated right).
Given this basic law of economics, the combination of low unemployment and no wage growth baffles economists.
Low unemployment means labour is in high demand and excess labour (people looking for jobs) scarce. That should mean that employers need to offer more money to attract employees. So we would expect low unemployment to always be accompanied by an increase in the price of labour (the wage).
This relationship was first outlined by the New Zealand economist A.W. (Bill) Phillips in <a href="http://www.economia.ufpr.br/Professores/54/Art_Phillips_1958.pdf" target="_blank">a paper published in 1958</a>. Below is his original scatter diagram showing the relationship between unemployment and the rate of change of wage rates in Britain from 1861 to 1913.
<hr>
<a href="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278283/original/file-20190606-2754-15ozqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=1000&amp;fit=clip"><img src="https://images.theconversation.com/files/278283/original/file-20190606-2754-15ozqe.png?ixlib=rb-1.1.0&amp;q=45&amp;auto=format&amp;w=754&amp;fit=clip" alt=""></a> Bill Phillips’ original scatter diagram of the rate of change of wage rates and the unemployment rate in Britain for the years 1861 to 1913. <a class="source" href="http://www.economia.ufpr.br/Professores/54/Art_Phillips_1958.pdf" target="_blank">A.W. Phillips, The Relation between Unemployment and the Rate of Change of Money Wage Rates in the United Kingdom, 1861-1957</a>
<hr>
This relationship, now known as the Phillips curve, forms the basis for monetary policy – the use of interest rates to control money supply.
When unemployment is high, central banks like the Reserve Bank of Australia lower interest rates to make borrowing easier. This results in greater spending in things like building a home or starting a business. Such investment increases the demand for labour.
Conversely, when unemployment is very low and wages start to grow out of control, the Reserve Bank will lift interest rates to make borrowing harder. This dampens economic activity and the demand for labour.
<h2>Bent, possibly broken</h2>
But somehow in recent times the Philips curve appears broken, and nobody knows why.
Australia’s reserve bank has been sitting on record low interest rates for three years, and yet <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/economy/how-does-australia-end-wage-stagnation-20190408-p51byj" target="_blank">nothing at all </a> has happened to wages and inflation.
There are competing theories. One is that automation is to blame, by reducing the value of human labour. Others involve <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/14/opinion/robots-jobs" target="_blank">political changes</a>, <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2018/07/18/opinion/wage-stagnation-unemployment-economic-growth" target="_blank">market concentration</a> and the <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2019-03-26/small-workplaces-corporate-profit-drive-wage-stagnation/10939564?section=analysis" target="_blank">gig economy</a> undercutting workers’ bargaining power.
Nobody knows which theory, if any, is right.
This should not come as a surprise. After all, it took economists and policy makers <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2011/10/11/thomas-sargent-rational-expectations-and-the-keynesian-consensus/#2ecbfbb7788f" target="_blank">almost a decade</a> to make sense of the 1970s stagnation.
But if circumstances take a dive, and people start demanding that something be done, we have a problem.
We don’t yet know what should be done. As Lowe <a href="https://www.rba.gov.au/speeches/2019/sp-gov-2019-05-21" target="_blank">told the Economic Society of Australia</a>:
“We are still searching for the full answers… We can’t be sure how long these effects will last and whether the coexistence of low inflation and low unemployment is temporary, or whether it is a new normal.”
Translation: he is not really sure what we should do, but the situation is bad enough to try to do something.
If the Reserve Bank can’t fix the problem, economic commentators and the public will look to the government, perhaps through <a href="https://www.afr.com/news/economy/monetary-policy/rba-finally-acts-to-stave-off-a-self-inflicted-recession-20190604-p51ubb" target="_blank">spending</a> more, or <a href="https://www.afr.com/opinion/editorials/a-sophisticated-nation-at-foot-of-asia-shouldn-t-rely-on-cheap-money-20190604-p51uc6" target="_blank">reducing taxes</a>.
Under pressure from a public demand for action, the danger is that politicians may take shots in the dark and deliver the wrong type of change.
<h2>Learning from Italy</h2>
