The RBA seems to be running monetary policy on a hunch

Wed, 27 Jun 2018  |  

This article first appeared on the Business Insider web site at this link: https://www.businessinsider.com.au/the-rba-seems-to-be-running-monetary-policy-on-a-hunch-2018-6 

--------------------------------------------------------

The RBA seems to be running monetary policy on a hunch

RBA Governor Philip Lowe made a few quite sensational comments when he spoke at the European Central Bank’s forum in Portugal last week.

Sensational, because it shows the RBA under his stewardship is targeting higher than necessary unemployment as the tool for containing household debt and he has all but abandoned the RBA’s inflation target which has been in place for over 25 years.

Recent data shows Australia failing to make meaningful inroads into reducing unemployment, as Australian interest rates have remained well above those in the rest of the industrialised world.

Lowe acknowledged he and his RBA were the odd ones out in a room of central bankers, noting that others had reacted to high unemployment and extremely low inflation by cutting interest rates to near or below zero and many implemented quantitative easing as a means to kick-start their economies, while the RBA has stopped cutting interest rates at 1.5 per cent, despite low inflation and persistently high unemployment.

The RBA is the odd one out too, because Australia’s unemployment has been hovering around 5.5 per cent for the past year, little changed from where it was 4 or 5 years ago, when in the US, Japan and Eurozone, unemployment rates have cascaded lower and have started to underpin a noticeable pick-up in wages.

Explaining this maintenance of relatively high interest rates in Australia, Lowe said that high debt levels were the “number one domestic risk”, and implied interest rate policy would be kept tighter than implied by the inflation, wage and unemployment dynamics in an effort to reduce that risk.

It’s a sensational choice.

To be sure, household debt in Australia is high, but a risk?

Data which hint at debt risk include information on the level of bank bad debts and loan arrears. Debt is only “too high” when a significant proportion is not paid back. This hurts the banks, undermines credit growth and in many cases, leads to recession.

Fair enough.

But the RBA’s own data shows that bad debts in Australia continue to track near record lows. Late payment times are also near historical lows. In other words, the risks to the economy from financial instability and high debt are not showing up in any hard data.

The RBA thinking appears to be a hunch, a feeling, the “vibe”.

Lowe also made the startling observation that if policy was eased as a means of lifting inflation back to the target range and lowering unemployment, “it would be mainly through people [households] borrowing more money”.

What?

Lowe doesn’t seem to realise that there is more to economic management than interest rates. Household borrowing need not rise with lower interest rates if the policy makers were to use its other policy levers to impose lending restrictions in areas it considers problematic. Dwelling investment and housing more generally seem to be the main ones.

It is simple.

With such regulatory changes, lower interest rates need not add to household debt if interest rates are cut, but would allow for a further lift in business investment, encourage exports through a lower Australian dollar, and improve the cash flow for those with debt.

In other words, the non-housing parts of the economy currently in need of a boost would get that boost.
Perhaps most extraordinary of all, in a comment matching the cliché “I am from the government and I know what is good for you”, Lowe noted that “we’re about maximising the welfare of the people” as a reason for his heavy hand on monetary policy.

This ignores the 720,000 people unemployed and the 1.1 million under employed. It also ignores the chronically low wages growth which is dogging the economy.

The RBA could and should cut interest rates if it was serious about lowering unemployment and getting inflation back into its target band. In concert with a tightening in lending rules, it would not lead to higher household debt, and it might just see the economy sustain 3 per cent GDP growth, get inflation back to the target and get unemployment below 5 per cent.

 

comments powered by Disqus

THE LATEST FROM THE KOUK

The weak economy is turning higher

Mon, 15 Jul 2019

This article first appeared on the Yahoo Finance web site at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/just-how-weak-australia-strong-economy-213520159.html 

----------------------------------------------

The weak economy is turning higher

In the space of a couple of months, the rhetoric on the economy has gone from strong to weak.

Curiously, both assessments are wrong.

The economy was actually weak during the first half of 2019 and, if the leading indicators are correct, late 2019 and 2020 should see a decent pick up in economic activity.

It is not clear what has caused this error of judgment and the about face from so many commentators and economists, including importantly the Reserve Bank. A level-headed, unbiased look at economic data confirms that in late 2018 and the first half of 2019, the economy was in trouble. There were three straight quarters of falling GDP per capita, house prices were diving at an alarming rate, there was a rise in unemployment, wages growth remained tepid and low inflation persisted.

These are not the dynamics of a “strong” economy.

Only now, in the rear view mirror look at the economy, are these poor indicators gaining favour, leading to generalised economic gloom.

Australia needs ‘fiscal stimulus', but what does that actually mean?

Wed, 10 Jul 2019

This article first appeared on the Yahoo Finance website at this link: https://au.finance.yahoo.com/news/australia-needs-fiscal-stimulus-but-what-does-that-actually-mean-203000918.html 

------------------------------

Australia needs ‘fiscal stimulus', but what does that actually mean?

With the economy down in the dumps and the per capita recession now extending to nine months, there is a frenzied call for the government to implement some spending and tax policies to stem the bleeding.

The calls are coming from economists, journalists, the RBA Governor and a bevy of commentators who are demanding a fiscal policy boost from the government to support economic growth. This is all fine and there is a strong case for policy makers to work together to do something to lift the pace of economic expansion.

But there is a problem with the generic “fiscal policy stimulus” demand given that none of the calls have been accompanied by even vague details of what the stimulus means and the areas of spending that should be ramped up or what taxes should be changed.

Sure, there is a suggestion of more spending on ‘infrastructure’ but that is never defined or specified.