The Italian experience in this regard is particularly instructive. It’s something that I and three Italian colleagues (Luigi Guiso, Claudio Michelacci and Massimo Morelli) have <a href="http://www.gratton.org/papers/WebertoKafka.pdf" target="_blank">documented</a>.
Political instability, strong pressure for reforms and short-lived governments have shifted Italy towards a Kafkaesque state where the bureaucracy wastes its time on frequently useless reforms.
Though Italy has a reputation as a land of eternal disorganisation, in the early 1990s its productivity was greater than Germany’s. On the downside, youth unemployment was high, and political corruption widespread. Voters demanded change.
Politicians responded with zeal. After 1992, the Italian parliament doubled the number of bills it passed each year, with new laws three times as long as old laws.
Within just a few election cycles new reforms began contradicting reforms passed a year or two earlier. Governments routinely attributed failures to previous governments and reforms. Voters lost track of who did what.
Nobody knew exactly what to do to solve the economic problems, and nobody knew how to evaluate the effect of individual reforms, because it was impossible to distinguish the effects of one reform from another.
In this new chaotic environment, incompetent politicians thrived, proposing ever more ambitious reforms – all useless.
Public infrastructure projects were started but never completed (<a href="http://www.mit.gov.it/comunicazione/news/opere-incompiute-sistema-informativo-di-monitoraggio-delle-opere-incompiute-0" target="_blank">647 of them, last time anybody counted</a>). New education programs have been introduced, only to be replaced by a newer programs; the high-school examination system is this year going through its third major overhaul in just 21 years. The failure to deliver essential services have buried city streets <a href="https://www.propertyobserver.com.au/https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-10-28/rome-residents-protest-against-decline-of-italian-capital/10438758" target="_blank">in piles of garbage</a>.
The Italian experience is a warning tale for us all: when organisations change too much and too often, we lose the ability to track down results and ultimately generate chaos. This is even more true for the largest and most complex organisation of all – the state.<img src="https://counter.theconversation.com/content/118397/count.gif?distributor=republish-lightbox-basic" alt="The Conversation" width="1" height="1" style="border: none !important; box-shadow: none !important; margin: 0 !important; max-height: 1px !important; max-width: 1px !important; min-height: 1px !important; min-width: 1px !important; opacity: 0 !important; outline: none !important; padding: 0 !important; text-shadow: none !important;">
<a href="https://theconversation.com/profiles/gabriele-gratton-457958" target="_blank">Gabriele Gratton</a>, Associate Professor of Economics and Scientia Fellow, <a href="http://theconversation.com/institutions/unsw-1414" target="_blank">UNSW</a>
This article is republished from <a href="http://theconversation.com" target="_blank">The Conversation</a> under a Creative Commons license. Read the <a href="https://theconversation.com/our-economic-model-looks-broken-but-trying-to-fix-it-could-be-a-disaster-118397" target="_blank">original article</a>.
</body></html>

jrobinson-rf4aSBido9

 Our economic model looks broken, but trying to fix it could be a disaster

<html><body>
The national accounts release has the GDP up 0.9 percent in the June quarter, after growing 1.1 percent in the March quarter.
Annual economic growth rose from 3.1 percent to 3.4 percent, the strongest growth rate in almost six years.
It's the 28th consecutive year of growth, Commsec's Craig James said.
The Australian economy expanded at its fastest pace in nearly six years - well above the consensus forecast among economists.
Economists had tipped the national accounts would show 0.7 percent in growth in the June quarter.
CommSec's Craig James says there are good reasons to expect the expansion to continue for some time to come.
"We wouldn’t quibble with the Reserve Bank’s expectation of 3.25 per cent growth during 2018/19 – already the economy is growing at a faster rate," he said.
The biggest contribution to growth came from household consumption, which was up 0.4 percent. 
The new Josh Frydenberg treasurer said the result reflected strong household consumption with spending up in 12 of 17 categories, showing the benefits of "recent strong jobs growth."
 
 
</body></html>

Economic Growth

Editor's Picks

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News

Economic Growth

Editor's Picks

Receive the latest news stories to your inbox

Have something to contribute?

Developments

New apartments

New townhouses

News